This page is an excerpt from Issue 2 / Chapter 2.
This issue began by discussing the green energy deal with the devil: in order to save the planet from climate change, it is necessary to sacrifice parts of the planet. There is no way to obtain the minerals needed for the green energy transition except by mining. We suggested in the introduction that this is a lie, for three key reasons.
First, this Faustian bargain is a lie due to the immense carbon emissions of mining. Currently, mining is estimated to contribute a whopping 10% of humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions. From deforestation to the energy that goes into creating the chemicals necessary to dissolve rock; from the diesel fuel burned by heavy machinery to the high-temperature, fossil-fuel-powered smelters used to melt rock; every step of the process of mining is a massive source of greenhouse gas emissions.
Crucially, much of the carbon emissions from mining are unavoidable. As should be obvious from each section of this chapter, deforestation cannot be eliminated from the mining process. In situ methods can reduce but not eliminate deforestation, but in situ is only possible for certain minerals and under special geological conditions. As tons and tons of dead vegetation decays or is burned, tons and tons of greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere. Akin to our discussion of desertification in Issue 1, the greenhouse gases from deforestation are no different from the greenhouse gases from a coal power plant: once in the atmosphere, greenhouse gases contribute to climate change no matter their origin.
Unlike in Congo, China, and Myanmar, where data do not exist to estimate the contribution of deforestation to climate change, UC-Berkeley researchers were able to obtain geospatial data for 31 of 66 nickel mining concessions on the central Halmahera in 2023 (nickel mining also occurs in eastern Halmahera, Obi, and Sulawesi). For the 31 mining concessions – fewer than half of the concessions on just part of a single nickel-producing island – 5,331 hectares (20.6 square miles) of tropical rainforest were clear cut to make way for mining operations. This deforestation alone produced 2.04 million metric tons of greenhouse gases, as much as 450,000 gasoline-powered cars emit in an entire year. Again, that represents only 5,331 hectares (3.7%) of the total 142,964 hectares in central Halmahera alone slated to be mined, nor does it include the 5,000 hectares of forest destroyed to make room for the smelting operations.
Beyond Halmahera, Nusantara Atlas estimates that nickel mining has already led to the deforestation of 56,000 hectares throughout Indonesia.
In addition to deforestation, Indonesian nickel mining has destroyed mangroves. Mangroves are forests growing in saltwater on the shoreline capable of storing three to five times as much carbon as terrestrial forests. As with terrestrial forests, when mangroves are destroyed, all the carbon decays and is released into the atmosphere as greenhouse gases. Though researchers were not able to independently confirm, residents reported that 110 hectares of mangroves were wiped out to build a port for the smelting operations, adding to the mounting tally of greenhouse gas emissions of nickel mining in Indonesia.
Further adding to the staggering greenhouse gas emissions, a massive nickel smelting plant was built in central Halmahera. This plant is powered by eleven coal power plants; three more are under construction. At full operation, the smelting plant alone will use more coal than about half of the world’s countries and emit as much greenhouse gases as 6.6 million gasoline-powered cars would in a year. Though Halmahera’s plant is the largest, there are fifty-nine additional smelting plants in Indonesia, all running on coal power.
Even under the best of circumstances, not all of this fossil fuel use can be eliminated. First – as we’ve discussed throughout this issue – we do not have a way to generate high industrial temperatures without fossil fuels, and smelting cannot occur without high temperatures. Likewise, much mining equipment cannot be converted to green energy: electric replacements lack the power of fossil fuel-powered machinery. But even if green energy could replace fossil fuels in mining, where would all the inputs needed to build out green energy capacity, like nickel, come from?
This very clearly exposes our green energy deal with the devil as a lie. The Faustian bargain professed that certain parts of the world had to be sacrificed in order to save us from climate change. But these sacrifices won’t even work; not when the necessary mining and smelting generate as much greenhouse gas emissions as tens of millions of cars. Remember, mining already accounts for 10% of all of humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions, and a full green energy transition would require a large expansion in mining.
The picture is yet grimmer when we consider that Indonesian nickel is very low quality. CRI points out that the US, Canada, and Russia have significant deposits of higher-quality nickel ore that requires substantially less energy to process. This, again, proves that our green energy Faustian bargain was a lie. We don’t need to sacrifice specific areas of the world for green energy: we’re choosing to sacrifice parts of the world where poor people live. It would make more sense to mine higher-quality American, Canadian, or Russian nickel, but no one tolerates a mine if they have any say. As discussed at the beginning of this chapter, the international legal standard for opening a new mine is that all affected communities have given “free, prior, and informed consent.” But no one would ever give informed consent to opening a mine near their home. No one would agree to hand over their home, livelihood, and health in exchange for dangerous, low-paying work that disappears once the mine is exhausted. But if no one will consent to a new mine, mining corporations go to very remote places in rich countries, or poor countries, where authorities will turn a blind eye to (or actively aid in) the opening of a mine without proper consent. By and large, only the world’s poorest will face the direct negative consequences of green energy mining because the rest of us usually have the clout to stop mines before they open.
Rare earths also illustrate this fact well. Remember, rare earths are distributed more or less evenly around the world, but mining had been concentrated first in China, then Myanmar. China had a rare earth mining boom because the government accepted the social and ecological consequences, but as soon as the government stopped doing so, rare earth miners simply moved across the border to Myanmar, where a lack of government control means locals are powerless to stop it. Our Faustian bargain was a lie: we’re not regrettably sacrificing parts of the world that happen to have deposits of critical minerals; we are sacrificing parts of the world where people are unable to stand up to mining corporations.
Fortunately, this is not the entire story. There is a third way that the green energy Faustian bargain is a lie, and once we expose this lie in the next chapter, a way forward will become clear: a plan to successfully phase out fossil fuels, improve our quality of life, and minimize the need for mining.