Authors
Galina Angarova, SIRGE Coalition
Yblin Roman Escobar, SIRGE Coalition
Noreen Quadir, SIRGE Coalition
In many Indigenous worldviews, the world is perceived as an interconnected web of life, where the strength of the whole is contingent upon the well-being of its parts, and the health of one part depends on the health of another. This holistic perspective contrasts sharply with the compartmentalization and individualism that characterize many areas of life in the Western world, including science and its applications. As humanity enters a new economic era, driven by technological advancements, global trade, and digital transformation, while facing the real danger of climate and biodiversity collapse, it is important to adopt a nuanced and comprehensive approach to the challenges we face today.
Exploring the intersections among the energy transition, biodiversity, and water is crucial. It helps us shift away from existing rigid narratives and develop holistic and systemic solutions.
Amid climate change efforts, there is an intense focus on staying below the 1.5-degree Celsius threshold that primarily operates on the CO2 emissions data. While fighting climate change is essential, this “carbon tunnel vision” leads to an overemphasis on carbon emissions reduction at the expense of other critical environmental factors and an oversight of other major components of planetary health such as water and biological diversity. For instance, efforts to reduce carbon emissions by promoting biofuel production have paradoxically led to increased deforestation, resulting in significant biodiversity loss (Searchinger et al., 2008). These elements are all interconnected; water cycles help regulate climate patterns, while biodiversity enhances ecosystem resilience and supports carbon sequestration capabilities (Smith et al., 2014; Liu, 2016). Addressing one without considering other elements can result in incomplete solutions and ultimately, a planet no longer habitable for humanity and other species of life. A more integrated approach that acknowledges the interdependence of all aspects of the environment is essential for true planetary health. It is only through adopting holistic environmental policies that integrate water management, biodiversity conservation, and carbon reduction strategies that we can keep the world within the planetary boundaries and transition to truly sustainable outcomes (Rockström et al., 2009; Potočnik and Teixeira, 2021; Richardson et al., 2023).
Yet, in the context of the energy transition, elements like water and biodiversity are often being used or sacrificed to achieve climate goals.
Let’s take water, for instance. Water is life; everything on Mother Earth depends on it, including humans. Water unlocks every seed and sustains life. It is the natural cooling system for our planet. Without healthy rivers, springs, lakes, wetlands, and oceans, the Earth’s temperature cannot be regulated. Over 97 percent of the Earth’s water is found in the oceans as salt water. Two percent is stored as freshwater in glaciers, ice caps, and snowy mountain ranges. And only one percent of the Earth’s water is available for our daily needs. Without water, our climate goals and aspirations would be rendered futile. Studies have shown that water scarcity can significantly undermine efforts to combat climate change by affecting agriculture, energy production, and biodiversity (Gleick et al., 2018).
The energy transition to electric vehicles, wind turbines and other renewable technologies, touted as the ultimate solution to climate change, requires significant amounts of minerals such as lithium, cobalt, nickel, and rare earth elements, all of which are highly water-intensive to extract. For instance, producing one ton of lithium can require about 2 million liters of water, significantly impacting local water availability. Similarly, cobalt mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has led to water pollution due to the discharge of heavy metals into local water bodies. Nickel extraction in Indonesia and the Philippines has resulted in water contamination. Rare earth element mining in China pollutes water sources.
As a matter of fact, current mining practices for lithium involve water-intensive processes, which deplete and pollute waters. Existing lithium mines already overlap with areas of severe water stress. During extraction, water gets used as an input in mining and processing. It is also used as a sink to dump waste and tailings, causing water contamination that harms biodiversity and drinking water for Indigenous communities. An example of excess water usage is the extraction of lithium found in brine deposits. The brine is concentrated to increase the percentage of lithium salts by evaporating large pools under the sun. To produce one metric ton of lithium, two million liters of water from brine must be evaporated. This extraction process also results in piles of waste and toxic chemicals that contaminate local freshwaters and ecosystems. Furthermore, the loss of water to evaporation directly impacts biodiversity and the climate.
The interconnected system involving lithium extraction, extensive water use, and their broader impacts highlights the complexity of the energy transition. Large-scale lithium mining projects, such as Thacker Pass and Silver Peak in Nevada, USA, and the Salar de Atacama in Chile, consume vast quantities of water.
The Thacker Pass lithium mine project in Nevada (despite opposition from the Indigenous Peoples of the area and the lack of free, prior, and informed consent) was pushed forward and once up and running, the operation would use approximately 5,200 acre-feet of water per year from a nearby groundwater well. According to the Climate + Community Project’s report “Achieving Zero Emissions with More Mobility and Less Mining,” this amount is equivalent to the usage of around 15,000 US households. As the report mentions, there are also other ecological impacts of Thacker Pass such as pollution, habitat destruction, and the dumping of 354 million cubic yards of clay tailings waste over its lifespan, which could potentially leak and contaminate soil and water.
In turn, the Silver Peak lithium mine in Nevada has pumped nearly four billion gallons of water from underground every year since 2020, as reported by a water scientist, Nyle Pennington. In California’s lithium valley, planned extraction projects will consume Colorado River water for cooling and processing. According to Energy Source Minerals, it is estimated that operations will consume 3,400 acre-feet of water to produce 19,000 metric tons of lithium hydroxide per year for 30 years. Freshwater consumption by lithium extraction can limit restoration options for the Salton Sea, a terminal lake. Independent experts recommended a voluntary transfer of Colorado River water to the Salton Sea, which would be hindered by excess usage. Additionally, by diverting water from agriculture to lithium production, the shrinking of the sea will accelerate. Water transfers from Imperial Valley to urban areas has caused evaporation that exceeds inflow. The rapid shrinking of the sea is especially harmful to air quality from the exposed dust that’s contaminated by pesticides and fertilizers. This scenario is reminiscent of the environmental disaster at the Aral Sea, where excessive water diversion for agricultural purposes led to its near disappearance, causing severe ecological and health consequences, including loss of biodiversity, increased salinity, and widespread respiratory problems due to toxic dust from the exposed lake bed. We must learn from these past mistakes to prevent similar ecological disasters in the future, ensuring that the transition to renewable energy does not come at the expense of our environment and public health.
In the Salar de Atacama region of Northern Chile, lithium extraction is causing Atacama’s water table in the desert to lose an estimated 1,750-1,950 liters per second more than it receives. The area has already been dried from unsustainable agricultural practices and tree plantations and has been impacted by past copper mining. Despite this and scientists’ warnings that lithium extraction will destroy the region’s ecosystem, the area is still home to around 40% of the world’s lithium supply. The loss of water sources, along with threats from mining companies and Chile’s lack of legal protection, has forced Indigenous Peoples of the area to relocate.
Water depletion in Salar de Atacama is also causing biodiversity loss and harming wildlife. Algae that is dependent on water is diminishing as well, which is leading to the decline of flamingoes that rely on algae as a food source.
Mining activities have direct impacts on biodiversity through habitat destruction, deforestation, and soil degradation. The global demand for transition minerals is projected to increase by up to 500 percent during the next ten years, according to the World Bank. Mining is currently considered to be the second largest driver of deforestation, including indirect impacts such as road building, infrastructure development, and the influx of workers, which further increase its role in deforestation. Moreover, mining may also affect up to one-third of the world’s forest ecosystems, impacting biodiversity and the health of these critical habitats (Bebbington et al., 2013; Sonter et al., 2017; WWF 2020, 2023). Furthermore, 77% of all mines exist within a 50 km radius of key biodiversity areas, contributing to habitat fragmentation and biodiversity loss; this proximity exacerbates the negative impacts on local ecosystems, including substantial forest loss and habitat fragmentation, particularly in biodiverse regions such as the Amazon and Sub-Saharan Africa (Durán et al., 2013; Siqueira-Gay et al., 2020).
In 2020, over 20% of global mines (641 out of 3,146) owned by MSCI ACWI IMI constituents were located in areas known as biodiversity hotspots, areas with exceptionally high levels of species richness and endemism. Deforestation, due to mining, has also significantly contributed to biodiversity loss. Tropical forests have the highest biodiversity and carbon values and are disproportionately vulnerable to mining. According to the World Wildlife Fund, tropical and subtropical rainforests constitute 29% of the world’s mining areas, yet 62% of the total direct deforestation from mining has occurred in these biomes. Furthermore, deforestation contributes to climate change as 10% of global GHG emissions are released from the destruction of forests.
An example of biodiversity loss can be seen with the Ganzizhou Rongda lithium mine in China, where leaked toxic waste was released into the Liqi River, affecting Indigenous Peoples and local communities in Tibet. The toxic waste has killed a massive number of fish, destroyed sacred grassland, and killed hundreds of yak who drink river water. The incident at the Ganzizhou Rongda lithium mine is not unique but rather a typical example of the environmental impact of lithium extraction. Lithium extraction generally involves salt flat brines or ore pit mining, which results in the destruction of vegetation and trees and the removal of soil to clear for land use. This widespread destruction of natural habitats causes 90% of biodiversity loss in mining areas. Plants and organisms are killed during the process of the removal and disturbance of vegetation and trees, while other organisms lose access to the aspects of their habitats that they need to survive. When freshwater is polluted or used in excess, aquatic life is also killed.
Mining activities at Thacker Pass and within the lithium triangle in Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile have far-reaching consequences for local species and ecosystems. Lithium extraction in Thacker Pass threatens to impact three species that are already endangered. These include the Greater sage-grouse, Lahontan cutthroat trout, and a snail species. There are also concerns about the biodiversity in the lithium triangle (Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile), brine pumping for lithium extraction has led to significant water consumption and pollution, causing soil disturbance and threatening local biodiversity, including wetland-dependent species and fragile ecosystems (Liu et al., 2019; Garcés & Álvarez, 2020).
The World Wildlife Fund’s Deforestation and Mining Report shares further key findings, including the fact that 84% of total direct mining-related deforestation (MRD) worldwide takes place in only 10 countries, i.e. Indonesia, Brazil, Peru, Suriname, Ghana, Russia, Australia, United States, Myanmar, and Canada. Except for Canada and Australia, the report notes the overlap of deforestation and Indigenous Peoples’ rights violations. Unfortunately, deforestation and biodiversity loss are overlooked in mineral due diligence practices, supply chain policies, and risk mitigation measures.
Richard Heinberg, Senior Fellow of the Post Carbon Institute, argues that relying solely on technological “fixes” to solve the problem of carbon emissions is insufficient. He emphasizes that carbon emissions are not the sole cause of the climate crisis and advocates for restoring nature, including trees, soil, and biodiversity, as the most effective solution for mitigating climate change. The current process of developing energy technologies creates the same environmental and social risks and impacts as fossil fuels. Conserving existing old-growth forests and planting appropriate trees are practical steps toward restoration. Enhancing soil’s biological diversity with fungi, bacteria, nematodes, and worms supports vegetation and wildlife, maintaining nature’s cooling cycles. Investing in the protection of oceans, which, along with forests and soil, are the largest carbon sinks, and supporting Indigenous-led innovations like kelp production will lead to a significantly greater impact and more sustainable solutions.
This approach aligns with Indigenous Peoples’ worldviews, which see the world as an interconnected web of life. Indigenous Peoples hold the millenia-old Traditional Knowledge of their lands and have the expertise needed to implement these solutions that will benefit everyone. The UN supports this approach by emphasizing the importance of mainstreaming Indigenous Peoples’ traditional knowledge. This approach not only preserves Indigenous Peoples’ heritage but also enhances biodiversity conservation and climate resilience.
For example, the Kayapó Peoples in the Brazilian Amazon have demonstrated the power of traditional knowledge in sustainable forest management. Prior to Kayapó’s intervention, large areas of the Amazon were threatened by deforestation, illegal logging, and mining activities, leading to significant biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation. The Kayapó’s traditional practices, including controlled burns, sustainable harvesting, and the creation of forest reserves, have effectively preserved biodiversity by maintaining ecological balance and preventing deforestation. They utilize an extensive inventory of useful native plants concentrated in resource islands, forest fields, and trailsides, which they manage through long-term transplanting and selection. These practices have resulted in up to 30% higher biodiversity in Indigenous Peoples’ managed areas compared to non-managed ones. Additionally, the Kayapó create forest patches (apêtê) from campo/cerrado areas by using planting zones made from termite and ant nests mixed with mulch, promoting reforestation and enhancing biological diversity (Posey, 1985). These methods have protected vast tracts of forest from further degradation and have contributed to carbon sequestration and climate regulation, proving to be a viable alternative to conventional conservation approaches (Schwartzman & Zimmerman, 2005; Zimmerer, 2015).
However, despite their vital role in maintaining global biodiversity and ecological health, Indigenous Peoples face numerous challenges in protecting their lands and knowledge.
In the context of the energy transition specifically, when over 54% of all transition minerals needed for the energy transition, the history is feared to repeat itself as it has been with other types of development such as oil and gas, hydropower, industrial agriculture, etc. The biggest concern is the lack of respect for Indigenous Peoples’ rights, particularly the right to free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC). This right is often ignored or violated in mining projects, leading to displacement, loss of livelihoods, cultural erosion for Indigenous communities, and Indigenous environmental and human rights defenders being killed. Without proper consultation and especially consent, Indigenous communities are vulnerable to the adverse impacts of industrial activities on their lands and resources. Strengthening FPIC implementation and ensuring genuine participation of Indigenous communities in decision-making processes are essential for protecting their rights and supporting their role in protecting biodiversity, water, global ecosystems, health, and conservation. By ensuring that Indigenous communities have real influence over decisions that affect their lands and resources, we can better address these environmental challenges and human rights issues.
DISCLAIMER:
The views and opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official position of UNSPBF or any United Nations organization. UNSPBF is dedicated to fostering a balanced, impartial, and equitable space to share science-based perspectives to address the planetary crisis and to boost transparency and accountability across sectors.