Saudi Arabia, Russia and Iran are among countries opposed to discussing options for agreeing on global norms to protect people and the planet from the impacts of mining, processing and recycling minerals needed for the clean energy transition, documents seen by Climate Home News show.
Environment officials gathered in Nairobi, Kenya, ahead of the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA) next week are discussing a resolution by Colombia and Oman that aims to make mineral supply chains more transparent and sustainable at a time when growing demand is spurring resource-rich countries to court investment and boost production.
They have proposed the creation of an expert group to identify a range of binding and non-binding international instruments “for coordinated global action on the environmentally sound management of minerals and metals” from mining to recycling. The group would also look at how to handle mining waste and provide guidelines on recovering minerals from tailings responsibly.
Those instruments could range from a global minerals treaty to a non-binding declaration or set of standards on best practice. The resolution is co-sponsored by Armenia, Ecuador and Zambia.
Colombia has previously called for an international minerals treaty to define rules and standards that would make mineral value chains more transparent and accountable.
China, US on the sidelines for now
But Iran, Russia and Saudi Arabia, which is emerging as a major player in mineral supply chains, oppose launching a process that could lead to an international agreement on the issue, according to several sources and documents shared with Climate Home News.
Countries will vote on the proposal next week, during the seventh session of UNEA, the world’s top decision-making body for environmental matters.
China, which dominates the processing of 19 of 20 minerals deemed critical for the global economy, has so far stayed quiet about the proposal, but analysts said Beijing was unlikely to support any supranational initiative to govern mineral supply chains.
China’s priority is “to remain sovereign throughout the process of how these minerals are produced and traded” and to promote cooperation “on its own terms”, said Christian-Géraud Neema, an expert on Chinese engagement in Africa’s transition minerals sector and the Africa editor of the China-Global South Project.
-
South Africa’s platinum mine dumps get a second look as clean energy lifts demand
Mining firms say extracting minerals from tailings is a sustainable way to boost global supplies, but local communities want to see benefits this time around -
Self-taught mechanics give second life to Jordan’s glut of spent EV batteries
As EV sales boom in Jordan, a lack of formal infrastructure for dealing with end-of-life batteries is leading to some innovative solutions
The US, which has been trying to counter China’s critical minerals clout, is not attending UNEA, while the EU – another major global market – is understood to broadly support the proposal.
A spokesperson for the US State Department said: “Our team in Nairobi is focused on the US-Kenya relationship and delivering results for the American people, rather than litigating endless woke climate change theater.” The European Commission did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Several other countries have raised objections. Chile, a top producer of copper and lithium, wants to narrow the focus of the resolution to voluntary cooperation on illegal mining.
In Africa, most countries back the Colombia-Oman proposal, but Uganda and Egypt oppose it, said Nsama Chikwanka, director of Publish What You Pay Zambia, an NGO focused on resource sovereignty.
“Race to the bottom”
Campaigners say countries should unite at UNEA to pave the way for talks on the issue, with some saying binding rules should be the eventual target.
“The investments that are coming to countries like Zambia are from multinational enterprises and national laws are inadequate to ensure that robust standards are applied. So we need something that is internationally binding,” Chikwanka said.
This comes after opposition from China and Russia thwarted a push by mineral-rich developing countries as well as the UK, the European Union and Australia to reflect the environmental and social risks associated with mining-related activities in the outcome of COP30.
“What we are seeing at the moment is a huge race to the bottom of environmental standards at the same time as the impacts of mining are already immense,” said Johanna Sydow, a resource policy expert who heads the international environmental policy division of Germany’s Heinrich-Böll Foundation.
“It is the chance now to create a long-lasting space for governments to work together on this issue,” she told Climate Home News.
The race to extract minerals like lithium, nickel, copper, cobalt and rare earths needed to manufacture batteries, solar panels, wind turbines and other advanced digital and military technologies has led to growing cases of human rights violations, social conflict and environmental harms around the world.
In Indonesia, nickel mining is fuelling deforestation, in Zambia, copper mining has led to catastrophic leaks of mining waste and in Latin America, Indigenous Peoples say the rush to extract lithium for batteries is trampling their rights.
In 2024 alone, the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre recorded 156 allegations of human rights abuses linked to the mining of energy transition minerals.
Counter-proposals favour non-binding measures
Opposed to global discussions about possible binding tools to govern mineral supply chains, Saudi Arabia and Iran have instead suggested the creation of a technical platform that could review the impacts of mineral extraction in developing countries, explore options for support to address them, and advance voluntary cooperation on environmentally-sound practices.
Digging beyond oil: Saudi Arabia bids to become a hub for energy transition minerals
Saudi Arabia is already cooperating with mineral-rich nations on its own terms by investing billions of dollars in transition minerals abroad in a bid to become a global mineral processing hub that could become a counterweight to China’s dominance.
China, meanwhile, threw its weight behind a G20 agreement on a voluntary and non-binding Critical Minerals Framework intended to ensure that mineral resources “become a driver of prosperity and sustainable development”.
At the G20 leaders’ summit in South Africa last month, which was snubbed by the US, China also launched an economic and trade initiative on minerals, aiming to secure access to minerals in exchange for cooperation on technology, capacity-building and financing.
-
Trade breaks into agenda of UN climate talks – but will it have teeth?
Governments have agreed to hold a set of dialogues on overlapping climate and trade policies and how they can enable development -
Tanzania pushed African nations to oppose fossil fuel transition at COP30
While chairing the African group at the summit, the gas-dependent nation advised the continent’s ministers to block language on transitioning away from fossil fuels -
For blighted Niger Delta communities, oil spill clean-ups are another broken promise
Many local people are disappointed by efforts to repair the devastation left by foreign oil firms even as the Nigerian government plans to restart drilling
At least 19 countries, including Cambodia, Nigeria, Myanmar and Zimbabwe, alongside the UN Industrial Development Organisation, have reportedly joined the initiative.
For Neema, of the China-Global South Project, this is an explicit attempt to counter resource diplomacy by the US, which is offering developing countries security and military support in exchange for minerals.
“Producing countries in the Global South are more likely to be attracted by this approach because they know that the likelihood of Chinese companies and banks showing up is quite high,” he said.
The post Proposal for global minerals deal meets opposition as China looks away appeared first on Climate Home News.
Proposal for global minerals deal meets opposition as China looks away
A bill, newly passed by legislators, will expand the state’s capacity to enforce limits on health-harming emissions in overburdened communities.
After years of fighting to curb toxic pollution in communities of color, Illinois activists are celebrating a step forward.
In a Years-Long Fight, the Illinois Environmental Justice Movement Gets a Win
The lead attorney for the 22 plaintiffs said the court has “slammed the courthouse doors on children fighting for their lives.”
A federal appeals court has sided with the Trump administration and 19 Republican-led states in a constitutional challenge to several of President Donald Trump’s executive orders designed to boost fossil fuels, concluding that the youth plaintiffs failed to bring a viable case against the federal government. In affirming a lower court’s dismissal of the lawsuit, called Lighthiser v. Trump, the appeals court said that it was not the role of the judiciary to supervise government energy policy.
Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Youth Climate Case Against Trump
In 2021, amidst a wave of corporate net-zero targets, a campaign group called Investors for Paris Compliance was set up in British Columbia, aiming to use investor pressure to hold Canadian companies to account on their climate promises.
In the five years since, the group has notched up several wins: pressuring National Bank into providing $20 billion of finance to renewable energy, getting Royal Bank of Canada to improve its green finance labels and persuading 20-25% of investors to regularly back climate proposals at annual general meetings (AGMs) for shareholders.
But last month, the group’s then executive director Matt Price put out a statement saying it was shutting down. Despite some progress, Price explained, his organisation had concluded that “investor accountability has reached its limits”.
Companies and their investors often understand that climate change threatens the economic system, Price said. But, he added, they do not respond adequately because they are worried that, if they do, their competitors will not put in as much effort and could therefore gain a financial advantage.
-
Santa Marta process can confront trade protection for fossil fuels, experts say
Academics at the first fossil fuel phase-out summit urged governments to recognise investor protection treaties as a barrier to the energy transition -
Indonesia’s failing Just Energy Transition Partnership is a cautionary tale
The government has abandoned its plan to shut down a major coal plant, which was a key part of the deal, raising doubts about the donor-backed approach -
After another battery startup bankruptcy, can Europe ever cut reliance on China?
Norway’s Morrow Batteries set out to challenge Chinese producers, but a cash crunch forced it to file for bankruptcy in a setback for European ambitions for clean energy sovereignty
This “tragedy of the commons” situation cannot be fixed by shareholder advocacy, Price said, but instead needs litigation, regulatory action and accountability mechanisms. “Some of our team will take those things on in new initiatives,” he said.
Price’s words echo the findings of a London School of Economics (LSE) report published last month, based on workshops with asset owners and managers in New York, Amsterdam, London and Singapore.
Government policy key
The LSE report noted that “action by investors on climate change is severely constrained by their duties, the limited tools at their disposal and the pathways of technology development”. To be effective, pressure from climate-conscious investors must be coupled with government policy that incentivises green investment and technological innovation, the authors concluded.
An investigation by the Guardian recently found that, despite overwhelming shareholder support for its climate action plan, Australian mining company BHP has carried on buying polluting diesel trucks instead of electric ones. The Australian government subsidises diesel, saving BHP hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
As EU acts to stop greenwash, funds drop climate claims from their names
Lindsey Stewart, director of institutional insights for investment research firm Morningstar, told Climate Home News that investor activism does work but it “doesn’t do everything that people expected it to do towards the beginning of the 2020s”.
“There is a limit to what can be achieved by minority shareholders exercising their votes and engaging with companies. Quite a lot, it does seem, is reliant on the legal and regulatory framework,” he said, adding that the closure of Investors for Paris Compliance shows this “realisation is sinking in a lot more than perhaps it was in 2020, 2021, 2022”.
Decline of investor activism
Stewart said that in the early 2020s, investor activists were pushing companies for “things that were sort of already on the regulatory conveyor belt anyway”, like companies setting targets for their operational (Scope 1 and 2) emissions, disclosing their carbon footprints, and assessing their exposure to risk from climate change.
With this low-hanging fruit picked, green-minded investors have moved on to make demands that are more controversial and have received less support from other investors, he said. He gave examples of just transition reporting, green capital expenditure financing ratios for banks and disclosing emissions from the use of products a company sells, known as Scope 3 emissions.
On top of this, Stewart said, there has been pressure from the “right-wing political establishment in the US” against investors taking climate change into consideration. BlackRock, which manages $9.5 trillion of assets, has walked back its climate commitments after pressure from US Republicans.
More fundamentally, Stewart described the idea that fossil fuel majors would dismantle their oil and gas business and transform into renewables companies as a “pipe dream on the part of environmentalists”. “Why would they have the skill or capability, or even the stakeholder backing, to completely transform a business of that size?” he asked.
Shareholder activism is only possible at privately owned and listed companies, while most investment in oil and gas is now coming from state-owned companies, like Saudi Arabia’s Aramco. In 2025, less than a quarter of investment was from oil majors like BP and Shell.
Business backlash shows power
Yet despite the uphill climb, Mark van Baal defends shareholder activism. He runs an Amsterdam-based campaign group called Follow This, which has tried to get investors to vote for pro-climate resolutions at the AGMs of oil and gas multinationals.
He accepts that success peaked around 2021, but says the effort oil and gas firms are now putting into winning over shareholders and discouraging pro-climate resolutions – which he characterised as “the Empire Strikes Back” – shows the power of shareholder activism, which was previously underestimated.
In January 2024, ExxonMobil sued Follow This, aiming to block the group’s climate resolution. Fearing the case would end up in the Supreme Court, where conservative judges could set an anti-climate precedent, Follow This withdrew the resolution.
But, said van Baal, although the legal battle created a “chilling effect among investors”, it is a “proof point that shareholder pressure works and that they’re really afraid of the shareholders”.
Vote, don’t sell
Stewart and van Baal both agreed that selling, or threatening to sell off shares is not an effective way to change a company’s behaviour.
It allows less climate-conscious investors to buy the shares, they said, adding that there is no evidence that threats to sell shares and therefore lower the valuation over climate concerns have influenced company management.
Van Baal said the share price is set by short-term traders, not long-term shareholders like the pension funds he works with.
How Shell is still benefiting from offloaded Niger Delta oil assets
Nonetheless, investors’ engagement should be forceful, van Baal insisted – and not just within their comfort zone of talking to management about sustainability behind closed doors without voting for it at AGMs. “Shareholder democracy is the only democracy where voting is called escalation,” he said.
The Follow This website says that only investors can stop fossil fuel companies destroying the planet. “Marches didn’t change their minds. Lawsuits didn’t stop them. But shareholders can,” it trumpets.
But van Baal told Climate Home News this wording is “too strong” and may have to be revised, adding that shareholder activism just “fits me more than gluing myself to roads” and is a tactic he “stumbled on” 11 years ago.
Legal, political and investor activism can reinforce each other, he added. When Friends of the Earth sued Shell alleging inadequate climate action, for example, the green group’s lawyers cited the company’s rejection of a Follow This resolution as evidence. “The pressure needs to come from all sides,” van Baal said.
The post Investor climate group closes down, blaming “limits” of shareholder activism appeared first on Climate Home News.
Investor climate group closes down, blaming “limits” of shareholder activism
-
Climate Change10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases10 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
-
Renewable Energy7 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases11 months ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测