Circular Resources for the Renewable Transition
The transition to a renewable energy system boosts demand for new materials. This is now prompting the question, do we have enough? The answer is probably yes. But the question is most likely wrong.
New materials are needed in order to build a society powered by renewable energy. That raises questions about how and where these materials will be extracted, as well as concerns about scarcity. How can we avoid entering into new unsustainable practices and vulnerable dependencies?
“Materials are responsible for 50% of climate change and cause 90% of biodiversity loss and water stress.”
At the Nordic Circular Summit session ‘Circular Resources for the Renewable Transition’, Janez Potočnik, the co-chair of UNEP’s International Resource Panel, put the discussion on materials into a broader perspective. To achieve net zero, Janez says, we must look at all materials, not only at the critical ones. Materials are responsible for 50 percent of climate change and cause 90 percent of biodiversity loss and water stress.
Material use has tripled since 1970 and is projected to double again by 2060. Jia Johannes Chen, a Youth Advisor to Denmark at CATALY(C)ST, warned against only focusing on the climate perspective as harvesting these materials also damages local communities. Today, high-income regions consume 13 times more materials than developing regions, making materials a source of conflict when these regions are left with the damages and none of the benefits.
Resource management is critical from an environmental perspective but also in terms of competitiveness. Europe is the most import-dependent region in the world and critical materials are no exception. Janez pointed out that we must avoid replacing one dependency — such as fossil fuels — with another one — that being materials. We should secure access to critical materials but first and foremost we need to manage natural resources responsibly.
Three blind spots hampering the transition
The international systems change compass developed by the Club of Rome and Systemiq identifies three major blind spots that stand in the way of responsible management of materials.
1. Lack of holistic change approach
Leaders lack knowledge and competence in how to translate visions into concrete policies and investments. A typical European car is, for example, standing still for 92 percent of its lifetime with utilisation taking only two percent of that time. Policymakers should focus on reducing the demand for car-based transport by, for instance, organising cities and shifting to other modes of transportation — and then ensuring that remaining vehicles are as sustainable as possible.
2. Lack of going to the roots of a problem
The current system does not incentivise responsible resource use. Trees are only worth something when they become timber. We need to shift economic signals.
3. Lack of a demand-side focus
Attention is only given to the supply side, which is merely cleaning the existing economic system. We must pay more attention to the inherent wastefulness of our production and consumption.
“Do we have enough of the critical materials? We may have. But that doesn’t answer the question of how to solve the triple planetary crisis.”
Janez concluded that we need to move from an economy exploiting nature to one focused on serving people, acknowledging that we are embedded in nature. Do we have enough of the critical materials? We may have. But that doesn’t answer the question of how to solve the triple planetary crisis. Now is a good moment to put this question in a broader perspective and remind us of what the real challenge is, Janez summarised.
Need for systemic change
Just like Janez Potočnik, Alan Young, Director of the Materials Efficiency Research Group (MERG), pointed to the need for systemic change. The real danger is defaulting to incrementalism, he said. MERG has been conducting a series of forums on circular mining and is now looking at creating regional commodity-based roadmaps. The mining industry can find inspiration in existing models around plastics, he said.
“The mining industry can find inspiration in existing models around plastics”
The demand for new materials is placing new requirements on recycling companies, which quickly need to invest in the capacity to process new fractions. According to Anna Sundell, the Group Sustainability Manager at Stena Metall, a typical electric car requires six times as much material input as a conventional car. In a scenario where we reach the targets of the Paris Agreement, the demand for lithium will increase by 40 percent with the demand for cobalt and nickel going up by 20–25 percent.
“If we reach the targets of the Paris Agreement, the demand for lithium will increase by 40% with the demand for cobalt and nickel going up by 20–25%.”
A new battery regulation will ensure that there is a market for recycled materials, but there is a risk that increased competition can cause the prices to soar. Recycling may not be the whole solution but definitely a part of it, Anna said, pointing out that we also need to look at reducing demand.
Help your policymakers
A survey by the Haga initiative, a Swedish network for companies aiming to reduce the carbon footprint of their business, among Nordic CEOs highlighted four obstacles to circularity:
lack of recycled raw materials,
legislation,
behavioural change, and
collaboration.
Nina Ekelund, Executive Director at the Haga initiative, urged business representatives to talk to their policymakers: “It’s not complaining, it’s helping them.” Businesses also need to talk more. We need to hear about the good examples, Nina said.
The Nordics are generally considered to be far ahead in terms of sustainability but, according to Sebastian Holmström, Head of Sustainability at the electronics refurbisher company Inrego, Nordic countries are in fact world leaders in the linear economy. Electronic devices contain many of the materials and minerals that are now also in demand by for example EV manufacturers. For most electronic devices, 80 percent of the carbon footprint is generated in the production phase. This means that, regardless of how energy-efficient, a laptop needs to be used for 20 years to make up for embedded emissions, as well as for the 1 200 kilos of waste generated in mining and manufacturing.
“Regardless of how energy-efficient, a laptop needs to be used for 20 years to make up for embedded emissions, as well as for the 1 200 kilos of waste generated in mining and manufacturing.”
There are two things we need to do, Sebastian said: look at how we are producing these products and — more importantly — start using them longer. We can use laptops for ten years and smartphones for eight years already today, and just one extra year will lower emissions by 25 percent. If companies like Inrego can show that this is economically viable — others will follow.
Circular resources are not enough
The panel session concluded that we have the materials needed. According to Alan Young, the problem is rather an abundance. We will need to mine our way through the transition but we need to blend this with secondary resources. Nina Eklund noted that this is a huge challenge as long as virgin materials are cheaper. We have perfected the linear economy for so long — and now we need to do something completely new.
There also needs to be a behavioural change. As Sebastian Holmström pointed out, reusable electronics make sense in so many ways, but we are still consuming too much new. To succeed with the transition we need both more circular resources and resource efficiency.
By Camilla Cederquist (Cradlenet)
