There was a lot of buzz beforehand about what President Obama would say and what he should say about climate change in his State of the Union address. In the end, he devoted three minutes of the hour-long speech to it, and much of what he said either touted his accomplishments or emphasized his previous positions. But he expressed forcefully how essential it is to acknowledge what scientists say and act on it.
He began by saying, "No challenge—no challenge—poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change. 2014 was the planet’s warmest year on record. Now, one year doesn’t make a trend, but this does—14 of the 15 warmest years on record have all fallen in the first 15 years of this century."
"I’ve heard some folks try to dodge the evidence by saying they’re not scientists; that we don’t have enough information to act," he continued. "Well, I’m not a scientist either. But you know what—I know a lot of really good scientists at NASA, and NOAA, and at our major universities. The best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are changing the climate, and if we do not act forcefully, we’ll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict and hunger around the globe. The Pentagon says that climate change poses immediate risks to our national security. We should act like it. That’s why, over the past six years, we’ve done more than ever before to combat climate change, from the way we produce energy to the way we use it. "
He then pointed to several things his administration has accomplished so far, emphasizing the historic agreement announced in Beijing in November when China agreed for the first time to cut its greenhouse gas emissions and Obama said that U.S. would double the pace at which it would do so.
"And because the world’s two largest economies came together, other nations are now stepping up and offering hope that, this year, the world will finally reach an agreement to protect the one planet we’ve got," he said, referring to the UN climate summit in Paris in December.
He also threw down the gauntlet to Congress whose leader, Speaker John Boehner, sat behind him unmoved, not reacting to these remarks.
"I will not let this Congress endanger the health of our children by turning back the clock on our efforts," he said. "I am determined to make sure American leadership drives international action."
While a few environmental groups expressed dismay over issues he did not mention, such as fracking, most were very pleased with what they heard.
“When it comes to the climate crisis, the President knows the stakes, and tonight he underscored the urgency of the problem and his commitment to climate action for our children’s future," said Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune. "Under this presidency, clean energy is growing faster than ever and providing more safe, clean, reliable and affordable power to more Americans than ever. But we should not and cannot stop there. We must accelerate the transition from dirty fossil fuels to clean energy as quickly as possible."
Annie Leonard, executive director of Greenpeace, agrees. "People across America want to see President Obama lead on climate change and that means championing wind and solar power. This is how our country will build a healthy, independent, sustainable energy economy.”
“It was inspiring to hear the President of the United States, in this most distinguished of settings, once again make clear that climate change is a national priority," said Environmental Defense Fund president Fred Krupp. "The impacts of climate change threaten all Americans, so it’s vital that we continue to address it. The President’s words tonight are a promising sign that we will.”
Dr. Andrew Steer, president and CEO of the World Resources Institute, praised the president's international leadership.
“President Obama made it clear that he intends to solidify the nation’s leadership on climate change,' he said. "The Obama administration is primed to build on the progress of the past six years and bring countries together around an international climate agreement. With President Obama’s leadership, the U.S. can be a catalyst for an international climate agreement. The president can protect the planet and seal his legacy as a transformative leader in the face of this global challenge.”
Earthjustice president Trip Van Noppen added some words of praise but shared the President's concerns about a Congressional roadblock.
"Tonight in his State of the Union address, President Obama spoke of a better politics in which we appeal to each other’s basic decency instead of our basest fears, and work together to move this country forward," he said. "We urge the leaders in Congress on both sides of the aisle to look beyond political positioning and to focus on the health and prosperity of our communities. If Congress fails us, we urge the President to use all of his executive powers to keep climate policies and environmental safeguards on track."
Noppen also sounded a note of caution on the issue of energy and continuing fossil fuel extraction. "The President also spoke of leading the world in oil and gas production," he said. "Our nation’s waterways and drinking water sources, our treasured public lands and our fragile Arctic require new thinking from the President. Attempting to address climate change while promoting ever more drilling and mining is like trying to win a race by riding the brakes. Boldly promoting clean energy sources and reining in dirty energy sources will reduce the impacts of climate change and help build the economy of the 21st century that the President promises."
There was some expectation that the President might finally make a statement personally that he would veto the Keystone XL pipeline bill, which his spokespeople have suggested he would do. But he referred to it only once—and only obliquely. Addressing the need to invest in infrastructure, he said "21st century businesses need 21st century infrastructure—modern ports, stronger bridges, faster trains and the fastest internet. Democrats and Republicans used to agree on this. So let’s set our sights higher than a single oil pipeline. Let’s pass a bipartisan infrastructure plan that could create more than thirty times as many jobs per year, and make this country stronger for decades to come."
Reading between the lines, May Boeve, executive director of 350.org said, "Tonight’s speech puts wind in the sails of Keystone XL opponents. President Obama laid out a clear case for climate action and hit back hard against those who are sticking their heads in the sand. He said we need to think beyond a single pipeline, and made a strong case for developing sustainable, clean energy sources like wind and solar. The President is clearly beginning to think about his climate legacy, and he understands that it depends on rejecting Keystone XL.”
It appears Boeve's reading is accurate. In a live interview with White House senior advisor Dan Pfeiffer broadcast on WhiteHouse.gov following the speech, Huffington Post's Sam Stein remarked that it sounded as if the president was willing to go along with Keystone XL if it were part of a larger infrastructure package. Pfeiffer said that was not the case and reiterated how the Republicans exaggerated the project's jobs-creation potential, saying, "If you were to listen to Republicans, you’d think it was the Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge rolled into one."
Though made in large part of plastic, glass, ceramics, gold and copper, they also contain critical resources. The gallium used for LEDs and the camera flash, the tantalum in capacitors and indium that powers the display were all pulled from the ground — at a price for nature and people.
"Mining raw materials is always problematic, both with regard to human rights and ecology," said Melanie Müller, raw materials expert of the German think tank SWP. "Their production process is pretty toxic."
The gallium and indium in many phones comes from China or South Korea, the tantalum from the Democratic Republic of Congo or Rwanda. All in, such materials comprise less than ten grams of a phone's weight. But these grams finance an international mining industry that causes radioactive earth dumps, poisoned groundwater and Indigenous population displacement.
Environmental Damage: 'Nature Has Been Overexploited'
The problem is that modern technologies don't work without what are known as critical raw materials. Collectively, solar panels, drones, 3D printers and smartphone contain as many as 30 of these different elements sourced from around the globe. A prime example is lithium from Chile, which is essential in the manufacture of batteries for electric vehicles.
"No one, not even within the industry, would deny that mining lithium causes enormous environmental damage," Müller explained, in reference to the artificial lakes companies create when flushing the metal out of underground brine reservoirs. "The process uses vast amounts of water, so you end up with these huge flooded areas where the lithium settles."
This means of extraction results in the destruction and contamination of the natural water system. Unique plants and animals lose access to groundwater and watering holes. There have also been reports of freshwater becoming salinated due to extensive acidic waste water during lithium mining.
But lithium is not the only raw material that causes damage. Securing just one ton of rare earth elements produces 2,000 tons of toxic waste, and has devastated large regions of China, said Günther Hilpert, head of the Asia Research Division of the German think tank SWP.
He says companies there have adopted a process of spraying acid over the mining areas in order to separate the rare earths from other ores, and that mined areas are often abandoned after excavation.
"They are no longer viable for agricultural use," Hilpert said. "Nature has been overexploited."
China is not the only country with low environmental mining standards and poor resource governance. In Madagascar, for example, a thriving illegal gem and metal mining sector has been linked to rainforest depletion and destruction of natural lemur habitats.
States like Madagascar, Rwanda and the DRC score poorly on the Environmental Performance Index that ranks 180 countries for their effort on factors including conservation, air quality, waste management and emissions. Environmentalists are therefore particularly concerned that these countries are mining highly toxic materials like beryllium, tantalum and cobalt.
But it is not only nature that suffers from the extraction of high-demand critical raw materials.
"It is a dirty, toxic, partly radioactive industry," Hilpert said. "China, for example, has never really cared about human rights when it comes to achieving production targets."
Dirty, Toxic, Radioactive: Working in the Mining Sector
One of the most extreme examples is Baotou, a Chinese city in Inner Mongolia, where rare earth mining poisoned surrounding farms and nearby villages, causing thousands of people to leave the area.
In 2012, The Guardian described a toxic lake created in conjunction with rare earth mining as "a murky expanse of water, in which no fish or algae can survive. The shore is coated with a black crust, so thick you can walk on it. Into this huge, 10 sq km tailings pond nearby factories discharge water loaded with chemicals used to process the 17 most sought after minerals in the world."
Local residents reported health issues including aching legs, diabetes, osteoporosis and chest problems, The Guardian wrote.
South Africa has also been held up for turning a blind eye to the health impacts of mining.
"The platinum sector in South Africa has been criticized for performing very poorly on human rights — even within the raw materials sector," Müller said.
In 2012, security forces killed 34 miners who had been protesting poor working conditions and low wages at a mine owned by the British company Lonmin. What became known as the "Marikana massacre" triggered several spontaneous strikes across the country's mining sector.
Müller says miners can still face exposure to acid drainage — a frequent byproduct of platinum mining — that can cause chemical burns and severe lung damage. Though this can be prevented by a careful waste system.
Some progress was made in 2016 when the South African government announced plans to make mining companies pay $800 million (€679 million) for recycling acid mine water. But they didn't all comply. In 2020, activists sued Australian-owned mining company Mintails and the government to cover the cost of environmental cleanup.
Another massive issue around mining is water consumption. Since the extraction of critical raw materials is very water intensive, drought prone countries such as South Africa, have witnessed an increase in conflicts over supply.
For years, industry, government and the South African public debated – without a clear agreement – whether companies should get privileged access to water and how much the population may suffer from shortages.
Mining in Brazil: Replacing Nature, People, Land Rights
Beyond the direct health and environmental impact of mining toxic substances, quarrying critical raw materials destroys livelihoods, as developments in Brazil demonstrate.
"Brazil is the major worldwide niobium producer and reserves in [the state of] Minas Gerais would last more than 200 years [at the current rate of demand]," said Juliana Siqueira-Gay, environmental engineer and Ph.D. student at the University of São Paulo.
While the overall number of niobium mining requests is stagnating, the share of claims for Indigenous land has skyrocketed from 3 to 36 percent within one year. If granted, 23 percent of the Amazon forest and the homeland of 222 Indigenous groups could fall victim to deforestation in the name of mining, a study by Siqueira-Gay finds.
In early 2020, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro signed a bill which would allow corporations to develop areas populated by Indigenous communities in the future. The law has not yet entered into force, but "this policy could have long-lasting negative effects on Brazil's socio-biodiversity," said Siqueira-Gay.
One example are the niobium reserves in Seis Lagos, in Brazil's northeast, which could be quarried to build electrolytic capacitors for smartphones.
"They overlap the Balaio Indigenous land and it would cause major impacts in Indigenous communities by clearing forests responsible for providing food, raw materials and regulating the local climate," Siqueira-Gay explained.
She says scientific good practice guidelines offer a blueprint for sustainable mining that adheres to human rights and protects forests. Quarries in South America — and especially Brazil — funded by multilaterial banks like the International Finance Corporation of the World Bank Group have to follow these guidelines, Siqueira-Gay said.
They force companies to develop sustainable water supply, minimize acid exposure and re-vegetate mined surfaces. "First, negative impacts must be avoided, then minimized and at last compensated — not the other way around."
Reposted with permission from DW.