The concept of “critical minerals” is everywhere today. It’s a buzzword broadly used to describe minerals that may be needed for the electrification of transportation, for the production of batteries, for technologies such as smartphones, but also for military purposes — that are at risk of supply chain disruption.
The term evokes a raft of feelings, urgency, nationalism, and greed among them. How and where to best mine these resources has been at the centre of this conversation, yet the biggest question of all — is this really inevitable? — is being ignored in the rush to capitalize on the hype of a new mining boom.
This is why we released the report Critical Minerals: A Critical Look — to expand the conversation and ensure we’re looking at reducing consumption and incorporating other alternatives into our transition plan (such as recycling and re-mining, the latter being basically processing the extractive waste from existing or former mines).
While the federal government has released its Critical Minerals Strategy, the province of B.C. has committed $6 million toward developing one. Countries vary in their transparency of what’s listed as critical.
Critical minerals have been the subject of intensive lobbying by the mining industry with more than 200 federal lobbyists registered with critical minerals as part of their portfolio.
Despite intensive lobbying south of the border too, the U.S. does not consider copper to be a critical mineral while Canada does, which leaves us guessing about the criteria used to determine what’s on or off the list.
More than 60 per cent of mining in British Columbia is for coal and gold, neither of which is considered a critical mineral in Canada, and nearly 30 per cent is copper. While mining companies are touting being part of the energy transition, the majority of what’s mined in B.C. is used for construction, mechanical equipment, the automotive industry, investments and jewelry.
The critical minerals push acknowledges the economic and strategic opportunities for new mining without acknowledging the environmental impacts. The modern world isn’t just unsustainable due to fossil fuels. Replacing every piece of energy infrastructure with a newly built, renewable equivalent and replacing every gas-guzzling SUV with an electric Hummer will not land us in a future that’s much brighter than today.
Rather than simply forging ahead with more extraction, we should ask - how do we reimagine our towns/cities and ways of life to use less? We need to make the energy transition without leading to further environmental degradation, water pollution and social harm.
As B.C. moves forward with its critical mineral strategy, it needs to look beyond mining toward other opportunities.
What policies and programs are needed to support re-mining, recycling and urban mining? Can re-mining help to reclaim or close some of the abandoned legacy mine sites littered throughout the province? What investments does B.C. need to keep making in transportation alternatives, such as the recent e-bike rebate and investments in active transportation? How can B.C. work with the federal government on ensuring batteries and other technologies are designed with dismantling and recycling in mind?
And for new mines that may open, how are Indigenous rights being respected and free, prior and informed consent achieved in the pursuit of mining critical minerals? What steps are being taken to improve B.C.’s regulatory regime to ensure more responsible mining that minimizes environmental harms and risks?
We can’t just mine our way out of the climate crisis. As “critical minerals” gets lodged into our collective psyche, we need to ensure that policymakers do not focus solely on the need for more mines. We need to think more critically and take this opportunity to invest in a more sustainable future.
Nikki Skuce is the Director of the Northern Confluence Initiative based in Smithers, B.C.