If there is a silver lining to the story of mineral resources—resources that fuel life as we know it, resources that we dig into Earth to access, and fight and even die over—it is this: They are eminently reusable. In fact, the greatest reserves yet of gold and silver and neodymium may not be hidden in some desert canyon but rather sitting in the backs of our own closets and garages, or scattered throughout our landfills as e-waste (electronic waste). An average gold mine produces a mere 5 grams of gold per metric ton of rock—and sometimes less, depending on the local geology. A metric ton of cell phones, on the other hand, might contain nearly 200 grams of the precious metal—plus well over 100 kg of copper, 3 kg of silver, and a smattering of neodymium and other rare earth elements. Likewise for our flat-screen televisions, laptops, and iPads: They all contain a bevy of essential and nonrenewable mineral resources.

To be sure, metal recycling is already big business in the United States and elsewhere around the world. Indeed, the process of recycling scrap metal from cars and other vehicles, not to mention home appliances, has long been an industry unto itself. And aluminum is so effectively recycled in the United States that, on average, the aluminum in any given beverage can is back on the shelf in 2 months, in another can. INFOGRAPHIC 26.8

It’s clear from such successes that recycling can supply needed minerals while eliminating (or at least minimizing) the need for destructive mining practices. But for that to work, it has to be done right. And when it comes to waste, that is still not happening. Most of our discarded cell phones, computers, and flat-screen televisions collect dust in the crevices of our homes and offices, only to be discarded in ordinary trash heaps. Or eventually they end up in a developing-world slum, where impoverished workers expose themselves to significant health and safety hazards and contaminate their local environment as they try to extract the various metals contained within the equipment, using the crudest of tools and techniques.

There is, of course, a better way. “Programs similar to the ones we have for plastic recycling, but focused on e-waste, could make a huge difference,” says retired mineralogist Robert Housley. “We need a system whereby discarded electronics are picked up from people’s homes and delivered to facilities specializing in e-recycling—facilities where lawmakers can mandate—and regulators can enforce—proper health and safety standards.”

In other parts of the developed world, an entire industry is being born around this very idea. The growing demand and rising price for elements like indium, gold, and neodymium has made recovering them from hybrid vehicles, electronics, and other products an attractive endeavor—one that several big-name producers such as Honda, Toyota, and Hitachi are pursuing. In fact, thanks to new technology that has made extracting metals from electronics easier and cheaper, Japan has already opened several recycling plants devoted to electronics. (By some estimates, the country has about 300,000 metric tons of rare earth minerals stored in used electronics.) And France is quickly following suit; two new factories are projected to generate roughly 200 metric tons a year of rare earth minerals from recycled magnets, batteries, and fluorescent lamps.

26-15

As with any other conservation efforts, though, recycling is only one of the four Rs (see Chapter 7). The other three—refusing, reducing, and reusing—could serve us here as well. “We’ve gone kind of upgrade mad in this country,” Cummings says. “If we used our cell phones and laptops until they naturally expired…we could really make a difference.”

Meanwhile, there’s another R to consider: redesign. Indeed, Hersam and the other Northwestern University researchers are not the only ones trying to replace important minerals with less environmentally taxing, more human rights–friendly substitutes. Ceramics (made from sand) are being substituted for some metals. Fiber-optic cables (also made from sand) are increasingly replacing copper wire. And in cases where there is no substitute, process engineers are redesigning products with an eye toward using less material. Aluminum cans are a good example of this: They are thinner today than in the past. In 1975, a pound of aluminum yielded 27 cans; in 2008, a pound produced 34 cans.

26-16

But most experts agree that neither recycling nor scientific wizardry will replace all that we dig from Earth. Indeed, mining will be necessary for many lifetimes to come. This is why we need to do it more responsibly, says Cummings. “The key is to minimize the damage as much as possible.” We cannot eliminate the negative environmental impacts of mining, but we can reduce them. That means employing best practices—methods recognized as the most efficient and safest available at the time. More-sensitive sensing equipment, for example, reduces the need for exploratory drilling or digging; and more energy-efficient and cleaner-running mine equipment can dramatically reduce the carbon footprint. For his part, Cummings would also like to see would-be miners avoid sensitive ecosystems, like coastal estuaries where many aquatic organisms come to spawn, or streams that house rare, endemic species. The proposed Pebble Mine near Alaska’s Bristol Bay, for example, cuts dangerously close to the path traced by wild salmon on their way to inland freshwater streams. “In cases like that, we really have to weigh as a society what our priorities are,” he says. INFOGRAPHIC 26.9

Today, Mountain Pass is creaking back to life with a $1 billion makeover that the mine’s operators have dubbed Project Phoenix. Mining resumed in 2012, with an annual production capacity estimated at around 19,000 metric tons once it is fully operational. This time around, they say, things will be different. The new facility will recycle wastewater, along with most of the chemicals used to pry the rare earth minerals from their rock substrates; that means no more long, winding, leaking pipes and no more evaporation ponds. So far, critics are optimistic: On one recent tour of the facility, Housley stood on a steel walkway, overlooking a pit that ran at least 152 meters (500 feet) deep, as the mine’s lead geologist pointed out some of the company’s latest environmental safeguards. “They seemed much more on top of their game,” Housley said later. “They may finally get it right this time around.” Meanwhile, back at Northwestern, scientists are betting that environmental sustainability will rank high among those priorities—and that developing smart alternatives now will help us avoid having to scour Earth for minerals like indium later—digging, grinding, smelting, and polluting as we go.

26-17

Select References:

Gordon, R. B., et al. (2006). Metal stocks and sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103: 1209–1214.

Long, K. R., et al. (2010). The principal rare earth elements deposits of the United States—A summary of domestic deposits and a global perspective. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5220.

Paul, J., & Campbell, G. (2011). Investigating Rare Earth Element Mine Development in EPA Region 8 and Potential Environmental Impacts. EPA Document 908R11003.

26-18