It’s Dirty. It’s Not a Secret. The Truth About the Eco-Industrial Complex.
The solution to the climate crisis isn't technology, it's psychology.
We’ve been sold this story—this comforting narrative that green tech is going to save us. Solving CO₂ by destroying biodiversity is just swapping one crisis for another.
Like its military counterpart, the Eco-Industrial Complex risks creating a cycle where policies and practices are influenced heavily by the industries that stand to profit from them, potentially sidelining more effective, less profitable environmental actions. Just as the arms race perpetuated global instability under the guise of defense, the rush towards renewable energy can create eco-centric policies that might not truly mitigate social and environmental damage (and may be making them worse).
Global investments in carbon-free energy are nearing $2 trillion in 2024—set to double the amount spent on fossil fuels. [1]
(I almost vomited in my mouth).
As we push for green technologies and sustainable solutions, it's crucial to scrutinize whether we are replacing one form of dependency with another—swapping fossil fuels for an addiction to lucrative 'green' technologies diverts attention from reducing consumption and dependency altogether.
This week I am jumping into what I think the real solution to climate change is and it’s not solar, wind, or hydro (or nuclear or carbon capture). I’ll show you how I think we’ve been duped and offer a growing brand of sustainability as a potential solution.
When ‘Green’ Still Isn’t Good Enough
It actually gets me a little riled up. To tout 'green tech' as a solution to our climate crisis is dismissive of its environmental costs. It’s ‘better’—until you start asking the right questions. Renewable energy is a misnomer – the sources rely just as heavily on nonrenewable resources – land degradation, intervention of our water sources, and labor concerns. Sustainability isn't just about reducing carbon emissions; it's about holistic stewardship of our planet's resources and accounting for the social impacts of our choices.
We know how bad mining is for the environment. About pollution of animal habitats and potable water. We’ve heard about the labor concerns in exploited countries. Or how dams obliterate ecosystems and displace vulnerable rural populations. The heating of reservoirs, the ineffective redistribution of water. And what about the nearly extinct Salmon populations (did y’all watch Patagonia’s Damnation?)?
Mining potentially influences 37% of Earth’s terrestrial land area (excluding Antarctica). “An enormous spatial footprint not specifically factored into global biodiversity threats. [...] Most mining areas (82%) target materials critical for renewable energy production.” [1]
“Renewable energy production will exacerbate mining threats to biodiversity.” Laura J. Sonter, Marie C. Dade, James E. M. Watson & Rick K. Valenta, Nature Communications, Volume 11.
Taken straight from International Energy Agency:
“The total market size of critical minerals like copper, cobalt, manganese and various rare earth metals grows almost seven-fold between 2020 and 2030 in the net zero pathway. Revenues from those minerals are larger than revenues from coal well before 2030.”
Translation: a massive boom in mining. We’re talking deep-sea mining, deforestation, and human rights abuses in regions already exploited by global markets. This creates substantial new opportunities for mining companies. It also creates new energy security concerns, including price volatility and additional costs for transitions, if supply cannot keep up with burgeoning demand.
New technology has increased the efficiencies of mining and reduced environmental impact. But it’s still far from ‘better for the environment.’
According to Earth.org when mining and processing lithium for lithium batteries “producing one tonne of lithium (enough for ~100 car batteries) requires approximately 2 million tonnes of water, which makes battery production an extremely water-intensive practice. In light of this, the South American Lithium triangle consisting of Chile, Argentina, and Bolivia, experienced heavy water depletion due to intensive lithium extraction in the area. In Chile alone, 65% of the region’s water was used for lithium extraction.”
…eek.
You can also read their articles on cobalt mining here and here. Too many horrific statistics and exploitative practices to list.
Why do we measure ‘better’ as CO₂ reduction while ignoring the environmental and social impacts?
Let’s call it what it is: a resource grab dressed up as sustainability.
If the best we can do is burn the planet differently, we’re missing the point. Are we solving climate change or just rebranding and repackaging a new form of destruction?
Don’t get me wrong–I want to make this point clear: energy diversification is important and effective. The efforts of solar, wind and hydro are not in vain. They represent crucial steps towards reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, carbon reduction, and mitigating the worst impacts of climate change. By incorporating a variety of renewable sources, we can stabilize our energy supply and reduce the environmental footprint associated with energy production (or at least diversify it).
But we have to be realistic. We can't swing one way and learn 20 to 50 years later that it was a mistake. We've already done this with coal and oil.
Mining Concerns Should Hit Home for Idahoans
(You may notice a strong emphasis on mining here. It’s closest to my raging heart. I’m happy to elaborate on dams, wind and carbon capture at a later point.)
The Frank Church—River of No Return Wilderness, including the Salmon-Challis National Forest in Idaho, is the largest continuous wilderness area in the lower 48 states. It's a landscape of rugged, deeply carved canyons, wild rivers, and pristine ecosystems—one of our nation’s true natural treasures. It also happens to sit next to the United States’ largest cobalt mine, owned not by a local or national entity, but by the Australian-based Jervois Mining.
I recently stood on the Idaho State Capitol steps with my children at a public lands rally. We were among hundreds protesting the potential selloff of our public lands. Energy dominance has become a bipartisan issue—both political parties have pushed agendas that prioritize extraction over preservation in pursuit of energy dominance in both fossil fuel and green energy. It’s not lost on the political right that there’s money in green energy and they’re readily embracing it.
Under the Trump administration, Idaho’s mineral-rich wilderness lands drew renewed attention for exploitation under the guise of forest management and the bluntness of energy dominance.
In his March 20th Executive Order titled “Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production” Trump states “Our national and economic security are now acutely threatened by our reliance upon hostile foreign powers’ mineral production. It is imperative for our national security that the United States take immediate action to facilitate domestic mineral production to the maximum possible extent.”
(I think I just vomited again.)
Offering up a bit of controversy opening and then shutting operations again, the Jervois Mine has made national headlines multiple times recently here, here and here. Local environmentalists have voiced urgent concerns, saying they want to ensure new mining doesn’t undo decades of hard-won restoration work. Supporting a seven-fold increase in critical mineral extraction may sound like climate progress, but it's also putting our public lands, ecosystems, and watersheds at serious risk.
Looks like they’ll be reopening the Jervois Mine again soon.
How Did We Fall So Hard for Green Groupthink?
(Aside from general special interest groups...) I’d like to introduce you to a social experiment: The Asch Experiment. The Asch Experiment, conducted by psychologist Solomon Asch in the 1950s, is a fundamental study in social psychology that illustrates the power of conformity in groups. “Asch invited individuals into the lab and assigned them the task of judging the length of a line. He also placed 6 [‘‘accomplices’ of the researcher (called "confederates")] into the lab who were assigned to give wrong answers publicly, so that the naïve subject could hear them before he provided his own answer. The results were very surprising: on average 35% of the real subjects followed the opinions of the confederates even if their answer was obviously wrong.”
In 2023 researchers at the Swiss University of Bern replicated the experiment and extrapolated more details of human psyche and social conformity. Their findings confirmed Asch’s results on a global scale, while also factoring in personality traits and political or monetary interests—ultimately showing that people will give an obviously wrong answer if those around them do too.
Is the green movement a product of social conformity endorsing dubious solutions in ‘renewable’ energy? Sprinkle a little bit of corporate coercion and a ‘gold mine’ of incentives and you’ve got a perfect recipe for propagandized groupthink.
As we pivot towards solutions for climate change, it's crucial to scrutinize the sustainability of these solutions beyond their carbon footprint.
We need to root ourselves in critical thinking. It doesn’t ask us to endorse any one idea—it simply asks us to question them, no matter where they come from or who’s presenting them. It’s not about disbelief, either. It’s about refusing to take things at face value. It means digging deeper, building context, seeking evidence, and exploring the opposites and alternatives.
Where we choose to direct our personal and professional energy matters. Most climate conversations are focused on what we should switch to, not what we should stop doing. It’s easier to sell alternatives than to face the harder truth: we need to consume less, across the board.
A real climate strategy needs to focus just as much on consuming less energy as it does on consuming it differently. It’s time to rethink our solutions before we lock ourselves into a future just as unsustainable as the past.
Degrowth: Radical, Reasonable (?), and Already Happening
The average U.S. household has over 250,000 items. Let that sink in. No amount of clean energy can offset that current rate of consumption (especially if growing global economies will increase their own consumption rates within the next decade).
My favorite ‘R’ has always been Reduce and I recently came across a unique sustainability brand - the degrowth movement. It is a fairly new concept to me, so I welcome input.
Degrowth is “both a social movement and a field of scientific research, which questions and criticises economic growth as an ideology. Degrowth proposes [...] alternative systems and ways of life that ensure human and planetary well-being within the boundaries of the biosphere [1].” It is proposed as a holistic solution to many global problems including poverty, labor issues, climate change, and environmental degradation.
There are incredible criticisms of the degrowth movement. Rightfully so. One of the biggest critics being Vox defaming it many times here and here and here. As I mentioned, critical thinking and questioning is imperative.
But perhaps it’s worth consideration.
Ontgroei, an organization heading up the degrowth movement in the Netherlands states “degrowth […] proposes a reduction of consumption and production to reach environmental sustainability, social justice and well-being, and can, therefore, take many different shapes and forms in practice,” offering many solutions from co-op housing, “permaculture, little free libraries, tool-sharing networks, community fridges, various types of co-operatives (farming, stores, energy), eco-villages or repair cafes.” It’s worth noting that, by modern definition, these aren’t radical ideas and are often looked at as solutions to current societal afflictions.
Many philosophies and ideologies in growing and mainstream political movements have roots in degrowth already. Consider Andrew Yang and his proposal for Universal Basic Income as well as a look at how we measure population health and wellbeing over GDP. Other populous movements including socializing healthcare, social justice, planned obsolescence and right to repair, localism and regenerative agriculture all have standing in the degrowth playbook.
Degrowth also includes the solutions proposed by B Corps initiatives including CEO pay ratio gaps, alternative solutions to flexible working and decreasing the 40 hour work week. It accounts for overproduction, manufacturing woes in the Global South, overconsumption and the majority of our waste issues.
The snail has become the symbol of the Degrowth movement. Copyright: Bàrbara Castro Urío. [1]
Proponents of the degrowth movement argue that localized economies—rooted in reduced consumption, shorter supply chains, and community resilience—can offer a more stable and humane alternative to growth-dependent systems. Instead of relying on GDP to measure success, these models prioritize well-being, ecological balance, and social equity. In times of recession, when traditional economies falter due to drops in consumer spending and global market instability, degrowth frameworks suggest that smaller-scale, locally driven economies are less vulnerable to shock.
By shifting focus to cooperative systems, mutual aid, regenerative agriculture, and public services like healthcare, housing, and education, degrowth doesn’t eliminate productivity—it reallocates it toward what actually sustains life. The argument is that when people’s basic needs are met through strong social programs and communities aren’t built around endless consumption, recessions don’t hit as hard—because people aren’t left so dependent on unstable market forces or individual purchasing power to survive.
If you’re interested in the Degrowth Movement vs. the Green Movement there is an incredible debate moderated by the brilliant author Kate Raworth between Oxford University’s Professor Samuel Fankhauser, a leading academic on green growth, and Autonomous University of Barcelona’s Professor Jason Hickel, a leading academic on degrowth.
If I allowed myself to get carried away, I might argue that this is the closest thing to a silver bullet I've ever seen. To many, it might appear overly ideological and utopian—too substantial a shift to sway the general populace. However, the same could be said for green energy: implementing it requires substantial infrastructure, financial investment, abundant resources, labor, and supportive policies—efforts that are arguably just as demanding. Degrowth, on the other hand, involves dismantling entrenched consumer systems and redirecting efforts towards enriching social resources.
When I think of degrowth, I imagine urban planning where city sidewalks and bike lanes are thoughtfully designed, and where practical urban gardens and green roofs soften the landscape, merging urban living with accessible, community-focused green spaces. I picture a German toy maker, diligently crafting high-quality toys in the Alps (LOL). I also like Chobani’s vision (seen below)! But more realistically, I see micro-economies taking root in communities, neighbors supporting neighbors, and the building of resilient, self-sustaining communities on a global scale.
Chobani’s 2021 vision for the future, ‘Eat today, feed tomorrow,’ created by UK based creative studio, The Line.
We Can Do Hard Things. History Changed Before. It Can Again.
I draw inspiration from successful social movements and historic global shifts in mindset. I reflect on the global women's rights movement and the civil rights movement in the United States, each a profound force for change in societal norms and laws. I consider the Renaissance, a period of cultural, artistic, political, and economic 'rebirth' that followed the Middle Ages, which reignited the exploration of classical philosophy, literature, and art.
I think back to the Axial Age, a crucial era that saw pivotal shifts in human thought across diverse civilizations including Greece, India, China, and the Middle East. This period was marked by a radical transformation in religious and philosophical ideas, with thinkers like Confucius, Buddha, Socrates, and the prophets of the Hebrew Bible challenging established norms and pioneering new ethical and philosophical frameworks.
I recall the Agricultural Revolution, when our ancient ancestors transitioned from nomadic tribes dependent on hunting and gathering to settled agricultural societies.
History is replete with instances where personal philosophies and global mindsets have undergone profound transformations.
Yeah, yeah, but HOW!?!?
This is where psychology comes in. We can invest as much effort into promoting reduction as we do into advocating for energy alternatives. We need a movement and our own renaissance to envision a better future. What do we want our future to look like?
We can develop campaigns to convince people that they're actually craving outside and community instead of the latest shopping trend. We can make a call to arms. A call to pause the Amazon finger tapping purchases. We can demand businesses make high quality, fixable products. We can vote with our dollars. We can vote in primaries and local elections and volunteer. Let’s get radical. Let’s replace closets with vertical indoor gardens. We can make dumpster diving glamorous, repairing appliances a revived lost art, and turning off the air conditioning to join our neighbors outside once again to pass discomfort and time as a community.
We find ourselves at a critical juncture, and such pain points can be invaluable opportunities for growth and self-improvement, pushing us to develop resilience and endurance.
This is a lesson I emphasize to my children daily: It’s okay to be uncomfortable—embracing discomfort is essential for (de)growth.
Like what you’re reading? Get it it delivered to your mailbox every Thursday.
If you’d like to explore more, here are some popular posts:
The Gospel of Paul (Rudd and My Husband): Do Less
This is Trash, This is Trash, This is Trash.
For Liberty—and Bathrooms for All
The truth is, science is debatable: Why progressives lost ground.
Read them all here.
Sources
Thompson, Avery. "Clean Energy Spending Will Surpass $2 Trillion This Year." Scientific American, 22 Jan. 2024, www.scientificamerican.com/article/clean-energy-spending-will-surpass-usd2-trillion-this-year.
International Energy Agency. "Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector." IEA, 2021, iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ad0d4830-bd7e-47b6-838c-40d115733c13/NetZeroby2050-ARoadmapfortheGlobalEnergySector.pdf.
Union of Concerned Scientists. "Environmental Impacts of Hydroelectric Power." Union of Concerned Scientists, www.ucsusa.org/resources/environmental-impacts-hydroelectric-power.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. "Hydropower and the Environment." EIA, www.eia.gov/energyexplained/hydropower/hydropower-and-the-environment.php.
Woodwell Climate Research Center. "Brazil Hydroelectric Dams - Cerrado." Woodwell Climate Research Center, www.woodwellclimate.org/brazil-hydroelectric-dams-cerrado/.
ScienceDirect. "Impacts of Hydroelectric Development on Aquatic Ecosystems." ScienceDirect, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004896972100810X.
Patagonia. "Damnation." YouTube, uploaded by Patagonia, www.youtube.com/watch?v=e08Guxqw-3s.
The White House. "Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production." The White House, 20 Mar. 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/immediate-measures-to-increase-american-mineral-production/.
ScienceDirect. "Hydroelectric Projects and Changes in Gravity." ScienceDirect, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0926985114001815.
De Gruyter. "Earthquakes Induced by Hydroelectric Projects." De Gruyter, www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/geo-2022-0350/html?lang=en.
Nature. "Environmental Cost of Mining for Clean Energy." Nature Magazine, www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17928-5.
MIT Climate Portal. "Will Mining for Clean Energy Resources Harm the Environment?" MIT, climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/will-mining-resources-needed-clean-energy-cause-problems-environment.
United Nations Environment Programme. "What Are Energy Transition Minerals and How Can They Unlock Clean Energy Age?" UNEP, www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/what-are-energy-transition-minerals-and-how-can-they-unlock-clean-energy-age.
Scientific American. "Making the Entire U.S. Car Fleet Electric Could Cause Lithium Shortages." Scientific American, www.scientificamerican.com/article/making-the-entire-u-s-car-fleet-electric-could-cause-lithium-shortages/.
Harvard International Review. "Not So Green Technology: The Complicated Legacy of Rare Earth Mining." Harvard IR, hir.harvard.edu/not-so-green-technology-the-complicated-legacy-of-rare-earth-mining/.
International Energy Agency. "Global Outlook on Critical Minerals." IEA, 2024, iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ee01701d-1d5c-4ba8-9df6-abeeac9de99a/GlobalCriticalMineralsOutlook2024.pdf.
Axel Franzen, Sebastian Mader, Editor: Mike Farjam. "The Power of Social Influence: A Replication and Extension of the Asch Experiment." Psychology, vol. 43, no. 5, 2005, pp. 437-451, PMC, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10686423/
Tollefson, Jeff. "How Green Is Blue Energy?" Nature, vol. 604, 28 Apr. 2022, www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04412-x.
Ontgroei. "Wat is Ontgroei?" Ontgroei, www.ontgroei.nl/en/wat-is-ontgroeien.
Beauchamp, Zack. "To Save the Planet, Shrink the Economy." Vox, Future Perfect, 6 May 2021, www.vox.com/future-perfect/22408556/save-planet-shrink-economy-degrowth.
Piper, Kelsey. "Shrinking the Economy Won’t Save the Planet: 561 Research Papers In, the Case for Degrowth Is Still Weak." Vox, Future Perfect, 12 Sep. 2024, www.vox.com/future-perfect/371640/economic-growth-climate-change-degrowth-science-global-warming.
Piper, Kelsey. "In Defense of the Washing Machine." Vox, Future Perfect, 27 Sep. 2024, www.vox.com/future-perfect/374286/degrowth-economic-growth-washing-machines-electricity-global-poverty.
Federico Demaria. Degrowth: A Call for Radical Socio-Ecological Transformation." Global Dialogue, International Sociological Association, 14 Mar. 2019, globaldialogue.isa-sociology.org/articles/degrowth-a-call-for-radical-socio-ecological-transformation.
The Oxford Smith School. "How to Save the Planet: Degrowth vs Green Growth?." YouTube, uploaded by OxfordSmithSchool, Streamed live on Sep 2, 2022, www.youtube.com/live/YxJrBR0lg6s.
Brady, Jeff. "Cobalt Is Important for Green Energy, So Why Has America's Only Cobalt Mine Closed?" NPR, 14 Dec. 2023, www.npr.org/2023/12/14/1219246964/cobalt-is-important-for-green-energy-so-why-has-americas-only-coablt-mine-closed.
Katersky, Aaron. "Idaho Cobalt Mining Devastated Local Water, Revisited With Greener Technology." ABC News, www.abcnews.go.com/US/idaho-cobalt-mining-devastated-local-water-revisited-greener/story?id=88754951.
Green, Miranda. "Idaho Cobalt Mine Is a Harbinger of What's to Come." Grist,www.grist.org/regulation/idaho-cobalt-mine-is-a-harbinger-of-whats-to-come/.
