Protests defending the Jadar region against Rio Tinto’s mining activities.
The Academic World Has Too Close Ties with the Mining Industry
Discrediting protests against mining is not the right path to a green future
Peter Tom Jones, director of the KU Leuven Institute for Sustainable Metals and Minerals wrote an opinion piece in Belgian newspaper De Standaard defending European lithium mining and smearing ecological defenders. Catapistas Kim Claes, Alberto Vázquez Ruiz, Robin Roels & Hanne Cottyn wrote a response.
De Standaard Published at 16/03/2025
In his masterpiece 1984, George Orwell describes how a constant state of war is used to control the population: it creates fear, justifies authoritarian measures, and suppresses critical voices. In his opinion piece (DS, March 7), Peter Tom Jones, director of the KU Leuven Institute for Sustainable Metals and Minerals, applies similar rhetoric to the debate on mining and Europe’s raw materials supply. Jones claims that concerned citizens and NGOs opposing mining are “missing the point” and undermining the green energy transition. Instead of engaging in a constructive debate about the future of resource policy, he dismisses anyone who questions the necessity of large-scale mining as an enemy of progress. This is no longer an academic discussion—it is a politically charged attack on democratic participation.
Jones suggests that climate activists form “unnatural alliances” with far-right groups. This is a dangerous and unjust framing, reminiscent of the way Indigenous and local communities worldwide are systematically criminalized when they resist destructive mining projects. The legitimate opposition of concerned local communities, whose immediate environment and way of life are threatened, is dismissed as extreme, unreasonable, or selfish. How can we speak of a fair debate when one voice is marginalized from the outset?
Moreover, Jones asserts that there is “no alternative” to increased mining in the EU, while numerous possibilities remain largely unexplored. The drastic reduction and more efficient use of metals are barely mentioned. Why is the focus so one-sidedly on primary extraction? The answer partly lies in the overly close ties between research institutions and industry. For years, the industry and some academic institutions have collaborated within EU-funded Horizon research projects. While such cooperation is not inherently problematic, the risk of conflicts of interest is real when there is no public oversight. How independent is research when the same industrial players are systematically involved?
A Long List of Disasters
A key question arises: are we truly exploring the most sustainable solutions, or only those that fit the business model of mining companies that channel their profits to shareholders? Jones uses EU research funds to promote mining within the EU. This raises concerns about the scientific integrity of his argument, especially when he highlights only the benefits and downplays the drawbacks. How scientific is it to systematically ignore the International Resource Panel (the United Nations expert panel on natural resources)? The negative impacts of mining on local communities and ecosystems are well documented, yet Jones barely mentions them.
A common argument is that Europe has “better” mining standards than the rest of the world and can therefore engage in “responsible mining.” However, there is no guarantee that Europe would actually do better. Just over fifteen years ago, Europe had the second-highest number of mining tailings dam failures in the world. There is also a long history of mining disasters, conflicts, human rights violations, flawed public consultations, and ecological devastation within Europe.
We are at risk of repeating the same mistakes, with the recently proposed Omnibus legislation and the broader dismantling of environmental protection regulations in the EU. This will lead to weaker environmental impact assessments and the erosion of permitting procedures. Natura 2000 areas—the most valuable natural habitats in the EU—are under threat, and local communities have little say in the matter.
A False Choice
This is supposedly all necessary to ensure that Europe does not lose the geopolitical race. The narrative that Europe will “lose its prosperity” if it does not act quickly primarily serves the industry’s agenda. We are constantly being instilled with fear: from Chinese control over electric vehicles, Russian influence in mining protests in Serbia, to American threats in Greenland. By framing Europe as being in a geopolitical struggle where mining is the only salvation, we are presented with a false choice: either we dig more, or we lose our prosperity and geopolitical standing. Just like in 1984, this rhetoric is not meant to foster open debate but to silence critical voices. However, we do not need to blindly follow this economic war rhetoric. The real issue is not that people resist change, but that the proposed change primarily benefits certain economic actors rather than society as a whole. A fair transition requires policies that prioritize well-being over profit. This means a resource policy aligned with the recommendations of the International Resource Panel, emphasizing drastic material-use reduction and international cooperation. Such an approach would actually make Europe more independent from major powers like the U.S. and China. A focus on material efficiency, recycling, urban mining, and circular strategies rather than unchecked extraction. Full participation of local communities, with respect for their right to say “no.” A critical look at the entanglement of science, policymakers, and industry, with strict regulations and public oversight to prevent conflicts of interest. The transition is too important to be left to an industry that only serves its own interests. Let’s conduct the debate based on honest information—without fearmongering and without discrediting critical voices.