Climate change is devastating mining of minerals needed to fight it
Article Date: 2025 (source article)
Article URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-03560-0
Article Image: Image link
Summary
The rush to mine “critical metals” — copper, lithium, nickel and others vital to the green-energy transition — must increase substantially by mid-century. But climate change itself is undermining that prospect. Extreme heat, wildfires, heavy rainfall, floods and droughts are already disrupting operations in major mining regions (Canada, Australia, Chile, Africa, Andes, Asia-Pacific). Economic losses are mounting: for example, excessive rainfall cost Australian copper mines about Aus$3 billion over the past decade and could cost Aus$7.5 billion by 2050 under business-as-usual.
The article analyses climate projections for 1,642 medium- and large-scale mines and finds that most sites will face greater heat stress and heavier one-day precipitation by 2050. The authors argue mining companies, governments and researchers must plug data gaps, address known risks, embed climate risk assessments across mine lifecycles and invest in adaptation to secure supply chains for the energy transition. Notable adaptation examples include Escondida’s US$3.4 billion desalination investment to secure water in Chile’s Atacama.
Key Points
- Demand for critical minerals must rise 2–5× by 2050 to meet green-energy goals, but supply is threatened by climate change.
- Extreme weather already halts and damages operations: wildfires, floods, droughts and heatwaves affected mines in 2023.
- Australian copper mines lost ~Aus$3 billion in the last decade from excessive rainfall; projected losses could reach Aus$7.5 billion by 2050 without adaptation.
- By 2050, 90% of examined mining sites are expected to face rising temperatures; many will see far more days above 35 °C, increasing heat-risk to workers and operations.
- Almost all sites (94%) are projected to have greater one-day maximum precipitation, raising flood risk — with specific exposures (e.g. vanadium in China, manganese in South Africa).
- Four strategic responses: fill global data gaps, fund adaptation against known risks, embed climate-risk assessments across mine lifecycles, and integrate scientists, communities and governance into planning.
- Adaptation is feasible and already costly investments exist (e.g. desalination at Escondida), but broader funding and data-sharing are required to protect the energy transition.
Context and Relevance
Securing supplies of critical minerals is central to decarbonisation — from EV batteries to grid storage. If mining is repeatedly disrupted by climate hazards, rollout of low-carbon technologies will slow, costs will rise and social strains in mining regions will worsen. The piece links climate science, economics and governance and calls for coordinated, well-funded adaptation across industry and policy. It also points out equity issues: many vulnerable regions lack the data and forecasting capacity needed to prepare.
Why should I read this?
Short version: if you care about the energy transition, supply chains or climate policy, this is a must-read. It shows the inconvenient truth — the metals we need to fight climate change are being put at risk by the very same warming. The article saves you time by pulling together evidence, projections and practical adaptation steps so you can see where action (and investment) is most needed.