Connect with us

Published

on

The mass deployment of electric vehicles, solar panels and wind turbines around the world has raised a pressing question for environmentalists and human rights defenders: how to ensure that the materials needed to manufacture cleantech are produced sustainably and responsibly?

From the Democratic Republic of Congo and Zambia to Chile and Indonesia, the race to mine more minerals pivotal to the energy transition such as lithium, nickel, cobalt and copper has led to growing environmental destruction, deforestation and social conflict.

The cleantech companies that use them are increasingly coming under pressure from end-product manufacturers and governments to demonstrate that the metals and minerals entering their supply chains have been sourced responsibly without contributing to conflict or human rights abuses.

But transparent and verified information about the origins of these materials is often in short supply.

“Whether it be the iron that’s going into steel, the rare earths going into magnets, the lithium going into batteries, this is a sector that has largely had no transparency with respect to their supply chains,” Cameron Scadding, CEO and managing director at Source Certain, told Climate Home News.

That is what the Western Australian company is working to change.

Source Certain specialises in verifying the origin of minerals, food and timber using scientific tools and forensic investigation techniques. By reading the chemistry of a piece of ore or a mineral inside a product, it can trace it back to the mine where it was extracted.

    “If we genuinely want to be better to the environment, we absolutely cannot do that without knowing where this stuff comes from… how it’s been mined or how it’s been processed,” Scadding said in an interview from his home in Perth.

    The technique allows companies, regulators and governments to verify information about the origin and sourcing of a product. This can help expose illicit trade, hold companies’ sustainability claims to account and could help respond to mounting calls to make mineral supply chains more transparent and traceable.

    A supply chain integrity test

    A forensic and analytical chemist, Scadding founded Source Certain more than a decade ago with a focus on the origin of food and agricultural products.

    Since then, Source Certain has helped expose the presence of Chinese tomatoes picked using forced labour in “Italian” tomato puree, found mislabelled seafood on supermarket shelves, and helped to prevent Ukrainian wheat stolen from Russian-controlled territories finding a route to market.

    Consumers may not share the same emotional connection with how their food is produced and where the rare earths in their EVs come from, but for Scadding, the challenge is equally urgent.

    “The whole idea of the energy transition is that we can, through technology, move away from oil and gas and carbon-intensive industries. But that actually stacks up [only] if we do it ethically and sustainably, because otherwise it’s a roundabout of sustainability problems.”

    Source Certain verifies companies’ claims on the origin of their minerals by analysing a sample and comparing it to the geological profile of the mine where it was supposedly extracted.

    To do this, it uses a technology known as fingerprinting, which was first developed to trace the source of gold and help identify fake metal.

      As minerals form, they absorb traces of elements from their environment. By analysing this elemental profile and creating a distinctive pattern, scientists can match the mineral to the specific place where it came out of the ground and provide context over how it was mined.

      This investigative approach makes it possible to verify a product’s origin along different points of the supply chain in what Scadding described as “an integrity test”. Source Certain then supports the company checking the materials to understand and act on its findings.

      In principle, the same technology can be used to find out, for example, where in the world a piece of copper has come from without any additional information. But that would require a much lengthier and more complicated forensic investigation, said Scadding.

      Looking for mines and factories’ fingerprints

      Source Certain is already offering the service at scale for the gold industry. The work is more complex for metals such as lithium that are transformed before they are used in technologies like batteries. But it is still possible to verify the integrity of the product at various points of the mineral’s transformation, said Scadding.

      Mines, refineries and factories all leave their fingerprint on the materials – a trail of clues that can help confirm whether what the company claims about the item’s provenance is true.

      But doing this can only help improve sustainability if the company has measures in place to control what enters its supply chain. “We can’t go in and make a supply chain have integrity. All we can do is test and verify,” Scadding told Climate Home.

      “If you do not know where your product has come from and you cannot verify it, then there should be no claims on that product from a sustainability basis,” said Scadding. Otherwise, he added, “you’re almost certainly greenwashing”.

      The case for more regulation

      The Australian firm already counts miners, refiners and end-product manufactures among its customers, including in the rare earths industry, which supplies materials used in magnets for EV motors and wind turbines. In 2021, it partnered with British company Cornish Lithium to verify the origin of UK-mined lithium in batteries.

      Now, with backing from British venture capital firm Greensphere, the company wants to scale and expand its presence in the UK and EU markets, which have adopted more stringent due diligence requirements for supply chains – although some EU regulations are at risk of being watered down.

      Globally, Scadding said some progress has been made to improve the transparency of mineral supply chains: due diligence regulation is catching up and companies are increasingly motivated to manage the risks to their business.

        But more could still be done to understand the environmental and social risks these supply chains carry.

        A recent assessment by the International Energy Agency and the OECD found that measures encouraging traceability in critical mineral supply chains are on the rise but mostly affect manufacturing companies and retailers at the end of the value chain.

        In addition, very few require scientific verification of the materials’ origins.

        Knowing where a product is from is fundamental to any due diligence framework, said Scadding.

        “What we want regulation to do is make it mandatory that companies actually go and look at what is happening within their supply chains and check what they are being told,” he said. That could include scientific testing alongside other due diligence measures, such as audits and creating digital documentation trails of an item’s journey along the supply chain.

        “Scientific testing provides unique insights and in most cases – a surprise to most of our clients – is that it is more cost-effective and easier to implement than most of the other digital offerings,” he added.


        Main image: Source Certain CEO Cameron Scadding at the company’s testing laboratory in Western Australia (Photo: Source Certain)

        The post The company tracking energy transition minerals back to the mines appeared first on Climate Home News.

        The company tracking energy transition minerals back to the mines

        Continue Reading

        Climate Change

        Analysis: UK no longer top UN Green Climate Fund donor after latest aid cut

        Published

        on

        The UK is no longer the top contributor to the UN’s flagship Green Climate Fund (GCF), after the government announced that it only intends to honour half of its most recent pledge.

        Amid wider cuts to its climate aid for developing countries, the UK informed the GCF in May that it will reduce its commitment for the 2024-27 period to £815m ($1.1bn).

        In doing so, the Labour government is drastically cutting a Conservative pledge of £1.62bn ($2.16bn), hailed by former prime minister Rishi Sunak’s government as “the biggest single funding commitment the UK has made to help the world tackle climate change”.

        This “record” pledge also meant the UK became the top GCF funder, after the Trump administration withdrew $4bn in pledged US funds in 2025.

        Now, the UK follows the US in becoming the second major donor to cancel substantial funding, leaving aid experts concerned that other developed countries will follow suit.

        As the chart below shows, the UK’s total past and promised contributions to the GCF have now dropped below those of Germany, France and Japan.

        GCF pledges by top 10 donors. Dark bars indicate pledges from the initial resource mobilisation in 2014
        GCF pledges by top 10 donors. Dark bars indicate pledges from the initial resource mobilisation in 2014 and the first replenishment round in 2019, while light blue bars indicate pledges from the second replenishment round in 2023. Source: NRDC GCF pledge tracker.

        The GCF is the largest dedicated UN climate fund and is seen as a vital way of raising grant-based climate finance for developing countries. It oversees more than $20bn worth of funding across 354 projects and programmes.

        Developed countries, such as the UK, are obliged under the Paris Agreement to provide climate finance. One of the main ways to do this is through specialised climate funds, such as the GCF. 

        However, despite countries committing to increase their climate finance over time, progress in scaling up GCF contributions between funding rounds has been gradual.

        With its now-revoked £1.62bn pledge in 2023, the UK was among the donors that had increased its GCF pledging compared with the previous 2019 funding round.

        The latest reduction means the UK will now provide around 45% less funding than it did during the 2019 round. This is the biggest reduction between rounds by any major donor, apart from the US.

        In an email to the GCF board, reported by the Financial Times, the fund’s executive director Mafalda Duarte said the UK’s actions were “expected to have a material impact on the delivery” of the fund’s projects.

        According to the newspaper, Duarte noted that the move came as the UK cuts its overall aid budget in order to “invest more in addressing growing security threats”.

        In March, the UK government announced plans to spend “around £6bn” of its aid budget on climate projects in developing countries over the next three years.

        Carbon Brief analysis suggests that this spending amounts to roughly halving the UK’s annual climate finance, when accounting changes and inflation are factored in.

        The post Analysis: UK no longer top UN Green Climate Fund donor after latest aid cut appeared first on Carbon Brief.

        Analysis: UK no longer top UN Green Climate Fund donor after latest aid cut

        Continue Reading

        Climate Change

        Federal Budget must give Aussies a ‘fair shake of the sauce bottle’: Greenpeace

        Published

        on

        SYDNEY, Tuesday 12 May 2026 — Ahead of tonight’s Federal Budget, the following statement can be attributed to David Ritter, CEO of Greenpeace Australia Pacific:

        “As the Albanese government hands down the budget, it has an obligation to both look after households today, and to set Australians up for a flourishing future.

        “The government has an opportunity to give Aussies a fair shake of the sauce bottle by taxing gas corporations fairly, accelerating the clean, affordable renewable solutions we already have, backing its own nature law reforms with appropriate funding and by protecting our oceans, forests and climate from polluting gas projects.

        “The massive swell for fairly taxing gas corporations shows the public mood has permanently shifted; most Australians rightly do not accept that gas corporations like Woodside and Santos should make obscene war profits, while everyday people face soaring bills, and natural wonders like Scott Reef are threatened by reckless gas drilling projects. 

        “The global energy shock has exposed the dangers of our dependence on coal, oil and gas, and made clear that our future security and prosperity is in clean, affordable and homegrown wind and solar power.

        “This must be a budget to benefit Australians, not gas corporations.”

        Greenpeace Australia Pacific’s 2026 Federal Budget expectations can be found here.

        –ENDS–

        Notes:

        Greenpeace has spokespeople available for interview before and after the budget announcement, including experts who can speak on Australia’s climate and emissions, the gas tax, Woodside’s Browse project, Labor’s new nature law, and our renewable future.

        Media contact:

        Kimberley Bernard on +61407 581 404 or kbenard@greenpeace.org

        Federal Budget must give Aussies a ‘fair shake of the sauce bottle’: Greenpeace

        Continue Reading

        Climate Change

        ‘A new low’: Greenpeace responds to Woodside’s flawed emissions reduction and renewables modelling

        Published

        on

        PERTH, Tuesday 12 May 2026 — In response to Woodside’s Browse economic modelling released yesterday, the following comments can be attributed to WA Campaign Lead at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, Geoff Bice:

        “Greenpeace has analysed Woodside’s report on the polluting Browse gas project against independent modelling of WA’s energy system and emissions, and found glaring holes in the case made for the project.

        “Woodside has reached a new low by modelling WA’s emissions reduction and energy transition pathway based on wildly expensive and risky decarbonisation options simply to justify its reckless Browse development at Scott Reef, initially rejected by the WA Environmental Protection Authority on environmental grounds.

        “The WA Government cannot allow climate policy to be directed by climate vandals like Woodside. The clearest way to get WA’s emissions down is by setting clear emission reduction targets, which Greenpeace continues to call for.”

        Key points from Greenpeace’s analysis of Woodside’s modelling follow:

        • Gas is the most expensive form of available electricity generation, according to the CSIRO; IEEFA also found that Browse gas would be about four times higher than the current average production cost of domestic gas in WA.
        • Direct air capture (DAC): The model assumes WA will be able to capture 6.9Mt of CO2/year by 2050. Worldwide, the current total volumes captured are 0.01 Mt CO2/year. DAC is currently priced at a minimum of $USD-400/tonne with many estimates ranging higher. Even reduced to $200/tonne, the cost per year of the volumes modelled becomes a staggering $1.38 billion, or $34.5 billion by 2050.
        • Carbon dumping, or carbon capture and storage (CCS): The model requires 40 times the amount of sequestration that occurred last year at WA’s only CCS operation on Barrow Island (32.4Mt compared to 1.3Mt). Barrow Island CCS has consistently failed to meet requirements and last year alone cost $344m (at 265 AU$/tCO2). At those prices the Woodside modelling results in a cost per year by 2050 to be $8.6 billion.
        • Woodside’s Pluto gas facility has been supplying less than 4% to the WA market, far short of the 15% required under the WA domestic gas reservation policy. 
        • Woodside includes $1.6 billion payable via the Offshore Petroleum Levy. The Levy was implemented to offset offshore decommissioning costs to the taxpayer but is set to expire in 2030 — 3 years before the Browse field is proposed to come online.

        -ENDS-

        High res images and footage of Scott Reef can be found here

        Media contacts:

        Emma Sangalli on 0431 513 465 or emma.sangalli@greenpeace.org

        Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org

        ‘A new low’: Greenpeace responds to Woodside’s flawed emissions reduction and renewables modelling

        Continue Reading

        Trending

        Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com