A critical look at “critical minerals”

Once again, this summer has hit B.C. hard with wildfires and droughts. I was on evacuation alert for a week, anxious about wind and thunderstorms, and constantly monitoring the status of the wildfire through various sources and look outs. I am so grateful for all those working long days in extreme heat containing and putting fires out, including the one that was near my home.
 
I am not so grateful to have worked on climate action since the mid-1990s and be living the more frequent, extreme weather that was predicted in a warming world if we didn’t act. And I’m weary of mining companies moving quickly to position themselves as climate heroes.

Lots of jurisdictions are releasing “critical minerals” reports, including Canada, and B.C. has budgeted $6 million to develop its own. “Critical minerals” are variously defined as minerals that may be needed for the energy transition (for renewable energy generation, transmission, and storage, including the production of electric vehicles and batteries), for military purposes, to a lesser extent for technologies like computers and smartphones, and all of which are at risk of supply chain disruption. The term evokes a raft of feelings: urgency, nationalism, and greed among them, as well as questions of how and where to best mine these resources.

But we can’t just mine our way out of the climate crisis.

Instead of using the urgent transition away from fossil fuels as an opportunity to mine more and more, we should be re-evaluating our production and consumption of energy and minerals. We can't replace every combustion engine with an EV; we just don't have the materials globally to do that. We also know that mining impacts critical resources, like water and clean air.

This is why Northern Confluence released the report Critical Minerals: A Critical Look - to try to expand the conversation in British Columbia and ensure we’re looking at reducing consumption and incorporating other alternatives into our transition plan (like recycling and re-mining). We end the report with a series of questions that BCMLR will be asking as the province moves ahead in developing its "critical minerals” strategy and we hope that you will join us in looking for answers to these questions.
 
One of the more absurd uses of the “critical minerals” discourse is the push for deep-sea mining. There is very little known about the deep sea but it is clear that mining in the ocean depths would cause irreversible damage and biodiversity loss. The International Seabed Authority (the UN agency that regulates seabed in international waters) met earlier this month to try to come up with regulations to potentially allow for mining exploration. On the first day of meetings, Canada joined more than a dozen countries, several companies and hundreds of scientists by announcing a moratorium on deep sea mining in international waters.
 
This is great leadership by Canada. Unfortunately, Canadian-registered The Metals Company has been exploring the ocean floor near Nauru and has ambitions to continue. A video was leaked earlier this year showing the company discharging waste water into the ocean. We need international action to ensure that deep-sea mining is stopped.
 
As “critical minerals” gets lodged into our collective psyche, we need to ensure that policymakers do not just focus on the need for more mines and new frontiers. We need to think more critically and take this opportunity to invest in a more sustainable future.

Sincerely,
 
Nikki
 
Nikki Skuce is co-chair of BC Mining Law Reform Network


For more reading:

• Critical Minerals: A Critical Look

[Top photo:The Tulsequah Chief mine site sits at the Tulsequah River upstream from its confluence with the Taku River. The mine operated for only a few years before closing. For over 60 years the site has released untreated acid mine drainage into the watershed. Colin Arisman / The Narwhal​]