The world should question its skyrocketing demand for energy-transition minerals and the roll-out of ineffective climate measures that damage people and the planet, the UN’s special rapporteur on climate change and human rights has warned.
“The need for critical minerals in terms of climate action is an assumption that we need to challenge,” Elisa Morgera told an online event hosted by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) on Wednesday.
This should include asking “how do we take into account over-consumption by the super-rich, which we know are contributing to climate change in ways that are non-comparable to the vast majority of the world’s population,” she said.
Morgera called for “a step back… to ensure that any decisions around critical minerals are taken with a full understanding of the potential impacts on the environment and on everyone’s human rights”. That should also entail “prior, comprehensive and independent assessments of the need for critical minerals and whether there are alternatives to extraction”, she added.
The acceleration of clean energy technology deployment has spurred a global race for the metals and minerals that are needed to manufacture solar panels, wind turbines, batteries and electric vehicles. Many of them – from copper to lithium and nickel – are sourced from the Global South using extractive models that have harmed the environment and local communities.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) has projected that demand for these minerals could triple by 2030 and quadruple by 2040 as the green transition accelerates, which would require vast investments in new mining developments.
Indian start-ups mine e-waste for battery minerals but growing industry has a dark side
But mining comes with unavoidable environmental and social trade-offs, which need to be fully understood, Morgera told the panel of critical mineral experts.
She argued for moving away from the “inaccurate idea” that there is “conflict” between urgently addressing climate change and protecting the human rights of Indigenous peoples on whose territories critical minerals are often extracted. This is about “everyone’s human right to a healthy environment,” she added.
Those working on the issue should “ask critical questions at the outset about who’s going to benefit from a proposed development and what assumptions are framing that understanding of benefits”, she said.
Morgera, an Italian professor of global environmental law at the University of Strathclyde in Scotland, previously worked on the links between human rights and healthy oceans. She took on the role of UN special rapporteur last year.
Land-grabbing on the rise
Across the world, communities in mineral-producing countries – from Indonesia, to Chile and the Democratic Republic of Congo – have reported environmental destruction and human rights abuses linked to the mining of transition minerals.
Ketakandriana Rafitoson, director of Publish What You Pay, an NGO that advocates for financial transparency in the extractive industry, told the event that besides the environmental, food and water impacts faced by some communities in mineral-producing countries, land grabbing is becoming a bigger issue.
“Territorial rights violations is something which is growing, and it is often linked to the fact that Indigenous peoples and local communities voices, including the right to say no to mining, are not always taken into account or heard,” she said.
Last year, the UN Secretary-General’s Panel on Critical Minerals outlined seven principles for developing critical mineral supply chains with justice, equity and human rights at their core.
The panel called for “balancing consumption with sustainable supply, especially in high-income countries” to reduce environmental impacts. It cited innovation and product design, such as reducing the size of electric vehicle batteries, material efficiency gains and building circular supply chains, as ways to reduce demand.
Recycling and fairer use
Recycling minerals could reduce the need for new mining projects and help mitigate the environmental and social impacts of mining. But the use of recycled materials has so far failed to keep pace with rising material consumption, according to the IEA.
Meanwhile, global resource extraction is accelerating. Resource use is projected to grow 60% by 2060, which the UN says could derail efforts to achieve global climate, biodiversity and pollution targets, as well as human well-being and economic prosperity.
High-income countries use six times more materials and are responsible for ten times more climate impacts per capita than low-income ones, according to the UN’s Global Resource Outlook report. It called for reducing the resource intensity of the wealthiest economies to allow poorer nations to use more resources, where they are most needed.
Q&A: What you need to know about clean energy and critical minerals supply chains
The UN, meanwhile, is digging deeper into the issues surrounding critical minerals.
Special rapporteur Morgera is seeking inputs on the positive and negative human rights impacts of the full life-cycle of renewable energy, including the extraction and re-use of critical minerals, and will present a report at the UN in October.
This is “a really important opportunity for us to fully explore and understand the trade-offs and where we have foreseeable negative impacts on the environment and human rights that we can and must prevent,” she said.
(Reporting by Chloé Farand; editing by Megan Rowling)
The post We must challenge rising demand for transition minerals, says UN rapporteur appeared first on Climate Home News.
We must challenge rising demand for transition minerals, says UN rapporteur
Climate Change
Greenpeace organisations to appeal USD $345 million court judgment in Energy Transfer’s intimidation lawsuit
SYDNEY, Saturday 28 February 2026 — Greenpeace International and Greenpeace organisations in the US announce they will seek a new trial and, if necessary, appeal the decision with the North Dakota Supreme Court following a North Dakota District Court judgment today awarding Energy Transfer (ET) USD $345 million.
ET’s SLAPP suit remains a blatant attempt to silence free speech, erase Indigenous leadership of the Standing Rock movement, and punish solidarity with peaceful resistance to the Dakota Access Pipeline. Greenpeace International will also continue to seek damages for ET’s bullying lawsuits under EU anti-SLAPP legislation in the Netherlands.
Mads Christensen, Greenpeace International Executive Director said: “Energy Transfer’s attempts to silence us are failing. Greenpeace International will continue to resist intimidation tactics. We will not be silenced. We will only get louder, joining our voices to those of our allies all around the world against the corporate polluters and billionaire oligarchs who prioritise profits over people and the planet.
“With hard-won freedoms under threat and the climate crisis accelerating, the stakes of this legal fight couldn’t be higher. Through appeals in the US and Greenpeace International’s groundbreaking anti-SLAPP case in the Netherlands, we are exploring every option to hold Energy Transfer accountable for multiple abusive lawsuits and show all power-hungry bullies that their attacks will only result in a stronger people-powered movement.”
The Court’s final judgment today rejects some of the jury verdict delivered in March 2025, but still awards hundreds of millions of dollars to ET without a sound basis in law. The Greenpeace defendants will continue to press their arguments that the US Constitution does not allow liability here, that ET did not present evidence to support its claims, that the Court admitted inflammatory and irrelevant evidence at trial and excluded other evidence supporting the defense, and that the jury pool in Mandan could not be impartial.[1][2]
ET’s back-to-back lawsuits against Greenpeace International and the US organisations Greenpeace USA (Greenpeace Inc.) and Greenpeace Fund are clear-cut examples of SLAPPs — lawsuits attempting to bury nonprofits and activists in legal fees, push them towards bankruptcy and ultimately silence dissent.[3] Greenpeace International, which is based in the Netherlands, is pursuing justice in Europe, with a suit against ET under Dutch law and the European Union’s new anti-SLAPP directive, a landmark test of the new legislation which could help set a powerful precedent against corporate bullying.[4]
Kate Smolski, Program Director at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “This is part of a worrying trend globally: fossil fuel corporations are increasingly using litigation to attack and silence ordinary people and groups using the law to challenge their polluting operations — and we’re not immune to these tactics here in Australia.
“Rulings like this have a chilling effect on democracy and public interest litigation — we must unite against these silencing tactics as bad for Australians and bad for our democracy. Our movement is stronger than any corporate bully, and grows even stronger when under attack.”
Energy Transfer’s SLAPPs are part of a wave of abusive lawsuits filed by Big Oil companies like Shell, Total, and ENI against Greenpeace entities in recent years.[3] A couple of these cases have been successfully stopped in their tracks. This includes Greenpeace France successfully defeating TotalEnergies’ SLAPP on 28 March 2024, and Greenpeace UK and Greenpeace International forcing Shell to back down from its SLAPP on 10 December 2024.
-ENDS-
Images available in Greenpeace Media Library
Notes:
[1] The judgment entered by North Dakota District Court Judge Gion follows a jury verdict finding Greenpeace entities liable for more than US$660 million on March 19, 2025. Judge Gion subsequently threw out several items from the jury’s verdict, reducing the total damages to approximately US$345 million.
[2] Public statements from the independent Trial Monitoring Committee
[3] Energy Transfer’s first lawsuit was filed in federal court in 2017 under the RICO Act – the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a US federal statute designed to prosecute mob activity. The case was dismissed in 2019, with the judge stating the evidence fell “far short” of what was needed to establish a RICO enterprise. The federal court did not decide on Energy Transfer’s claims based on state law, so Energy Transfer promptly filed a new case in a North Dakota state court with these and other state law claims.
[4] Greenpeace International sent a Notice of Liability to Energy Transfer on 23 July 2024, informing the pipeline giant of Greenpeace International’s intention to bring an anti-SLAPP lawsuit against the company in a Dutch Court. After Energy Transfer declined to accept liability on multiple occasions (September 2024, December 2024), Greenpeace International initiated the first test of the European Union’s anti-SLAPP Directive on 11 February 2025 by filing a lawsuit in Dutch court against Energy Transfer. The case was officially registered in the docket of the Court of Amsterdam on 2 July, 2025. Greenpeace International seeks to recover all damages and costs it has suffered as a result of Energy Transfers’s back-to-back, abusive lawsuits demanding hundreds of millions of dollars from Greenpeace International and the Greenpeace organisations in the US. The next hearing in the Court of Amsterdam is scheduled for 16 April, 2026.
Media contact:
Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
The Trump administration’s relentless rollback of public health and environmental protections has allowed widespread toxic exposures to flourish, warn experts who helped implement safeguards now under assault.
In a new report that outlines a dozen high-risk pollutants given new life thanks to weakened, delayed or rescinded regulations, the Environmental Protection Network, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group of hundreds of former Environmental Protection Agency staff, warns that the EPA under President Donald Trump has abandoned the agency’s core mission of protecting people and the environment from preventable toxic exposures.
Former EPA Staff Detail Expanding Pollution Risks Under Trump
Climate Change
Cheniere Energy Received $370 Million IRS Windfall for Using LNG as ‘Alternative’ Fuel
The country’s largest exporter of liquefied natural gas benefited from what critics say is a questionable IRS interpretation of tax credits.
Cheniere Energy, the largest producer and exporter of U.S. liquefied natural gas, received $370 million from the IRS in the first quarter of 2026, a payout that shipping experts, tax specialists and a U.S. senator say the company never should have received.
Cheniere Energy Received $370 Million IRS Windfall for Using LNG as ‘Alternative’ Fuel
Greenpeace organisations to appeal USD $345 million court judgment in Energy Transfer’s intimidation lawsuit
Renewable Energy Concepts Can’t Violate the Laws of Physics
Former EPA Staff Detail Expanding Pollution Risks Under Trump
-
Greenhouse Gases7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change7 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
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
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
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits