Can we avert climate catastrophe without unleashing a tsunami of human-rights abuses? Policymakers, investors, CEOs and the boards of mining firms should be seeking — and delivering — positive answers to that question. Instead, the failure to engage with human-rights concerns could derail our faltering journey to a low-carbon world.
At COP26 in Glasgow, Scotland, in November last year, governments and much of the investment community reaffirmed their commitment to the 2015 Paris Agreement. Breaching that accord’s global-warming threshold of 1.5°C above preindustrial levels would expose current and future generations to the deadly effects of climate breakdown. To avoid a collision with Earth’s ecological boundaries, we need a warp-speed acceleration in the transition to a pathway of zero greenhouse gas emissions, starting with halving carbon dioxide emissions this decade.
Achieving that target will require a quantum leap in investments to secure sufficient supplies of so-called “transition minerals.” Clean-energy technologies such as solar plants, wind farms and electric vehicles are mineral-intensive. Motors and turbines need nickel, chromium, manganese and rare earth metals. New electricity networks require vast quantities of copper wire. Electric-vehicle batteries need lithium and nickel.
The International Energy Agency estimates that reaching net zero emissions by the middle of the century will require a six-fold increase in mineral inputs, and a 40-fold increase in lithium supply.
Policymakers and investors have slowly woken up to the fact that shortages of transition minerals pose a real and present danger to global climate goals. With demand outstripping supply, prices are surging. Mining companies are desperately seeking new sources of minerals — witness Rio Tinto’s acquisition of a lithium project in Argentina, BHP’s investments in Ecuadorean copper and Tanzanian nickel projects, and Glencore’s investments in African copper and cobalt.
BlackRock CEO Larry Fink anticipates an investment boom in transition minerals that “is going to be large and … going to be multiple years of investing.”
This situation contains an opportunity and a threat. The opportunity is for governments, investors, mining companies and civic groups to cooperate in developing new investment models aimed at supplying a renewable-energy revolution, while building shared prosperity, public trust and bolstered governance. The threat is that we fail to protect the human rights of vulnerable communities in the transition-minerals boom, with an investment surge instead fueling the destruction of livelihoods, environmental damage, and a global wave of land and water grabs by multinational companies.
Anyone doubting the scale of that threat should consult the Transition Minerals Tracker compiled by the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre. The tracker documents 61 credible new allegations of human-rights abuses in the previous year, including the erosion of land rights, toxic pollution, the diversion of scarce water resources, and attacks on local communities and human-rights defenders. Companies featuring prominently in the charge sheets of the tracker database include Glencore, Anglo American, China Minmetals and Rio Tinto.
I was quite shocked to see that corporations embracing the green economy were committing human-rights abuses, but perhaps none of this should come as a surprise, given that deposits of many transition minerals are concentrated in countries with notoriously poor governance.
In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the world’s largest source of cobalt and a major supplier of copper, mining is associated with child labor, corruption and widespread violence. Indonesia, the world’s top nickel producer, has a weak record on protecting communities from mining pollution. Lithium extraction in Argentina, Chile and Bolivia has pitted local communities seeking to defend scarce desert water resources against mining companies that use water-intensive extraction methods and ride roughshod over land rights.
As a former UN high commissioner for human rights, I am well aware of the challenges facing mining firms and the wider investment community. Extracting minerals while protecting the environment and respecting human rights is an inherently difficult balancing act, not least when governments fail to act on their responsibilities.
Environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing is not filling the void. Ubiquitous greenwashing aside, attention has focused almost entirely on decarbonization and the “E” of the acronym. Social criteria — including human rights — have been ignored, exposing communities to the threat of systemic rights violations, and investors to reputational risks.
Human rights should be put at the center of ESG investment. The Investor Alliance for Human Rights, a group of more than 200 firms representing more than US$10 trillion in assets, has called for enhanced regulatory measures, including mandatory human-rights and environmental due diligence consistent with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The European Commission’s proposed directive on corporate sustainability due diligence, which would impose obligations — with potential penalties — on companies to monitor their value chains, promises to spur movement in the right direction.
Mining companies and transition-minerals investors should be at the forefront of efforts to bolster human-rights protection. Board members of mining companies should ensure that the companies’ corporate cultures and practices reflect the human-rights principles that most of them claim to endorse. These include deep engagement with affected communities and respect for their prior informed consent, due diligence in reporting on supply chains and access to remedies when harm occurs.
Ahead of the COP27 climate summit in Egypt this November, I will be calling on governments, mining companies, investors, financial regulators and civic groups to agree on a shared agenda for a low-carbon transition that is fast and fair. While increased supplies of transition minerals can greatly accelerate emission-reduction efforts, protecting human rights is an essential condition for climate justice.
Mary Robinson, a former president of Ireland and former UN high commissioner for human rights, is chairwoman of The Elders and of the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre’s advisory board.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS