Study: Mining Minerals to Support Renewable Energy is Wrecking the Environment

Essay by Eric Worrall

Who could have seen that coming…

Metal mining is a global driver of environmental change

Stefan GiljumVictor MausLaura SonterSebastian LuckenederTim WernerStephan LutterJulia GershenzonMegan J. ColeJuliana Siqueira-Gay & Anthony Bebbington 

Nature Reviews Earth & Environment (2025)

Abstract

Global metal extraction is increasing, owing to rising mineral demands from infrastructure development and the growing need for metal-intensive renewable energy technologies to mitigate climate change and phase out coal mining. However, extraction of metal ores also drives impacts on land use, water resources and biodiversity. In this Review, we evaluate mining trends of 47 metal ores between 1970 and 2022 and explore the environmental consequences. Global extraction of crude metal ores has nearly quadrupled, from 2.7 gigatonnes (Gt) in 1970 to almost 9.4 Gt in 2022, with the greatest increases in Oceania (+1,222%), South America (+929%) and Asia (+285%). Ore-specific mining activities are generally concentrated, with the top-five producers contributing on average 82.7% of the global supply in 2022. The impacts of mining are also concentrated. In 2022, about 50% of the 100,000 km2 global mining areas were located in Russia, China, Australia, the United States and Indonesia. Mining-induced water consumption, pollution and biodiversity loss substantially affect local ecosystems, with tropical rainforests and deserts being especially vulnerable. Around 70% of global metal extraction is linked to international supply chains. Enhanced environmental assessments, stricter implementation of policies, and coordinated actions across sectors throughout supply chains (mining, processing, consumers and financial markets) can help to mitigate the environmental impacts of mining.

Read more: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-025-00683-w

WUWT has reported many times on the catastrophic damage green energy initiatives are doing to the environment.

When you add the insane energy and mineral requirements of artificial intelligence…

The failure of the renewable energy revolution is inevitable. The only question is, how long will it take until politicians stop even pretending to care about renewables?


Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/gvwHkPG

June 15, 2025 at 12:04PM

How Much Does The UK Govt Spend On Net Zero

By Paul Homewood

We looked at the new Spending Review, which has allocated £45.1 billion to Mad Miliband’s DESNZ to spend in the next four years.

I thought I would also try to put some costings on other Government expenditure which is devoted to the pursuit of Net Zero.

 image

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/spending-review-2025-document/spending-review-2025-html#departmental-settlements

The Spending Review gives some clues:

  1. £2.6 billion over Phase 2 (2026/27 to 2029/30) for decarbonising transport
  2. £2.3 billion for local transport “improvements”, including cycle lanes and bus lanes, again over Phase 2
  3. £2.7 billion a year for sustainable farming and nature recovery.
  4. The Renewable Heat Incentive at £1.3 billion a year.

In addition there is international climate aid, which will be funded out of the Official Development Assistance budget. This has been running at over £3 billion a year for this year and last.

Then there is revenue foregone by the refusal to make EV drivers pay their proper share of car tax. Fuel duties currently bring around £24 billion a year. Currently there are about 1.5 million BEVs on the road, 5% of the total; so the Treasury is already losing about £1 billion in revenue. By 2030, the number of electric cars could potentially rise to 7 million, leaving a blackhole of £5 million a year.

There are many other costs incurred which are simply impossible to quantify or remain hidden from public view. For instance:

    . The Affordable Homes Programme, which includes funding for energy efficient homes

      . Local Government Funding, some of which is channelled to decarbonisation initiative

        . Electric ambulances

          . £15.6 billion for local transport in cities

            . Decarbonisation of public buildings, paid for through the Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme

              . Decarbonisation of defence

        •  

      I have been alerted to one particular example of that last item, which I intend to explore more fully this week

      At the Trooping of the Colours, the RAF apparently announced that the Red Arrows were using Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) for the first time. We know SAF is considerably more expensive than conventional fuel, which begs the question of how much this will cost the MOD if it is rolled across the whole of the RAF.

      The implication is that it could potentially cost billions.

      This little story sadly is just the tip of the iceberg. Thousands of other examples could be found of how the government is throwing away taxpayer money on green virtue signalling.

      This is not, of course, the full cost of Net Zero – it is just the amount spent by central government itself. Local Government is frittering more away, while the public and the business sector is faced with ever increasing punitive costs.

      But even the quantifiable costs above add up to £24 billion a year,  excluding Sizewell C. And this does include the cost of subsidising renewable energy, which is paid for via our electricity bills.

      via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

      https://ift.tt/VGFediu

      June 15, 2025 at 11:19AM

      Monday

      0 out of 10 based on 0 rating

      via JoNova

      https://ift.tt/BoUihFS

      June 15, 2025 at 09:50AM

      Deep-sea mining next arena for U.S. – China global rivalry

      From CFACT

      By Bonner Cohen, Ph. D.

      Vowing to “counter China’s growing influence over seabed mineral resources,” the Trump administration is opening a new front against America’s chief geopolitical rival.

      “Vast offshore seabed areas hold critical minerals and energy resources,” an April 24 presidential executive order states. “These resources are key to strengthening our economy, securing our energy future, and reducing dependence on foreign suppliers for critical minerals.”

      The timing of the executive order is no coincidence. Though President Trump and his advisers recognized the strategic importance of rare earths and other critical minerals as early as his first term, the matter has become even more urgent. In retaliation for U.S. tariffs, China recently restricted the export of rare earths to the United States. And Beijing has leverage.

      China is the source of 90 percent of the world’s rare-earth minerals. It extracts them at sites around the world and refines them at facilities in China. This vertical control of the global rare-earth supply chain gives Beijing a near monopoly over minerals that go into “everything from satellites and jet fighters to CT scanners and iPhones,” The Wall Street Journal notes.  

      When rare earths are combined with Beijing’s formidable position in the mining and processing of other critical minerals — such as nickel, cobalt, copper, and manganese — China enjoys a wide lead that will not be easy to narrow.

      How will the Trump executive order on seabed mining address this? The strategy has six components:

      —Develop domestic capabilities for exploration, characterization, collection, and processing of seabed mineral resources.

      —Support development of deep-sea science, mapping, and technology.

      —Enhance coordination among federal agencies with respect to seabed mineral development.

      —Establish the U.S. as a global leader in responsible mineral seabed exploration, development technologies and practices, and as a partner for countries developing seabed mineral resources within their national jurisdictions, including their Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ).

      —Create a robust domestic supply chain for critical minerals derived from deep-sea resources to support economic growth, reindustrialization, and military preparedness, including through new processing capabilities.

      —Strengthen partnerships with allies and industry to counter China’s growing influence over seabed mineral resources and ensure that U.S. companies are well-positioned to support allies and partners interested in developing deep-sea mineral resources within their national jurisdictions, including their EEZs.

      While the resource potential of the seabed is significant, and the Trump plan is nothing if not ambitious, serious challenges remain. The executive order devotes much attention to polymetallic nodules, which exist throughout the ocean floor.

      “To date, no country has extracted these resources at a commercial scale,” said Gracelin Baskaran and Meredith Schwartz in an analysis for the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “The ocean region that has garnered the most attention is the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, a 1.7 million square-mile patch of ocean in international waters between Mexico and Hawaii. The zone contains the largest known nodule field on the globe, estimated at 21.1 billion tons.”

      As an indication of the challenge facing the administration, Baskaran and Schwartz said that the United States “currently lacks the processing infrastructure needed to process polymetallic nodules at-scale.”

      Another complication, one ripe with the potential for international conflict, arises from jurisdictional issues surrounding deep-sea mining. Extracting minerals from the ocean floor within the U.S. EEZ is one thing, but mining minerals in waters beyond American jurisdiction is quite another. The Senate, dating back to the Ronald Reagan era, has refused to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which was adopted in 1982 and went into force in 1994.

      The Law of the Sea Treaty, as it is commonly known, established the International Seabed Authority (IS A), the U.N. body that governs deep-sea resources, largely through licenses it issues to eligible countries (169) that have ratified the treaty.

      Baskaran and Schwartz point out that the executive order “essentially bypasses the ISA to allow U.S. companies to gain access to resources in international waters without consultation or permission from the U.N. body.”  

      For the “America First” administration, bypassing a U.N. body is second nature, completely consistent with its withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement or the World Health Organization. Qualified American companies eager to engage in deep-sea mining can count on having the Trump White House at their backs. They can also form partnerships with companies from allied countries that have ratified the Law of the Sea Treaty, even if that ruffles a few feathers at the United Nations.

      Seabed mining is environmentally risky with the ever-present threat of a spill that can lead to significant liability. Further, creating domestic processing facilities will require an expedited permitting process and a labor force sufficiently trained to meet the task. The U.S. cannot afford to stand aside and leave the field to China.

      The game is on.

      This article originally appeared at DC Journal


      Discover more from Watts Up With That?

      Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

      via Watts Up With That?

      https://ift.tt/yp2Mg4z

      June 15, 2025 at 08:03AM