David, Goliath and eco-friendly extractivism

At the dawn of an ecological crisis, some of us still hope that a bright future, powered by green energy and governed by the principle of supply and demand, awaits us.

One of the tokens of the green and sustainable economy is the substitution of fossil-fueled, carbon-emitting technology to energy-efficient and low-carbon technology, such as electrical vehicles, solar panels, or winds. Clean technologies constitute a growing market: for instance, electrical vehicles sales alone accounted for nearly 50% of the car sales in Europe (Reuters) and their development is actively supported by the European Union, as an alternative to fossil-fueled mobility. Amid the ecological transition and the resulting shift in demand towards renewable energy, a critical raw material stands out as the sine qua non compound of any low-carbon emitting technology: lithium, mainly mined for battery manufacturing, has seen its demand organically grow with that of green technologies.

However, those promising technological innovations aren’t without consequences: no matter how low carbon-emitting these energy sources are, most of them still require lithium extraction, which is known for being extremely damaging to contiguous lands. Air and water pollution, groundwater contamination, and land degradation are only a few of the impacts of lithium mining. The race for cleaner technology implies that multinational corporations located in core countries recreate present unequal dynamics between core and periphery/semi-periphery countries. Despite the positive shift towards renewable energy, the extraction of lithium poses severe environmental consequences, including air and water pollution, groundwater contamination, and land degradation. This dilemma gives rise to a concerning trend known as "green extractivism."

Green extractivism, a term rooted in the concept of "extractivismo" created by Latin American Indigenous communities, describes the exploitation of raw materials in peripheral countries for the benefit of multinational corporations, perpetuating a cycle of social as well as ecological inequality between core and periphery nations. This pattern is particularly evident in the mining of lithium, where weak environmental regulations in peripheral and semi-peripheral countries enable multinational corporations to engage in ecologically damaging activities.

Local populations, often directly affected by these extractive activities, have become increasingly resistant to the promises of a brighter future associated with green technologies. A compelling example of green extractivism is to be found in the case of Rio Tinto's attempt to take over the "Jadar” project in Western Serbia, a semi-peripheral country rich in lithium resources. This project, whose name stems from the river near which it is established, should have enabled Rio Tinto to exploit a lithium and borate field (both minerals are used in battery and solar panels manufacturing), involving 2,4 billion USD and accounted for respectively 58,000 and 160,000 tons of lithium and borate a year, which would place Rio Tinto as a top-10 global lithium producer.

However, such a venture would have required massive water draws from the river, causing droughts in the summer and water supply shortenings. Moreover, the lithium extraction process itself is, as previously stated, extremely polluting and causes atmospheric, groundwater and land contamination, leaving the affected community without clean water, land and air. In the absence of environmental regulations overseeing extracting activities, this pollution would have been entirely legal and barely considered as a “negative externality”, if it wasn’t for the widespread demonstrations across the country. The local population didn’t buy the promise of regional development and growth prospected by the project and its supporters, which included the Serbian government. Many demonstrations and acts of civil resistance were displayed not only by locals and environmental activists, but by civils across the whole country, who called for Rio Tinto to leave, threatening to launch a referendum in case their claims weren’t respected.

The case of Rio Tinto in Serbia is a textbook example of green extractivism, i.e. an attempt to appropriate value in raw material, moved by the profitability quest of multinational corporations, without any consideration for ecological consequences. The Jadar project, as many others supposedly acting upon green transition, would have destroyed the very same environment it claimed to act in favor of. Moreover, mining activities do not only take place at the expense of the environment but also of the local population, who sometimes doesn’t even benefit from the technological progress the project promises. Although green technology is becoming more affordable to wealthy core countries consumers, the large majority of (semi-)periphery countries consumers have other costs to bear.

Furthermore, green extractivism finds fertile ground in areas with little to no environmental regulations. It relies on legal grey areas and on openness of (semi-) peripheral governments to support environmentally damaging, yet financially interesting projects. After the mass mobilizations that took place in autumn 2021, Serbia’s neoliberal government tried to change the law about expropriations and referendum, harshening the conditions for both these procedures to take place, as a clear attempt to bypass demonstrations. After facing a new wave of protests and decrease in its already shaking popularity, Serbia’s president Aleksandar Vučić and the ruling coalition eventually gave in January 2022 and revoked the license that had been concluded with Rio Tinto, with great dismay. Despite this successful first round, Rio Tintodoesn’t seem eager to retreat from the region, according to its website (especially given the significant amount at stake, namely 2,4 billion USD).

While the citizen withstanding in Serbia has encountered a successful ending so far, it displays the ever-growing contradictions between the requirements for green capitalism and the interest of local population, and the perpetuation of inequality between the core and the periphery. So far, protests and democratic tools such as referendums appeared as a democratic effective tool in Serbia, establishing a fragile truce. However, can such mechanisms be relied upon in regions where authorities resort to coercive means or where extractive activities disproportionately affect marginalized groups like indigenous communities?

In light of these challenges, stakeholders involved in the ecological transition must critically examine the pitfalls of green technology and consider alternative pathways aligned with the principles of climate justice. The short-sightedness of green extractivism becomes evident as it encounters persistent resistance, ultimately hindering the transition to a more sustainable and equitable future.

The present article was originally written in English.