Mining for a Better, Cleaner Future
What a provocative title! Mining is anything but clean, with its water pollution and soil erosion. Some cobalt mining even involves child labor. But mining’s problems require both solutions and proper context, and it turns out that we will be creating even greater problems for us and for our descendants if we oppose mining for renewable energy. Industrial societies use a lot of energy, and while we definitely need to conserve energy, there are practical limits to conservation. Even if we may be able to cut our energy use in half this wouldn’t be sufficient. Without renewable energy we would need to approach zero. That means something like reverting to pre-industrial society, and this is not possible. There are too many of us, and even if we were to abandon modern life, few of us would be able to survive by farming. So we need to replace fossil fuel energy with renewable energy, and this requires mining for metals. This means ramping up metals mining in order to slow and stop fossil fuel mining and burning, and in the long run this also drastically reduces overall mining. I think that the case for all of this is solid, backed up with some references placed at the end of the text for readability.
There’s some natural resistance to applying a technological solution for a technological problem, so we’d like to conserve and use natural solutions such as regenerative agriculture and planting trees, and these are all important efforts, but they can’t keep up with our ongoing rate of pollution, even if we conserve. Griscom et al estimate that natural solutions have the potential for 37% of yearly mitigation by 2030, with less potential after that. That’s not going to phase out pollution by itself, and so we must also have a drastic reduction in fossil fuel use. On average, each human being is associated with 4.66 metric tons of CO2 per year (statista, 2022), and this is over 10,000 pounds! It’s several times higher in places like the US, where it’s estimated that an additional 640 mature trees per person would be required to absorb our pollution. Where would these trees go, and how long would they take to grow? Alternatives to renewable electricity such as biofuels and carbon capture tech are questionable, and are not currently feasible as primary solutions. This is all of course based on current analysis and progress, and subject to revision in the future.
In order to properly contrast mining with global warming we need to take each one seriously, and global warming is not taken seriously enough: we know that carbon emissions need to be decreasing, but they continue to increase. Currently the average Earth temperature is predicted to head towards around an increase of 3 degrees C, possibly less but likely more, and anything over 1.5 degrees is increasingly destructive, deadly, and costly. There is growing concern, and while there are many good things happening, all of this is failing to translate into sufficient action. And honestly, it’s a complex and unpleasant subject with uncertain outcomes and with the worst effects happening in the future, so taking it seriously requires effort, a deliberate investment of attention.
What best illustrates the severity of the problem? It is hard to predict what will resonate with any one of us. In 2017, 15000 scientists signed ‘World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice’. Secretary General of the UN Antonio Guterres calls global warming “code red for humanity.” The Arctic is heating up much faster than the average, and permafrost is melting, destroying Arctic towns and releasing carbon and possibly some ancient diseases. The oceans absorb 90% of the Earth’s heating, the equivalent of five atom bombs per second! Currently 6.7 million people die early every year due to air pollution alone. Many more will be dying from heat waves and droughts, floods and stronger storms, and there will be a dramatic increase in refugees. As the ocean absorbs 30% of the carbon, it acidifies, and changes in both the ocean pH and temperature are stressing sea creatures. Land creatures are also going extinct. Coffee, chocolate, and other foods may become hard to get. We’re reaching some tipping points which translate to many feet of eventual sea level rise. A cascade of tipping points is an uncertain risk. There is clear, persistent opposition to climate action from organizations and individuals. Hopefully something resonates with most everyone, because the severity of the crisis is vital to our perspective.
Our collective failure to take care of the Earth is ultimately a moral failing. Younger people and the global South are the ones who will continue to suffer the most, although they had little to do with causing the problem. The future warming and effects are uncertain, and so we tend to wait. But it’s a terrible risk! We wouldn’t teach our children to smoke. We wouldn’t agree to play Russian Roulette with a stranger in the future. But recognizing the danger from carbon emissions is not so straightforward.
Even if we were all on board to change things, it would take time to decarbonize the power grid, make buildings more energy efficient, buy new vehicles, etc. And we’re not all on board. And the longer we wait the hotter the Earth will get. This means that we need to be driving change ASAP, even if it seems like there’s plenty of time left.
Now on to mining and its relationship with global warming.
We know that mining pollutes, sometimes severely, with tailings and leaks from abandoned mines ending up in rivers and streams. Certain kinds of mining use a lot of water which can cause hardship for locals. There are land impacts: deforestation for roads, camps, and the mines themselves. Child labor is a problem in artisanal mines in the Democratic Republic of Congo which produces over 70% of the world’s cobalt. These small-scale artisanal mines pull 40 million people out of poverty, but the working conditions are unhealthy and sixteen percent of the miners in the DRC are children, fully 11% of cobalt miners worldwide. In fact, child labor is not at all limited to cobalt mining. There are ongoing efforts to stop child labor, as there must be. There are regulations for mining which need to be expanded and better enforced.
Naturally we’d rather minimize the amount of mining, and most mining is actually for fossil fuels. We mine 8 billion tons of coal each and every year, while over the next few decades we’re projected to need only 3.5 billion tons of metals for renewables, versus 80 billion tons of coal in just one decade. Furthermore, renewables will undercut demand for coal, oil, and natural gas. Once we build out renewables, recycling can replace much of the mining for metals. On the other hand, fossil fuels would have continued indefinitely! So mining for renewables will gradually decrease overall mining dramatically.
Mining altogether takes up an estimated 25,323 square miles, while the Earth’s land area is 57,268,900 square miles, 2261 times larger. To be fair, pollution does affect surrounding areas. But problems from mining need to be balanced against the fact that most of the Earth’s land area is already affected by global warming, and significant land areas will be severely affected even in the most likely scenarios. Thawing permafrost is already polluting rivers in the Arctic. Large, populated areas can expect more deadly heat and droughts, along with wildfires. Coastal areas will have worse flooding from stronger storms, and flooding in urban areas causes pollution.
There are various predictions for the increase in refugees, one being that we will have 143 million climate refugees by 2050. How often has mining been so bad that locals became refugees?
With global warming there are many similar scientific predictions, but with some variation because we are in relatively uncharted territory. We don’t know exactly how much the Earth will warm as we reach various tipping points, and we may encounter unexpected problems. By contrast, mining’s problems are well understood.
Mining pollution should be less costly to prevent than to clean up. This is also the case for the cost of preventing global warming versus the cost of damage and adaptation.
When we learn about harmful practices associated with things which we need, we can choose to push for positive change. When we learn about sweatshops or other injustices related to things we buy such as shoes, clothes, or electronics, do we just stop buying what we need? Those of us who care can bring attention to this and also change our buying habits in order to improve those conditions. Metals from mining are already very important to us: we are not about to give up our phones, laptops, and other rechargeable devices, even though they contain cobalt. Instead we can spread awareness of associated problems, in order to improve conditions and minimize pollution.
There are ongoing efforts to use less of the more problematic metals. Newer lithium phosphate batteries have no cobalt, are much safer, and have only slightly reduced energy capacity. Alternatives to lithium chemistries are being developed, particularly for grid storage where weight is less important. Some EV batteries now use sodium instead of lithium.
Along with cleaner energy sources, we also need to use less energy, but how much conservation is practical? First we need to know where the problem areas are. We might first think of cars, trucks, and planes, home heating and lighting, and this is already a large portion. But there is energy required for everything: manufacturing, for stores and other businesses, entertainment, road construction, government, and also for food production and distribution. It’s intertwined into our lives. If we all tried to use only the currently available renewable energy, most countries would collapse, with no food, jobs, home heating, or internet. Billions of people would die.
For the big picture, look at some categories associated with carbon emissions. Below are two breakdowns for the US. Other countries and worldwide estimates will be different. There are many ways to analyze this, and consequently the numbers don’t always match. Notice how the problem is not one particular thing, but is spread out over all sorts of things.
EPA by economic sector, 2021:
Transportation 28%
Electric Power 25%
Industry 23%
Commercial and Residential 13%
Agriculture 10%
Another kind of analysis for US household usage from Song et al, 2019:
Shelter 33.6%
Transportation 29.8%
Services 19.3%
Food 16.7%
Since there is not one category that solves the problem, we need to approach this in many ways simultaneously. Where possible, reduction in energy use from better efficiency and from conservation has an immediate effect. As individuals we have choices, and this is empowering. We may be able to switch from fossil fuels to renewables in a few ways, but the rest is not under our direct control. We need efforts by industry and government for systemic change. They in turn need pressure from us.
As cars are a significant part of the problem, it would be best to eliminate them and use mass transit or bike instead. But for many people there is currently no practical option for mass transit because of the way our cities are structured. We also develop deep personal attachment to driving our cars. Giving them up is a nonstarter for most car owners. We can help by buying an EV, which pays for its manufacturing carbon footprint in two years, more or less, and we may be able to find ways to drive less. Other things we can do are flying less, turning down the heat at home, insulating our houses, switching to a heat pump, even transitioning to a plant-based diet, and all of this ends up being perhaps a quarter of our total, small yet significant. This figure varies a lot case by case as you’d expect. One MIT class study found that a Buddhist monk’s energy use was down 66% from the average, and they also concluded that a 50% reduction would be a hard sell for the middle class. To the extent that we can conserve energy, we effect an immediate reduction in carbon, and also speed the transition away from fossil fuels by allowing fossil fuel power plants to retire instead of keeping them running along with renewables. But individual efforts at reducing carbon emissions are as insufficient as they are crucial. We need systemic change for the rest, primarily a rapid transition to renewable electricity generation.
Serious conservation will translate to losses in wasteful markets, a degrowth which we can’t avoid. Growth in renewable energy will help to alleviate the harm to our economy, although ultimately we cannot keep growing our use of resources on a finite planet. This means that even without global warming, wasteful countries such as the US, Australia, and Canada need a drastic change in lifestyles at some point. People everywhere need to live in harmony with the Earth instead of plundering and abusing it.
For the energy which we genuinely need to live, this is best supplied by wind and solar along with other renewables which are proven to reduce emissions (after a brief period where the they compensate for the emissions from manufacture and installation). Hydroelectric and geothermal power play a significant role, and even nuclear power helps (when it runs safely). Electricity storage is also practical and constantly improving. Along with natural solutions, a combination of energy conservation and conversion to renewable energy is required to stop global warming and it’s also quite possible.
Let’s take a look at some other proposed alternatives to renewable electricity.
Hydrogen is touted as a clean energy solution, and it can be, but it also has many problems. One big one is that 99% of it is currently produced from natural gas, a polluting process. Better to just burn the gas! Or it can be produced by electrolysis using renewable energy, and in order to be zero-emissions we must use a fuel cell or else burn it at low temperature (which is inefficient). For a vehicle, the fuel cell powers an electric motor, and in order to cope with rapidly-varying loads, a battery is also required. So hydrogen in vehicles still requires mining. End-to-end, there are efficiency losses from electrolysis, compression, delivery, and the fuel cell. It is explosive and tends to escape from metal containers due to its small molecular size. The IEA predicts that hydrogen will play a significant but minor role in renewable energy.
Carbon capture is very popular with oil companies which use it to pump out more oil. Better yet, it can also be pumped into rock beds where it is gradually absorbed into the rocks. These techniques might have some usefulness, but they raise serious questions. Is this an excuse to keep pumping oil? How much energy does it use, and if it’s clean energy, why not just use that? Are there environmental risks from pumping CO2 underground? How expensive is it and can it be scaled up?
Biofuels are highly touted by oil companies, and while some applications may prove worthy, biofuels use land that should be used for food production instead. This contributes to deforestation for food production. And again we need to know how clean the energy is for the whole process from planting and harvesting to conversion to fuel. Biofuels haven’t scaled up either, but could be the answer for some applications.
Although it’s best to avoid mining when possible, mining for renewable energy is ultimately much better for the Earth than global warming, and it ends up reducing mining as a whole. We also need to conserve energy as well as we can. We also need natural solutions such as planting trees and regenerative agriculture. Among all the alternatives to renewable electricity, none have proven to be as clean and cost effective as wind and solar, and electricity storage is practical and improving. This doesn’t mean that alternatives should all be abandoned, as all viable options are worth exploring, as long as they aren’t delay tactics.
I hope this has been at least partially convincing. It could have gone into more depth and it’s a complex subject as well as an emotionally-charged one because we care about the future.
References
Griscom et al
Figure 2 shows the predicted limits over time to natural solutions, compared to the needed reductions in fossil fuels
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/114/44/11645.full.pdf
Soil sequestration could cut US agricultural emissions by 100 million metric tons per year (roughly 2% of the US total emissions per year)
Soil levels eventually reach a saturation point
Figure 1 is a chart of various estimates per year, a small fraction of global emissions
Mature tree 50 pounds of CO2 per year, so we would need 640 mature trees per person in the US.
How much treeless land is available?
New growth absorbs little CO2, and it will take decades (but help a lot then)
It’s much better to preserve existing forests
World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice
Ocean heating from 5 atom bombs per second. The end of coral reefs from acidification and heating.
Harm from acidification
A summary of scenarios
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/10-cataclysmic-scenarios-if-we-fail-to-control-climate-change/
6.7 million die from air pollution alone every year
Warming 4x faster in the Arctic
Impact on permafrost
Reaching tipping points
Species extinction
Endangered foods
143 million climate refugees by 2050
Costs of doing nothing are much higher than stopping global warming
Details the different kinds of mining pollution
Cobalt mining in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and efforts to aid artisanal mines and end child labor
A good talk on cobalt
8 billion tons of coal every year vs 3.5 billion tones of minerals over the next few decades.
25,323 square miles of mining area studied, with maps of mining locations
Already impacting 80% of our land area
Thawing permafrost apparently causes pollution
Mining pollution treatment and prevention
By economic sector
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions
Song et al, By household consumption categories (see Fig.1, domestic)
2008 MIT Class Study
US average energy use was 350GJ, one Buddhist monk used only 120, or 66% down from average
They conclude that it is more possible to reduce carbon footprint for the wealthier, and that a 50% reduction for the middle class would “require dramatic changes which we believe would be unacceptable to most people.”
http://web.mit.edu/ebm/www/Publications/ELSA%20IEEE%202008.pdf
Wind and solar
Good summaries on the transition to 100% renewable energy
Carbon Capture has pros and cons
It might help reduce carbon emissions
It is expensive and uses a lot of energy, and has not been scaled up
Can be stored in geological formations, but there are environmental risks
CO2 pumped in to extract more oil: pros and cons in detail
Carbon capture not working very well, expensive, far too energy intensive
Actually increasing CO2 emissions
It’s an excuse to keep fossil fuel plants running, and distracts from better solutions
Hydrogen
Biofuel: land should be used for food production instead
Ethanol is a mixed bag
Biofuel contributes to deforestation
Fuel from farm waste may be a useful application
