August 13, 2024
4 min read
Lawmakers' questionable definitions of critical minerals will not advance clean energy
Congress appears interested in passing mining legislation. But bills that would expand access to hard minerals across the U.S. ignore supply chain standards and environmental impacts
Potash evaporation ponds at a mine near Moab, Utah.
John G. Fuller/VWPics/Alamy Stock Photo
Copper and potash may not seem like a big deal, but the debate over critical minerals and whether some of them should actually be considered “critical” is playing out in the halls of Congress right now. The frenzy over mining base metals and salts is also not about the U.S. moving toward a renewable energy economy. 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 global move towards a green economy has sparked calls facilitating the extraction of rare earth mineralswhich are essential for modern devices and electrical infrastructure. But a flurry of bills that some members of Congress hope to push through by the end of the year, focusing on changes to laws governing mining and the designation of critical minerals. But without regard for the status of how critical a material is — or isn’t — this tranche of legislation simply allows the mining industry to seize the green economy moment. And while the industry is looking to make a profit, communities and the environment will ultimately pay.
On support for scientific journalism
If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting our award-winning journalism: subscriptionBy purchasing a subscription, you help ensure a future of powerful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
For most people, a critical mineral may simply be a metal that is important for everyday needs like smartphones, electric vehicles, and renewable energy. However, in the mining industry, the U.S. government designating a mineral as “critical” can bring significant benefits, including tax incentives And expedited obtaining of permits permitted by federal environmental laws. But what the mining industry believes important or profitable may not be legally “critical” – and the industry hopes the public will not recognize this distinction.
When it comes to materials for the energy transition, the term “critical” has special meaning. Under current law, the Department of Energy evaluates which energy sector materials have a high risk of supply chain disruption and regularly updates its list of “critical materials” accordingly. Meanwhile, the U.S. Geological Survey evaluates which subsets of “critical minerals,” many of which are 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 qualify as “critical.” Combining these lists and the different meanings of the word “critical” will only complicate our government’s ability to implement appropriate policies for a particular 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 them are currently mined in North America and are relatively common. In fact, copper is already on the Department of Energy’s list of critical materials to address supply chain issues for the energy sector. But copper is not on the U.S. Geological Survey’s list because it does not degrade in processing, more than 30 percent of domestic consumption is accounted for by recycled scrapand the supply chain is not exposed to geopolitical risk.
Mining is essential to the transition to clean energy, but poking holes in a regulatory process based on factual and scientific assessments will not get us there any faster. There is simply no compelling reason for Congress to rush poorly designed mining projects. If Congress overturned the USGS’s factual determinations, then certainly permitting for domestic copper mines would be expedited. But the potential supply chain benefits of mining more copper domestically are small. And such acceleration would put frontline communities and communities and the environment at great risk.
Hard rock mining has polluted at least 40 percent headwaters of the western United States. Such projects could seriously exhaust Fresh water sources that people and wildlife depend on. Other harmful impacts of mining that have too often been overlooked include human rights violationsdisregard for tribal agreement to my and impact on biodiversity.
The industry insiders and politicians who advocate faster environmental reviews to designate critical minerals say it’s better to mine minerals here rather than overseas, where there may be even fewer safeguards. But no matter where mining is approved, many risks remain. They’re simply being moved to a new location.
History has taught us the costly and dangerous consequences that superficial environmental assessments of the kind that the proposed legislation seeks to achieve can lead to. Deepwater Horizon a disaster that killed 11 people and caused massive damage in 2010 destruction of the environment and communities in the Gulf of Mexico, were the result of fast-tracked drilling approvals. Sometimes cutting corners is worse than having no view at all, because it obscures real environmental risks.
Climate change is a global emergency and there is general agreement that significantly more minerals will be needed to electrify transportation and curb planet-warming pollution. But such legislation won’t get us any closer to a cleaner future — it will actually unleash industrial greed, pollute our waterways, and threaten biodiversity.
Simply calling a mineral “critical” distracts from real solutions and needed improvements. R&D funding advanced technologies use mined materials more efficiently and with much higher levels of recycled content. If we can convince Congress to advocate for more domestic, environmentally friendly recycling, we will be in a better position to prioritize the reuse of materials that are already in the U.S. and reduce our dependence on other countries and on mining in general.
Those who want a clean energy future that doesn’t sacrifice groundwater supplies and wildlife habitat should warn their representatives in Congress against slick tricks like labeling abundant minerals as “critical.” There’s a golden opportunity here for the U.S. to set the gold standard for strategically located, environmentally friendly mining operations — and use its power to encourage other countries to follow suit.
What lawmakers should not do is accelerate the extraction of relatively abundant materials with reckless disregard for environmental damage. We need to get this right.
This is an opinion and analysis article, and the opinions expressed by the author or authors do not necessarily reflect the opinions Scientific American.