Tough Choices for the Planet – Renewables and their Critical Material Needs – Getty Creative
The Secretary General of the United Nations Antonio Gutierez announced on April 26, 2024 that a new panel was being launched on “Critical Energy Transition Minerals.” The purpose of this latest effort to ameliorate the “material-energy nexus” is vaguely stated as ensuring “responsible, fair and just value chains.” Currently there are 23 countries plus the African Union who are members of the panel, along with 14 nongovernmental groups that span the spectrum from a youth collective to the World Bank. Missing from the panel, so far, are scientific organizations such as the International Resource Panel (IRP) or the International Union of Geological Sciences. This may change as the panel realizes that credible scientific consensus should not just be at the periphery but central to any meaningful impact.
What is most encouraging about the panel is that both China and the United States of America are members and will have an important platform for meaningful dialogue to prevent negative resource nationalism. Yet in order to be effective, the panel will need to ensure that it does not reinvent the wheel with ESG guidelines or declare success with a few symbolic resolutions at the General Assembly. The United Nations Environment Assembly has already been passing resolutions around mineral resource governance with a focus on criticality. We also have an existing Working Group on Transforming the Extractive Industries for Sustainable Development. Much of the high-level work has, therefore, already been done and should not be repeated or repackaged.
So, critical material discussions are getting to be rather crowded within the UN, not to mention a plethora of industry groups on each commodity; think tanks (such as CSIS) and research clusters popping up at academic prestige points like MIT (Mining and Circular Economy) and Stanford (Mineral X). A massive cash flow of public funds in the G7 countries and the EU has created a bonanza for consulting entities from ex-military officials to geologists and impact assessment professionals. This is all positive news as long as there is good coordination and close monitoring of deliverables and performance.
As far as standards for project performance are concerned, there is now growing consensus among advocacy groups that the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (IRMA) provides a robust and expansive standard. Thus, the new U.N. panel should not spend too much time agonizing over standards. Instead, where they could add value is consensus on the best institutional mechanisms for assuring that producers, processors and consumers have trust on supply security. This would prevent ecologically harmful greenfield mines fueled by resource nationalism and also ensure that processing occurs where there is clean and reliable energy. Furthermore, there should be greater transparency of impact and benefits data and use of techniques like Life Cycle Analysis / Assessment (LCA) to compare the social and environmental costs of benefits of various projects. Decisions can thus be made on the technical merits of projects, rather than where there is least dissent and most quiescence.
In a recent visit to Portugal, as part of a Fulbright Fellowship, I had an opportunity to interact with the lithium mining industry in the country, which has faced considerable local opposition. I also tried to follow the arguments of activists opposing the projects. The panel should be willing to consider the anatomy of such conflicts and the role science (via techniques such as LCA) and public policy (via processes that consider efficient negotiation with communities) can play in their resolution. On the policy front, the International Energy Agency has developed a useful Critical Minerals Policy Tracker tool which could be considered as a starting point. All eyes will be on the UN panel’s first deliverable of guidelines before the next General Assembly meetings in September of this year. Let us hope they are fresh prescriptions with actionable items. As the lead researcher for critical minerals at the United Nations University’s Institute for Water Environment and Health, and a member of the IRP, I will be following the work of the panel with anticipation and cautious optimism.
