Dodgy Critical Mineral Designations Won’t Boost Clean Energy

Lawmakers’ Dodgy Critical Mineral Designations Won’t Boost Clean Energy

By Ashley C. Nunes

Copper and potash might not seem like the stuff of high drama, but controversy over critical minerals and the question of whether some should truly be considered “critical” is playing out in the halls of Congress right now. A rush for mining mundane metals and salts isn’t about moving the U.S. toward a renewable energy economy either. It’s about powerful corporate interests finding underhanded ways to circumvent scientific assessments and environmental regulations.

Their goal: big profits for a lucky few.

The worldwide move toward a green economy has triggered calls for easing mining of rare earth minerals, ones essential to modern devices and electrical infrastructure. But a flurry of bills that some members of Congress hope to push by year’s end focus on changes to the laws that govern mining and critical mineral designations. Without regard for the status of how critical—or not—a material actually is, however, this tranche of legislation simply allows the mining industry to co-opt the green economy moment. And while the industry seeks to profit, communities and the environment will ultimately pay.

On supporting science journalism

If you’re enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

To most people, a critical mineral might simply be a metal that’s important for everyday needs such as smartphones, electric cars and renewable energy. In the mining industry, however, the U.S. government designating a mineral as “critical” can bring significant benefits, including tax credits and expedited permitting allowed under federal environmental laws. But what the mining industry believes to be important or profitable may not be legally “critical”—and that distinction is something the industry hopes the public won’t recognize.

When it comes to energy transition materials, the term “critical” has a specific meaning. Under current law, the Department of Energy assesses which energy sector materials have a high risk of supply chain disruption and regularly updates its “critical materials” list accordingly. Meanwhile the U.S. Geological Survey assesses which subset of “critical minerals,” many mined overseas, are essential to U.S. economic and national security. Each of these federal agencies conducts rigorous, factual and scientific reviews to determine which materials should qualify as “critical.” Conflating these lists and various meanings of “critical” will only obscure our government’s ability to administer the appropriate policy for a specific supply chain.

For example, two of the most problematic bills would effectively designate copper, potash and phosphates as critical minerals—despite the fact that all of these are currently mined in North America and relatively abundant. Moreover, copper is already on the Department of Energy’s critical materials list to address supply chain concerns for the energy sector. But copper is not on the U.S. Geological Survey’s list, because it does not degrade in reprocessing, more than 30 percent of domestic consumption comes from recycled scrap, and the supply chain is not geopolitically at risk.

Mining is needed for a clean energy transition, but poking random holes in a regulatory process that is based on factual and scientific assessments isn’t going to get us there any faster. There’s just no good reason for Congress to rush poorly conceived mining projects. If Congress overrides the U.S. Geological Survey’s factual determinations, certainly there would be more expedited permitting for domestic copper mines. But the potential supply chain benefits of domestically mining more copper are marginal. And such fast-tracking would put towns and homes on the front lines of mining and the environment at great risk.

Hard-rock mining has contaminated at least 40 percent of headwaters in the western U.S.. Such projects can seriously deplete freshwater sources that people and wildlife depend on. Other mining harms that have been overlooked far too often include human rights abuses, disregard for tribal consent to mine and impacts on biodiversity.

The industry insiders and politicians who are proponents of faster environmental review for critical mineral designation say it’s better to extract minerals here as opposed to overseas, where there may be even fewer safeguards. But no matter where mining is approved, myriad risks remain. They’re just shifted to a new site.

History has taught us the costly and dangerous consequences of cursory environmental review the proposed bills seek. The Deepwater Horizon catastrophe, which killed 11 people in 2010 and wreaked havoc on the environment and communities in the Gulf of Mexico, was a result of fast-tracked drilling approval. Taking shortcuts is sometimes worse than having no review at all because it papers over real environmental risks.

Climate change is a global emergency, and there’s general agreement that substantially more minerals will be needed to electrify transportation and curb planet-warming pollution. But this kind of legislation won’t get us closer to that cleaner future—it’ll actually unleash industry greed, pollute our waterways and threaten biodiversity.

Simply calling a mineral “critical” is a distraction from real solutions and needed improvements. Research and development funding advances technology to use mined materials more efficiently and at far higher levels of recycled content. If we can convince Congress to advocate for more domestic, environmentally protective reprocessing, we’d be better positioned to prioritize the reuse of materials already in the U.S. and to reduce our reliance on other countries and on extraction in general.

Those who want a clean energy future that doesn’t include sacrificing groundwater supplies and wildlife habitats should warn their representatives in Congress against gimmicky shortcuts such as designating abundant minerals as “critical.” There’s a great opportunity here for the U.S. to set the gold standard for strategically located and environmentally protective mining—and to use its powers to encourage other nations to follow suit.

What lawmakers shouldn’t do is speed up mining for relatively abundant materials with a reckless disregard for the environmental damage. We need to do this right.

This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.