Director of Environmental Justice and Community Development at Ironbound Community Corporation (ICC)

Clean energy projects need to actively engage with local communities to prevent furthering injustices through the siting of wind and solar farms.

Maria Lopez-Nunez has been fighting environmental racism in the city of Newark, New Jersey for years. ICC’s current struggle against a proposed gas-fired “peaker” power plant, which would be the fourth fossil fuel-fired power plant in the neighborhood—exemplifies the disproportionality of energy injustices associated with siting. Newark’s population is almost half Black, over a third Hispanic/Latino, with 34% of the city’s population having been born outside of the US and a quarter of residents living in poverty. The health impacts, and in particular, extremely high childhood asthma rates, in Newark are well-documented and yet, polluters continue to target the city.

Lopez-Nunez, who is an Appointed Member of the first White House Environmental Justice Council, noted that progress toward energy justice has been sluggish, even in the face of increased attention to racial justice issues since 2020 and a groundbreaking environmental justice law at the New Jersey state level. As Green America’s 2022 report noted, procedural justice is a key element in reversing environmentally racist policies and projects; trusted frontline community representatives having real input on projects that would impact them is essential.

Asked whether stakeholder input has improved in the regulatory process that governs power plant siting, Lopez-Nunez called it as she saw it: “I think they are better at documenting their stakeholder processes and providing access. I can talk to anyone now, but they’re not necessarily listening or documenting how our feedback impacted the work or not. It’s more about accessibility, not power,” she observed. “Siting impacts on environmental justice communities is a widespread issue. I really hope that the wind companies won’t replicate the same problems of the past,” she noted, acknowledging that renewable energy generation and infrastructure can create outsized burdens in the same communities that have been treated as “sacrifice zones” by fossil fuel and other industrial interests unless intentionally developed differently.

Groups working to ensure fairer processes, structures, and outcomes in the pursuit of renewable energy are creating models which can help to advance a just transition, according to Lopez-Nunez. In particular, UPROSE’s Brooklyn’s Sunset Park Solar community-owned photovoltaic project stood out as an example of energy democracy in action, and the Native American-led SAGE Development Authority is working to bring Native-owned renewable power to the Standing Rock Sioux reservation with an emphasis on equitable economic outcomes and local, women-led governance.

In the eyes of this environmental justice leader, communications providers and others who purchase energy could advance energy justice by calling for real accountability in ending investments in fossil fuel assets and infrastructure. “They need to ask ‘what is your fossil fuel phase-out plan?’ Right now, the only thing these companies are required to do is say they are phasing out of fossil fuels, but we need to hold their feet to the fire and see the details and the plan,” opined Lopez-Nunez. Indeed, so long as fossil fuel dependency persists, those communities in proximity to its production will continue to suffer.

Practice Lead for Alternative Energy Storage Technologies at DNV: Mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)

Products supplied by the electronics, clean energy, and battery storage technologies sector are widely implicated in human rights abuses in the Democratic Republic of the Congo through their supply chains.

While the interview below focuses specifically on cobalt mining for the purposes of lithium-ion batteries, it is important to note that cobalt is also an important component of wind turbines, and is just one of various critical minerals necessary to transitioning to renewable energy.

The opinions expressed by Naphtal Haya reflect his personal views and should not be attributed to his employer, DNV.

In the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), people—many of them children—toil for up to twelve hours per day in the inhumane conditions of cobalt mines for the equivalent of $1 USD per day, and have few alternatives available to earn money for their basic needs. What does cobalt mining have to do with energy justice? Cobalt is currently a key ingredient in the batteries used to store electricity generated from intermittent renewable energy sources such as solar and wind, and thus demand for and distribution of cobalt has been accelerated by the transition to renewable energy. And it is big business, to the detriment of underpaid, underaged, and exploited Congolese workers and their environments.

While child labor and blatant exploitation may seem unthinkable to some in the West, Naphtal Haya, explained that the Congolese people have long been subjected to foreign extraction of the nation’s natural resources and workforce exploitation in service to consumer demand from the Global North. Cobalt mining associated with the renewable energy industry (as well as electronics production) is only the latest iteration of foreign-imposed environmental injustice and human rights abuse in the DRC, which extends back to Belgian colonization in the 1880’s and the notoriously brutal atrocities—including amputation—which the Belgian regime inflicted on Congolese workers in the rubber production industry.

“If you were to interview an average citizen in the DRC…they would probably say they are worse off than they would be if the cobalt industry didn’t exist,” opined Haya, adding that “really only 1% of the DRC’s population—the political elite—benefits.” A clear perpetuation of environmental injustice, Congolese workers mired in poverty suffer perilous working conditions that degrade the environment and damage their health, while powerful, distant, wealthy shareholders enjoy the financial benefits of rampant extraction.

The proliferation of Environmental, Social, & Governance (ESG) compliance has shed light on such environmental justice and human rights abuses, with financiers and developers increasingly interested in enhancing their ESG performance. To generate pressure aimed at curbing these abuses and withdrawing support from the worst actors, some risk management leaders are pushing for more evaluation around supply chain disclosure. Nevertheless, Haya pointed out that the industrial hold on the country is so deeply embedded that those seeking to source the mineral would have a difficult time avoiding DRC-produced cobalt, with roughly 70% of the world’s supply originating in foreign-owned, DRC-based mines.

For companies aiming to avoid “dirty” cobalt, Haya stated that Supplier Codes of Conduct from companies promising responsible and sustainable sourcing are insufficient—there is little incentive to provide transparent reporting. Instead, third-party due diligence that includes auditing is necessary for firms that seek to truly avoid sourcing from (and financially supporting) companies inflicting environmental and social harms on nations like the DRC. Describing the lack of transparency and added complexity of technically “compliant” mines sourcing cobalt from unmonitored subcontractors, Haya stated that supply chain due diligence without on-the-ground auditing is not as effective as we would like to think, achieving only about 50% of the confirmation needed to satisfy true due diligence.

Failing to ground-truth desktop analysis with on-the-ground auditing not only provides an incomplete picture, but may actually exacerbate harm. The false sense of security (and potentially, awards, ratings, or other fodder for public relations) imbued by a misleading due diligence process is tantamount to greenwashing, and could actually do more to obscure than solve the problems associated with mining.

“Responsible mining initiatives typically designed by downstream companies for upstream activities must be continually monitored by independent actors,” Haya recommended. This is where companies, including communications providers, can make a difference. The standards for responsible mining and audit processes already exist—entities including the Responsible Cobalt Initiative, the Responsible Mineral Initiative, and the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance have delineated best practices, which can then be confirmed on the ground. “Communications providers and other companies that rely on cobalt and other raw minerals should be requiring audits as part of their due diligence in supply chains,” Haya recommended.

“Consumer pressure is a good tool.” Haya observed, adding, “At this stage, the American public is hearing competing narratives. The negative impacts of the energy transition, and the fact that developed economies are getting the advantage, are not well-known. In addition to educating consumers about the human rights and environmental justice problems in the electronics and renewable energy supply chain and mobilizing them to pressure companies, organizations like Green America could also support on-the-ground monitoring efforts upstream, and promote investment in companies utilizing alternative battery chemistries that don’t rely on cobalt.”

As Haya stated in his recent article, “The e-revolution is an undeniable net positive (note ‘net’) measure against climate change and must be embraced as such. However, the welfare of the current generation trumps that of future generations and in any case, we cannot help the future by destroying the present.”

Professor of Environmental Studies, San José State University

When it comes to renewable energy policies and projects, the details matter a lot. As Professor of Environmental Studies at San José State University, Dustin Mulvaney’s in-depth analysis reveals, without intentional design and appropriate incentives, the renewable energy industry can create unforeseen problems and exacerbate existing inequities.

Materials

Mulvaney’s recent work includes advocating for recycling, reuse, circularity, and innovation of alternatives to critical minerals used in renewable energy products, associated with human rights abuses in mining. In the US, this may not be as straightforward as it seems.

While research and development efforts are underway within the renewable energy industry to, for example, advance alternatives to lithium-ion batteries not requiring or using much less cobalt, industry players with a vested interest in the status quo may frame certain innovations as “impossible” until, of course, it is demonstrated that they aren’t.

Mulvaney elaborated, “There was a time where we projected demand for future cobalt supplies assuming every single electric car had to have [a certain amount] of cobalt in it, but that's not the case anymore. So because we now have a much more diverse set of batteries, even China's putting in sodium-ion batteries that have no lithium.”

Transparency around innovation is also complicated by intellectual property rights. “Every manufacturer has a patent on their ‘special sauce’ for their batteries,” Mulvaney explained. Financial interests can delay deployment of more sustainable technologies where it is financially advantageous for producers to keep them close to the chest.

Another challenge to moving away from extraction of critical minerals is the cost of recycling. While our waste streams may be full of electronics, there are significant expenditures associated with building recycling infrastructure and processing waste to get critical minerals out. In order to be financially viable, the products being recycled need to have high ratios of high-value minerals to offset the costs of building new recycling plants and the energy and processing of materials involved in recycling.

Nevertheless, improving the circularity of renewable energy products is not only imperative for a sustainable and just world, it is possible and it is already being done–in Europe. In his recent testimony to Congress, Mulvaney noted that Europe’s new Battery Regulation would “require that battery producers meet specified social and environmental standards across the entire life cycle of the product including a product end-of-life management plan.” Contrasted to the current state of producer accountability for the life cycle of products in the US, Mulvaney explained “we only require the management of materials that are designated ‘hazardous.’” In short, the US is far behind the curve in the “developed” world in requiring the circularity necessary to curb energy injustice from critical minerals mining.

Mulvaney warned, however, that innovation and circularity cannot completely replace demand for critical minerals required for renewable energy. Echoing Naphtal Haya’s observations, Mulvaney noted that supply chain traceability, strong standards, and rigorous auditing is necessary to halt human rights abuses in critical minerals mining. Underscoring the power of public pressure in advancing just and sustainable policies, Mulvaney noted that the US finally banned solar panels from the Xinjiang region of China after evidence that they contained polysilicon from mines inflicting abhorrent human rights abuses on the Uyghar group.

“Communications companies actually have the leverage to dictate in their Power Purchase Agreements” that they will require suppliers to trace up the chain and opt out of doing business with companies that profit from human rights abuses, Mulvaney opined.

Siting

Although they are almost always incomparable to the harm inflicted by fossil-fuel power plants, renewable energy farms can have negative human and ecological impacts when not properly sited, designed, and maintained. Domestically, this can manifest in various ways.

Mulvaney described the way in which cascading effects of large scale solar farms have created unforeseen human health hazards in the US West, as one example. Often situated on or in close proximity to formerly irrigated agricultural land, solar farm construction can disturb and disperse contaminated soils, harming air quality which impacts workers and potentially, nearby communities. These problems aren’t insurmountable; “I’ve seen some strategies like putting down hay bales and planting hedges, getting roots in the soil,” which can control erosion and foster ecosystem benefits.

Solar farms, when replacing agriculture, can also reduce opportunities for workers. “After construction, there isn’t a lot of labor required in maintaining a solar farm,” Mulvaney noted. In contrast to the heavy manual labor involved in agriculture, in particular near the US-Mexico border, migrant workers in particular may lose access to seasonal farming jobs. Where job loss accompanies a reduction in worker opportunities, a region’s tax base could also suffer.

“There’s also the possibility that as large scale renewable farms are built, we lose access to wilderness,” Mulvaney acknowledged, explaining that inequitable access to green space is a growing concern in which renewable energy facilities could be implicated.

Emphasizing the role of authentic and effective stakeholder engagement in renewable energy planning and design, Mulvaney advocated for community benefit agreements and programmatic environmental impact statements which can enhance community influence in fully scoping potential social, economic, and ecological impacts before they happen and facilitate more beneficial development pathways and mitigation strategies.

Giving the example of the Salton Sea project, where an existing geothermal source will be converted to a “green” lithium mine, negotiations are underway which could route excise taxes to environmental justice advocacy groups to fund their engagement in these processes, as well as workforce development and employment programs and habitat loss mitigation. The air quality effect of drying on the heavily polluted Salton Sea (actually a lake), however, remains to be seen.

Homing in on solutions, Mulvaney noted the unique power of private industry in advancing an equitable renewable energy landscape. “They have a tremendous amount of power because they don’t need to rely on the government. They can set the terms of everything through a PPA, because it’s a private contract. They should say ‘we are only going to buy power from solar developers that have community benefits agreements in place, or that put their solar farms on previously disturbed land rather than destroying an ecosystem.’” In that power lies the opportunity for getting renewables right.

Advocacy Lead, The Coalition to End Forced Labour in the Uyghur Region

Uyghur forced labor is prevalent in many products, including solar panels and other technologies used in clean energy. A number of energy companies providing clean energy to the telecom sector have been implicated in Uyghur Forced Labor, including NextEra, Enel, Engie, and Clearway, according to the Uyghur Forced Labor Database.

How extensive is the problem of Uyghur forced labor in general? How many Uyghurs are involved in forced labor?

The Government of China continues to perpetrate forced labor on a widespread and systematic scale in the Uyghur Region and other regions of China, targeting the Uyghur population and other Turkic and Muslim-majority peoples on the basis of their religion and ethnicity, and subjecting them to widespread restrictions and repression of fundamental freedoms.

There is substantial evidence that the Government of China is subjecting the Uyghur population and other Turkic and Muslim-majority peoples to state-imposed forced labor through various state-sponsored programmes, focused on eliminating Uyghur culture and religious practices. Resistance to participation in these programmes is seen as a sign of extremism and may be punishable with imprisonment.

Research shows that Uyghur forced labor is widespread within the supply chains of 17+ global industries, including apparel and textiles, information and communication technology, solar industries, auto, and other sectors. For example,

• As of 2022, 35% of the world’s solar-grade polysilicon and 32% of global metallurgical-grade silicon comes from the Uyghur Region. 95% of solar panels rely on solar-grade polysilicon.

• As of 2022, 12% of the global supply of aluminum is produced in the Uyghur Region.

• 10 of the largest ICT companies’ supply chains have been linked to Uyghur forced labor.

Within the clean energy sector, which technologies are at risk of involving Uyghur forced labor?

In the solar industry specifically, as of 2021, the four leading polysilicon manufacturers in the Uyghur Region are estimated to account for 48% of the world’s polysilicon production. All four have openly admitted to participating in “labor transfer” programmes that experts agree are forced labor under international law. Further, every level of the solar panel supply chain is exposed to Uyghur forced labor, from sourcing of raw materials to the production of polysilicon, ingots, wafers, cells, and modules. This is because mining, processing, and production within the solar supply chain, including quartzite mining, metallurgical-grade silicon smelting, and solar-grade polysilicon production, is concentrated in the Uyghur Region, which has pervasive links to forced labor and abuses that, according to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, may constitute crimes against humanity.

Alarmingly, the use of Uyghur forced labor is a risk throughout the renewables industry and is not limited to the solar sector. The Chinese government has incentivized and subsidized companies to move mining, processing, and manufacturing of raw materials such as polysilicon, aluminum, steel, and bauxite into the Uyghur Region.

Many of the components that go into wind turbines are made from materials processed in the Region, such as steel and aluminum. The world’s largest steel producer and at least seven other major steel producers, operating in or investing in the Uyghur Region, have publicly advertised their participation in state-sponsored labor transfers and other oppressive state-run programs in the Region.

Electric vehicles (EVs), including component parts, inputs, and batteries, are also significantly exposed to Uyghur forced labor. A report by Sheffield Hallam University and NomoGaia found that key actors in lithium processing and distribution are deeply implicated in the Uyghur Region’s state-sponsored labor transfer programs. As of 2023, the market dominance of just two of these companies in the Uyghur Region means that practically all EV battery manufacturers are at risk of sourcing materials linked to forced labor.

Aren’t materials produced using Uyghur forced labor banned from imports to the US? How are they still part of corporate supply chains?

A recent report shows that the global percentage of polysilicon sourced from the Uyghur Region has decreased by 10 percent since 2020, demonstrating it is possible for industry to exit the Region and develop alternative sourcing. However, some solar module manufacturers have bifurcated their supply chains, developing alternative sources for polysilicon that companies claim have no exposure to the Uyghur Region; this response is in part due to the U.S. Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA), which bars goods from the Uyghur Region given the high risk of forced labor and the impossibility of credible due diligence. The report also shows that some of the same companies continue to source from the Uyghur Region for sales to other markets, which do not have forced labor import bans or other regulation to eliminate forced labor in supply chains.

The Coalition to End Forced Labour in the Uyghur Region calls on all companies, including in the renewables sector, to exit the Uyghur Region at every level of their supply chains immediately; this should be accompanied by governments globally enacting import control legislation banning imports of goods made with forced labor. Further, governments must introduce additional measures that will enable diversification of renewable energy technology supply chains. This should include the use of development finance and other financial incentives, in collaboration with the renewable sector, to develop alternative supplies of materials.

What can clean energy companies do to prevent Uyghur forced labor from entering their supply chains?

The Coalition is calling on businesses in all sectors to take verifiable measures to exit the Uyghur Region, committing to a single global standard, and engaging with the Coalition on measures to ensure they’re not profiting from Uyghur forced labor. Companies must:

• Stop sourcing any raw materials, inputs, or finished products from the Uyghur Region;

• Cut ties with companies implicated in forced labor in the Region, including those that have operations in the Uyghur Region and have accepted government subsidies and/or labor transfers at those operations;

• Prohibit any supplier factories located outside of the Uyghur Region from using Uyghurs and other Turkic and Muslim-majority workers supplied through the Chinese government’s labor transfer scheme;

• Apply a single global standard consistent with the legal requirements set forth in the UFLPA across their entire supply chain and avoid bifurcating supply chains; and

• Refrain from re-exporting any goods denied entry to the U.S. under the UFLPA and attempt to sell those goods in other markets.

What can purchasers of renewable energy, like communications companies, who enter into contracts with clean energy companies, do to ensure their supply chains are free of Uyghur forced labor?

All companies should urgently trace their entire supply chain, address any points of exposure to Uyghur forced labor, and fully exit the Uyghur Region including immediately terminating any direct or indirect relationships linked to Uyghur forced labor at every tier of their supply chain.

Companies should also conduct due diligence, including desk-based research in Chinese language, to identify whether any suppliers have participated in state labor transfer programs. If participation in state-sponsored labor transfers of Uyghurs and other Turkic and Muslim-majority people is identified, the company must use any leverage it has to end those suppliers’ (or sub suppliers’) participation in these programs on an expedited basis. If a supplier is unwilling to end participation promptly and expeditiously, the only responsible option a company has is to end that business relationship.

Are there any policies or practices that would allow companies to source from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region and prevent the use of forced labor?

No, it is not possible for a company to responsibly source from the Uyghur Region. There are no valid means for companies to verify that any workplace in the Uyghur Region is free of forced labor or to prevent the use of forced labor in these workplaces in line with human rights due diligence.

Worker interviews, which are essential to the methodology of any labor or human rights investigations, cannot generate reliable information in these circumstances. No worker can speak candidly to factory auditors about forced labor or other human rights issues without placing themselves and their families at risk of brutal retaliation; there are widespread restrictions and repression of fundamental freedoms and human rights defenders, and civic space has been shut down. Numerous audit firms have pulled out of the Uyghur Region due to the impossibility of conducting audits. Given the pervasive scope of the abuses, buyers therefore need to operate on the assumption that all products produced in part or in whole in the Uyghur Region are at high risk of being tainted by forced labor.