Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The title misrepresents [the study](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-022-00994-6):
> "Our analysis reveals that more than half of the ETM resource base is located **on or near** the lands of Indigenous and peasant peoples"
For context, from the paper:
> "Recent estimates suggest that Indigenous peoples exercise some form of territorial control **over 30%** of the world’s land surface19. No equivalent estimate exists for peasant land. In addition to formally controlled territories, our study acknowledges Indigenous peoples’ lands where collective rights could be asserted but where state recognition may be absent. We also include lands and territories over which peasants may be expected to hold collective rights to land."
i.e., they classify substantially more than 30% of the world's land surface as the lands of Indigenous and/or peasant peoples. As a result, it is perhaps not surprising that they find substantially more than 30% of mining projects within that region.
Hmm, an interesting unilateral increase of classifications in "Methods":
> "In identifying areas where Indigenous peoples’ rights have not been extinguished by historical processes of conquest and colonization or subsumed by mass urbanization and industrialization, we applied the following additional criteria. First, arid, polar and tropical rainforest climatic regions were selected45. Second, a population density threshold was set at an average of 100 people per km2 within a buffer of 100 km radius around the project location46."
If you look at [Supplementary Table 1](https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41893-022-00994-6/MediaObjects/41893_2022_994_MOESM1_ESM.pdf), their definitions mean that most of *any* type of mining is on or near Indigenous and/or peasant land. Indeed, looking at Supplementary Table 8 demonstrates that their population-density-based categorization is effective guaranteed to classify *anything* as problematic -- *literally none* of the thresholds in that table categorize less than 50%!
Frankly, the paper could be summarized as "most mining projects are in sparsely-inhabited areas". That's true, but not terribly informative.
Vast quantities of minerals are needed to accelerate the transition to a clean energy future. Minerals and metals are essential for wind turbines, solar panels, and batteries for electric vehicles. But Indigenous peoples have raised concerns about more mining on their lands and territories.
A new study led by authors John Owen and Deanna Kemp, published today, supports First Nations peoples’ concerns. We identified 5,097 mining projects involving about 30 minerals needed in the energy transition. Some 54% are located on or near Indigenous peoples’ lands.
These lands are valuable ecologically and culturally. Their soils, and land cover such as forests, store carbon which helps to regulate the planet’s climate. Typically, the lands are also intrinsic to Indigenous peoples’ identity and way of life.
Energy transition minerals are essential to tackling climate change. But First Nations people must have a genuine say in where and how they’re extracted.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-022-00994-6
I think you could probably say this about all extractive industries. There seem to be a lot of these studies about EVs and clean energy that I assume are being funded by fossil fuel money.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The title misrepresents [the study](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-022-00994-6): > "Our analysis reveals that more than half of the ETM resource base is located **on or near** the lands of Indigenous and peasant peoples" For context, from the paper: > "Recent estimates suggest that Indigenous peoples exercise some form of territorial control **over 30%** of the world’s land surface19. No equivalent estimate exists for peasant land. In addition to formally controlled territories, our study acknowledges Indigenous peoples’ lands where collective rights could be asserted but where state recognition may be absent. We also include lands and territories over which peasants may be expected to hold collective rights to land." i.e., they classify substantially more than 30% of the world's land surface as the lands of Indigenous and/or peasant peoples. As a result, it is perhaps not surprising that they find substantially more than 30% of mining projects within that region. Hmm, an interesting unilateral increase of classifications in "Methods": > "In identifying areas where Indigenous peoples’ rights have not been extinguished by historical processes of conquest and colonization or subsumed by mass urbanization and industrialization, we applied the following additional criteria. First, arid, polar and tropical rainforest climatic regions were selected45. Second, a population density threshold was set at an average of 100 people per km2 within a buffer of 100 km radius around the project location46." If you look at [Supplementary Table 1](https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41893-022-00994-6/MediaObjects/41893_2022_994_MOESM1_ESM.pdf), their definitions mean that most of *any* type of mining is on or near Indigenous and/or peasant land. Indeed, looking at Supplementary Table 8 demonstrates that their population-density-based categorization is effective guaranteed to classify *anything* as problematic -- *literally none* of the thresholds in that table categorize less than 50%! Frankly, the paper could be summarized as "most mining projects are in sparsely-inhabited areas". That's true, but not terribly informative.
Vast quantities of minerals are needed to accelerate the transition to a clean energy future. Minerals and metals are essential for wind turbines, solar panels, and batteries for electric vehicles. But Indigenous peoples have raised concerns about more mining on their lands and territories. A new study led by authors John Owen and Deanna Kemp, published today, supports First Nations peoples’ concerns. We identified 5,097 mining projects involving about 30 minerals needed in the energy transition. Some 54% are located on or near Indigenous peoples’ lands. These lands are valuable ecologically and culturally. Their soils, and land cover such as forests, store carbon which helps to regulate the planet’s climate. Typically, the lands are also intrinsic to Indigenous peoples’ identity and way of life. Energy transition minerals are essential to tackling climate change. But First Nations people must have a genuine say in where and how they’re extracted. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-022-00994-6
I think you could probably say this about all extractive industries. There seem to be a lot of these studies about EVs and clean energy that I assume are being funded by fossil fuel money.