It was one of the honours of my life to speak about the scramble for critical minerals on the TED Countdown stage 3 years ago. I have been observing a lot of uncoordinated initiatives about how to tackle the conundrums we've stepped into as a result of the energy and digital transitions though. I have also observed that my TED talk has been used in some circumstances in ways that have disserved the complexity of the message I aimed to convey.

So I want to come back on it today. I want to explain how crucial it is to look at all the risks involved in the energy and digital transition, and how these risks need to be understood together if we want to design a transition that indeed does lead to some kind of climate safe and peaceful future. The Ted was articulated around 3 core messages that are woven together. They cannot be understood in isolation from one another.

1. The energy transition demands a recoupling with mining and mineral processing

Decoupling from fossil fuels requires a “recoupling” with mining and mineral processing to enable decarbonisation. While mining isn’t new, the scale of demand for critical minerals today is unprecedented. For the next 15 years, extraction will need to grow massively until circular systems can catch up. Depending on the specific supply chain, we may talking from 6 fold to a 500 fold increase in demand. Even with demand reduction, we remain dependent on mining in the near term.

The extractive component of the energy transition scares a lot of people off. But to be crystal clear: even with demand reduction policies, there is no way around the extractive dependency for the foreseeable decade.

This is really important to reiterate: without mining, there will be no transition out of fossil fuels. And let me be crystal clear yet again: we have to transition out of fossil fuels. What’s at stake in this transition is ensuring that extraction is done in ways that are sensitive to ecological realities and as well as multi-dimensional fragility.

2. A lot of quality mineral deposits are found in all the "wrong" places

They are often found in "fragile" contexts. Fragility is multidimensional – economic, ecological, societal, institutional, political. The interactions between mineral extraction and fragility are multi-faceted. It can mean mining regulation is too weak to ensure responsible practices. It can mean environmental costs are diffuse, leaving societies to bear them alone. It can also mean governance is so structurally fragile that extraction enables elite capture, undermines democracy, fuels violence, and concentrates wealth among the few.

In addition, a lot of deposits are found in contexts that are not just fragile but also climate vulnerable and resource-stressed. The IPCC tells us that where there is structural fragility today, there is less capacity to adapt to climate change tomorrow. If governance structures are not built for societal resilience and resource redistribution, more people will be left behind as climate shocks continue. We need to track mineral extraction ventures in two ways in relation to climate adaptation: the socio-economic and ecological conditions of extraction.          

• On socio-economic conditions of extraction: Responsible mining needs to benefit communities AND society, AND the relationship between state and society. Mining revenues, investments, and contributions need to serve long-term economic gains designed for adaptation – not just diversification. If not, mining will likely contribute to short-term gains and long-term loss, structurally tipping climate-vulnerable countries toward more inequity and less resilience.
• On ecological conditions of extraction: Responsible mining has to be ecology-sensitive to reduce impacts on soil, biodiversity, water, ecological teleconnections. Responsible mining also needs to integrate complex ecological regeneration and operational offsetting at the design phase to avoid irreversible ecological contraction.

And finally, the quality deposits that may represent the future of frontier mining are found in ecologically-critical areas: the Amazon and the Congo Basin, the wet forests of Asia, the cryosphere (Arctic and Antarctica) and the deep seas etc. These ecosystems are fundamental to the fight against climate change. Mining adds pressures to these ecosystems, which are already under severe strains.

We currently lack scientific tools to say where it is safe to mine. We do not have tools to understand precisely if there are places within critical ecosystems that simply cannot stomach any disturbance. Until we have answers, precautionary principles are fundamental. But these principles are now being taken down within a geo-strategic competition that is poised to take us way outside of planetary boundaries.

3. Mineral and metal supply chains are the veins of power rewiring within geo-strategic systems

Much like energy, they are foundational to economic performance, and they are strategic for decarbonisation, digitalisation and defence. The issue is that mineral and metal supply chains are heavily dominated by a handful of actors, revealing strategic vulnerabilities and security dilemmas. To understand, one needs to start from the industrial policies that have led China in particular to dominate.

China has dominated rare earth extraction, and perfected processing for other minerals and metals for decades. China is gradually transforming its industrial hegemony into technological hegemony on climate-related technologies, but also on digital technologies. This has implications for the future of norms.

China's dominance in critical supply chains, along with that of other actors such as Russia, is leading to security dilemmas. Countries that have developed over-dependencies on China and Russia are now frantically looking to diversify their respective supply chain.

Resource scrambling is on the rise with various methods: co-optation of political and economic elites, security extortions, manipulation of information spaces and of activist groups, intentional attacks on the relationship between state and citizens, violence against communities in fragile and unmonitored contexts, military partnerships that include hydro-geological surveying etc. In the process, democracy and open societies lose ground, and authoritarianism and fascism rise structurally.

Powerful new actors such as Big Tech are increasingly playing into the equation of security dilemmas. They compete and as they contribute to scrambling effects, their technologies are now supercharging the security risks associated to resource scrambling and the rise of authoritarianism/fascism.

The stakes of fragmented thinking

Focusing on one of these messages without integrating the others risks harmful narratives and results.

I have seen how some people have focused on point 1 and therefore developed anti-extractive narratives at large, including anti-mining initiatives. Without taking into account points 2 and 3, this may play into the hands of anti-transition actors or actors who care little about responsible mining but want access to minerals and metals.

The focus on no mining – especially in countries with laws and mechanisms for responsible mining – risks an increase in irresponsible mining in fragile contexts and the worsening geo-economic imbalances, thereby reinforcing security dilemmas. It may lead to supply bottlenecks that slow the energy transition, weaken responsible mining actors, and empower geopolitical players using transition supply chains to spread authoritarianism and techno-industrial foundations for fascism.

I have seen how some people focus solely on point 3, at the expense of point 1 and 2. This is particularly present in the narratives coming from the White House under the second Trump Administration. In these circumstances, those who focus on point 3 usually do so to justify mining in any circumstance, no matter the costs. This can lead to normalising egregious forms of power extortion and abuses of norms that helped create an international peace.

If we fail to protect normative foundations that generated international buy-in over the last few decades, it is political power abuse that risks becoming the norm. In this scenario, the march toward authoritarianism and fascism becomes global and structural. Needless to say, this does not equate with a safe, peaceful or just future.

I have seen how some people focus on point 2, at the expense of point 1 and 3, focusing on how to extract economic value and value addition from mineral supply chains, without addressing deep drivers of fragility and vulnerability. A lot of policy discussions on strategic partnerships for minerals tend to fall into that category, trying to diversify access to critical minerals without looking at how to de-risk the contexts in which extraction takes place for citizens and ecosystems. As a result, we're missing a crucial aspect of the conversation: how value addition needs to be accompanied by value commitments regarding accountability, responsibility, open societies, human and ecological security, and democracy.

Now that we're implementing the energy transition, we realize that the transition towards a climate-safe future is not automatically peaceful. It is actually paving the way for geo-political and geo-economic shifts that raise the risks of conflicts and resource scrambling. Those risks can lead to delays and derailments of the energy transition itself.

Without understanding how transition risks play out, how to navigate them, and where they lead humanity if we fail to tackle them, we will lose the battle for a climate safe future. We will equally lose the battle for peace, human security and political systems that are designed for freedom, rule of law, and open societies. And we should not be naive: the battle for peace is not just discursive. Peace is in fact an architecture with a material backing, much like the security architectures that help to create balance of power. Our challenge today is to research how this material backing can exist within planetary boundaries and for new forms of collective goods.

Without a climate safe future, there will be no peace and security for anyone. It is slowly becoming obvious that we must transition peace and security architectures at international and multi-regional levels with and as part of the energy transition.

Personally, I decide daily to be as clear-sighted as possible about the power plays unfolding before us, and which we're part of whether we like it or not. I choose to remain committed to values fundamental to the exercise and enforcement of human and ecological security. I choose to decipher how power dynamics are playing out with the aim to understand how they can be constrained and reined back into planetary boundaries. I choose to work on midwifing the norms, governance structures and multi-country/sector/activist/economic relations and alliances that will create new peace and security architectures in the age of planetary security.

We are going through an era of real, difficult, civilisational and existential dilemmas. Engaging with them is the only way through.

Complexity is not a condemnation; it is an invitation. Choosing to ignore it is the real condemnation.

This text is an edited version of a LinkedIn post by Olivia Lazard. Read the original post here.