The global push for clean energy relies heavily on minerals such as copper, cobalt, lithium, and rare earth elements. However, securing these resources can put significant pressure on mining regions, often impacting communities that have contributed little to climate change. With the extraction and processing of critical raw materials (CRMs) concentrated in a few countries, geopolitical tensions are increasing.
To address supply chain vulnerabilities, the United States and European Union have begun moving production closer to home or to allied nations—a strategy known as on-shoring, re-shoring, or friend-shoring. But researchers argue that simply changing the location of mineral extraction does not guarantee more ethical or sustainable practices.
In a January commentary published in Nature Energy, scholars introduced the concept of “just-shoring.” This framework aims to prioritize justice for communities affected by mining activities rather than focusing solely on competition and security concerns.
“Right now, powerful—often Western—governments and firms are attempting to reshape the geographies of supply chains without changing the rules of extraction,” said Jessica DiCarlo, lead author of the commentary and assistant professor at the University of Utah. “If we don’t rethink who benefits and who bears the costs, we risk repeating the same injustices of the fossil fuel era under a ‘green’ label.”
Critical raw materials are essential for technologies like wind turbines, electric vehicles, semiconductors, and defense systems. Mining and refining operations remain highly concentrated; China holds a dominant position in rare earth element processing.
According to DiCarlo’s team, shifting CRM operations through strategies like on-shoring or friend-shoring may help produce green energy components but can also threaten local health and environments. More than half of new facilities are planned near agrarian or Indigenous lands. While international frameworks such as the Paris Agreement encourage local resource control measures, they do so voluntarily rather than through enforceable standards.
The just-shoring approach proposes legally binding accountability throughout every stage of mineral development—from exploration to closure and recycling—and seeks community co-governance over projects. It is guided by questions including: Who benefits? Whose risks increase? How much extraction is necessary for an equitable transition?
“We cannot build a low-carbon future on sacrifice zones,” DiCarlo said. “Communities are told extraction is necessary for climate action, but too often they are also excluded from decision making or benefits and instead left to absorb the costs.”
The authors warn that unchecked demand for critical minerals could undermine efforts to combat climate change if it results in greater inequality or environmental harm.
The full commentary is available at Nature Energy: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-025-01940-4
A longer article further exploring this framework is under review.
