The global rush to mine copper, lithium, cobalt and other so-called critical minerals has been framed by the mining industry as essential for addressing climate change. But a report released Tuesday says that much of the demand fueling today’s mining boom comes from elsewhere.
The report, by the Oakland Institute, a progressive think tank, estimates that more than 70 percent of current demand for critical minerals comes from conventional industries, power grid expansion not dedicated to renewables, consumer goods and—increasingly—the artificial intelligence and defense sectors.
That could leave renewable energy developers competing with other industries for limited mineral supplies, or increase pressure to open new mines despite ruinous environmental and social costs, the group said.
“Rather than saying new mining for renewables will come on top of existing demand, we should demilitarize the global economy and stop this rush for all kinds of industries, and focus whatever mining is already there on renewables,” said Frédéric Mousseau, policy director at the Oakland Institute and report co-author.
The Oakland Institute has spent the past two decades documenting land conflicts around the world and has increasingly focused on mining, studying its impacts on communities.
There have been more than 36,000 mining-related conflicts across 4,293 locations globally between 2015 and 2022, the report said, citing analysis from the Institute of Development Studies, a research institute affiliated with the University of Sussex. Such conflicts often erupt over the environmental toll of mining—from its immense water consumption to catastrophic waste pit collapses. Watchdog groups consistently rank the mining industry as the sector most often linked to attacks on environmental defenders.
The London-based International Council on Mining and Metals, which did not review the report, told Inside Climate News in a written statement that its 26 members, which represent one-third of the industry, “have committed to independently assessed requirements on human rights, Indigenous Peoples’ rights, water stewardship, tailings safety and nature.”
“It’s clear the world needs more mining and it needs better mining, whatever the end use,” the statement said.
The Oakland Institute report’s findings challenge a central justification for expanding mining worldwide: that dramatically increasing mineral extraction is necessary to meet global climate goals.
“[T]he world cannot meet its climate goals, or its development goals, without more metals and minerals,” the International Council on Mining and Metals said in its statement to Inside Climate News.
Mining companies have long framed the sector as indispensable to the energy transition. “Our portfolio is built around the materials essential for a low-carbon future,” Rio Tinto, a British-Australian mining giant, said in its 2025 annual report.
Rio Tinto did not respond to a request for comment, but the Washington D.C.-based National Mining Association, which did not review The Oakland Institute report, said in a written statement that, “It’s broadly accepted that we are in the most mineral intensive time in history” and that the industry group believes minerals should be mined in the United States, “where we know they will be mined in accordance with the world’s highest environmental, safety and labor standards.”
Global material extraction, including minerals, wood and other materials extracted from the Earth, has tripled since the 1970s, the report says, citing U.N. data. Copper illustrates the scale of that growth: more of the metal will have been mined during the first 26 years of the 21st century than in all of prior human history combined.
As demand for critical minerals has grown, so has the industry’s value. The world’s 50 largest mining companies were collectively worth more than $2.4 trillion in early 2026—an increase of more than $1 trillion from the previous year, according to the report.
To test the prevailing assumption that the energy transition is the primary driver of mineral demand, Mousseau and his co-author analyzed critical mineral data from the International Energy Agency alongside government and industry records. The analysis allowed them to distinguish demand driven by renewable energy uses from everything else. The IEA identifies six key energy transition minerals: cobalt, copper, graphite, lithium, nickel and rare earth elements.
The authors concluded that wind, solar and grid-scale batteries account for roughly one-fifth of projected demand, while most consumption comes from industries unrelated to electricity generation, including electric vehicles, which the authors argue are not necessary for the energy transition if governments prioritize public transportation.
The authors said that “strategic policy choices,” such as prioritizing public transportation, increasing recycling of key materials, slashing military budgets and diversifying the economies of commodity-dependent countries, can help reduce mineral demand.
“If the mining rush goes on unchecked, the devastation caused by mineral extraction will multiply at a scale never seen before, destroying livelihoods, displacing millions of people, and causing irreversible environmental destruction,” the authors wrote.
A Rising Tech-Military-Extractive Industrial Complex
The report identified defense spending and the expansion of artificial intelligence infrastructure as two of the fastest-growing sources of mineral demand, based on projections for minerals used in military equipment and AI technologies, as well as government spending, IEA data and industry forecasts.
AI data centers require vast quantities of copper, along with minerals such as gallium, germanium and tantalum used in high-performance computer chips. Minerals critical for military applications include lithium, cobalt, copper, titanium and nickel, among others, which are used in aircraft, communication and guidance systems, and ammunition. An F-35 fighter jet contains over 400 kilograms (882 pounds) of rare earth minerals, while an Arleigh Burke-class DDG-51 destroyer needs over 2.2 tons, according to the report.
Military demand for ten key critical minerals is projected to grow 135 percent faster over the next decade than in the previous one, the report said, citing data from the Colorado School of Mines.
A January report by S&P Global reached a similar conclusion about copper, projecting that demand for the metal from military applications and artificial intelligence will be among its fastest-growing uses, with demand from each source expected to roughly triple by 2040.
That equates to about 4 million metric tons of additional copper demand—equivalent to about one-sixth of the world’s current annual copper production, according to the S&P report.
Traditional demand for construction, manufacturing and consumer electronics remains the largest source of copper demand.
Both reports come as governments around the world ramp up their military and artificial intelligence investments. This spring, President Trump proposed a record $1.5 trillion defense budget for 2027—nearly double the 2023 level, including funding that would allow the Pentagon to invest directly in domestic mining projects. The proposal is part of an intensification of pro-mining policies underway during the Biden-era, when the State Department established partnerships with some other nations to accelerate public and private investment in critical mineral supply chains to fuel renewable energy manufacturing and counter China’s mineral processing dominance.
Under U.S. law, a mineral is considered “critical” if federal officials determine that it is essential to the country’s economic or national security and faces a significant risk of supply disruption.
Since 2023, the Defense Department has invested more than $159 million in U.S.-based graphite, lithium, and manganese mines; all three minerals are designated as critical under U.S. law. The Trump administration has also expanded efforts to stockpile minerals while pursuing mining agreements with lower-income countries including the Democratic Republic of Congo, Zambia, Ecuador, Argentina and Ukraine.
Ian Lange, an economist with the Colorado School of Mines who specializes in mineral markets, said currently, militaries are minor customers in the overall demand picture for critical minerals. Lange said the real drivers are broader electrification and infrastructure build‑out—grid expansion, EVs, data centers and general economic growth—layered on top of long‑standing demand for big base metals like copper.
“The military’s demand for rare earths is about two percent of the U.S. economy’s total demand,” Lange said.
The Oakland Institute report says that the Trump administration’s policies for obtaining minerals are primarily driven by a desire to maintain U.S. economic and military hegemony, rather than climate action, and are characterized by aggressive tactics and concerns about corruption.
The report, citing New York Times reporting, highlighted that in March 2026, a leaked U.S. State Department memo proposed withholding life-saving HIV assistance to Zambia to compel its government to sign a deal granting the United States preferred access to its critical minerals. The authors also pointed to reporting from multiple news organizations that Trump’s sons are invested in a New York-based company developing a $1.6 billion tungsten project in Kazakhstan, a deal cut by the Trump administration.
Asked about this and what measures the President would like to see the U.S. government make to mitigate the environmental and social impacts of its mining investments, White House spokesperson Kush Desai said in a written statement that Trump has sought to secure and reshore critical mineral supply chains.
“The only special interest guiding the Trump administration’s decision-making is the best interest of the American people,” Desai said.
The Department of Defense did not respond to a request for comment.
The authors say the growth of AI cannot be viewed separately from rising military spending, as the technology is becoming increasingly integrated into defense systems.
This story is funded by readers like you.
Our nonprofit newsroom provides award-winning climate coverage free of charge and advertising. We rely on donations from readers like you to keep going. Please donate now to support our work.
Donate NowThey cite contracts between the Pentagon and tech companies, including Nvidia, OpenAI, Google, Anthropic and xAI, to integrate AI models into military applications. Since 2020, Palantir Technologies has received more than $900 million in U.S. defense contracts, including as a lead contractor for the Maven Smart System. That AI system analyzes data from satellites, drones and other sources to identify targets and recommend weapons systems.
The report also cites a 2024 analysis by the independent watchdog Taxpayers for Common Sense that examined the defense industry’s political spending: over a 10-year period ending in 2023, the sector spent nearly $1.3 billion on lobbying.
The arms industry spent more than $30 million on political campaigns and committees for both parties during the 2024 election, the report says, citing Open Secrets data.
The Toll on the Ground
The skyrocketing demand for mined materials is putting pressure on people who live in mineral-rich regions: an estimated 69 percent of transition mineral projects are located on or near lands belonging to Indigenous peoples or rural communities, according to the report, which cites 2022 research from the University of Queensland in Australia.
That figure rises to 85 percent for lithium, a metal key to the production of electric vehicles. The authors argue that EVs can “hardly be considered a requirement for the energy transition” because they consume, rather than produce energy, and because public transportation is a viable alternative.
Mousseau, the report’s co-author, pointed to a Chinese state-owned copper mine’s waste pit collapse in Zambia last year as an example of the environmental and human costs that can follow large-scale mining. The collapse released millions of gallons of toxic waste into surrounding waterways, damaging farmland and threatening communities that depend on the land for their livelihoods. Mining produces vast quantities of “tailings”—the toxic waste left behind after minerals are extracted—which can contain radioactive material and heavy metals such as lead.
The spill in Zambia, Mousseau said, is “irreversible,” with impacts lasting “hundreds or thousands of years.”
Inside Climate News previously reported on the disaster, documenting how local farming communities were left facing the consequences of the spill while struggling to secure accountability and compensation—the mining company convinced impoverished and often illiterate villagers to sign away their right to sue in exchange for government-ordered payments ranging from $17 to $2,000.
Those villagers are behind a growing number of lawsuits seeking accountability for mining-related harm and challenging new projects. Such resistance can come at a cost. The report said there has been rising violence against environmental defenders, citing watchdog group Global Witness’s data that identified an average of 111 violent incidents annually related to mining projects since 2021.
The report is a warning, Mousseau said.
“We see already, we know already, how much devastation has been caused in so many countries, and if we keep going with the projections of the plans others have, it’s going to be monumental.”
About This Story
Perhaps you noticed: This story, like all the news we publish, is free to read. That’s because Inside Climate News is a 501c3 nonprofit organization. We do not charge a subscription fee, lock our news behind a paywall, or clutter our website with ads. We make our news on climate and the environment freely available to you and anyone who wants it.
That’s not all. We also share our news for free with scores of other media organizations around the country. Many of them can’t afford to do environmental journalism of their own. We’ve built bureaus from coast to coast to report local stories, collaborate with local newsrooms and co-publish articles so that this vital work is shared as widely as possible.
Two of us launched ICN in 2007. Six years later we earned a Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting, and now we run the oldest and largest dedicated climate newsroom in the nation. We tell the story in all its complexity. We hold polluters accountable. We expose environmental injustice. We debunk misinformation. We scrutinize solutions and inspire action.
Donations from readers like you fund every aspect of what we do. If you don’t already, will you support our ongoing work, our reporting on the biggest crisis facing our planet, and help us reach even more readers in more places?
Please take a moment to make a tax-deductible donation. Every one of them makes a difference.
Thank you,
