Voters Are Concerned About Mining Impacts. Less Mining and More Mobility Can Help.

Data for Progress and Climate and Community Institute's monthly snapshot of the widespread demand and pathways forward for climate action.

Intensifying political chaos and insufficient planning to combat climate and economic crises pose existential challenges. In this newsletter, we offer a monthly snapshot of the widespread demand for climate action and pathways forward.

Less Mining and More Mobility Can Address Voter Concerns About Mining Impacts

The Trump administration has rapidly moved to expand domestic production and command foreign supply chains of so-called “critical minerals.” This class of minerals — deemed by many as essential to the manufacture of clean energy technologies and, by extension, the green transition — includes lithium and silicon, along with 50 other minerals.

While Trump has raised the salience of critical minerals, the current administration’s actions are an extension of decades of U.S. policy, where both Democratic and Republican administrations have termed such minerals as “critical” to facilitate exploitation and neocolonial extraction across the globe since World War II.

While some mining of lithium and other minerals is necessary for a green transition, a report from Climate and Community Institute highlights that we can limit just how much of these minerals we need by investing in public transit, and thus reduce the negative impacts of mining. Large-scale mining often entails significant social and environmental harm, in many cases irreversibly damaging landscapes without the consent of affected communities.

In fact, new polling from Data for Progress finds that voters are most concerned about the environmental (24%) and public health impacts (15%) of a new critical mineral mine, like a lithium mine.

CCI’s report shows that there is a way to address public concerns about environmental impacts — by decarbonizing the transportation sector. The research models multiple pathways to reducing lithium mining in the U.S., showing that less mining could actually lead to a more mobile future. Instead of simply electrifying the car-dependent status quo, we could invest in increased mass transit, better cycling and walking infrastructure, and denser cities and suburbs to create more connected communities while reducing private vehicle ownership. Reducing lithium demand would reduce global conflict, while still moving us toward a greener, zero-emissions future.

Critical minerals are indeed essential inputs for a green transition, but such a transition cannot repeat the historical harms of extractive mining practices, which have impoverished and polluted communities and the environment in the name of national defense. With careful planning, cooperation, and systems thinking, we can reframe critical minerals policy by prioritizing mass mobility over more mining, international cooperation instead of neocolonial extraction, and a stable climate for all, not just a wealthy few.