This article is a follow-up to the first two parts on the social and environmental impacts of industrial mines. The other articles can be found here:
Part 1 : Mines, an environmental disaster
Part 2 : Mines, a social disaster
Part 4 : The impossibility of mineral decay
The return of mines to Europe: ecology at the bottom of the hole
” Between 2002 and 2008, the price of metals — all materials combined — tripled. American and European leaders then realized the extent of their dependence and the threat to their supplies. Hegemony was a regular plunder, but it was also a dependency that was hidden by power asymmetry.[1]. ”
As mentioned above, mines were mostly relocated to so-called “Southern” countries beginning in the 1980s. But since the 2000s, Westerners have realized their vulnerability in relation to China, which is real.” mining empire planetary[2]”. Faced with threats to their digital, automotive, aeronautical or defense industries, Europe and the United States decided in the 2010s to relaunch mining on their territory to reduce their dependence. This is reflected in particular in an initiative for raw materials by the European Commission in 2008 [3].
But European and American leaders are facing a problem: the mine gets bad press and people don't want mines near their homes to build planes and weapons that are “good from home.” Mining projects launched in France in the 2010s were highly contested and failed [4].
But the miracle of greenwashing has made it possible to justify the return of mines to Europe in the eyes of the general public. Indeed, for the “energy transition”, the idea of replacing fossil fuels with so-called renewable energies (wind, solar, hydraulic, etc.), we need a lot of metals. In fact, “At the same power, an offshore wind farm requires ten times more metals than a gas-fired power plant, and an onshore wind farm seven times more[5]. “It is esteemed” that in 2040, the annual lithium consumption for electric vehicles alone would represent 8 times the current global mine production[6] ”. A good reason to reopen mines in Europe!
” The transition involves moving from fossil fuels to metals, which are not renewable. In the best case scenario, that is to say, if it really led to a substitution of fossil fuels and not to an addition as one might expect, it would consist in transferring to metals the energy demand that was previously based on oil, gas and coal.[7]. ”
For the “transition”, political institutions such as the European Commission are therefore selling us “relocated” and “responsible” mines to produce the famous metals that should make it possible to reduce greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere and mitigate climate change. We are told that it is criminal to leave poorly regulated mines in the “South” for the batteries of European electric cars. Relocating mines to us means having mines that are greener and more respectful of human rights. It is also assume the mining impact of our consumption.
All of these arguments are laudable. Too bad they're lying. First, opening a mine in Europe does not mean closing another one in the world. The mines of the North do not replace the mines of the South but complement them, to meet the vertiginous increase in the demand for metals. Second, the unequal ecological exchange, i.e. “Done to exploit the cheap nature of the peripheries for the benefit of economic centers[8]”, is also reproduced in Europe (for example The exploitation of a mine in Swedish Lapland on the land of the indigenous Sami people). Finally, European mines are just as harmful as in the rest of the world, as they use the same processes and consume just as much water and energy.
” Opposing the mine here and the mine elsewhere does not take into account the systemic impasse in which the industrial mine finds itself. In a way, this is tantamount to pretending that monocultures sprayed with pesticides would be more viable in Europe than elsewhere. A mine may be more or less secure depending on regulations, but the determining factor remains the contents contained in the deposits. The lower the levels, the greater the volume of waste. The fact that these mines are located on the European continent does not make the tailings lakes, water contamination, droughts and bad weather disappear.[9].”
This fable of “responsible” mining and “energy transition”, although false, is nevertheless very useful in justifying the reopening of mines for the strategic needs of European industries. The digital sector in particular is swallowing up ever larger quantities of metals. The metals it consumes are of high purity, and therefore requires even more extensive refining with chemistry that consumes very much water.
“The billion smartphones that come out of Asian factories every year, as well as the tablets, computers, computers, printers, scanners, consoles, plus the big data infrastructure with its millions of servers, cables, antennas — all of this therefore requires unfolding and combining almost the entire spectrum of metals. And although they are only used in tiny quantities in each device, given the exponential growth of the sector, the volumes are becoming more and more important[10].”
The same goes for the fields of armaments and aerospace, where the thirst for metals is growing. Indeed, the diversity of metals used has continued to grow, from a dozen used for weapons during the Second World War to around fifty different metals today. The equipment has also grown considerably, and as a result the quantity of metals required:” (...) the Renault tank from the First World War had a mass of 6.7 tons; the American Army's M1 Abrams, in use since 1978, weighs ten times as much, 63 tons[11]. ”
” In summary, this is the vicious circle in which States have begun to lock themselves in over the past decade: the metal rush militarizes relationships between nations, fueling the rush for metals to produce weapons in order to have the means to seize metals. This is the logic behind the growing militarization of the United States in the face of China and vice versa. The more the great powers seek to prepare for conflicts by accessing strategic resources, the more they precipitate us into war.[12]. ”
What is particularly practical is that mines “for the transition” also produce the metals needed for digital technology, weapons and space! For example, the lithium mine in Allier, which is scheduled to open in 2028, is located on a deposit of beryllium, a metal that is more toxic than asbestos but strategic for the aeronautical and arms industries [13]. But there is no doubt that this information sells less than the promise of producing batteries to save the planet.
The mining industry is definitely taking us for idiots, trying to hide weapons and computers behind “green” electric cars.
Faced with all this, what solution?
Célia Izoard and SysText propose to plan the decrease in global metal consumption. A noble proposal but not very realistic from an economic and geopolitical point of view. This is what we are going to see in the last article.
