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
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
A recent piece of international news has drawn surprisingly little attention, yet it deserves far closer scrutiny. German industrial heavyweight Siemens Mobility has reportedly outmaneuvered long-entrenched Chinese competitors in Southeast Asian infrastructure to secure a strategic partnership with Vietnam’s largest private conglomerate, Vingroup. The agreement positions Siemens to participate in the construction of a high-speed rail link between Hanoi and Ha Long Bay. German media were blunt in their assessment: This was not merely a commercial win, but has symbolic significance in “reshaping geopolitical influence.” At first glance, this might look like a routine outcome of corporate bidding. However, placed in
China often describes itself as the natural leader of the global south: a power that respects sovereignty, rejects coercion and offers developing countries an alternative to Western pressure. For years, Venezuela was held up — implicitly and sometimes explicitly — as proof that this model worked. Today, Venezuela is exposing the limits of that claim. Beijing’s response to the latest crisis in Venezuela has been striking not only for its content, but for its tone. Chinese officials have abandoned their usual restrained diplomatic phrasing and adopted language that is unusually direct by Beijing’s standards. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the
RSS