Green sacrifice zones: The places ruined by the energy transition

If we want to prevent the worst effects of the climate crisis, we’ll need to abandon fossil fuels and move towards renewable energy as quickly as possible.

But to power that transition, we’ll also need unprecedented amounts of minerals – especially as global energy demand soars, mainly driven by economic growth in the Global South.

This means demand for critical transition minerals like lithium, nickel and cobalt is projected to rise by more than 15 times by 2050. There are currently at least 110 new mining projects worldwide working to meet this growing demand. 

However, this mining comes with its own problems. Globally, mining operations have been accompanied by air and water pollution, forced displacement and irreversible damage to natural and cultural landscapes.

In some countries, attempts to fast-track mining projects are being met with strong citizen opposition, raising important ethical questions around ‘green sacrifice zones’ – areas that are facing the worst negative impacts of the green transition.

So, are these local complaints a matter of environmental justice, or merely a nimby movement standing in the way of climate action? 

And, more importantly, how can we minimize these impacts and ensure a just transition that doesn’t shift the burden of decarbonization onto vulnerable communities?

From the Cold War to the green transition

To understand the concept of green sacrifice zones, we need to start by defining sacrifice zones.

“Sacrifice zones are places that, to their extractors, somehow don’t count and therefore can be poisoned, drained or otherwise destroyed for the purpose of greater economic progress,” wrote Canadian writer and activist Naomi Klein in This Changes Everything.

The term ‘sacrifice zones’ was originally used to describe areas that were severely polluted by the mining and processing of uranium for nuclear weapons during the Cold War. In time, it would be broadened to label places where people lived next to heavily polluted industries or military bases, such as Cancer Alley in the U.S. state of Louisiana.

In these areas, low-income, marginalized or Indigenous communities and territories are left to shoulder most of the impacts of polluting activities. 

Now, in the context of the energy transition, the term ‘green sacrifice zones’ refers to the destruction of ecosystems and communities to decarbonize the global economy.

Mining is a notable source of damage, but it’s only the first link in the global supply chain. Other environmental, health and social impacts can come from the refining and transportation of minerals, the installation and operation of solar and wind farms, and the management of waste such as batteries from electric vehicles.

New green sacrifice zones are likely to emerge as the green transition progresses, experts and activists warn, particularly in places with weak governance and regulatory oversight.

Rich lands, poor communities

Cobalt is an increasingly sought-after mineral used in lithium-ion batteries, such as those found in computers, mobile phones and electric cars.

Nearly half of the world’s cobalt reserves are located in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), where its extraction has created one of the most polluted areas on the planet: the so-called Copperbelt, which spans the southern DRC and northern Zambia.

In this region, mining has led to widespread health problems, abusive working conditions, extensive child labor, conflict over the control of resources, and rampant sexual violence.

Another mineral often found in batteries is nickel. In Indonesia, nickel mining and smelting has led to land rights violations, pollution, deforestation and mining-related disasters like landslides and flash floods, undermining the livelihoods of communities that depend on activities like agriculture and fishing.

In South America, more than half of the world’s lithium reserves are found in salt flats in Argentina, Bolivia and Chile – an area known as the lithium triangle. This region is also facing challenges linked to mineral extraction, particularly water shortages in what is already one of the most arid parts of the world.

The mining industry often obtains permission to operate by promising communities with the provision of basic services and employment opportunities, say researchers Christos Zografos and Paul Robbins in a commentary in One Earth.

“Mining companies already justify the adverse effects of their operations upon local communities (such as endangering vital ecosystems and water supplies) by claiming that their products are ‘essential to the transition to a low-carbon economy,’” they write.

By creating sacrifice zones, the green transition could end up perpetuating a form of “climate colonialism” that harms those already most vulnerable to the effects of the climate crisis, Zografos and Robbins point out.

Europe’s mineral gambit

As one of the world’s top consumers of critical minerals, the European Union is looking to reduce its dependency on imports and develop its own sources of minerals to power its European Green Deal. 

The EU has set a goal of domestically sourcing 10 percent of raw critical materials by 2030. This means projects that are deemed strategically important could be fast-tracked and receive greater access to finance.

In northern Portugal, for instance, a London-registered company is looking to obtain land for what could become the largest open-pit lithium mining site in Europe.

But new mining projects are facing resistance across the continent. Environmentalists and locals are demonstrating, refusing to sell their lands and putting up legal challenges.

Finland is the EU’s largest producer of nickel and one of only two member states producing it. Mining is currently responsible for more than 70 percent of the country’s waste and poses a serious threat to waterways, according to a report by the European Environmental Bureau (EEB).

Last July, the EU signed a deal with Serbia to gain access to one of Europe’s largest deposits of lithium, which is set to be mined by Rio Tinto in the Jadar Valley. 

That came a week after Serbia lifted a ban on lithium mining that had been imposed in 2022 following widespread protests, and it was again followed by mass demonstrations in Belgrade.

“The only way forward is for the Jadar project to be abandoned, as water, soils, biodiversity and culturally significant sites are hanging in the balance,” says Bojana Novakovic, coordinator of Marš sa Drine, a network of activists, experts and locals opposed to lithium and borate mining in Serbia.

Climate justice or nimbyism?

While the impacts of mining in the Global South tend to be framed as neocolonial and a climate injustice, opposition in the Global North is often dismissed as ‘nimbyism’ – an acronym for ‘not in my backyard.’ The reality is a bit more nuanced.

Dayna Nadine Scott, a professor at York University in Canada, believes the green transition should be subjected to the same scrutiny as fossil fuel extractivism – including examining how impacts are distributed across gender, class and ethnicity. 

This is particularly important when authorities remove the safeguards and democratic controls that have become standard with more conventional energy projects, like community consultation and environmental assessments.

“When those protections are removed, as in the ‘fast-tracking’ trend we are witnessing in relation to critical minerals, affected residents get the sense that they are bearing all of the risks and reaping few of the rewards, and that lays the ground for an environmental justice struggle,” she explains.

For Scott, green sacrifice zones are not inevitable. If we truly need critical minerals to avoid climate collapse, we can find a way to equitably and ethically extract those minerals, she argues.

“People on the ground do not necessarily react to extraction, but to extractivism – a way of relating to lands and resources in which a high pace and scale of ‘taking’ generates benefits for distant capital without generating benefits for local people.

“We need to break out of that system.”

From green sacrifice zones to a just transition

Even with the best available technologies, the large-scale mining and processing of critical minerals like lithium and copper is inevitably highly polluting.

Rare earth elements, meanwhile, are spread out in trace amounts across the Earth’s crust and cannot be obtained without releasing toxic chemicals into the environment. An estimated 2,000 tonnes of toxic waste are produced for every tonne of rare earth extracted.

While these impacts can be minimized by using the most advanced technologies and remediating damage using the most efficient methods, that is only a start.

For Saksham Nijhawan, energy transition lead at Forum for the Future, regulators, investors and consumers are increasingly scrutinizing value chains and rewarding companies that embrace social and environmental responsibility across their operations.

“We need to ensure that critical minerals for clean energy champion just transition principles, along with building more circular value chains for clean energy right from the get-go so that demand for virgin minerals can be reduced,” he says.

The EEB authors argue that large consumers of critical minerals like the EU should focus on embracing demand-side solutions to reduce the need for raw materials – and hence for mining.

This includes phasing out single-use products and adopting a circular economy approach, as well as promoting cycling, walking cities and public transportation.

But to truly put an end to green sacrifice zones, they believe fundamental systemic changes will be needed to drastically reduce our material use – including degrowth.

“Our economic system blurs the line between societal needs and desires, operating under the assumption that increased material consumption equates to societal benefit,” they write.

“These models essentially generate the belief that it becomes acceptable to destroy the planet to save the planet. A greater contradiction can hardly be found.”