New study in @nature shows there could be severe repercussions to biodiversity if we don't carefully choose the sites for new mines that provide us with the materials for renewable energy.
But I think a bit more nuance is in order (thread).
nature.com/articles/s4146…
But I think a bit more nuance is in order (thread).
nature.com/articles/s4146…
The decision to draw a circle with a diameter of a hundred km2 around each mine seems extreme to me.
That means every single mine can impact an area of 30 thousand km2 and together they impact 50 million km (37% of all land surface outside of Antarctica).
That means every single mine can impact an area of 30 thousand km2 and together they impact 50 million km (37% of all land surface outside of Antarctica).
To put that in perspective: one mine in my country the Netherlands would affect biodiversity in almost the entire country (41 thousand km2) according to this report.
There is also a 'conservative' option with a diameter of 20km2 around each mine (6.6 million km2 total). That would 'only' impact biodiversity in an entire province. But you have to download the excel in the appendix to get to these numbers.
Then the decision to assume that extending protected areas has no effect. I agree we should avoid mining in protected areas. But if you double the size of the protected area to compensate for the mine it seems one sided to ignore that. The focus is on problems, not solutions.
The report seems very critical of renewables. E.g. with formulations like: "Most mining areas (82%) target materials critical for renewable energy production".
Some of those mines could supply 99% of material to other industries than renewable energy...
Some of those mines could supply 99% of material to other industries than renewable energy...
And it doesn't subtract the area currently used for fossil fuel. Even though it admits the volumes in e.g. coal mines are orders of magnitude larger than in other mines.
I'm afraid this unduly punishes new mines that are meant to replace fossil fuel mines.
I'm afraid this unduly punishes new mines that are meant to replace fossil fuel mines.
All in all I agree that we need a strategy that minimizes the impact of new mines on protected areas and biodiversity.
But don't let the bad be the enemy of the worst by exaggerating the impact of renewable mining and giving fossil fuels a free pass.
But don't let the bad be the enemy of the worst by exaggerating the impact of renewable mining and giving fossil fuels a free pass.
P.s. I'm probably on the Dutch 6 and 8 o'clock news tomorrow explaining why it's a good thing the EU is presenting a resource strategy tomorrow:
Makes the EU less dependent on e.g. China.
EU can steer mining practices for its own demand in a more sustainable direction.
Makes the EU less dependent on e.g. China.
EU can steer mining practices for its own demand in a more sustainable direction.
