Electric vehicles, batteries, solar panels, wind turbines and other clean energy technologies are driving booming demand for metals and minerals – including copper, lithium, cobalt and nickel – which many countries now consider “critical” to their security. But will procuring those supplies harm the environment and human rights?
Across the world, from Africa and Asia to Latin America, a growing number of mining projects has been associated with nature destruction, pollution, labour abuses and conflict, while local communities often shoulder much of the cost and share little of the benefit.
As the scramble for minerals for the energy transition rises to the top of the political agenda, there are mounting calls for international cooperation to ensure production of these resources is sustainable and equitable, alongside a flurry of proposed initiatives for global standards and stronger governance.
Explainer: Why the world is racing to mine critical minerals
Colombia is drumming up support for a legally binding minerals agreement based on the model of global negotiations for a plastic treaty. An alliance of NGOs wants to get the issue onto the agenda of this year’s COP30 climate talks, and experts are calling for a new materials data hub.
The United Nations, which oversees the most advanced efforts to create a global framework for energy transition minerals, insists it remains the best-placed broker for thrashing out global norms, despite a funding crisis.
This month, the International Energy Agency (IEA) joined a chorus of voices calling for more cooperation on the issue. In its latest Critical Minerals Outlook report, it warned of growing risks of disruption to mineral supply chains as the market becomes increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few, with China controlling around 70% of the refining of 19 out of 20 strategic minerals analysed by the agency.
Rising copper demand fuels concern over pollution and rights abuses
Meanwhile, since returning to the White House, US President Donald Trump has taken a new approach to resource diplomacy, negotiating access to Ukraine’s mineral resources as a condition for American support and eyeing mineral-rich Greenland and Canada.
“It’s climate change, security, development and geopolitical elements intersecting – which I think is why there’s so much appetite and urgency around improving multilateralism to address this really complex issue,” Erica Westenberg, director of governance programmes at the Natural Resource Governance Institute, told Climate Home News.
Plan for an international minerals treaty
Colombia’s proposal for a global minerals treaty is motivated by the aim of rooting out extensive illegal gold mining, a source of environmental destruction and pollution that is threatening people’s health in the Amazon nation.
“[Existing] norms and standards are optional, and this isn’t good enough,” Mauricio Cabrera Leal, Colombia’s vice minister for environmental policy, told a conference at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in Paris earlier this month.
“We need to have a mandatory agreement to assess the whole value chain with transparency and traceability at the international level,” he added.
Colombia plans to put forward a resolution for countries to begin negotiations on a binding minerals treaty at the UN Environment Assembly in December. If approved, countries would then need to decide on the scope of the agreement, Cabrera Leal told Climate Home – an approach that has proved highly contentious and so far unsuccessful in talks for a plastic treaty.
But the idea has received a “good response” from some African and European nations, he added. And others agree with the principle.
A high-level council of former ministers and leaders of international institutions convened by the Paris Peace Forum to reflect on mineral supply chain challenges has also called for an international agreement on resource management and the creation of a separate repository for mineral data.
Justin Vaïsse, director general of the Paris Peace Forum, told the OECD conference it was “now time to think seriously” about these proposals.
Observers in the mining sector caution that any agreement must build on hard-learned lessons and existing best practices, including the need to ensure that affected communities and Indigenous people are at the negotiating table.
An international materials agency?
The co-chairs of the International Resource Panel (IRP), a body of policy experts established by the UN Environment Programme, meanwhile are advocating for the creation of an international materials agency.
This data hub would cover all the materials needed to deliver on global climate and development goals, including critical minerals. It would help make supply chains more transparent and track their environmental implications.
Solar squeeze: US tariffs threaten panel production and jobs in Thailand
Janez Potočnik, the IRP’s co-chair, told Climate Home the proposed agency would “complement” the IEA’s growing work on the security of mineral supplies by considering the impacts of mineral production and consumption models with a mandate that could evolve over time to include international negotiations on materials.
Potočnik said the proposal is backed by the International Chamber of Commerce and the World Economic Forum – demonstrating the private sector’s interest in more transparent data.
UN push for better standards
Last year, UN boss António Guterres convened a panel of governments, international organisations and experts which defined seven principles to underpin the responsible, fair and sustainable extraction of energy transition minerals.
The UN is now expected to release a plan to implement those principles and appoint an advisory group to draft a global framework to make mineral supply chains more transparent, traceable and accountable.
Efforts to define responsible mining are not new. But there are currently around 200 voluntary mining standards and “a lot of them are not the best standards”, said Sascha Raabe, who heads the UN Industrial Development Organization’s (UNIDO) Global Alliance for Responsible and Green Minerals. It aims to bring together governments, the private sector, NGOs and communities to help countries develop sustainability policies that can add value to their resources.
Europe’s lithium rush leaves mineral-rich communities in the dark
UNIDO’s alliance will also work alongside other UN agencies to define a set of concrete environmental, social and governance criteria – such as a living wage – for assessing existing voluntary mining standards, Raabe explained.
“It’s important that the UN set up these criteria to give direction to the private sector and consumers and create a global level playing field,” said Raabe, adding that “the UN is the best forum to bring these global goals together”.
One of the largest efforts to harmonise voluntary mining standards is the Consolidated Mining Standard Initiative, which is being developed by four mining industry groups covering 100 companies. But campaign groups have criticised the industry’s efforts to self-regulate as “weak” and at “risk of creating a race to the bottom”.
Instead, they back the The Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance’s standard, which is overseen by a collaborative process including industry, civil society, labour groups and community representatives.
Putting minerals on the COP30 agenda
Campaigners are also pushing for stronger links between the challenges of obtaining minerals for the clean energy transition and the UN’s climate and nature policy processes.
At UN biodiversity talks in Colombia last year, governments agreed to “avoid or, if not possible, minimise, the negative impacts of climate actions on biodiversity”, without singling out transition minerals.
Now a coalition of NGOs is urging the Brazilian COP30 presidency to put ways to tackle the environmental and social risks associated with these minerals on the agenda of the UN climate summit in Belém in November.
Campaigners want governments at COP30 to recognise the risks posed by unmanaged extraction to global climate and biodiversity goals, endorse the work of the UN’s advisory group on responsible sourcing and designate “no-go” mining zones in climate-critical ecosystems and Indigenous territories.
“This is a once-in-a-generation chance for Brazil to lead on climate justice and ensure that the clean energy transition doesn’t come at the expense of frontline communities, the planet’s last intact forests, and other critical ecosystems that should be marked as no-go zones,” said Emily Iona Stewart, head of policy for Global Witness’s transition minerals campaign.
The Brazilian environment ministry and COP30 Presidency did not respond to Climate Home’s requests for comment by the time of publication.
The post Does the world need a global treaty on energy transition minerals? appeared first on Climate Home News.
Does the world need a global treaty on energy transition minerals?
Climate Change
‘This is a fossil fuel crisis’, Greenpeace tells Senate gas tax Inquiry, citing homegrown renewables as path to energy security
CANBERRA, Tuesday 21 April 2026 — Greenpeace Australia Pacific has slammed gas corporation war profiteering and environmental damage in a scathing Senate hearing today as part of the Select Committee on the Taxation of Gas Resources, urging fair taxation of gas corporations and the transition to secure, homegrown renewable energy to protect Australian households and the economy from future energy shocks.
Speaking at the hearing, Greenpeace said the US and Israel’s illegal war on Iran has laid bare the fundamental flaws of an energy system built on fossil fuel extraction, geopolitical power plays and corporate greed, and will be a defining moment for how the world thinks about energy security.
Greenpeace’s submission and full opening remarks can be found here.
Joe Rafalowicz, Head of Climate and Energy at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said:
“This is not an energy crisis, it’s a fossil fuel crisis. The crisis we’re all facing lays bare the dangers of fossil fuel dependence, for our energy security, our communities, and for global peace and stability.
“Gas corporations like Woodside, Santos, Shell and Chevron — the same companies whose CEOs refused to front this Inquiry — are making obscene war profits, using the illegal war on Iran to price gouge, profiteer and push for more gas we don’t need — while people and our environment pay the price.
“Australians are getting smashed by soaring bills and the impacts of climate disasters — gas corporations should be paying their fair share to help this country, instead of sending billions offshore, tax-free.
“But we’re at a turning point — while gas corporations cynically push to open up more of our oceans and land to drilling for fossil fuels, our allies like the UK are doubling down on renewables in response to the fossil fuel crisis. Our trading partners in Asia are making the same reassessment of fossil fuels.
“Which is why the hearing today is crucial: an effective and well-designed tax on the gas industry’s obscene war time profits is a chance to channel funds to people and communities, fast-track the rollout of clean, secure homegrown wind and solar energy, while holding polluters accountable.
“Our dependence on fossil fuels leave us overexposed to the whims of tyrants like Trump — it’s in Australia’s national interest to end the fossil fuel chokehold for good and usher in the era of clean energy security.”
-ENDS-
Media contact
Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
Climate Change
Rearranging the deck chairs!
HOW WOODSIDE’S BROWSE GAS PROPOSAL THREATENS SCOTT REEF’S GREEN TURTLES AND PYGMY BLUE WHALES

Woodside’s Browse to NWS gas project is under assessment by the WA and Federal Governments right now. This is a project that involved drilling up to 50 gas wells around Scott Reef off the coast of WA. Gas would be extracted directly underneath Scott Reef and Sandy Islet and pumped through a 900-kilometre subsea pipeline to the NWS gas processing facility.
Woodside’s Browse gas project’s impact on Scott Reef’s marine habitats?
Scott Reef is one of Australia’s most ecologically significant marine environments, where green turtles breed, pygmy blue whales feed, and an array of at-risk species, including sharks, dolphins, whale sharks, rays, sawfish and sea snakes thrive. It is home to many threatened species, including some found nowhere else on Earth or in genetically isolated groups, magnifying its importance from a conservation perspective.

This delicate reef’s ecosystem faces multiple threats if Woodside’s Proposed Project goes ahead, including seismic blasting, gas flaring, noise pollution, artificial lighting, pipe laying and fast-moving vessels. The reef also faces the risk of a gas well blowout, which could have catastrophic and irreversible consequences for the region’s reefs and marine parks.

Woodside’s woeful marine impacts management plan
To secure their approvals, Woodside had to develop a plan for how they would manage the significant risks to threatened green turtles and endangered pygmy blue whales if the project proceeds. We’ve had two independent scientists provide a technical assessment of Woodsides management plan for whales and turtles and their findings are gobsmacking.
Their assessment found that Woodsides management plans for these species misrepresents or does not assess the risks the Browse project poses to Scott Reef’s pygmy blue whales and green turtles. They’ve also surmised that if the project goes ahead the impacts contradict the Australian government’s own recovery plan for turtles and Conservation Management Plan (CMP) for Blue Whales.
The State and Federal Governments now have the opportunity to define their legacies on nature protection and save Scott Reef from Woodside’s dirty gas.
Technical Assessment of Woodside’s Browse Pygmy Blue Whale Management Plan
Prepared for Greenpeace Australia Pacific by Dr Ben Fitzpatrick of Oceanwise Australia with Dr Olaf Meynecke of Griffith University.
The full technical assessment is available HERE

Scott Reef is a vital feeding, foraging and resting habitat for pygmy blue whales.
Pygmy blue whales feed, forage and rest in the Scott Reef region every year. Scott Reef is recognised as a Biologically Important Area for the pygmy blue whale and is an important stop-over on their annual migration.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could delay or prevent the population recovery of the endangered pygmy blue whales that rely on Scott Reef, heightening their extinction risk.
- Woodside’s management plan claims of “no credible threat of significant impacts” are not supported by scientific evidence.
- The management plan relies on outdated whale population information.
- Woodside has claimed it is unclear whether Scott Reef is a foraging habitat for pygmy blue whales, despite the presence of pygmy blue whales and significant concentrations of krill being documented in the area.
- The PBWMP ignores the impacts of industrial noise on whale-to-whale communication. This is especially concerning as mother-calf pairs migrate through the Scott Reef Biologically Important Area shortly after calves are born. Mother-calf pairs rely on continuous, uninterrupted communications to maintain their connection.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could delay or prevent the population recovery of the endangered pygmy blue whales that rely on Scott Reef, heightening their extinction risk.
Technical Assessment of Woodside’s Browse Turtle Management Plan
Prepared for Greenpeace Australia Pacific by Dr Ben Fitzpatrick of Oceanwise Australia.
The full technical assessment is available HERE

Scott Reef is a vital nesting ground for unique green turtles.
The green turtles that nest at Scott Reef’s low-lying Sandy Islet sand cay and nearby Browse Island are genetically unique and are classified as ‘Extremely Vulnerable’ in Australia’s Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could make Scott Reef’s unique green turtles extinct.
- The Browse project would operate within 20 kilometres of nesting habitat that’s critical to the survival of Scott Reef’s genetically unique and vulnerable green turtle population.
- Woodside’s Browse Turtle Management Plan (TMP) misrepresents the risks the Browse project poses to Scott Reef’s green turtles.
- Claims in Woodside’s TMP about Scott Reef’s green turtle population size, nesting success and hatchling numbers are not backed by scientific evidence.
- The TMP proposes gathering updated data after the Browse project is approved.
- Woodside’s TMP proposes adding sand sourced elsewhere to Sandy Islet to counter subsidence and erosion, but fails to properly assess the associated risks.
To save Scott Reef and protect our oceans and animals, the State and Federal Governments must reject Browse.
Climate Change
Assessment of Woodside’s Browse Turtle Plan
Technical Assessment of Woodside’s Browse Pygmy Blue Whale Management Plan
To secure their approvals, Woodside had to develop a plan for how they would manage the significant risks to threatened green turtles if the project proceeds. We’ve had two independent scientists provide a technical assessment of Woodside’s management plan for whales and turtles and their findings are gobsmacking.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could make Scott Reef’s unique green turtles extinct.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could delay or prevent the population recovery of the endangered pygmy blue whales that rely on Scott Reef, heightening their extinction risk.
-
Climate Change8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Renewable Energy6 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
