Mapping Conflicts Related to ‘Green’ Extraction in the Americas

In a recent publication we examined a mapping process that was co-produced by researchers from the Global Atlas of Environmental Justice (EJAtlas), Mining Watch Canada, affected communities and social organizations, to document how the extraction of metals and minerals deemed critical for green growth and the associated energy and digital transition is expanding and generating impacts and resistance in the Americas. The paper examines some of the mechanisms and discourses shaping the politics of the expansion of “green” extraction frontiers and explores how such processes are bringing tension to both globalization and de-globalization (“onshoring” or “reshoring”) dynamics.

We documented 25 large-scale mining conflicts related to lithium, copper and graphite extraction in Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Peru, Ecuador, Panama, Mexico, the US and Canada: nine countries spanning the Americas. More than 30 organizations and a dozen researchers contributed to that collaborative effort. Participants brought different knowledge, experiences and skills to co-produce the case stories and develop a featured map within the Global Atlas of Environmental Justice.

Location of the resistance movements documented

An extractivist transition

In 2020, the World Bank estimated that over the next 30 years, it would be necessary to extract 3 billion tons of minerals and metals to drive the global energy transition and avoid a rise in global temperature of over 2°C. The demand for metals and minerals such as copper, graphite, nickel, zinc, chromium, manganese, lithium, cobalt or rare earths is currently booming in order to supply the development of technologies and infrastructures such as power grids, electric vehicles, solar and wind energies, batteries, etc. Hegemonic energy and digital transition scenarios are marked by the urgency to extract an unprecedented volume of highly diverse metals and minerals.

The urgency exhibited by governments and private-sector actors to secure a wide range of metals and minerals as well as their supply chains is accelerating the continuous expansion of extraction frontiers, exacerbating extractive pressures and fueling resistance in the Global South as well as fostering extraction conflicts in industrialized economies. Extractive tensions are particularly relevant in the Americas: continents that contain, as documented by the US Geological Survey, a significant share of known global reserves of copper, lithium, rare earths, nickel and graphite. Together, these two continents already extract large shares of copper and lithium, among other materials deemed critical. For some decades now, Latin America has been the destination of about a third of worldwide mining investments.

The Decarbonization Consensus

It is the mainstream global energy transition pathways leading to decarbonization and energy security that are driving this new global commodities boom. Breno Bringel and Maristella Svampa propose the concept of “decarbonization consensus” to frame the emerging capitalist agreement to transition from fossil fuels to a reduced carbon emission economy based on lower-carbon technologies. The consensus, they argue, is based on the discourse that in order to address global warming and the climate crisis, a transition based on the electrification of production and consumption together with digitalization is needed. Nevertheless, instead of addressing the climate and socio-ecological crisis, this consensus seems to contribute to it, increasing socio-ecological inequalities, fueling the exploitation of common resources and perpetuating the commodification of nature. In fact, as pointed out by different activists and scholars (such as Lang, Hamouchène, Sandwell, Bringel and Svampa), this process is exacerbating energy colonialism and opening a new phase of environmental dispossession in the Global South.

The concept of “green extractivism” was proposed to frame the paradox whereby an environmentally destructive form of extraction and accumulation loaded with colonial legacies is promoted as the solution to the ecological and climate crisis (see Voskoboynik and Andreucci, or Zografos and Robins). There is increasing evidence of the impacts of extractive activities related to the energy and digital transition on Indigenous Peoples and their territories, biodiversity and deforestation risks, and human rights violations worldwide.

Shifting geopolitics and (de)globalization

When considering the current expansion of “green” extractive frontiers – to supply green growth agendas and their transitions – interrelated processes can be seen to converge. The COVID-19 pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine have led to increased concerns about the need to secure control over supply chains for critical materials and energy provision. Moreover, COVID-19 has also contributed to a serious recession and public debt, in particular in the Global South, where extractivist policies have been reinforced. In fact, social organizations have denounced the fact that COVID-19 was instrumentalized by governments and companies to advance extractive activities, putting the health of communities at risk and accelerating the approval of contested projects without adequate participation or consultation and without the possibility of effective public protest.

Different assessments of dependencies and vulnerabilities regarding critical materials and supply chains conducted by the European Union, Canada and the US point to the challenges of an unprecedented increase in the demand for metals and minerals, as well as global competition to secure the same pool of resources. Such assessments also signal the heavy dependence on third countries to access certain materials (China, in particular). Different domestic and international strategies are being fostered to secure the supply chains of critical materials. Moreover, governments and international institutions highlight that mines are not being developed fast enough to respond to the unprecedented increase in the forecast demand for critical materials; as a response, fast-track permitting and review processes are being promoted.

With the aim of securing critical supply chains, a series of international instruments are being developed by different countries. Unprecedented amounts in critical metal and mineral mining are being invested worldwide, including in Latin America, under China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). EU international instruments include strategic partnerships concerning raw materials, free trade agreements with special energy and raw materials chapters, or the Global Gateway. Such agreements are currently being developed with Chile, Argentina, Mexico and Canada, among other countries.

In these ways, countries are competing to control a broad range of materials to respond to supply chain vulnerabilities, geopolitical tensions, and energy and economic security aspirations, including military goals. This competition is leading to increased protectionism and resource nationalism. Moreover, the urgency to secure supply chains is accelerating the expansion of extraction (and processing) activities at both old and new sites, outside and inside industrialized economies. Mining is being revived in countries that had displaced these activities. However, the associated impacts and resistance are exacerbating tensions on both globalization (e.g., increasing supply chain disruption and contention) and deglobalization (onshoring) dynamics, thus highlighting the limits to current growth and consumption trends, as well as the potential limits of a new phase of globalization.

Mapping the discourses and mechanisms of “green” extraction frontier expansion

The mapping process we are concerned with here documented some of the mechanisms that are shaping the expansion of “green” extractive frontiers. In the cases considered, governments, development institutions and corporations refer to the pursuit of critical material extraction projects as positive and urgent local, national (development, green transition or security) and global (climate and human salvation, mitigation or sustainability) goals. Such discourses also frame resistance to mining as selfish, irresponsible or ignorant.

However, counter-discourses also confront and subvert mainstream discourses, challenging unequal power relations and socio-environmental injustices. Socio-environmental movements and Indigenous communities claim that their territories are being turned into sacrifice zones, increasing social and health vulnerabilities and impacts on sensitive and poorly known ecosystems, water sources and cultural heritage sites. While criminalization and violence against local protestors is recurrent in the Global South, allegations of inadequate and poor decision-making and participatory procedures occur across the Americas. In Canada and the US, fast-tracked permitting processes foster unrest.

While it is not a representative sample, 20 of the 25 mining conflicts mapped affect Indigenous Peoples. This includes four of the six cases documented in Canada and the US, which are mostly new projects. Indigenous Peoples denounce the colonial patterns that are shaping the expansion of “green” extraction frontiers, sacrificing bodies and territories while putting the natural and cultural heritage of humanity at risk, instead of saving it.

Many documented cases illustrate an expansion of extractive frontiers and socio-ecological tensions across the Americas. Numerous territories, already subjected to prolonged and intense socio-environmental pressures, are experiencing an intensification of impacts and conflicts, deepening the unjust distribution of burdens. In Andalgalá (Argentina), the Algarrobo Assembly opposes the development of the Agua Rica and La Alumbrera (MARA) copper and molybdenum project. Communities are primarily concerned about impacts on water sources and glacial and periglacial environments. These concerns stem from negative experiences with the Alumbrera mine, which operated for twenty years, causing environmental degradation, water contamination and the reduction of agricultural lands. The Alumbrera project aims to process resources from Agua Rica, located 35 kilometers away. However, the region already faces critical water shortages, leading to repeated declarations of water, environmental and agricultural emergencies. The Algarrobo Assembly denounces that the company would consume 300 million liters of water per day: over six times the amount used by the 12,600 local inhabitants. The twenty-year-old resistance movement has faced violence and criminalization. In Canada, communities opposing the North American Lithium (NAL) project cite official evidence of existing impacts and inadequate hydrogeological studies. In Chumbivilcas (Peru), Indigenous communities report serious environmental and water impacts from La Constancia copper mine. Similarly, in Chile, groups including Indigenous Peoples denounce La Escondida mine for causing continuous, permanent, cumulative and irreparable damage to the Punta Negra salt flat’s underground aquifer.

Groups resisting lithium extraction argue that environmental assessments and decision-making procedures inadequately account for the cumulative impacts of various mining projects. In Argentina, the Fundación Yuchan developed a map showing multiple lithium brine projects in the Hombre Muerto salt flat. This map aimed to shift the focus from individual projects to a territorial approach, highlighting aggregated pressures on water systems – an aspect they claim is absent in formal assessments. This broader perspective was crucial in obtaining a court ruling to halt new lithium mining licenses in March 2024. Communities argued that despite evidence of ongoing impacts on water availability, where rivers and ecosystems dry up, animals migrate or die, and livelihoods are disrupted, permits for new and expanded lithium mines continued to be granted.

The co-produced mapping that inspired this paper aims to shift analysis away from scalar lenses, examining the local and continental expansion of extraction frontiers, together with local and aggregated impacts, implications and resulting resistance.

Final remarks

Ecological degradation has awakened widespread attention, yet the importance of grassroots social resistance to the expansion of “green” extraction should not be underestimated. Experts argue that as we approach scenarios of critical mineral and metal scarcity, environmental, social and governance factors are likely to pose the primary risk to metal and mineral supply chains in coming decades, surpassing direct reserve depletion. Indeed, while local communities and socio-environmental organizations resist the expansion of extraction frontiers globally, governments and financial institutions increasingly worry about the challenges that socio-environmental impacts and resistance to mining pose to green growth and transition agendas. Conflicts are delaying and halting extractive projects worldwide, leading to significant cost increases, including lost productivity due to delays, that can range from thousands to millions of dollars. Massive social mobilizations have forced the cancelation of mining projects in several countries, including Spain, Serbia, Panama, and Argentina. The political stakes are also high: in 2023, allegations of corruption in lithium mining development in Portugal led to the Prime Minister’s resignation.

Furthermore, while this paper has focused on extraction, tensions are emerging across entire supply chains, including processing, transportation, disposal/recycling and low-carbon energy generation (e.g., solar and wind power) and infrastructure. The unprecedented material extraction and consumption pressures driven by green growth scenarios are pushing “green” extractive frontiers (and supply chains) into uncharted territory. This includes a new scale and acceleration of extraction, uncertainty regarding impacts, and exploration of new frontiers such as deep seas or space, both in the Global South and within industrialized economies. As we have seen, this process is deepening ecological crises and encouraging resistance, curbing expansion in some areas and shaping the politics of “green” extraction expansion. This resistance is creating tension in globalization and reshoring dynamics, highlighting not only the limits of growth and consumption, but also the potential constraints on a new phase of globalization.

Mariana Walter, Institut Barcelona d’Estudis Internacionals (IBEI), Spain and Global Atlas of Environmental Justice (EJAtlas) <marianawalter2002@gmail.com>
Yannick Deniau, Geocomunes, Mexico
Viviana Herrera Vargas, Mining Watch Canada, Canada

* A longer version of this text was published on December 26, 2024, in Critical Sociology.