The Climate Movement is supposedly driven by public concern. But mining operations in the Congo tell a different story.
The rainforests in the heart of Africa are being sacrificed. But rainforests bring rain, exactly what central Africa needs to avoid becoming just another desert.
Cobalt Red, by Siddharth Kara reveals how the world’s poorest people earn $1 per day mining for cobalt, a key ingredient in the massive batteries that drive electric cars.
But we might debate as to which is the more obvious atrocity: slave labor or the aggressive elimination of Africa’s rainforest.
Mining makes moonscapes. If you want to turn a forest into a moonscape, all you need is a mining operation. This is true whether you are mining for coal or iron, lithium, cobalt or rare earth metals.
The Democratic Republic of Congo is Africa’s Amazon rainforest. Let’s talk about the effects of cobalt mining on the forests and the people of the Democratic Republic of Congo.
When you look at a map of Africa, the brown color in the north and the south represents deserts. The green in the middle represents rain forests. The Democratic Republic of Congo occupies the middle. It is the heart of Africa.
Cobalt Red focuses on the conditions in which people in Congo have no choice but to mine for cobalt, which is essential for lithium ion batteries, the battery technology most prevalent in our cell phones, laptops and electric vehicles. Most miners earn less than $2 or less per day under conditions where injuries are high and health conditions shorten lives, largely because of exposure to toxic metals (e.g., uranium and lead). Children who are lucky attend 3-4 years of school, and then have to work to support their families.
All of this is thought to be essential to the electric vehicle (EV) revolution.
The Deforestation Dilemma
In the book, Kara describes a region that is increasingly dominated by cobalt mines. Cobalt mines, like all mines, eliminate trees, turning the land into a moonscape.
So, we have a dilemma. Do we eliminate forests for electric cars? Are electric cars so beneficial that they justify eliminating forests?
According to this article on conservation news site Mongabay, “Forests in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) have been disappearing at increasing speed, with annual deforestation rates exceeding 1 million hectares (2.5 million acres) in the past five years.” That’s a half million acres deforested every year.
What causes deforestation in Congo?
The Mongabay article attributes this deforestation to “poor governance and corruption” which “are considered the biggest obstacles to protecting the country’s forests from the pressures of subsistence agriculture and fuelwood collection, as well as the expansion of legal and illegal industrial operations.”
Notice, the term “legal and illegal industrial operations” would include cobalt mining, to provide batteries for cell phones, laptops and electric vehicles.
We might legitimately ask: How much of Congo’s forests will be left over after the EV revolution has run its course? Will we have paid a fair price?
We should account for the cost of lost “biomass” and lost ecosystems.
I believe that if we want to solve climate change, we will acknowledge the role that ecosystems play in climate, not just because they absorb carbon, but because they nurture water cycles, prevent flooding, prevent drought and cool the surrounding area.
If we want to solve climate change, we will restore the “biomass” which we humans have eliminated in the last 5,000 years. “Biomass” is the total weight of living things within a given area.
According to this article from Greenpeace, “human activity over the last 5,000 years has reduced total global biomass by about 50 percent …”
When we deforest, we eliminate biomass. When we use excessive herbicides (weed killers) in farming, we are eliminating biomass. When we use excessive tillage in agriculture, we are eliminating biomass. When we grow monocrops, we are limiting the biomass that can grow in a particular area.
And of course, when we deforest, we are eliminating biomass.
So we’ve eliminated a lot of biomass in human history.
I would say, this is the “elephant in the room” that no one is talking about. But that’s the wrong metaphor. The “elephant in the room” refers to an issue that people KNOW ABOUT but are not talking about. The trouble is, people don’t know about the importance of biomass, so they’re not talking about it.
Biomass grows if we allow ecosystems to grow.
When ecosystems grow, they are increasing in biomass. For example, forests grow at a rate of about 2.5 percent per year. This rate varies. For example, author Derrick Jensen tells me that forests in the Pacific Northwest used to grow at three times the current rate when salmon were allowed to swim upstream. This is because salmon carry nutrients and biomass upstream. The salmon get eaten by eagles, bears, scavengers and microbes, thus fertilizing the ground.
The point is that forests grow in mass and diversity when we allow them to grow. They no longer grow when we are cutting them down, for timber, for biofuels, and for shopping centers, military bases and solar arrays.
“Human activities” have eliminated forests and their biomass for as long as we have been able to cut and burn wood, especially in the last 5,000 years.
This is unfortunate for many reasons, not least of all because …
Little known fact: Forests bring rain
Forests bring rain, according to the biotic pump theory, developed by Anastassia Makarieva and her late colleague Victor Gorshkov.
According to Wikipedia, “The biotic pump is a theoretical concept that shows how forests create and control winds coming up from the ocean and in doing so bring water to the forests further inland … The biotic pump describes how water vapor given off by trees can drive winds and these winds can cross continents and deliver this moisture to far off forests.” (Emphasis added).
A video can be worth a thousand words. Check out this great video from Jimi Sol Eisenstein about The Biotic Pump: How Forests Create Rain. From the same animator, here is another video about How Plants Cool the Planet.
If plants cool the planet, then they could go far to reduce global warming. Why are we eliminating forests for the sake of electric cars? Also, if forests bring rain, then forests could go far to prevent flooding and drought in Africa. (Supposedly climate change causes flooding and drought. So if we can eliminate flooding and drought, have we not gone far to reduce or mitigate the effects of climate change.)
Are the forests of Congo a significant “biotic pump”?
Yes, if biotic pump theory is valid.
Do the forests of Congo bring rainfall to the heart of the continent? Yes. Of course. Therefore, if you eliminate the forests, do you eliminate the rainfall?
Isn’t the net effect of electric vehicles bad for the climate of Africa?
Keep in mind that the people of Congo who mine for cobalt are getting paid $1 per day, $2 if they are lucky. They do not even have electricity, let alone being able to afford $1,000 for a cell phone.
Bill McKibben laments the effects of oil drilling in Congo, but not the effects of cobalt mining. What’s up with that?
In this 2023 article in the New Yorker, famed and celebrated climate activist Bill McKibben lamented that Congo is opening up Virunga National Park for oil drilling that could threaten endangered mountain gorillas and also peat bogs which are a carbon sink. Of course, mountain gorillas deserve to live in undisturbed habitat. They have a right to exist and thrive on this planet. And of course peat bogs should be preserved as a carbon sink.
But McKibben is only lamenting the effects of drilling for oil. He says nothing about cobalt mining. Why?
He could have talked about the impact of cobalt mining on carbon emissions or biodiversity. Does mining get a free pass if it serves the purpose of developing supposedly low-carbon technologies?
McKibben could have talked about how the people of Congo, including children in the tens of thousands, have to work 10-12 hour days instead of going to school. Isn’t Climate activism rooted in a concern for human beings and our future? Do the people of Congo get to participate in this bright future, or not?
McKibben could have talked about how deforestation due to cobalt mining adversely impacts water cycles and could turn the heart of Africa from a rain forest into a desert. Would this not have an impact on our climate?
Understand …
We need to understand that all people matter, including the poor people who mine “our” resources. If we cannot stand against child slave labor, then what do we stand FOR, really?
We need to understand that climate is not just about CO2. It is a complex system that depends on water cycles, which in turn depend on forests, grasslands, wetlands, peat bogs, etc.
We need to understand that an agreeable climate depends upon functioning ecosystems; that we have a livable planet because we have a living planet; that life creates the conditions for life.
We need to understand that without living systems and water cycles, we will have nothing but extremes of hot and cold.
We need to understand that in the last 5,000 years, humans have eliminated half the living biomass on earth. If we want a livable planet, restoring lost biomass is job #1.
We need to understand that this obsessive focus on carbon emissions is dysfunctional, pathetic and meritless.
Lastly, this obsessive focus on carbon emissions will lead to even more carbon emissions unless we address climate change holistically, taking into account the legitimate needs and interests of our fellow humans and our fellow species.