Nestled among the undulating hills of Galicia in northern Spain, where wild horses and cattle have grazed for centuries, Europe’s hopes for clean energy security lie buried deep beneath the ground – for now.
The Mina Doade lithium project is one of 23 extractive mining sites designated as “strategic” by Brussels under the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA) to boost production of minerals vital for making solar panels, wind turbines and batteries for electric vehicles.
That designation means environmental permitting procedures will be streamlined, potentially fast-tracking Mina Doade’s final approval.
But the mining site lies just less than one kilometre from protected land, and the project’s sensitive location is fuelling opposition among conservation groups and local residents, who say it threatens rich biodiversity in the protected Atlantic wet heathlands and forest ecosystem as well as the area’s water supplies.
“They say lithium is strategic – but for us, water is,” said Ibán Losada, a young forestry worker, adding that the rolling grasslands around Mina Doade are home to threatened species such as the Iberian wolf and red kite.
Mina Doade’s owner, Recursos Minerales de Galicia, did not respond to several requests for comment. The project’s website emphasises a focus on limiting its environmental impact, saying it will minimise noise, dust and water consumption.
Clean energy vs biodiversity?
A Climate Home News investigation has found that Mina Doade is among 11 of the EU’s strategic mining projects that overlap land lying within one kilometre of Natura 2000 network of biodiversity-protected areas.
Three more strategic mining projects – in Finland, Romania and central Spain – directly overlap Natura 2000 land, an analysis of geospatial data showed.
Buffer zones of one or two kilometres are often used in academic papers and technical documentation to consider potential environmental impacts beyond the borders of such protected sites, for example on groundwater.
Beyond the strategic critical minerals projects announced last year, Climate Home’s reporting found that in a sample of three countries – Spain, Italy and Germany – 259 permits for the exploration or extraction of critical minerals partially overlap Natura 2000 sites, equivalent to 40% of the total number of permits recorded in national and regional land registries.
While mining is not prohibited on or near Natura 2000 areas, environmental experts and campaigners say operating mines in such areas increases the risk of harm to wildlife habitats and water supplies.
In Finland’s northernmost Lapland region, in a remote area where Sámi communities still herd reindeer, Anglo American’s Sakatti project aims to start producing copper, cobalt and other critical minerals during the next decade, despite its location on Natura 2000 protected land.
The two other strategic projects which partially overlap Natura 2000 sites are a graphite project in Romania and a tungsten project in Spain, Climate Home’s investigation found. Graphite is used in lithium battery anodes, while tungsten is also used in batteries, as well as solar panels and wind turbines.
Asked to comment about Sakatti’s location, London-listed Anglo American said protecting the region’s unique biodiversity was “paramount”.
Most of the mine’s operations would take place underground to ensure a “minimal surface footprint”, and access to the mine would be from outside the protected area’s buffer zone, the company said in a statement.
It said it planned a series of environmental compensation measures agreed in partnership with local communities, including protecting habitat and restoring degraded wetlands in the area, as well as the voluntary purchase of 2,910 hectares of forest land elsewhere.
Sakatti has not yet been given the green light, and Finland’s state-owned land administrator Metsähallitus told Climate Home News the project’s Natura 2000 assessment did not eliminate uncertainties about its potential impact on groundwater in the Viiankiaapa mire reserve that it partially overlaps.
Environmental balancing act
The findings of Climate Home’s investigation highlight the environmental balancing act faced by Europe as it seeks to shore up its clean energy security by boosting domestic production of metals such as lithium, nickel, copper and cobalt – all vital for the bloc’s clean energy industries.
Under the CRMA, the EU aims to mine 10% of its annual critical raw materials needs domestically by 2030 to reduce its dependence on China by fast-tracking the approval of extractive projects designated as strategic, such as Mina Doade. At the moment, the EU produces about 3% of the critical minerals it needs.
-
Green groups sue EU over inclusion of Portuguese lithium mine on priority list
Campaigners argue that the Barroso lithium mine poses serious environmental risks and should be removed from the EU’s list of “strategic” mineral projects -
EU weakening of corporate sustainability rules ‘jeopardises’ climate action, critics say
A major revision to the EU’s law on corporate due diligence removes a requirement for large companies to publish plans to align their business model with global climate goals -
EU refuses to review “strategic” mineral projects for energy transition
Brussels says requests by NGOs to reassess the “strategic” designation of new mining projects because of environmental concerns are “unfounded”
But the goal for increased domestic production puts further pressure on Europe’s Natura 2000 network, which covers 18% of the bloc’s total land area and is a pillar of the EU’s pledge to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030 and restore all degraded ecosystems in need of recovery by the middle of the century.
“In the name of seemingly climate goals, energy transition, and also obviously military goals, we’re cutting very essential environmental standards that not only protect nature, but also people,” said Cléo Moreno, legal counsel on EU environmental law at ClientEarth, an NGO.
Growing global concern over mining surge
Beyond Europe, too, concern is growing over how to ensure the switch away from fossil fuels does not exacerbate environmental damage from mining.
According to 2024 research by S&P Global Sustainable, 71% of global transition-mineral mines are located in ecologically sensitive areas.
But advocates of efforts to boost European mining say the bloc’s stringent environmental safeguards mean damage can be limited, averting mining disasters more common in other mineral-rich countries in Africa and Latin America.
Where mining has led to environmental impacts, “remediation measures should be implemented” over mine closure… “otherwise we risk importing (minerals) from distant regions where transparency, labour conditions, and environmental safeguards are uncertain,” said Ester Boixareu, a specialist on energy transition minerals at Spain’s Geological and Mining Institute (IGME-CSIC), a state body.
Some environmental campaigners warn, however, that this logic could make European countries complacent about the potential damage from ramping up critical minerals output.
“The EU is in the process of lowering those same environmental standards it prides itself on having,” said Ilze Tralmaka, a law and policy advisor on environmental democracy at ClientEarth, pointing to the fast-tracking of approvals for the “strategic” projects.
Bypassing safeguards?
Being designated as strategic means that while projects must still comply with member states’ environmental laws, they are eligible for faster approval through streamlined bureaucracy and can more easily access EU-backed capital.
Critics of the CRMA fear it could pressure national and local authorities to approve mining projects, despite environmental risks.
Classifying certain projects as strategic “is an attempt to bypass the safeguards normally required under the Nature directives”, said Gabriel Schwaderer, executive director of EuroNatur, a nature conservation foundation based in Germany.
The EU’s Habitats (92/43/EEC) and Birds (2009/147/EC) directives are the cornerstone of the Natura 2000 network, contributing to EU and global biodiversity goals by improving coverage and protection of threatened species and habitats, reducing land-use pressures inside protected areas compared with surrounding land.
In Germany, Michael Reckordt of Berlin-based NGO PowerShift warned that the pressure to approve projects more quickly comes at a time when staffing levels are being reduced across federal departments, including environmental agencies.
“With the CRMA, the aim is to give a permit or get a licence within 27 months, and on the other hand … highly intensive projects are now reviewed by fewer people,” Reckordt said.
Asked to comment on the risks of developing critical raw materials projects on or near Natura 2000 areas, the Commission’s directorates-general for environment and for internal market and industry said member states were responsible for permitting, monitoring and carrying out environmental assessments.
They said that while the Commission provides detailed guidance on assessing risks to Natura 2000 sites, “there are no specific thresholds set in the EU nature legislation in relation to the significance of negative impacts” because “such assessment has to be done on a case-by-case basis”.
It can step in if a country clearly fails to apply EU law, for example by launching infringement procedures, their statement said.
The EU Court of Justice has repeatedly ruled against member states for inadequate environmental impact assessments (EIAs) and for permitting the degradation of protected sites.
Recycling and lithium waste recovery
Industry advocates say mining can be compatible with environmental protection if the right controls are put in place and properly implemented.
“In many contexts, the real challenges lie in enforcement capacity, institutional capability, and the cultural shifts required to implement policies effectively,” said Gemma James, a spokesperson for nature and biodiversity at the Global Investor Commission on Mining 2030, an investor-led initiative.
“We have seen examples where nature-related risks have stopped production. Therefore, investors need to promote effective management in relation to nature (and) need to set common expectations, reduce inconsistencies, and help avoid a ‘race to the bottom’,” James said.
At the same time, “a level playing field” is needed globally to ensure that companies obey the same rules regarding operating in protected areas.
Mining advocates also point to the potential of emerging technologies to make Europe’s green transition less destructive, from recovering lithium from mine water to urban mining and large-scale e-waste recycling.
But such solutions remain underdeveloped, and environmentalists say mining has no place on, or near, protected land, instead suggesting Europe’s policymakers turn their attention to reducing demand for critical minerals.
-
‘America needs you’: US seeks trade alliance to break China’s critical mineral dominance
The US has signed nearly a dozen mineral deals with countries as it called for the creation of a trading bloc to diversify supply chains away from China -
Argentina’s pioneering glacier law on the line as Milei bets on copper rush
President Javier Milei wants Congress to relax groundbreaking glacier protection legislation to boost mining, but opponents say the environmental risks are too great -
China maximises battery recycling to shore up critical mineral supplies
Beijing is bracing for a tsunami of spent EV batteries by taking steps to boost recycling – a strategy that could also cut its reliance on imports of clean energy minerals
“Recycling, substituting or increasing material efficiency should represent a priority at all times,” said Anne Larigauderie, biologist and former executive secretary of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), an independent international body.
An alliance of NGOs has formed the EU Raw Materials Coalition, calling for measures that would ease demand for critical minerals, such as reducing car and battery sizes, promoting car sharing and public transport, and pursuing policies to curb overall consumption.
Confronted with the conflicting demands of industry and anti-mining campaigners, policymakers face a difficult task, said Julio César Arranz, a senior geologist at Spain’s Geological and Mining Institute (IGME), a state body.
“To what extent does declaring an area protected imply a categorical ‘no’ to mining?” he said. “Those in favour of mining argue that if done carefully, it can be done anywhere. Environmentalists, on the other hand, contend that there are places where nothing should ever be permitted.
“Those of us in the administration often find ourselves somewhere in between.”
This investigation was supported by Free Press Unlimited’s Collaborative and Investigative Journalism Initiative (CIJI) grant programme.
Main image: The Vedra Valley in Lombardy, Italy, where a zinc mining project is being developed, is located inside a Natura 2000 site
The post Rush for critical minerals tests Europe’s resolve to protect nature appeared first on Climate Home News.
Rush for critical minerals tests Europe’s resolve to protect nature
Australia’s new environmental standards are supposed to protect wildlife. Right now, they don’t.
We have one of the worst mammal extinction rates in the world. We’ve already lost 39 species, including the Christmas Island Shrew and the desert rat-kangaroo, while iconic species like the Hairy-Nosed Wombat, Pygmy blue whale and Swift Parrot continue to slide towards extinction. Forests are still being bulldozed at an alarming rate. Rivers and reefs are under serious pressure.
Fixing this sorry state of affairs was why the Federal Government promised to fix Australia’s broken national nature laws—a promise that culminated in the nature law reforms passed late last year.
A big part of these reforms is the creation of new “National Environmental Standards” — rules intended to guide decisions on projects that could damage nature.
But the Government’s latest draft standards—open for consultation until May 29th—fall dangerously short.
Instead of setting clear environmental guardrails, the draft rules risk making it easier for damaging projects to get approved, while nature continues to decline. Legal experts are warning that unless the standards are changed, they could weaken protections rather than strengthen them.
So what are these standards, exactly?
The new standards are a centrepiece of major reforms to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act), which were passed late last year and are designed to fix a broken environmental regulatory system. They are meant to set clear rules for what environmental protection should actually look like.
In simple terms, they’re supposed to answer questions like:
- What measures should developers be made to put in place to protect threatened species?
- How do we ensure the most important habitats and natural places are not hacked away, “death-by-a-thousand-cuts”-style, from ongoing development proposals?
- When should a project simply not go ahead?
- What rules should states follow if they’re in charge of assessing development projects?
- How do we make sure nature is actually improving, not just declining more slowly?
If designed and implemented properly, these standards could become the backbone of strong, effective reformed nature laws.
But right now, they leave huge loopholes open.
The biggest problem: process over outcomes
The biggest problem with the draft standards is that they focus too heavily on whether companies follow a process—not whether nature is genuinely protected in the end. That might sound technical, but it has real-world consequences.
Imagine a company wants to clear critical habitat for a threatened species. Under a strong system, the key question should be: Will this project cause unacceptable or significant environmental harm?
But under the current draft standards, if the company follows the required steps and paperwork, the project could still be considered acceptable — even if the damage to nature is clear.
This is deeply ineffective. Destruction that checks bureaucratic check-boxes is still destruction. The standards should enforce the protection of nature—not just the ticking of procedural boxes.
A smaller definition of habitat could leave wildlife exposed
Another alarming change in the draft standards is the narrowing of how “habitat” is defined, which could have serious consequences for wildlife protection.
Habitat is more than just the exact spot where an animal is seen sleeping, nesting or feeding today; we need to think more holistically about habitat as a connected network of ecosystems that species may rely on to survive, including breeding grounds, migration corridors, areas used during drought or fire, and places they may need to move to as the climate changes.
But the draft standards effectively shrink the areas considered important enough to protect by defining habitat as only very small areas that if destroyed would certainly send the species extinct, rather than habitat which maintains and restores healthy populations able to thrive well into the future.
For animals already under pressure from habitat destruction and climate change, protecting only the bare minimum is a dangerous approach. In practice, that could mean that places which are essential for threatened species to recover and survive long term are destroyed just because they are not classified under the standards as ‘habitat’—a lose-lose outcome for biodiversity and the Australian government’s nature protection goals.
Offsets are still doing too much heavy lifting
Australians have heard the promise before: “Yes, this area will be damaged — but it’ll be offset somewhere else.” In practice, environmental offsets have severely failed to replace what was lost.
You can’t instantly recreate a centuries-old forest. You can’t quickly rebuild complex wildlife habitat. And some ecosystems simply cannot be replaced once destroyed. Yet the draft standards still rely heavily on offsets rather than prioritising avoiding harm in the first place.
The standards must reduce their reliance on offsets, and instead prioritise actual habitat protection. Because once extinction happens, there’s no offset for it.
Australia cannot afford another backwards step on nature
The Albanese Government came to office promising to end Australia’s extinction crisis and repair national nature laws. But this will be a broken promise if the huge loopholes in the National Environmental Standards aren’t addressed.
Right now, Australia is losing wildlife and ecosystems faster than they can recover. Scientists have warned for years that incremental change is no longer enough.
Strong standards could help turn things around by:
- stopping destruction in critical habitat,
- setting firm limits on environmental harm,
- requiring genuine recovery for nature,
- and making decision-makers accountable for real outcomes rather than process.
If the Government locks in rules that prioritise process over protection, Australia risks entrenching the very system that caused the crisis in the first place.
What needs to change?
The Government still has time to fix the draft standards before they are finalised over the next month.
Greenpeace Australia Pacific is calling on the government to:
- ensure decisions are based on outcomes, not just process
- ensure that all important habitat is protected, not just narrow areas
- ensuring that death-by-a-thousand-cuts is avoided by considering the “cumulative impacts” of multiple projects in a region
- ensuring offsets are only used as an absolute last resort
Australians were promised stronger nature laws—not more loopholes. Australia’s wildlife cannot afford another missed opportunity.You can help ensure the Federal Government’s final standards put to parliament are as strong as possible by putting in a quick submission here.
Climate Change
Duke University Plans a Data Center It Says Will Boost ‘Environmental Responsibility and Sustainability’
The small project is underway at Central Campus, with room for expansion. Its energy usage could complicate the university’s climate goals.
DURHAM, N.C.—Duke University plans to build a small data center at Central Campus, potentially the first of several similar-size projects, which has raised questions among some faculty about whether the energy- and water-intensive endeavors could derail the institution’s climate commitments.
The UN General Assembly on Wednesday adopted a “historic” resolution calling on countries to comply with their climate obligations, as outlined in a landmark advisory opinion issued last year by the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
Last July, in the opinion first requested by the Pacific island state of Vanuatu, the world’s top court ruled that harming the climate by increasing fossil fuel production may constitute an “international wrongful act”. This could result in affected countries claiming compensation from those responsible, the court said.
To follow up on the ICJ ruling, a dozen nations led by Vanuatu submitted a proposal to the UN’s main deliberative body to recognise the advisory opinion and identify ways of implementing it.
Several large oil-producing nations mounted a late push to weaken the text by introducing last-minute amendments, but the General Assembly rejected those and adopted the resolution with 141 countries in favour at a plenary session in New York.
The resolution urges countries to implement measures to cut carbon emissions, including by tripling renewable energy capacity, “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems”, and phasing out “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidies.
It also requests the UN Secretary-General to draft a report “containing ways to advance compliance with all obligations in relation to the court’s findings” by next year’s UN General Assembly in September 2027.
Pacific islands celebrate “historic” resolution
The group of Pacific island nations, which led the diplomatic push for the resolution, as well as Latin American nations and the European Union, celebrated its adoption as a “historic” moment, while some countries noted the persistence of diverging views.
Belize’s UN representative Janine Coye-Felson said in a statement on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) that the General Assembly resolution, as well as the ICJ advisory opinion, are important because “climate change is not governed only” by the Paris Agreement, but that “climate justice requires the application of the full breath of international law”.
“When future generations look back at this moment, they will ask whether we rose to meet the defining crisis of our time with the full force of international law. Today, this General Assembly answers: yes,” she told the plenary.
-
Electrification emerges as COP31 priority
The Turkish COP31 President has called for “a truly global conversation” about shifting the global energy system from fossil fuels to electricity -
Santa Marta summit kick-starts work on key steps for fossil fuel transition
The conference offers some 60 nations help to develop roadmaps to shift their economies away from coal, oil and gas, and make international trade green
The EU said in a statement during the session that, with the adoption of the resolution, countries are moving beyond “simply recognising” the ICJ’s work and instead “actively upholding the legal integrity” of the multilateral system by seeking to implement the court’s recommendations.
Yet the bloc also warned the process that follows must not “seek to establish new mechanisms or engage in any determination of state responsibility”, referring in particular to the upcoming report by the Secretary-General. Earlier drafts of the resolution contained proposals to establish a register of climate-driven loss and damage and a dedicated compensation mechanism, but these were removed during negotiations on the text.
France’s ambassador to the UN, Jérôme Bonnafont, highlighted the resolution’s provision to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, and said “science clearly establishes their role in climate change”. The recent increase in oil and gas prices, which have soared because of the war in Iran, “underscores the cost vulnerability of this dependence”, he added.
Push-back by oil-producing nations
Some oil-producing countries – among them the US, Saudi Arabia and Russia – were critical of the new resolution, arguing that it creates “quasi-binding” obligations from an advisory opinion that should be non-binding, and rejected the request for a report from the Secretary-General.
“This is a direct duplication of work that is being done at the [UN climate convention],” said Russia’s delegate. “Creating a parallel process will waste resources, will undermine the fragile consensus at the conference of the parties and will lead to the fragmentation of the climate regime.”
In an effort to weaken the resolution, a group of seven oil-producing Middle Eastern states – including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iran – tabled four last-minute amendments proposing to delete certain paragraphs and softening the language on the obligations of states.
Webinar: From Santa Marta to Bonn – where next for the fossil fuel transition?
In response, Pacific island nations said these amendments sought to “reopen provisions that were [the] subject of extensive negotiation”, while the EU added that they were “difficult to reconcile with the spirit of cooperation”. They were all rejected in a series of votes.
The US, for its part, described the resolution as “highly problematic” and denied the obligation of preventing climate harm beyond its borders, as well as the assertion that climate change is an “unprecedented civilizational challenge”. The country urged others to vote against the resolution.
India, which abstained, said the text failed to address the need for climate finance flows from developed to developing countries, which is “a serious omission”. The Indian delegate pointed to the absence of the term “climate finance” in the text, which “deserves more attention in a resolution that deals with the obligations of states”.
“Turning point in accountability”, activists say
WWF’s climate chief and former COP president Manuel Pulgar-Vidal said the General Assembly’s vote was a step forward that “raises the pressure on all states to act in line with their obligations”.
Rebecca Brown, CEO of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), said the UN resolution shows that “multilateralism works” and with it, countries “carry the ICJ’s historic ruling forward as a roadmap for climate action and accountability”.
“By acting together, we can prevent further climate harm, in line with science and the law, by speeding up a just and equitable transition away from fossil fuels, protecting climate-vulnerable communities, and advancing climate justice,” she added in a statement.
Vishal Prasad, director of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change – a group of young people who first made the push for an advisory opinion from the ICJ – said “the world has not only reaffirmed that ruling, but committed to making it a reality”.
“This must be a turning point in accountability for damaging the climate. Communities on the frontlines, like in the Pacific, have been waiting far too long and continue to pay too high a price for the actions of others,” he said. “The journey of this idea from classrooms in the Pacific to The Hague and the United Nations gives us continued hope that when people organise, the world can be moved to act.”
The post UN General Assembly backs “climate obligations” set by world’s top court appeared first on Climate Home News.
UN General Assembly backs “climate obligations” set by world’s top court
-
Greenhouse Gases9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change9 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 Gases10 months ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测