Can we avert climate catastrophe without unleashing a tsunami of human-rights abuses? Policymakers, investors, CEOs and the boards of mining firms should be seeking — and delivering — positive answers to that question. Instead, the failure to engage with human-rights concerns could derail our faltering journey to a low-carbon world.
At COP26 in Glasgow, Scotland, in November last year, governments and much of the investment community reaffirmed their commitment to the 2015 Paris Agreement. Breaching that accord’s global-warming threshold of 1.5°C above preindustrial levels would expose current and future generations to the deadly effects of climate breakdown. To avoid a collision with Earth’s ecological boundaries, we need a warp-speed acceleration in the transition to a pathway of zero greenhouse gas emissions, starting with halving carbon dioxide emissions this decade.
Achieving that target will require a quantum leap in investments to secure sufficient supplies of so-called “transition minerals.” Clean-energy technologies such as solar plants, wind farms and electric vehicles are mineral-intensive. Motors and turbines need nickel, chromium, manganese and rare earth metals. New electricity networks require vast quantities of copper wire. Electric-vehicle batteries need lithium and nickel.
The International Energy Agency estimates that reaching net zero emissions by the middle of the century will require a six-fold increase in mineral inputs, and a 40-fold increase in lithium supply.
Policymakers and investors have slowly woken up to the fact that shortages of transition minerals pose a real and present danger to global climate goals. With demand outstripping supply, prices are surging. Mining companies are desperately seeking new sources of minerals — witness Rio Tinto’s acquisition of a lithium project in Argentina, BHP’s investments in Ecuadorean copper and Tanzanian nickel projects, and Glencore’s investments in African copper and cobalt.
BlackRock CEO Larry Fink anticipates an investment boom in transition minerals that “is going to be large and … going to be multiple years of investing.”
This situation contains an opportunity and a threat. The opportunity is for governments, investors, mining companies and civic groups to cooperate in developing new investment models aimed at supplying a renewable-energy revolution, while building shared prosperity, public trust and bolstered governance. The threat is that we fail to protect the human rights of vulnerable communities in the transition-minerals boom, with an investment surge instead fueling the destruction of livelihoods, environmental damage, and a global wave of land and water grabs by multinational companies.
Anyone doubting the scale of that threat should consult the Transition Minerals Tracker compiled by the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre. The tracker documents 61 credible new allegations of human-rights abuses in the previous year, including the erosion of land rights, toxic pollution, the diversion of scarce water resources, and attacks on local communities and human-rights defenders. Companies featuring prominently in the charge sheets of the tracker database include Glencore, Anglo American, China Minmetals and Rio Tinto.
I was quite shocked to see that corporations embracing the green economy were committing human-rights abuses, but perhaps none of this should come as a surprise, given that deposits of many transition minerals are concentrated in countries with notoriously poor governance.
In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the world’s largest source of cobalt and a major supplier of copper, mining is associated with child labor, corruption and widespread violence. Indonesia, the world’s top nickel producer, has a weak record on protecting communities from mining pollution. Lithium extraction in Argentina, Chile and Bolivia has pitted local communities seeking to defend scarce desert water resources against mining companies that use water-intensive extraction methods and ride roughshod over land rights.
As a former UN high commissioner for human rights, I am well aware of the challenges facing mining firms and the wider investment community. Extracting minerals while protecting the environment and respecting human rights is an inherently difficult balancing act, not least when governments fail to act on their responsibilities.
Environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing is not filling the void. Ubiquitous greenwashing aside, attention has focused almost entirely on decarbonization and the “E” of the acronym. Social criteria — including human rights — have been ignored, exposing communities to the threat of systemic rights violations, and investors to reputational risks.
Human rights should be put at the center of ESG investment. The Investor Alliance for Human Rights, a group of more than 200 firms representing more than US$10 trillion in assets, has called for enhanced regulatory measures, including mandatory human-rights and environmental due diligence consistent with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The European Commission’s proposed directive on corporate sustainability due diligence, which would impose obligations — with potential penalties — on companies to monitor their value chains, promises to spur movement in the right direction.
Mining companies and transition-minerals investors should be at the forefront of efforts to bolster human-rights protection. Board members of mining companies should ensure that the companies’ corporate cultures and practices reflect the human-rights principles that most of them claim to endorse. These include deep engagement with affected communities and respect for their prior informed consent, due diligence in reporting on supply chains and access to remedies when harm occurs.
Ahead of the COP27 climate summit in Egypt this November, I will be calling on governments, mining companies, investors, financial regulators and civic groups to agree on a shared agenda for a low-carbon transition that is fast and fair. While increased supplies of transition minerals can greatly accelerate emission-reduction efforts, protecting human rights is an essential condition for climate justice.
Mary Robinson, a former president of Ireland and former UN high commissioner for human rights, is chairwoman of The Elders and of the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre’s advisory board.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Prior to marrying a Taiwanese and moving to Taiwan, a Chinese woman, surnamed Zhang (張), used her elder sister’s identity to deceive Chinese officials and obtain a resident identity card in China. After marrying a Taiwanese, surnamed Chen (陳) and applying to move to Taiwan, Zhang continued to impersonate her sister to obtain a Republic of China ID card. She used the false identity in Taiwan for 18 years. However, a judge ruled that her case does not constitute forgery and acquitted her. Does this mean that — as long as a sibling agrees — people can impersonate others to alter, forge
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS