Is Canada’s critical minerals strategy a green shift or greenwashing?

By Thierry Rodon and Sophie Thériault  

Thierry Rodon is a professor in the political science department at Université Laval. His research focuses on Indigenous policy and mining governance. He leads MinErAL, an international network on mining.

Sophie Thériault is a professor in the Faculty of Law (civil law section) at the University of Ottawa. Her research focuses on Indigenous People's rights and environmental  justice in the context of mining.  This op-ed first appeared here in Policy Options. 

Canada has followed the lead of many countries recently by adopting policies and measures to promote rapid development of its value chain for domestic critical minerals essential in clean energy technology. 

Climate change, geopolitical and economic turmoil are leading governments to emphasize the need to secure a supply of critical minerals, such as lithium, graphite, nickel, cobalt and rare earth elements, to help decarbonize the economy through, for example, solar panels, wind turbines and electric-vehicle batteries.  

The mining industry’s role is being framed as forward-looking and innovative –  even transformative – in the transition from fossil fuels to low-carbon energy sources. 

Governments and industry alike are pushing to rapidly unlock Canada’s critical minerals potential to lead us out of the climate crisis through sustainable and ethical mining practices. 

But the energy transition needs to be delinked from critical minerals and the opening of new mines. Failing to do so entrenches rather than transforms the process of extracting natural resources for consumer use – the traditional pattern at the root of the climate crisis. 

The federal government’s critical minerals strategy states that these materials are indispensable in building sustainable – that is, green energy – economies domestically and globally. 

The strategy also emphasizes the importance of supporting their development to secure supply chains and address climate change for “generations to come.” 

The mining industry is seizing the opportunity to reposition itself as a key player in a green economy. 

A recent edition of The Mining Association of Canada’s magazine suggests that new mines and projects are needed to support widespread “electrification” of the Canadian economy, address the climate crisis and ensure supply in the face of geopolitical conflicts. 

Similar sales pitches are made by mining companies operating in the critical minerals sector. They are portraying the industry as an essential and responsible climate saviour. 

The term “critical” also can be taken in a political sense to refer to the lack of control over the mineral supply chain, which is dominated by China. 

In this context, most provinces and territories are striving to attract international investments to seize economic opportunities created by the energy transition. 

Competition for the critical-minerals market has led governments in Canada and abroad to invest public funds to attract and speed up approval of projects. 

One example is a bilateral Canada-U.S. working group, renewed in May, to accelerate critical-minerals projects for “continental security and (a) clean energy future.” 

Another is the Northvolt Six manufacturing plant in Quebec, where lithium mined in the province will be used to produce sustainable batteries. The facility is to receive $2.7 billion from the federal and Quebec governments and was exempted from public hearings to expedite its approval. 

The primary objective of these investments is to strategically position Canada and its mining industry in the global race for critical minerals. It has little to do with an ecological transition that would look at changing how we produce and consume. 

Impacts of mining activities on Indigenous and remote communities

Some critics suggest that critical minerals narratives amount to little more than mining industry greenwashing or “green extractivism.” What should not be forgotten are the significant and long-lasting ecological, social and cultural impacts of mining activities, especially for Indigenous and remote communities. 

While regions near urban centres in southern Canada are coveted for their potential critical mineral deposits, highly publicized opposition to mining and lack of social acceptance in these settings continues to push the frontier into more remote, largely Indigenous lands. 

Natural Resources Canada points out that 600 Indigenous communities are located within 100 kilometres of a major mineral project. 

Meanwhile, the European Union is securing access to critical minerals through agreements with Canada and Norway, thereby subcontracting mining activities outside the EU, where there is little acceptance, to countries where these activities will disproportionately affect Indigenous communities. 

These communities are already heavily impacted by climate change and industrial development, including hydro projects, forestry and mining. Now they are being expected to shoulder the brunt of the ecological and social risks of extracting critical minerals. 

Our research suggests the rush for critical minerals, while cloaked in imaginings of a sustainable and prosperous future, remains firmly rooted in historical settler-colonial and extractivist dynamics. 

Historically, mining on Indigenous territories has resulted in negative social and environmental consequences with little benefit to local communities. This is not limited to Canada. Similar patterns can be seen internationally. 

Moreover, the techno-fix to climate change promoted by governments and the mining industry may prove to be illusory. Some geologists warn that an energy transition based on mineral resources is not feasible given known resources and reserves.  

They also point to the potentially disastrous environmental impacts of mining in vulnerable ecosystems. 

Promises made in discussions on energy transitions, as well as the focus on critical minerals while investment continues in fossil fuels, ignore better and more just ways to decarbonize the economy. 

Switching the energy source, rather than challenging the prevailing modes of production and consumption, has more to do with market positioning and geopolitics. 

A genuine transformation requires a more in-depth rethinking of society’s relationships with humans and non-humans. Above all, it must avoid shifting the risks and burdens of climate change solutions onto Indigenous and other marginalized communities. 

This is possible only if we move beyond simplistic narratives and techno-based solutions and allow open debate on the complex path to a fair and truly transformative ecological transition. 

R$