SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
minerals
Why Does Trump Want to Own Greenland? Good, Old-Fashioned Greed
Greenland and its resources are merely the latest potential casualty of Trump’s quest for global domination and his fear of China’s economic power.
Feb 18, 2025
In early January, Donald Trump Jr.’s private plane landed on a snowy airfield in Greenland. There was little fanfare upon his arrival, but his 14 million social-media fans were certainly tagging along.
“Greenland coming in hot… well, actually really really cold!!!” U.S. President Donald Trump’s eldest son captioned a video he posted on X. It was shot from the cockpit of the plane, where a “Trumpinator” bobblehead (a figurine of his father as the Terminator) rattled on the aircraft’s dashboard as it descended over icy blue seas.
It was a stunt of MAGA proportions. Don Jr. was arriving in Greenland on behalf of his father who, along with his new buddy Elon Musk, had announced a desire to seize that vast Arctic landmass from Denmark through strong will or even, potentially, by force. There’s been plenty of speculation as to why Trump wants to make Greenland, the largest island on this planet, a new territory of the United States. And yes, his inflated ego is undoubtedly part of the reason, but an urge for geopolitical dominance also drives Trump’s ambitions.
Let’s assume that Trump’s fascination with Greenland is unrelated to fossil fuels or military installations. If so, that leaves one other obvious possibility: Greenland’s expansive reservoir of minerals.
His fascination with Greenland can be traced back to his first administration when, in late 2019, he signed the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act establishing the U.S. Space Force. “There are grave threats to our national security,” he said shortly after signing the bill. “American superiority in space is absolutely vital. The Space Force will help us deter aggression and control the ultimate high ground.”
The following year, the U.S. government renamed Greenland’s Thule Air Base, the Department of Defense’s northernmost outpost since 1951, Pituffik Space Base. According to the official United States Space Force Website, the “Top of the World vantage point enables Space Superiority… Pituffik SB supports Missile Warning, Missile Defense, and Space Surveillance missions.” As such, it’s a key military asset for NATO and the United States. Denmark, a founding member of NATO and the country that has long controlled Greenland, had no problem with Trump’s Space Force operation taking root on that island’s soil.
Some have argued that Trump’s obsession is related to the Pituffik Space Base and Greenland’s strategic importance for U.S. power, given its proximity both to Europe and to the melting Arctic. Yet, given that the U.S. Space Force already operates there with NATO’s and Denmark’s blessing, it’s hard to understand why this would be the case.
So, what gives? Do you wonder whether Trump has his sights set on exploiting Greenland’s natural resources? A few small problems there: It has no accessible oil. Tapping its sizable natural gas reserves—mostly parked beneath massive sheets of glacial ice—would be challenging, if not impossible, and certainly not profitable. Even pipelines and other infrastructure would be difficult to build and maintain in its icy climate. Besides, the U.S. already has the world’s fourth–largest natural gas reserves.
Let’s assume that Trump’s fascination with Greenland is unrelated to fossil fuels or military installations. If so, that leaves one other obvious possibility: Greenland’s expansive reservoir of minerals, deposits crucial to making the gadgets we use and producing the green technologies that Trump appears to oppose.
Trump’s Green Energy Paradox
As soon as President Trump took office, his administration began issuing executive orders in hopes of dismantling and disrupting environmental initiatives put in place by the Biden administration. One of its first actions included canceling former President Joe Biden’s electric vehicle mandate, which requested that 50% of all autos sold in the U.S. be electric by 2030 (though it wasn’t binding).
“We will revoke the electric vehicle mandate, saving our auto industry and keeping my sacred pledge to our great American auto workers,” Trump boasted during his inaugural address. “In other words, you’ll be able to buy the car of your choice.”
Of course, from their batteries to their engines, Biden’s push for electric vehicles would require a plethora of critical minerals, ranging from copper to graphite, cobalt to lithium. So, too, would other clean energy projects the Biden administration supported, from home energy storage systems to the deployment of solar panels. Given Donald Trump’s battle over electric vehicles, you might assume he would prefer to keep such minerals in the ground. Yet, like much of Trump’s bombast, his ploy to reverse Biden’s mandate had ulterior motives.
Trump wants to hamper renewables’ growth while increasing the domestic production of those minerals. If that seems incongruous, that’s because it is.
Like Biden’s executive order, Trump’s doesn’t automatically change existing regulations. All emissions policies remain in place, and no rules have been altered that would require congressional approval. In many instances, such executive orders are essentially aspirational. Tax credits for electric vehicles remain active, but the federal government, as under Biden, doesn’t require automakers to sell a certain number of electric cars.
This isn’t to say that Trump doesn’t want to alter such standards. However, doing so would require outfits like the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to propose changes and then provide time for public feedback. Bureaucracy can run slow, so during Trump’s first term, such changes took over two years to implement.
Moreover, despite his war on electric vehicles, Trump has shown no sign of any eagerness to slow the mining of critical minerals on federal lands. In fact, his advisers want to do away with nettlesome environmental reviews that have gotten in the way of such mining. He is going all in, looking to ramp up not just oil, coal, and natural gas production but also uranium and critical minerals. After taking office, one of his first actions was to sign an executive order declaring a “National Energy Emergency,” which specifically called for expanding critical mineral development.
“The energy and critical minerals… identification, leasing, development, production, transportation, refining, and generation capacity of the United States are all far too inadequate to meet our Nation’s needs,” reads the order. “We need a reliable, diversified, and affordable supply of energy to drive our nation’s manufacturing, transportation, agriculture, and defense industries and to sustain the basics of modern life and military preparedness.”
Energy experts disagree. The U.S. is not experiencing an energy emergency and hasn’t for decades. Gas prices are at a three-year low, and the country remains the world’s largest oil producer and natural gas exporter. In reality, Joe Biden’s oil and gas approvals outpaced those in Trump’s first term, even if he also halted some further oil and gas exploration on public lands. After initial excitement from oil and gas companies, insiders admit that Trump’s emergency declaration isn’t going to cause a production ramp-up anytime soon. Those companies are, of course, in it to make money, and overproduction would lead to significant price drops, resulting in lower profits for shareholders and company executives.
If that’s the situation for fossil fuels, when it comes to critical and rare earth minerals, Trump wants to hamper renewables’ growth while increasing the domestic production of those minerals. If that seems incongruous, that’s because it is.
He wants to boost U.S. mining of critical minerals because he knows that China, his archnemesis, is leading the global charge for their acquisition. Trump doesn’t seem to understand that it’s hard to stimulate investment in critical minerals if the future appetite for the technologies they support remains uncertain. As a result of his battle against electric vehicles, manufacturing expectations are already being slashed.
While he may not comprehend how contradictory that is or even care, he certainly understands that the U.S. depends on China for many of the critical minerals it consumes. Around 60% of the metals required for renewable technologies come directly from China or Chinese companies. Trump’s tariffs on China have even worried his buddy (and electric car producer) Elon Musk, who’s been working behind the scenes to block additional tariffs on graphite imports. Chinese graphite, an essential component of the lithium-ion batteries in his Teslas, may face new tariffs of as high as—and no, this is not a misprint—920%. Such pandemonium around imports of critical minerals from China may be the true factor driving Trump’s impetus to steal Greenland from the clutches of Denmark.
Trump and Musk also know critical minerals are big business. In 2022 alone, the top 40 producers brought in $711 billion. Total revenue grew 6.1% between 2022 and 2023, exceeding $2.15 trillion. That number is set to jump to $2.78 trillion by 2027.
Eco-Colonialism
Greenland’s Indigenous Inuit people, the Kalaallit, account for 88% of that island’s population of 56,000. They have endured vicious forms of colonization for centuries. In the 12th century, Norwegians first landed in Greenland and built early colonies that lasted 200 years before they retreated to Iceland. By the 1700s, they returned to take ownership of that vast island, a territory that would be transferred to Denmark in 1814.
In 1953, the Kalaallit were granted Danish citizenship, which involved a process of forced assimilation in which they were removed from their homes and sent to Demark for reeducation. Recently uncovered documents show that, in the 1960s, Danish authorities forcibly inserted intrauterine devices (IUDs) in Kalaallit women, including children, which post-colonial scholars describe as a “silenced genocide.”
In other words, the colonization of Greenland, like that of the United States, was rooted in violence and still thrives today through ongoing systemic oppression. The Kalaallit want out. In 2016, 68% of Greenlanders supported independence from Denmark, and today, 85% oppose Trump’s neocolonial efforts to steal the territory.
Like the billionaires around him, he desires it all—the oil, the gas, and the critical minerals essential for the global energy transition, while China is pushed aside.
“Greenland is ours. We are not for sale and will never be for sale,” said the island’s prime minister, Múte Egede, who leads the democratic socialist Inuit Ataqatigiit party, which won 80% of the votes in the last general election. Even though Greenlanders are Danish citizens, the territory is self-governing.
This brings us back to what this imperialist struggle is all about. The island is loaded with critical minerals, including rare earth minerals, lithium, graphite, copper, nickel, zinc, and other materials used in green technologies. Some estimates suggest that Greenland has 6 million tons of graphite, 106 kilotons of copper, and 235 kilotons of lithium. It holds 25 of the 34 minerals in the European Union’s official list of critical raw materials, all of which exist along its rocky coastline, generally accessible for mining operations. Unsurprisingly, such enormous mineral wealth has made Greenland of interest to China, Russia, and—yep—President Trump, too.
“Greenland is an incredible place, and the people will benefit tremendously if, and when, it becomes part of our Nation,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “We will protect it, and cherish it, from a very vicious outside World. MAKE GREENLAND GREAT AGAIN!”
Right now, in this geopolitical chess game, graphite might be the most valuable of all the precious minerals Greenland has to offer. The Amitsoq graphite project in the Nanortalik region of southern Greenland could be the most significant prize of all. Considered to be pure, the “spherical” graphite deposit at the mine there may prove to be the most profitable one in the world. Right now, GreenRoc Mining, based in London, is trying to fast-track work there, hoping to undercut China’s interest in Greenland’s resources to feed Europe’s green energy boom. The profits from that mine could exceed $2 billion. Currently, spherical graphite is only mined in China and is the graphite of choice for the anodes (a polarized electrical device) crucial to lithium-ion battery production.
“This is Not a Joke”
Despite President Trump’s attempt to put the brakes on EV growth in the U.S., sales are soaring across the planet. In 2024, EV sales rose 40% in China and 25% globally. Such growth comes with obstacles for manufacturers, which will need a steady stream of minerals like graphite to keep the assembly lines moving. It’s estimated that 100 new graphite mines alone will need to come online by 2035 to meet current demand.
Such a reality is, no doubt, well understood by Elon Musk, the co-founder and CEO of Tesla. Musk benefits from his very close relationship with Donald Trump, overseeing the Department of Government Efficiency (which isn’t an actual department but an office inside the White House) and would certainly benefit if the U.S. came to control Greenland.
“If the people of Greenland want to be part of America, which I hope they do, they would be most welcome!” Musk recently wrote on his platform X.
Musk is not the only one with potential interests in Greenland. Trump’s pick for Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, has a financial stake in the territory, though he’s promised to divest. Lutnick’s investment firm, Cantor Fitzgerald, backs Critical Metals Corporation, which is set to start mining in Greenland for rare earth minerals as soon as 2026.
Like Musk, Lutnick will significantly influence Trump’s approach to the island, even if he officially divests. Trump has also dispatched Ken Howery, a billionaire tech investor, co-founder of PayPal, and buddy of Musk, to be the next U.S. ambassador to Denmark. Howery has told friends he’s excited about his post and the possibility of brokering a deal for the U.S. to acquire Greenland.
Marco Rubio, the new secretary of state, insists that Trump isn’t bullshitting when it comes to Greenland. “This is not a joke,” he said. “This is not about acquiring land for the purpose of acquiring land. This is in our national interest and it needs to be solved.”
Greenland and its resources are merely the latest potential casualty of Trump’s quest for global domination and his fear of China’s economic power. His interest in the green energy sector does not signify a change of heart regarding the dangers of climate chaos or the value of renewables but rather a drive for global financial supremacy. Like the billionaires around him, he desires it all—the oil, the gas, and the critical minerals essential for the global energy transition, while China is pushed aside. Regarding the Kalaallits and their aspirations, he could care less.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Cost of War for Women and Girls in the Democratic Republic of Congo
The conflict raging in DRC is largely for the control of the country's important raw materials, with the most vulnerable paying the highest price.
Oct 14, 2024
Decades long conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) has ravaged lives of millions. Nearly six million people have been killed since 1996 and the country has the largest population of internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Africa with 7.1 million people forced from their home or community. North Kivu Province is particularly impacted with almost one million IDPs living in makeshift camps with limited access to essential services like water, shelter, sanitation and food around the capital city of Goma.
Sexual Violence – A Weapon of War
One of the most distinct elements of this conflict is the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war. From 2021 to 2022, there was a 91 percent rise in reports of gender-based violence (GBV) in North Kivu. Between January and March 2024, more than 12,600 cases of sexual violence were recorded. These numbers, however, are only the tip of the iceberg. Many survivors are unable to access life-saving GBV services; and many do not report abuse out of fear of stigmatization by their communities or retaliation by perpetrators. Both Human rights groups to humanitarian relief organizations report that tens of thousands of women and girls have been victims of systemic sexual violence, including rape, sexual slavery, and forced prostitution.
Most cases of sexual violence involve armed combatants and militias with majority of victims being women and girls—some as young as three years old and others as old as 80. These acts have profound and lasting health consequences for the victims, ranging from physical injuries and psychological trauma to the risk of sexually transmitted infections and unintended pregnancies. Unfortunately, 2024 has been marked by an increase in this violence against women and girls in North Kivu. According to a recently released report, We Are Calling for Help, Medecins Sans Frontières (MSF) provided treatment to 25,166 victims and survivors of sexual violence across the country in 2023. Between January and May 2024, it had already treated 17,363 victims and survivors in North Kivu alone – 69 percent of the total number of victims treated in 2023.
Displacement resulting from heavy fighting between the Congolese armed forces (FARDC) and the M23 rebel group has exacerbated the vulnerability of individuals to sexual violence. Victims are often attacked when they venture outside the IDP camps to gather firewood or seek food. The disruption of humanitarian aid due to insecurity has compounded the challenges. Women and girls are being forced to take greater risks to meet critical needs. Food insecurity and the lack of livelihood opportunities have also led to women being forced to resort to harmful coping mechanisms, including prostitution.
Urgent International Response Needed to Protect Women & Children
The situation in North Kivu is an ugly reminder of the human toll of armed conflicts, with the worst price paid by women and children. Despite the horrors unleashed on the most vulnerable, international response has yet to meet the need of the hour.
With 25.4 million people affected, DRC has the highest number of people in need of humanitarian aid in the world and yet remains one of the most underfunded crises. The United Nations $2.6 billion Humanitarian Response Plan to assist 8.7 million people in 2024, is only 16% funded. At the end of 2023, World Food Programme reported the need for $546 million to sustain its emergency response in the region over the next six months, or be forced to sharply cut assistance, provide reduced support to fewer people — and over a shorter time period. The UN Refugee Agency, UNHCR, received only 41% of the required $298.9 million for the emergency situation in DRC. In the absence of sustained humanitarian support, strengthened protection measures for civilian populations, and increased funding for the Humanitarian Response Plan, especially for programs addressing GBV, displaced women are endlessly enduring violence day after day.
A Resource Curse
The conflict raging in DRC is largely for the control of the country's important raw materials—tin, tungsten, coltan and gold, collectively known as 3T or 3TG. Electronic products from cell phones, laptops to the surge in electric cars have boosted the demand and competition for DRC’s mineral wealth. 2018 Nobel Prize winner, Denis Mukwege, a Congolese doctor, condemned the global demand for these minerals for fueling conflict and consequently, rape in his country. In April 2024, lawyers representing the Congolese government notified Apple of concerns about its supply chain, stating “their products are tainted by the blood of the Congolese people.” International community and the multinational corporations who benefit from Congo’s mineral wealth have the primary responsibility to ensure the return of peace in the country.
Two neighboring countries, Rwanda and Uganda, are extensively involved in illegal exploitation of DRC’s mineral resources and the violence that has plagued the eastern region in the past three decades. The Rwanda-backed M23 has intensified its activities in recent years, resulting in the resurgence of widespread violence and massive displacement of people. For years, the United Nations has sounded the alarm over Rwanda’s continued assistance to the M23, putting forward solid evidence of the “direct involvement” of Rwandan Defense Forces in the conflict in eastern Congo-Kinshasa, as well as Rwanda’s provision of “weapons, ammunitions, and uniforms” to the M23 rebels. The United Nations has also implicated Uganda, which has allowed M23 “unhindered” access to its territory during its operations.
Despite this evidence, Western countries, especially the United States, have continued to provide support to the two countries, including military aid. This, despite the legal restrictions that are supposed to prohibit the U.S. from releasing International Military Education & Training (IMET) funds to countries in the African Great Lakes region that “facilitate or otherwise participate in destabilizing activities in a neighboring country, including aiding and abetting armed groups.” It was only in October 2023 that the U.S. State Department placed Rwanda on a blacklist for violating the Child Soldiers Prevention Act (CSPA) due to Rwandan support for M23, which recruits child soldiers. Support to Uganda continues.
Armed groups, competing for control of profitable minerals, will continue to unleash terror and perpetrate violent crimes against humanity until the impunity for the warring parties is brought to an end; Rwanda and Uganda end military support for M23; and the international community, including the United States, suspends military assistance to governments supporting armed groups. If not, the price of war and conflict will continue to be paid by women and children—victims of DRC’s “resource curse.”Keep ReadingShow Less
The Green Energy Revolution's Colonization of Africa
If capitalist interests continue to drive this crucial transition, which is all too likely, while global energy consumption isn’t scaled back radically, the amount of critical minerals needed to power the global future remains unfathomable.
Oct 12, 2024
Considered Angola’s crown jewel by many, Lobito is a colorful port city on the country’s scenic Atlantic coast where a nearly five-kilometer strip of land creates a natural harbor. Its white sand beaches, vibrant blue waters, and mild tropical climate have made Lobito a tourist destination in recent years. Yet under its shiny new facade is a history fraught with colonial violence and exploitation.
The Portuguese were the first Europeans to lay claim to Angola in the late sixteenth century. For nearly four centuries, they didn’t relent until a bloody, 27-year civil war with anticolonial guerillas (aided by the Cuban Revolutionary Armed Forces) and bolstered by a leftist coup in distant Lisbon, Portugal’s capital, overthrew that colonial regime in 1974.
Lobito’s port was the economic heart of Portugal’s reign in Angola, along with the meandering 1,866-kilometer Benguela Railway, which first became operational in the early 1900s. For much of the twentieth century, Lobito was the hub for exporting to Europe agricultural goods and metals mined in Africa’s Copperbelt. Today, the Copperbelt remains a resource-rich region encompassing much of the Democratic Republic of Congo and northern Zambia.
Perhaps it won’t shock you to learn that, half a century after Portugal’s colonial control of Angola ended, neocolonialism is now sinking its hooks into Lobito. Its port and the Benguela Railway, which travels along what’s known as the Lobito Corridor, have become a key nucleus of China’s and the Western world’s efforts to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources in our hot new world. If capitalist interests continue to drive this crucial transition, which is all too likely, while global energy consumption isn’t scaled back radically, the amount of critical minerals needed to power the global future remains unfathomable. The World Economic Forum estimates that three billion tons of metals will be required. The International Energy Forum estimates that to meet the global goals of radically reducing carbon emissions, we’ll also need between 35 and 194 massive copper mines by 2050.
It should come as no surprise that most of the minerals from copper to cobalt needed for that transition’s machinery (including electric batteries, wind turbines, and solar panels) are located in Latin America and Africa. Worse yet, more than half (54%) of the critical minerals needed are on or near Indigenous lands, which means the most vulnerable populations in the world are at the most significant risk of being impacted in a deeply negative fashion by future mining and related operations.
Having lagged behind that country’s investments in Africa for years, the U.S. is now looking to make up ground.
When you want to understand what the future holds for a country in the “developing” world, as economists still like to call such regions, look no further than the International Monetary Fund (IMF). “With growing demand, proceeds from critical minerals are poised to rise significantly over the next two decades,” reports the IMF. “Global revenues from the extraction of just four key minerals — copper, nickel, cobalt, and lithium — are estimated to total $16 trillion over the next 25 years. Sub-Saharan Africa stands to reap over 10 percent of these accumulated revenues, which could correspond to an increase in the region’s GDP by 12 percent or more by 2050.”
Sub-Saharan Africa alone is believed to contain 30% of the world’s total critical mineral reserves. It’s estimated that the Congo is responsible for 70% of global cobalt output and approximately 50% of the globe’s reserves. In fact, the demand for cobalt, a key ingredient in most lithium-ion batteries, is rapidly increasing because of its use in everything from cell phones to electric vehicles. As for copper, Africa has two of the world’s top producers, with Zambia accounting for 70% of the continent’s output. “This transition,” adds the IMF, “if managed properly, has the potential to transform the region.” And, of course, it won’t be pretty.
While such critical minerals might be mined in rural areas of the Congo and Zambia, they must reach the international marketplace to become profitable, which makes Angola and the Lobito Corridor key to Africa’s booming mining industry.
In 2024, China committed $4.5 billion to African lithium mines alone and another $7 billion to investments in copper and cobalt mining infrastructure. In the Congo, for example, China controls 70% of the mining sector.
Having lagged behind that country’s investments in Africa for years, the U.S. is now looking to make up ground.
Zambia’s Copper Colonialism
In September 2023, on the sidelines of the G20 meeting in India, Secretary of State Antony Blinken quietly signed an agreement with Angola, Zambia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and the European Union to launch the Lobito Corridor project. There wasn’t much fanfare or news coverage, but the United States had made a significant move. Almost 50 years after Portugal was forced out of Angola, the West was back, offering a $4 billion commitment and assessing the need to update the infrastructure first built by European colonizers. With a growing need for critical minerals, Western countries are now setting their sights on Africa and its green energy treasures.
“We meet at a historic moment,” President Joe Biden said as he welcomed Angolan President João Lourenço to Washington last year. Biden then called the Lobito project the “biggest U.S. rail investment in Africa ever” and affirmed the West’s interest in what the region might have to offer in the future. “America,” he added, “is all in on Africa… We’re all in with you and Angola.”
BothAfrica and the U.S., Biden was careful to imply, would reap the benefits of such a coalition. Of course, that’s precisely the kind of rhetoric we can expect when Western (or Chinese) interests are intent on acquiring the resources of the Global South. If this were about oil or coal, questions and concerns would undoubtedly be raised regarding America’s regional intentions. Yet, with the fight against climate change providing cover, few are considering the geopolitical ramifications of such a position — and even fewer acknowledging the impacts of massively increased mining on the continent.
In his book Cobalt Red, Siddharth Kara exposes the bloody conditions cobalt miners in the Congo endure, many of them children laboring against their will for days on end, with little sleep and under excruciatingly abusive conditions. The dreadful story is much the same in Zambia, where copper exports account for more than 70% of the country’s total export revenue. A devastating 126-page report by Human Rights Watch (HRW) from 2011 exposed the wretchedness inside Zambia’s Chinese-owned mines: 18-hour work days, unsafe working environments, rampant anti-union activities, and fatal workplace accidents. There is little reason to believe it’s much different in the more recent Western-owned operations.
“Friends tell you that there’s a danger as they’re coming out of shift,” a miner who was injured while working for a Chinese company told HRW. “You’ll be fired if you refuse, they threaten this all the time… The main accidents are from rock falls, but you also have electrical shocks, people hit by mining trucks underground, people falling from platforms that aren’t stable… In my accident, I was in a loading box. The mine captain… didn’t put a platform. So when we were working, a rock fell down and hit my arm. It broke to the extent that the bone was coming out of the arm.”
An explosion at one mine killed 51 workers in 2005 and things have only devolved since then. Ten workers died in 2018 at an illegal copper extraction site. In 2019, three mineworkers were burned to death in an underground shaft fire and a landslide at an open-pit copper mine in Zambia killed more than 30 miners in 2023. Despite such horrors, there’s a rush to extract ever more copper in Zambia. As of 2022, five gigantic open-pit copper mines were operating in the country, and eight more underground mines were in production, many of which are to be further expanded in the years ahead. With new U.S.-backed mines in the works, Washington believes the Lobito Corridor may prove to be the missing link needed to ensure Zambian copper will end up in green energy goods consumed in the West.
AI Mining for AI Energy
The office of KoBold Metals in quaint downtown Berkeley, California, is about as far away from Zambia’s dirty mines as you can get. Yet, at KoBold’s nondescript headquarters, which sits above a row of trendy bars and restaurants, a team of tech entrepreneurs diligently work to locate the next big mine operation in Zambia using proprietary Artificial Intelligence (AI). Backed by billionaires Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos, KoBold bills itself as a green Silicon Valley machine, committed to the world’s green energy transition (while turning a nice profit).
It is in KoBold’s interest, of course, to secure the energy deposits of the future because it will take an immense amount of energy to support their artificially intelligent world. A recent report by the International Energy Agency estimates that, in the near future, electricity usage by AI data centers will increase significantly. As of 2022, such data centers were already utilizing 460 terawatt hours (TWh) but are on pace to increase to 1,050 TWh by the middle of the decade. To put that in perspective, Europe’s total energy consumption in 2023 was around 2,700 TWh.
“Anyone who’s in the renewable space in the western world… is looking for copper and cobalt, which are fundamental to making electric vehicles,” Mfikeyi Makayi, chief executive of KoBold in Zambia, explained to the Financial Times in 2024. “That is going to come from this part of the world and the shortest route to take them out is Lobito.”
Makayi wasn’t beating around the bush. The critical minerals in KoBold mines won’t end up in the possession of Zambia or any other African country. They are bound for Western consumers alone. KoBold’s CEO Kurt House is also honest about his intentions: “I don’t need to be reminded again that I’m a capitalist,” he’s been known to quip.
In July 2024, House rang his company’s investors with great news: KoBold had just hit the jackpot in Zambia. Its novel AI tech had located the largest copper find in more than a decade. Once running, it could produce upwards of 300,000 tons of copper annually — or, in the language investors understand, the cash will soon flow. As of late summer 2024, one ton of copper on the international market cost more than $9,600. Of course, KoBold has gone all in, spending $2.3 billion to get the Zambian mine operable by 2030. Surely, KoBold’s investors were excited by the prospect, but not everyone was as thrilled as them.
“The value of copper that has left Zambia is in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Hold that figure in your mind, and then look around yourself in Zambia,” says Zambian economist Grieve Chelwa. “The link between resource and benefit is severed.”
Not only has Zambia relinquished the benefits of such mineral exploitation, but — consider it a guarantee — its people will be left to suffer the local mess that will result.
The Poisoned River
Konkola Copper Mines (KCM) is today the largest ore producer in Zambia, ripping out a combined two million tons of copper a year. It’s one of the nation’s largest employers, with a brutally long record of worker and environmental abuses. KCM runs Zambia’s largest open-pit mine, which stretches for seven miles. In 2019, the British-based Vedanta Resources acquired an 80% stake in KCM by covering $250 million of that company’s debt. Vedanta has deep pockets and is run by Indian billionaire Anil Agarwal, affectionately known in the mining world as “the Metal King.”
One thing should be taken for granted: You don’t become the Metal King without leaving entrails of toxic waste on your coattails. In India, Agarwal’s alumina mines have polluted the lands of the Indigenous Kondh tribes in Orissa Province. In Zambia, his copper mines have wrecked farmlands and waterways that once supplied fish and drinking water to thousands of villagers.
The Kafue River runs for more than 1,500 kilometers, making it Zambia’s longest river and now probably its most polluted as well. Going north to south, its waters flow through the Copperbelt, carrying with them cadmium, lead, and mercury from KCM’s mine. In 2019, thousands of Zambian villagers sued Vedanta, claiming its subsidiary KCM had poisoned the Kafue River and caused insurmountable damage to their lands.
The British Supreme Court then found Vedanta liable, and the company was forced to pay an undisclosed settlement, likely in the millions of dollars. Such a landmark victory for those Zambian villagers couldn’t have happened without the work of Chilekwa Mumba, who organized communities and convinced an international law firm to take up the case. Mumba grew up in the Chingola region of Zambia, where his father worked in the mines.
“[T]here was some environmental degradation going on as a result of the mining activities. As we found, there were times when the acid levels of water was so high,” explained Mumba, the 2023 African recipient of the prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize. “So there were very specific complaints about stomach issues from children. Children just really wander around the villages and if they are thirsty, they don’t think about what’s happening, they’ll just get a cup and take their drink of water from the river. That’s how they live. So they’ll usually get diseases. It’s hard to quantify, but clearly the impact was there.”
Sadly enough, though, despite that important legal victory, little has changed in Zambia, where environmental regulations remain weak and nearly impossible to enforce, which leaves mining companies like KCM to regulate themselves. A 2024 Zambian legislative bill seeks to create a regulatory body to oversee mining operations, but the industry has pushed back, making it unclear if it will ever be signed into law. Even if the law does pass, it may have little real-world impact on mining practices there.
The warming climate, at least to the billionaire mine owners and their Western accomplices, will remain an afterthought, as well as a justification to exploit more of Africa’s critical minerals. Consider it a new type of colonialism, this time with a green capitalist veneer. There are just too many AI programs to run, too many tech gadgets to manufacture, and too much money to be made.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular