Europe is literally trashing the planet’s raw materials. We rely on cars that require 1.7 tonnes of metal to move one person less than 25 kilometres a day (PowerShift). In France, each person is responsible for using an average of nearly a metric ton of resources for their Information and Communication Technology (ICT) needs every year. The digital world, in particular, while commonly associated with ethereal concepts such as “virtual” or the “cloud”, is hugely material-intensive. The materials that go into our shiny, new possessions don’t just threaten, but actively destabilise entire regions. They siphon freshwater resources, shatter biodiversity, contaminate local water and catapult carbon emissions.
The EU has now found itself with a problem of its own making. Faced with mounting pressure to deal with the immense material demand of the digital transition, which it heralded as a potential solution to climate change, it hastily passed the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA) in May 2024. The Act’s goals—to extract 10 percent, process 40 percent and recycle 25 percent of the EU’s annual strategic raw material consumption by 2030—are clear and strategic. Yet, these measures miss the most critical flaw in Europe’s raw materials policy: its unjust consumption.
“The race for what’s left”
EU policy has, since the dawn of time, been defined by the desire for ‘security of supply’. The bloc is primarily concerned with ensuring enough raw materials reach the EU in order to make the goods and infrastructure that keep its economy thriving. This, of course, overlooks the colossal social and ecological damage that underpins that economy. As political scientist Michael T. Klare warned in his seminal book The Race for What’s Left in 2012, this economic model relies on outsourcing the destructive first stages of value creation to the Global South.
“The industrialised states—through their transnational corporations—are seeking to shift the burden of destructive extraction to the peripheral zones while keeping for themselves the bulk of the profits and the more ‘attractive’ segments of the production chain.”
Over a decade on, the figures illustrate the scale of this problem better than ever before. The EU, with less than six percent of the global population, uses an estimated 25 to 30 percent of the world’s global resources. This hunger for raw materials is destroying our planet. Mining for the raw materials that make our cars, devices and batteries alone, without processing them or exporting them, contributes to between 4-7 percent of global CO2 emissions annually. It’s linked to major conflicts over land and water across the globe.
The demand for cobalt, essential for EVs, is directly linked to the use of child labour in the DRC.
“The names Tesla, Renault and Volvo mean nothing to Pierre. He has never heard of an electric car. But as he heads out to work each morning in the bustling, dusty town of Fungurume, in the Democratic Republic of Congo’s southern mining belt, he is the first link in a supply chain that is fuelling the electric vehicle revolution and its promise of a decarbonised future.
Pierre is mining for cobalt, one of the world’s most sought-after minerals, and a key ingredient in the batteries that power most electric vehicles (EVs).”
Pete Pattisson and Febriana Firdaus, The Guardian
Europe’s reliance on exported raw materials puts it on shaky ground
It puts Europe in a vulnerable situation geopolitically, too. China, for example, provides 100 percent of the EU’s supply of heavy rare earth elements, critical components of the global clean energy transition. Turkey supplies 98 percent of the EU’s boron, while 71 percent of the EU’s platinum comes from South Africa. This fragility becomes particularly transparent during geopolitical crises like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Dependence on single countries also poses risks when climate-related events disrupt local mining or energy production. In 2021, heavy rainfall in China’s Shanxi province saw reduced coal output and forced cuts in magnesium and aluminium production. The resulting shortages hit EU industries, particularly the automobile sector, which relies heavily on Chinese magnesium.
Klare was right. Europe brings in what they need from overseas and “[keeps] for themselves the bulk of the profits”. Meanwhile, it exports the human suffering and environmental cost. It seems clear that, if we want a just and equitable future planet, the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA) just doesn’t cut it.
A ‘raw material reversal’
The solution to Europe’s raw materials dilemma has to go further. It needs to look beyond traditional discourse on industrial supply and embrace a philosophy of sufficiency and global justice. Civil society organisation PowerShift champions what they call the “raw material reversal” (Rohstoffwende).
RESET spoke to PowerShift’s raw materials expert, Michael Reckordt. He pointed to three reasons as to why the CRMA will likely fail to meet its goals. Firstly, it fails to address the root problem of the EU’s disproportionate resource consumption, which includes egregious waste (we’re looking at you, vapes). Secondly, it overlooks the rising risk of supply disruptions due to social and environmental issues like protests and climate events. Lastly, it’s hampered by the EU’s lack of globally significant raw materials companies. Alongside this point is a dearth of streamlined, sustainable financing mechanisms for mining.
What does the ‘raw material reversal’ stand for?
The CRMA only recommends “moderating the expected increase in the consumption of critical raw materials.” In contrast, the reversal of raw materials calls for:
- Binding consumption reduction targets: Mandating a measurable decrease in the EU’s material footprint. This involves shifting political focus from how much is extracted to how little is consumed.
- Due diligence: Moving beyond weak supply chain certifications to fair trade agreements that genuinely benefit partner countries and respect the right to say no for affected local communities. The Panama copper mine closure in 2023, which followed protests against human rights violations, is a great example of how social resilience is critical to supply security.
- Circular economy: Focusing on rethinking, reducing, reusing and repairing to keep materials in the system longer, minimising the demand for virgin resources.
PowerShift argue that a truly sustainable raw materials policy isn’t only one that diversifies extraction. Instead, it’s one that drastically reduces the need for primary materials in the first place. They base their position on a simple—yet seemingly politically complicated—demand. Economic activity must be separated from resource depletion and ecological harm.
Rather than being a solely activist approach, raw material reversal makes pragmatic sense. Reducing consumption would mean lower European demand on finite global resources. This would not only mitigate its environmental footprint but weaken geopolitical risk by diverting from the leverage of nations that currently dominate the supply chain.
But, in reality, a total reversal of the way we deal with raw materials is an immense challenge. “Currently, [an] improved circular economy and continued work with companies that already comply with their duty of care are certainly politically enforceable,” explains Reckordt. However, he warns that it’ll take a potentially huge force to alter things beyond this manageable scope. He concludes that “A more significant change is needed. This will come, either by design or by catastrophe.”
Beyond business as usual
PowerShift’s raw materials reversal has been making waves since its inception in 2010. The organisation has successfully placed the topic in front of policymakers in Berlin and Brussels. It’s coordinated with networks like AK Raw Materials and established its voice as a founding member of the EU Raw Materials Coalition.
This agenda-setting is now yielding legislative results. PowerShift recently partnered with Initiative Lieferkettengesetz. Together, they helped secure over 200,000 signatures on a petition to save the Supply Chain Act. More broadly, the NGO has helped shift the debate from simply “How do we secure more resources?” to the more fundamental question of “How do we use less, and more fairly?”
However, according to Reckordt, there’s a long way to go before the crisis is truly understood. “The biggest challenge is the lack of political understanding of the finite nature of metal resources, how critical their wasteful use is and, as a result, the lack of political will to change anything.”
The current system is a bureaucratic battleground
Many companies privately acknowledge the value of laws like the Supply Chain Act. Reckordt says they note how the collected data is “important… for protecting human rights and the environment” and, crucially, how it “helps them to respond resiliently to supply risks”. However, these laws (including the German Supply Chain Act and the European CSDDD) are currently being fought by industry associations and conservative parties under the “ideological slogan of the ‘bureaucratic monster’.”
Europe must realise that the “race for what’s left” can’t be won by simply extracting faster. The current trajectory, in line with the CRMA, is to accelerate European mining approvals within 27 months. This basically ignores community rights and doesn’t even set a concrete reduction mandate. The CRMA’s failure of ambition means that, while clear targets for domestic extraction and recycling have been made, a century-old industrial model based on the idea that we (Europe) can keep consuming raw materials indefinitely is perpetuated.
A genuine path to responsible supply is possible through PowerShift’s Reversal of raw materials. Europe needs a policy that places ecological limits and human rights at the heart of economic strategy. It’s not just right from a moral standpoint, but it’s more realistic, too. The digital transition cannot and will not be a green transition until the EU sets a binding target for absolute material consumption reduction. Otherwise, its raw materials policy will continue to be a reactive, short-term scramble for supply—perpetuating an unjust industrial model rather than crafting a globally responsible and sustainable future.
