publication croisée depuis : https://slrpnk.net/post/3791125
Excerpts :
Publicly presented as climate-friendly legislation, the CRM Act has turned into an “open bar” for industry, which has actively lobbied to make sure that the metals they were interested in would enjoy the same public support and environmental deregulations as those that are really useful for the climate transition.
Corporations and lobby groups from the defence and aeronautics sectors such as Airbus, Safran or ASD have been particularly active at all stages of the CRMA legislative process, through meetings with decision-makers, events and sometimes opaque working groups. They have been actively supported in their lobbying by allies within the Commission itself (notably Commissioner Thierry Breton and DG DEFIS), as well as by Member States such as France and Spain.
The defence and aerospace sectors have made sure in particular that the official EU list of critical minerals would indeed include aluminium and titanium, two metals that are essential to their interests but of limited use (especially titanium) for the climate transition.
The criteria for classifying minerals as “critical” have been made more flexible, and there are provisions allowing new minerals to be added to the list of “strategic” minerals in the future without public scrutiny.
The CRM Act contains no provisions for discriminating between the different uses of so- called “critical” minerals or for prioritising “green” uses of metals over problematic sectors.
(…)
An ‘open bar’ for the defenceand aerospace industry. Almost all of the public conversation around the CRM Act has revolved around the urgent need of minerals for the green transition. In reality, if you listened closely to industry insiders and EU leaders, the Act is about a lot more than that. It is also about fostering the digital transition, supporting European competitiveness in general, and also boosting the defence and aerospace sectors. The latter industry has been extremely active and influential with regards to the CRM legislation. (…) Furthermore, for the moment, the CRM Act does not impede exploration and extractive projects in protected areas, Natura2000 sites, the Arctic, and the deep sea. The argument of the need for a green transition is even used to weaken
The climate crisis and the general consensus on the need for a secure supply of minerals critical to the green transition, seems to have given the mining industry a new aura of respectability, which is evidenced by the smooth adoption of the EU Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA). Everybody seems to agree that we need more minerals, and more mines including perhaps in Europe, even if it means bringing more support to corporate players and rolling back environmental safeguards. This report reveals that industrial sectors which have little to do with the energy transition – most prominently the defence and aerospace industry – have been allowed to shape the CRMA to reflect their own interests, often in direct contradiction to the EU’s climate objectives and to the image of the EU as a peace project.
At the Commission, the Council and the Parliament, the adoption of the CRMA has turned into an open bar for industry lobbyists. Under the radar, a number of new minerals such as aluminium and titanium have been deemed “strategic” at their behest, even though their use in the energy transition is modest at best. Nevertheless, they will benefit from the same financial support and environmental deregulations. Supporting arms manufacturers and exporters has been made equivalent to putting Europe on the path of a carbon free future. Under the convenient pretext of the energy transition, the European Union is preparing to write a blank cheque to mining companies and questionable industries without asking the necessary questions about which minerals are actually critical and for which uses and which objectives, and without prioritising and discriminating between uses.
This cannot but ultimately jeopardise the EU’s climate objectives. Significant resources will be wasted on supporting sectors that have nothing to do with the Green Deal, or which have significant climate impacts that are in direct contradiction to its objectives. This will increase the cost of change for taxpayers and consumers. The uncritical pressure to open new mines, which will inevitably trigger social resistance, will also undermine the social acceptability and legitimacy of the Green Deal both in Europe and in the rest of the world.