The Environmental and Human Cost of “The Green Revolution”
By Science and Environment Editor Leah Moynihan
The powerful rays of the Congo sun blinds the workers as it rises, yet these men and young boys have been awake hours before it. They pull on their head torches that resemble children’s toys and leave their torn shoes in the dirt. They crawl into the cave that they dug with their own hands, 25 metres into the earth. Sweat drips down their tired faces and it feels like they are descending into hell. There is not a lot of oxygen, so they move quickly. The brittle ceiling hangs above them as dust floats down like snow. Cracks have formed along the walls like shattered glass, reminding the solemn workers that they have lost family members here. There is a risk of never leaving the mine again and being consumed by the rubble. Yet they are focused on one thing: cobalt. They swing their tools back and hit the hard wall. They will be doing this hard work for the rest of their lives.
It is a fact that the world needs to move towards more sustainable forms of energy. The constant consumption of fossil fuels is suffocating the earth and the creatures on it. We need to end our close relationship with diesel and petrol. New greener technologies are being developed to achieve this, yet like all new technology there are ethical challenges. The metals for electric vehicles can be extremely damaging to communities and the environment. The world is crying out for rare earth mineral, yet what price are we willing to pay to acquire them? Like with all revolutions, there will be casualties in the “Green Revolution”.
There is a rush in countries, such as Congo, to possess cobalt, an essential material in lithium-ion batteries. The world is hungry for this metal as we scramble to save our planet. Yet one of the poorest nations is being exploited so that we can have our green technology. A large mine can have up to 1,500 workers, and the conditions underground can be deadly. Many people lose their lives while desperately scaling the mounds of discarded rubble to find pieces of cobalt to sell in the markets. There is little regulation in terms of health and safety, and the security at the mines is not afraid to beat or shoot these intruders. There is no accountability for the mining company’s actions. Most of the workers are children.
The government of Congo cut funds for schools and increased fees so that children, mostly boys, have nowhere else to go except the mines to earn money for their family. The adults usually go into the mines, while the children haul the dirt into the trucks. They can carry up to two-hundred 40 kilograms bags a day in high temperatures and torn flipflops. They earn less than one dollar a day for this tough labour. Amnesty International has confirmed that companies that produce smartphones and electric cars cannot ensure that child labour has not been utilised to extract the materials that they use in their products.
Large mining companies are being accused of abusing the nation’s resources. There have even been reports of the locals being poisoned if they cause trouble for the mine owners. Is this just another example of the cycle of foreign powers controlling smaller nations? Most of the mines in Congo are Chinese owned, and 80 per cent of the materials required for lithium-ion batteries are controlled by China. There is a danger of relying on a single nation and a single resource. This is what plunged us into the climate crisis in the first place. Yet there is a paradox as there are not many other jobs available for miners in Congo. Large mines can employ thousands of people who would starve otherwise. Therefore, jobs are being created thanks to the green revolution, but human rights must always be upheld. People’s livelihoods depend on the extraction of rare earth metals, yet it can also destroy lives.
Similarly, green technology can come at a grave cost to the environment. The metals required for electric vehicle batteries can be found in the depths of the ocean below 200 metres. The seabed is littered with many small polymetallic nodules which hold precious metals such as nickel, magnesium, cobalt, and copper. The metal rich core and vents along volcanic ridges are also targets for rare earth metals. Mining the deep-sea seems like the perfect solution to the terrestrial mining ethical dilemma, however, there has not been enough research done in this area to predict future impacts. The extraction process can be highly destructive. Equipment that resembles gigantic combine harvesters scrape 10 cm of sediment off the surface of the seabed in order to gather the nodules. This sediment is dispersed over many kilometres and suffocates anything living on the seabed. Any sessile species present is destroyed, along with the unique habitat.
Not only does deep-sea mining damage biodiversity, but it may also be counterproductive in terms of climate change. The microbes on the seabed absorb one-third of land generated CO2. They also have antibiotic properties that may one day save mankind. Yet these vital microbes inhabit the nodules that are being gathered. Furthermore, the platforms used for mining activities can cause damage to the environment through waste pollution. A study by the Royal Swedish Academy of Science states that millions of cubic feet of discharge containing mercury and lead is released every day by the mining ships and this can travel hundreds of kilometres.
The Precautionary Principle is an important approach in science that has not been taken fully into account regarding deep-sea mining. It implies that if an action has even a small chance of causing irreversible destruction, then the action should not be taken. Cost and benefit are not being balanced with deep-sea mining. There is not enough scientific evidence to assess the risk of mining on the seabed community. After all, less than five per cent of the ocean has been explored. We may be destroying important species that have not even been discovered yet. Therefore, such a destructive activity needs to be approached with extreme caution.
However, the deep-sea mining companies have everything to gain. As electric vehicles become more popular, they will make an incredible profit. Marine biodiversity is the last thing on their mind. This has become a controversial issue as the Pacific nations will both suffer and benefit from deep-sea mining. They are committed to protecting their ocean, yet the smaller nations do not possess abundant resources and they mainly depend on outside aid. They require funds to recover from the damage that climate change will inevitably cause them. This includes rising ocean levels and increased frequency in unpredictable weather. They are the ones most vulnerable to the changing climate, yet deep-sea mining is the perfect opportunity for island nations to achieve financial security.
There are other options to reduce our 1.5 degrees Celsius limit that protect people and the environment. The main way to achieve this is by improving the recycling processes and technologies behind these rare earth metals. Recycling is currently below 1 per cent, so imagine how much benefit there would be if less metals were to be extracted because they were being reused. It should be the manufacturers responsibility to establish and improve recycling plants. However, recycling is not always 100 per cent carbon neutral, therefore it must be done properly. Separating the different metals from recycled batteries is currently extremely energy intensive and companies are not willing to pay the cost. This high cost entices companies to set up in countries with low labour costs and a lack of proper regulation. They need to be incentivised to produce ethically and sustainably through policy changes and public or private investment. There is research being undertaken all over the world by various electric car manufactures on this subject. Sodium is being considered as a cheap and available alternative to rare earth metals. Additionally, batteries that store wind and solar power are being developed. Cars and roads powered by the sun may even be a reality someday.
As the world races towards greener technology, we need to pause and remember why we are doing this. Every country on earth should benefit, and the most vulnerable nations do not need to pay the price. People and the environment should not be exploited just so that we can feel better about our “green” choices. We must ask ourselves what companies are benefiting, and if there are more ethical alternatives. Our everyday choices, such as taking a bus or cycling, can be far more beneficial than purchasing a €50,0000 electric car.
