Changing Fuels, Maintaining Disputes
Despite being heralded as a breakthrough in the transition to alternative energy, electric vehicles (EVs) retain some of the critical issues plaguing internal combustion engines (ICE) and the fossil fuel industries promoting them. Like their fossil fuel ICE counterparts, the lithium-ion batteries of EVs require several critical minerals and rare earth elements in order to operate.[1] These include the namesake lithium, cobalt, nickel, manganese, and graphite—and extracting them requires intensive mining procedures.
While barren landscapes, enormous pits, and contaminant spillage are generally considered the risks of fracking for natural gas, coal mining, and oil drilling, the same consequences are possible with brine bumping and hard rock lithium extraction. Thus, simply replacing the supply chain from that of fossil fuels to lithium-ion batteries provides no true step forward, especially with regard to extractional impacts. The concerns for human and environmental health remain, perhaps with even greater fortitude.
In turn, these concerns have taken shape in the form of lawsuits against current and proposed future lithium mining projects. Local populations in South America’s “Lithium Triangle,” Northern Ireland, Spain, Finland, and now in the United States have driven these lawsuits, among other forms of organized resistance. With this in mind, the “e-mobility” transition may not be as sustainable as previously thought. Changing fuels is one thing, but changing the devastating impacts of fuel extraction upon socioeconomic and environmental health is another.
Consider the lawsuit filed by Nevada rancher Edward Bartell against the proposed Thacker Pass lithium mining project in northern Nevada[2]. The mine has already undergone a lengthy approval and permit granting process led by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)—culminating in a final authorization back in January. The final go-ahead for Thacker Pass presumably stems, at least in part, from the shared perspectives of BLM District Manager Ester McCullough—who believes the project “will provide a long-term solution for the growing need for lithium while providing economic benefits for the area.”[3]
On the other hand, Bartell contends that these benefits will come at the expense of the area's natural wellbeing. In particular, he cites how large-scale mining will thwart his ability to raise livestock more sustainably while protecting threatened fish and wildlife populations in proximity. Moreover, Bartell Ranch LLC argues that the BLM approved the project based on biased environmental assessments conducted by a prior contractor working with Lithium Nevada, the Reno-based company behind the mine proposal.
Within the lawsuit, Bartell’s specific grievances include the projected depletion of the area’s groundwater table, risks to the federally-protected Lahontan cutthroat trout and threatened greater sage grouse populations, and ultimately the threat of the mine “transforming much of our private lands into barren desert.” And Bartell is not alone in this dispute.
Soon after the BLM approved the Thacker Pass project, activists set up camp at the project’s site—remaining there to this day. Even Bartell’s lawyer, Will Falk, is standing by the on-site protestors. Falk believes that the activism will continue until the protection of mountainside sagebrush can be ensured—implying the project’s abandonment.
That goal, however, may be difficult to reach. Lithium Nevada is readily standing by its project, with CEO Alexi Zawadzki issuing a public statement defending the mine in late February:
This comes after Bartell has charged the company and its consultants with relying on immensely “inaccurate, incomplete, and inadequate data” in their estimation of threats to the regional water resources. Furthermore, the lawsuit alleges that BLM has “ignored the inconsistency of the mine within BLM’s sage grouse plans”—considering that the mine will border one of the largest surviving greater sage grouse populations in Nevada.
Nevertheless, as is the case with other lithium projects facing legal challenges, the odds are stacked against Bartell and co. The $1.3 billion Thacker Pass project is slated to generate 1,000 construction jobs and 300 full-time jobs upon completion, in addition to the projected $75 million in tax revenue for local and state governments over the coming decade. These economic gains, coupled with the potential to meet some of the EV lithium demand with domestic resources, may cause Bartell’s plaintiff to be overlooked in the long run.
This unfortunate reality is a consequence noted in the study: “Extended life cycle assessment reveals spatially-explicit water scarcity footprint of a lithium-ion battery storage” by Anna C. Schomberg et. al. This study sheds light on how some countries and companies will seek to reduce their carbon footprints by catering to the immense lithium demand[4].
To satisfy this demand, these entities will facilitate “problem shifting” upon lithium-producing areas. Among these shifted problems will be water scarcity, which already is of grave importance for lithium-mining locations in Chile and China. Despite the economic rationale behind lithium mining, these trade-offs should be considered before the private and public sectors revamp their push for EVs. For this transition to be truly sustainable, environmental and socioeconomic health concerns can not be forced upon lithium suppliers for the sake of the metal.
Those removed from the day-to-day hazards may be compelled by promises of revenue and employment opportunities, but should their wishes come at the expense of the livelihoods of those in proximity to the mines? Homes, water supplies, and natural habitats all lay directly in the “line of fire.” According to Fidelma O’Kane, Edu Mostazo, and Jari Natunen, who served as guests on the “European Mining Boom: Rhetoric vs. Reality” podcast, the simple answer is: absolutely not.[5]
Despite the European Commission’s heralding of the lithium-ion battery as a reduced-emissions power source and its strong push for European mines to satisfy lithium demand, each of these presenters detailed how adverse these projects are to the plights of those residing in close proximity to the mines. O’Kane, of Northern Ireland’s “Save our Sperrins” campaign, cites risks to the natural beauty of her country due to Canadian company Dalradian’s proposed mine.
O’Kane alleges that there is an enormous discrepancy between Dalradian’s public commitments in terms of environmental regulation and its past operations. And as a result of this conflict, the anti-Dalradian movement has garnered 15 public meetings and over 37,000 written objections. Mostazo (Spain) and Natunen (Finland) acknowledge similar concerns and forms of resistance within their respective nations.
Ultimately, the message is clear—lithium proponents cannot force their will upon suppliers without facing considerable resistance, especially from local populations. This is a major roadblock for the true sustainability of the coming energy transition. Sustainability does not entail actions similar to those of Big Oil and the other fossil fuels industries. Environmental protection policies and offset assurances carry very little weight from industries built off the hazardous extraction of non-renewables. Moreover, sustainability concerns more than aggregate emissions and pollution, which these industries focus on in their operations proposals; it also relates to the distribution of environmental benefits and damages.
Such benefits should not be hogged in certain localities, while the damages are shifted elsewhere. Those in developed nations should not be able to go about business-as-usual just because of their access to electric vehicles and other alternative energies, especially at the expense of those in developing nations who may not have access to such technologies. This reality is made worse by the fact that the developing nations are often preyed upon as sources of raw material for the new energy technologies.
These international equity concerns also exist within national borders. A nation’s ranchers and agricultural sector, among others in the way of mining operations, should not be pushed aside just because their industry may not be in as high of demand. Nor should their land automatically become part of the mining supply chain. For true sustainability; there needs to be a level playing field.
Sacrifices must be made on all sides, rather than simply shifting problems and enabling one industry to benefit at the expense of another. Otherwise, the lawsuits, protests, and other forms of formal resistance will become the norm—impeding the energy transition, but for valid reason.
[1] Department of Energy. “Battery Supply Chain and Critical Minerals Projects Could Be Eligible for LPO Debt Capital.”
[2] Press, Scott Sonner Associated. “Nevada Rancher Sues to Block Lithium Mine near Oregon Line.”
[3] Ester McCullough, BLM District Manager, as reported in “Nevada Rancher Sues to Block Lithium Mine near Oregon Line.”
[4] Schomberg, Anna C., Stefan Bringezu, and Martina Flörke. “Extended Life Cycle Assessment Reveals the Spatially-Explicit Water Scarcity Footprint of a Lithium-Ion Battery Storage.”
[5] YLNM. The European Mining Boom: Rhetoric vs Reality