Balancing our resource needs
There can be no net zero without mining more – and faster. Colin Reeves asks, “Where is the next generation of informed Earth scientists in this debate?”
The Rockwood Lithium Mine, Silver Peak, Nevada (© iStock). Colin Reeves questions whether we fully grasp the step-change in extraction volumes required to achieve the green revolution.
While ‘stopping oil now’ may be unrealistic, phasing out the consumption of fossil fuels over the next few decades is an immense challenge for humankind that more and more countries and people are signing up to. I am not convinced that Earth science professionals, let alone the public at large, realise the step-change in the rate of extraction and consumption of minerals and elements that is implicit in this strategy.
The new role of niche minerals and elements such as lithium may be obvious, but wholesale electrification of the world is impossible without vastly increased supplies of copper for transmission lines, not to mention the burgeoning demand for steel, cement, fertiliser and sand etc. that comes with increasing personal wealth and sophistication of lifestyles everywhere. Think better homes, schools, hospitals, infrastructure, and human nutrition and their inevitable raw materials input (Conway, 2024). Much of the world has, as yet, little to recycle.
Prime mover
Many years spent working in Africa, Canada and Australia caused me to realise that the role of ‘prime mover’ in geoscience is typically played by the mineral exploration and exploitation industry. Mining, in short. Are the students of today – and their mentors – aware of this real-life challenge and career opportunity? Declining student enrolment suggests otherwise.
‘At what cost to the environment?’ is, of course, the next question. Fairly or unfairly, mining has long been charged with degrading the environment. While there are examples of wanton destruction in pursuit of profit, there are increasing examples of better practice and remediation in the industry. It is often forgotten that the same charges may be made justifiably against the development of agriculture worldwide. Humankind benefits from both activities.
The commercial mining sector itself appears equivocal about facing the necessary challenge (The Economist, March 2025). Adverse government policies, nimbyism and environmental restrictions only discourage the large upfront investments that will clearly be necessary to produce the resource streams net zero will require ten to twenty years hence. Without intervention, future raw materials will be sourced primarily from poorly governed countries with lax environmental laws. And exploration will be pursued there by the least-scrupulous companies and organisations. Some environmental cost is inevitable if we are to move forward but we should strive to minimise it globally.
Responsible debate
What is missing – and should emerge – is a responsible and intelligent debate over the balance between resource needs and environmental costs at global scale. Turning our backs on the role of Earth science in this debate is not part of a logical approach. It would be most unfortunate if the well-intentioned environmental considerations of today became an obstacle to longer-term sustainability.
Colin Reeves
Professor in Exploration Geophysics (retired and based in The Netherlands)
Further reading
- Conway, E. (2024) Material world. Ebury Publishing, 512 pp.
- The Economist. (2025) Should BHP, Rio Tinto and Vale learn from Chinese rivals? 22 March; economist.com
