Fires, mining and pollution: do criticisms of electric car batteries make sense?

Even so, batteries – by far the most expensive component – ??remain one of the main vulnerable points of electric cars. Critics of electric vehicles have long argued that batteries, often made with lithium ions, can catch fire and that fires in these vehicles are more difficult to extinguish than in gasoline-powered cars. However, this claim ignores the fact that vehicles with combustion engines are much more prone to fires. The large, heavy batteries in electric vehicles have also been cited as a possible cause of road damage. Experts, however, dispute this thesis and state that large trucks are mainly responsible for the wear and tear on highways. Finger pointed at cobalt Because they contain minerals such as cobalt and nickel, electric vehicle batteries have always raised concerns related to supply chains, especially in cobalt mines in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). In Australia, the prime-time news program Spotlight, shown in March, investigated cobalt mines owned by Chinese companies in Congo. The report revealed places where thousands of people, including many children, work in precarious conditions and in a heavily polluted environment. By presenting cobalt as "the key element present in practically every storage battery on the planet, from electric vehicles to homes", the program stated that the search for a "clean and green" future, based on renewable energy and electric cars, has a "deadly and devastating cost". However, critics of the report argued that it failed to mention an important point: the chemical composition of electric vehicle batteries has largely switched to lithium iron phosphate (LFP) technology, which does not require the use of cobalt. David McElrea, executive director of the Smart Energy Council, a group linked to Australia's energy sector and which advocates renewable energy, questions why the report focused specifically on electric vehicle batteries and other renewable technologies if cell phones, tablets and laptops also contain cobalt. He says fears of exploitation in the extensive supply chains of critical minerals used in renewable technologies are legitimate, but says the electric vehicle industry has responded to concerns about the origin of materials and encouraged innovations that have eliminated cobalt from most modern automotive batteries. Chemistry professor Neeraj Sharma from the University of New South Wales adds that cheaper chemical compositions, such as sodium-ion batteries, are also coming onto the market. “Electric vehicle manufacturers have been moving away from cobalt because it is expensive, toxic and presents ethical dilemmas,” he says. The dispute over the narrative of critical minerals Experts speak of a "war of narratives" around critical minerals. The Canadian think tank Fraser Institute, which has a conservative and fossil fuel orientation, stated in 2023 that around 400 new mines of critical minerals would be needed to meet future demand for electric vehicles. Study author Kenneth P. Green, who has for years advocated investment in "cheap" fossil fuels rather than renewable energy, said "the risk that mineral production and mining will not be able to keep up with projected demand for electric vehicles is significant." However, in its Global EV Outlook 2026 report, the International Energy Agency states that known geological reserves of critical minerals are sufficient to meet long-term demand for electric vehicles, even in a scenario of phasing out most fossil fuel-powered cars. However, the heavy concentration of battery production in China poses risks to global supply chains. The IEA also notes that the advancement of sodium-ion batteries, which eliminate the need for lithium, is expected to further reduce demand for critical minerals. Additionally, the agency advocates rapid expansion of recycling of minerals used in batteries as a way to increase transparency and resilience in supply chains. Targeted attack or legitimate criticism? But how do you differentiate legitimate concerns about the impacts of mining from misinformation about electric vehicle supply chains? While McElrea says there is a "targeted attack" on electric vehicles, promoted by media sympathetic to fossil fuels, critical minerals and energy security expert Vlado Vivoda, from the University of Queensland, says that not all criticism is necessarily coordinated or made in bad faith. “Many concerns related to mineral extraction, processing, working conditions, impacts on soil, waste and the concentration of supply chains are real,” he says. This is why, according to him, it is so easy to challenge pro-energy transition narratives that present clean energy as something "immaculate". Communications co-chair of the global coalition Climate Action Against Disinformation, Philip Newell, says that real concerns about injustice in resource extraction must start by empowering communities affected by mining. This can occur through the participation of these communities in the profits from the activity or through the strengthening and stricter application of environmental and labor laws. Energy crisis fuels misinformation For Vivoda, "efforts to delegitimize clean technologies" have to do with the current global energy crisis. He argues that suggesting that clean technologies are "as bad as, or even worse than, the fossil fuel-based system" ends up creating inertia and delaying the energy transition. Still, the expert says the transition to a low-carbon economy needs to offer the level of transparency in supply chains that has often been absent in the fossil fuel sector. “The appropriate response is not to romanticize clean technology, but to compare systems honestly and manage new supply chains much better than old ones,” he says.