March 21, 2026
Op-ed by Jordan Jeffreys, a geological sciences and anthropology double major at the University of South Carolina and Elected Officials to Protect America (EOPA) National Campaign Fellow with interests in environmental and land use law.
As a researcher studying the history of geoscience and acquisition of natural resources, I spend a lot of time thinking about how decisions about land-use are shaped by science, policy, and the past. This intersection is especially relevant today as the world transitions toward renewable energy sources to combat the climate crisis.
Indigenous lands have been exploited for energy resources through generations of systemic violence and colonialism. Just to scratch the surface, Indigenous people have been displaced, exploited laborally, polluted and poisoned, and economically damaged by industries and governments for hundreds of years (Whyte, 2023). Now, ETM projects risk repeating the same colonial patterns of exploitation. Though U.S. law does honor a consultation process, it often lacks true prior and informed consent. Consultation is advisory and doesn’t grant veto power, undermining Indigenous sovereignty and decision-making in the energy transition (Finn, 2024).
Like all industrial mining, the mining for ETMs will inevitably have similar economic, environmental, and public health hazards in the surrounding communities and ecosystems (Whyte, 2023). Yet, these consequences are commonly de-emphasized by environmental organizations–the same ones that discourage mining in other industrial sectors like diamonds, gold, and coal.
I have seen this first hand as a geology student.
As the role of fossil fuels in fueling the climate crisis has become more scientifically and politically recognized, international institutions have outlined sustainability goals and emission-reduction targets. The United Nations and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) emphasize the need for decarbonization, setting the goal to limit carbon emissions by 70 percent by 2050. In a similar strategy, governments and industries are deemphasizing fossil fuels while expanding investment in renewable energy technologies such as solar panels, electric vehicles, and wind farms (Liu et al., 2024; IEA, 2021). To support this, institutions will increase the mining of energy transition minerals and metals (ETMs), key minerals and metals that are necessary to produce renewable energy infrastructure and which expected demand is predicted to double or triple by 2040 (Liu et al., 2024; IEA, 2021).
Yet, the geography of these resources raises important questions about equity and history. A recent geo-location study of more than 5,000 ETM projects found that 54 percentare located on or near Indigenous peoples’ land (Owen et.al, 2022). Similarly, the Indian Energy Minerals Forum states that 97 percent of nickel, 89 percent of copper, 79 percent- of lithium, and 89- percent of cobalt—key ETMs—are on or within 35 miles of Indigenous reservations. These figures highlight that the energy transition is unfolding in places already shaped by long histories of dispossession, environmental exploitation, and colonial extraction. This raises concerns for environmental sovereignty and stewardship.
There is often chatter amongst where geology students will take jobs, having previously largely dominated in oil and gas and mining careers. As students move away from this, they are frequently moving towards the frontier of ‘clean energy’ careers–the name alone invoking a sense of goodness over ‘dirty’ fossil fuel production. However, this career in clean energy that young geology students long to acquire, frequently constitutes the same job description of the jobs students used to take in oil and gas. These students are still prospecting for natural resources, only this time, the rhetoric around the extraction of these resources is that the end justifies the means–that somehow green-energy mining is more just or more good than the mining of old energy reservoirs.
The key question has become: will we repeat past mistakes and uphold colonial exploitation in our endeavours for a future of renewable energy?
Indigenous scholars are attempting to answer this question and formalize frameworks to avoid perpetuating colonial histories in the future of energy production. Indigenous scholar Kyle Whyte offers a key insight that I believe is worth repeating as the energy transition continues to unfold in intended and unintended ways. By asking whether mining should occur on Indigenous lands in order to accelerate renewable-energy development, they risk missing deeper structural dynamics. Indigenous nations have longstanding infrastructure traditions and relationships to land that have repeatedly been disrupted by settler-colonial systems. For generations, federal governance structures, corporate decisions, and national infrastructure planning have limited Indigenous self-determination, consent, and authority over land-use outcomes. The design of today’s resource and infrastructure systems was not built with Indigenous governance at its center, even as many of the most consequential decisions continue to occur on or near Indigenous homelands (Whyte, 2023).
Viewed in this light, the energy transition requires not only a technological shift and sociological shift, but also a reorganization of infrastructure, power, and responsibility. The energy transition cannot continue without Indigenous decision-makers at the forefront of the planning and operationalization.
The transition to cleaner energy may reduce carbon emissions, but it also asks society to confront longstanding questions about sovereignty, justice, and who gets to define the future of the places where these resources are found.
As the demand for ETMs grows in the decades ahead, continued dialogue among scientists, policymakers, Indigenous nations, and communities will be essential. The challenge is not only how to power a renewable-energy future but how to do so in ways that depart from the colonial standard.
References
Finn, Kate, and Bill Loveless. “Indigenous Rights in the Energy Transition – Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University SIPA | CGEP.” Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University SIPA | CGEP, 2 May 2024, http://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/indigenous-rights-in-the-energy-transition/. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.
Indian Energy Minerals Forum. “Indian Energy Minerals Forum.” USEA | United States Energy Association, 2021, usea.org/webinar-series/indian-energy-minerals-forum. Accessed 4 Dec. 2024.
IPCC. “Global Warming of 1.5 oC.” IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2020, www.ipcc.ch/sr15/.
Owen, John R., et al. “Energy Transition Minerals and Their Intersection with Land-Connected Peoples.” Nature Sustainability, vol. 6, 1 Dec. 2022, pp. 1–9, http://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-022-00994-6, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00994-6.
UNDRIP. “United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.” International Journal of Cultural Property, vol. 14, no. 04, Nov. 2007, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0940739107070270. Accessed 16 Apr. 2019.
Whyte, Kyle. (2023). Indigenous Environmental Justice, Renewable Energy Transition, and the Infrastructure of Sovereignty. 10.4324/9781003214380-13.
