Riofrancos, T., & Pontecorvo, E.: Mining- The Dirty Underbelly of the Clean Energy Transition

Summary:

Summary
In Mining: The Dirty Underbelly of the Clean Energy Transition, political scientist Thea Riofrancos explores the contradictions of building a sustainable future through industries that remain deeply unsustainable. She argues that while clean energy technologies like electric vehicles and batteries are essential to combating climate change, they rely on mining practices—especially lithium extraction—that cause serious environmental and social harm. The book and interview highlight how this “green transition” risks reproducing the same patterns of inequality, colonial exploitation, and ecological damage that characterized fossil fuel capitalism.

Riofrancos shows that both the Global North and South are reshaping their strategies around mining: the North seeks to “onshore” resource extraction in the name of energy security and “ethical sourcing,” while the South hopes to gain more value by producing battery technologies rather than exporting raw materials. Yet, without systemic change, these efforts only reinforce global power imbalances. Through examples from Chile, the U.S., and beyond, Riofrancos calls for an alternative path—one that reduces dependence on extraction, centers community voices, and uses the energy transition as an opportunity for justice, not just new profits.

Main points: A More ‘Just’ Transition

The article explicitly argues that:

1. The energy transition still relies on extraction, and extraction always harms landscapes and communities.

2. A just transition requires reducing how much extraction is needed, not simply making mining “greener.”

3. Riofrancos stresses:

   • smaller EV batteries

   • better public transit

   • improved material recycling

   • supply chain localization
     These are portrayed as ways to lessen dependence on new mining projects.

What conceptual themes these represent

• Green extractivism: “Clean” energy still depends on destructive mining.

• Environmental justice: Local communities are disproportionately affected.

• Demand-side solutions: Justice requires using less, not just sourcing differently.

• Limits to “ethical mining”: You can regulate mining, but you cannot remove its built-in harms.

Main point: Mining and State-Capitalist Geopolitics

This reflects one of the strongest throughlines in the article:

1. The geopolitics of the energy transition are shifting.

   • Historically: Global South extracted; Global North processed.

   • Now:

     • The Global South (Chile, Indonesia, etc.) seeks to expand into higher-value processing and manufacturing.

     • The Global North tries to reshore mining for strategic autonomy.

2. Mining policy is now openly discussed as geostrategy.
   U.S. and European policymakers frame domestic mining as:

   • a national security issue,

   • a competitiveness issue, and

   • a moral/ethical improvement over foreign extraction.

3. Riofrancos explicitly critiques this narrative, showing how
   “ethical mining” becomes a rhetorical tool to justify state-led industrial policy.

What conceptual themes these represent

• State-capitalist geopolitics: Mining is becoming a core site of state intervention and industrial strategy.

• Strategic autonomy: Energy-transition minerals are treated like oil was in the 20th century.

• Narratives of “ethical mining”: These often mask renewed forms of extractivism.

• Inversion of North–South roles: The shift in who extracts, who processes, and who profits.

Overall:

1. Justice-centered critique of the clean energy transition

Extraction cannot be eliminated but must be reduced, localized, and democratized to limit ecological and social harm.

2. Rising geopolitical competition around mining and supply chains

Minerals for clean energy technologies are driving a new form of state-capitalist geopolitics, shaped by strategic competition, industrial policy, and political narratives of “green mining.”

Why are they changing roles now? Why does the Global South want to participate in processing and Global North in reshore mining?

1. Extractive economies trap countries in low-value roles

For decades, countries like Chile, Bolivia, Indonesia, and Congo have been stuck as raw material exporters.
Raw minerals = low profit, high environmental damage, high dependency.

Processing and manufacturing = high profit, high political leverage.

So these countries want to:

• Capture more value (e.g., lithium battery refining, EV manufacturing)

• Diversify their economies

• Reduce dependence on Western corporations

• Strengthen their geopolitical position

This is why Riofrancos calls it a partial inversion of classic colonial supply chains—historically the Global North processed, and the Global South extracted; now the South is trying to flip that.

1. Clean-energy technology is a strategic asset

Lithium, cobalt, copper, nickel = the “oil of the 21st century.”

The U.S. and EU saw that:

• China dominates global processing and refining

• Supply chains are vulnerable

• The energy transition is impossible without secure mineral access

So they want:

• Domestic extraction (more mines in U.S., Canada, EU)

• Domestic processing facilities

• State incentives for mining under the label of “ethical” or “green”

This is what Riofrancos means when she says policymakers now view critical minerals as geostrategic power.

State-Capitalist Goals: Global North and Global South

Because both sides — North and South — are using the clean-energy transition to pursue state-capitalist goals:

Global South goal: move up the value chain (industrialization + autonomy) Global North goal: reshore key industries (security + power)

The result is:

• New geopolitical tensions

• New “green” justifications for mining

• A scramble to control the future energy economy

• Overlapping narratives about ethics, sovereignty, and security