When it comes to buying any product, especially new ones, environmental impact isn’t the only thing to take into consideration. Using a new set of materials can have unintended consequences, and many of them don’t directly affect consumers, especially those in the financial position to buy EVs. It is the responsibility of the consumer to research how the manufacturing process of the product they buy can affect others, because even though they aren’t directly impacting other people, people can be hurt because of their consumption. Buying a product sponsors the manner it is made in, as the money spent on the item goes toward the established process and the people who perpetuate it. Unlike watching a strike in one’s hometown or hearing about it on the news, impoverished countries often don’t get the widespread press coverage they deserve, forced to suffer as a consequence of the actions of consumers who haven’t done the research (or don’t care). The production of electric vehicles can be destructive to local regions by sucking up resources, polluting the environment, forcing people from their homes, and sending children to work for long hours with little pay. Those looking to purchase a new vehicle are in a position of financial power, and they have a moral obligation to consider who they’re giving that power to and how it affects others when they purchase a new vehicle.

As mentioned previously, lithium extraction is incredibly resource-intensive, but its burden on the environment is not the only problem. The mining and processing of lithium has a negative impact on the local community in the areas it is harvested from, which is especially problematic in developing countries, which is where resource extraction tends to occur. Lithium mining and processing uses large quantities of water, as “just a tonne of lithium requires up to 2 million litres of water” to extract, which can be devastating to local populations (“Why Electric Cars Are Better for the Environment”). In Chile’s Atacama Desert, mining companies have drained “65 per cent of the region’s water” as of 2018, which can hurt local farmers, especially in a desert where “some communities already have to get water driven in from elsewhere” (Gersony). It might not seem like someone buying a new Tesla means that they’re putting financial pressure on farmers in Chile, but it is only because of the demand for lithium and the tolerance of these practices that the lives of these people are being invaded by foreign companies. That being said, it’s not as simple as just using less water, as methods involving evaporation are an essential part of lithium extraction. More sustainable techniques should be investigated, but until better methods are reasonable to adopt, companies disrupting local lives by draining them of their natural resources should invest in public solutions to the problems they cause. Additionally, lithium operations cause problems other than water usage, many of which do have simple solutions. In one region in Argentina affected by lithium mining, locals expressed their distress about the projects, saying that they “have contaminated streams used by humans[, livestock, and] crop irrigation” (Katwala). Allowing chemicals used for processing to infiltrate local environments and hurt native citizens is careless and unacceptable, and it should not be normalized for a company to suck up a region’s natural resources and then proceed to poison local waters. It is not acceptable to barge into foreign nations, especially those that struggle financially, and sap them of their natural resources, offering no compensation or seeking a more sustainable alternative. 

The problems caused by the production of electric vehicles, and most objects of consumption in general, is not necessarily because of the materials being gathered, but how their production is monitored. This is further illustrated in the manufacturing of graphite, which is used in many lithium-ion batteries due to its efficiency as an anode. The recent growth in demand in graphite, combined with a lack of regulation, is an unfortunate combination for those unlucky enough to live in areas where graphite is produced. In 2016, a report by the Washington Post enlightened readers on how the mass production of graphite has influenced the lives of those living near graphite factories when they spoke to villagers in five towns in China. The lack of regulation on these graphite production companies led to locals reporting “sparkling night air, damaged crops, homes and belongings covered in soot, [and] polluted drinking water” (Whoriskey). It is incredibly alarming that the factories of these different towns feel comfortable in disrupting the lives of locals to such an extent that the night air glitters with the graphite embedded in it. Locals have done nothing to deserve the health risks that arise from constantly inhaling airborne graphite particles and ingesting it in their water or the financial burden of ruined harvests as a result of pollution. Even more worrying is the fact that this is facilitated by authorities; instead of trying to remedy the problem, local governments are more interested in defending the exploitative corporations that rake in money than the villagers being mistreated by their practices. According to the Post report, cleanup efforts have been unsuccessful because “local authorities are closely allied with company officials” and refuse to take action (Whoriskey). Authorities not only turned a blind eye, but even played a part in oppressing locals, as “plant managers and party officials sometimes sternly discouraged journalists from speaking with villagers,” and at three villages, “the taxi carrying Post journalists was followed.” The fact that aggressors felt comfortable pursuing reporters on several occasions exemplifies the blatant corruption in the way these companies are being monitored. It is clear that the problem with graphite factories lies not with the actual product, but the policy surrounding its production. Consumers should demand a change in how the production is regulated, because without external pressure, these corrupt systems cannot be expected to change.

Factories and mines can be damaging to those living around them, but the exploitation of native people also seeps into the way employees are treated. The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), which is rich with cobalt, “produces at least 50 percent of the world’s cobalt,” which is a key component of many lithium-ion batteries (“This is What We Die For”). In the DRC, workers are pressured to work long hours with minimal pay for the extraction of cobalt, which even extends to children, who spend all day doing hard physical labor in unsafe conditions. In 2016, Amnesty International released a report in which they spoke directly to “children as young as seven” in the DRC that worked in the mines, who reported “work[ing] for up to 12 hours a day in the mines, carrying heavy loads,” only earning one to two dollars per day (“This is What We Die For”). This is completely avoidable, but by short-changing employees, those in power can inflate their profit margins. This demonstrates how important it is to call attention to injustice, because though companies can certainly afford to provide safe working conditions, if nobody makes them, they have no reason to pay their employees a reasonable salary instead of stuffing their pockets. Of course, people don’t realize that when they upgrade to a new phone or buy a new EV that they could be subjecting children to exhausting and dangerous working conditions with little reward. In fact, even some of those that know of the exploitation of workers in the DRC likely don’t think that their purchases contribute to exploitation, because humans tend to think that they are the exception. Surely, they believe, only shady weird companies operating in a foreign country use cobalt that was mined by young children. However, battery makers that buy this cobalt claim to have sold their batteries to many popular brands including “Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, Sony, Daimler and Volkswagen” (“This is What We Die For”). The production of major electronics uses cobalt mined by these children, who go through strenuous physical labor for a measly salary that barely can sustain them. In a world where rechargeable batteries are only growing in demand, consumers must catalyze a change in the practices of the companies they buy from. At this point in society, it is not reasonable to expect people to stop buying new devices with rechargeable batteries altogether, as they are an integral part of modern life that many rely on. Instead, customers should demand a change in the practices of the companies they buy from, because sourcing their materials from mines using child labor is not something that consumers should knowingly tolerate. 

In addition to mistreating their workers, cobalt mines in the DRC have disrupted the lives of local citizens by forcing them out of their homes. In 2016, a copper and cobalt mine reopened in Kolwezi without the consultation of the nearby community, forcibly removing people from their homes. Donat Kambola, the president of IBGDH, an organization dedicated to protecting human rights, reported in an article by Amnesty International that “[p]eople are being forcibly evicted, or threatened or intimidated into leaving their homes, or misled into consenting to derisory settlements,” with little reasoning and no equitable alternative. The affected area consists of a developed neighborhood where about 39,000 people live, but in the eyes of the project operators, which include a mining company owned by the DRC, the value of the precious minerals that are embedded in the ground is overpowers the value of the lives of the residents (“Forced Evictions at Industrial Cobalt and Copper Mines in the DRC”). Citizens were offered compensation to move, but it made up only a fraction of the value of their existing homes. One victim told reporters that they “‘had a large house, with electricity, water’” before the mine reopened, but after agreeing to relocate, could only afford “‘a small house […] with the compensation,’” with “‘almost no electricity,’” and having no option but to “‘drink water from wells’” (“Forced Evictions at Industrial Cobalt and Copper Mines in the DRC”). A different former resident explained that she had no choice but to move, as explosions from the mine “caused cracks so large she feared her home would collapse” (“Forced Evictions at Industrial Cobalt and Copper Mines in the DRC”). It is concerning that the DRC would allow, let alone contribute, to the abuse of these citizens, who have had their lives destroyed by these mines. These residents have worked hard to establish a life for themselves, and through no fault of their own, they were pressured into uprooting their lives and relocating under worse conditions. The treatment of local citizens is appalling, and allowing it to go unchecked only encourages similar practices. As it is clear that corporations will exploit as much as they can and governments are complicit in that exploitation, it is up to consumers to call for change.

The manufacturing of electric vehicles relies on materials that are not being produced in an equitable manner, and unless action is taken, that will never change. Though it is arguable that regulating these factories and mines is the responsibility of local governments, it is clear that they are not doing enough to protect their citizens. As a result, it falls on the consumer to ensure that they are not supporting companies that screw over innocent people, because it is a consequence of their consumption. Continuing to support companies that take advantage of local resources in a way that harms the native communities will perpetuate their practices, so they must be held accountable for their actions if they’re expected to change. Holding these corporations accountable can mean avoiding their products, but there aren’t always a range of sustainable and ethical options for every product. These problems are not unique to electric vehicles, and cars are a necessity for billions of people, so most people don’t have the option of not buying one. What customers can do, then, is speak out on injustice, which grows attention towards their cause. With their reputation on the line, companies are more likely to make changes to satisfy their target audience, because isolating their customers means they won’t get paid. The social cost of EVs is significant, but the same can be said for almost any purchase made in everyday life. Consumers have a responsibility with each purchase to do the research and call out inequality wherever necessary, because otherwise, things will never improve.

Another piece of my English essay! This one ended up being a lot longer than the last, and it definitely strayed from EVs a little more this time, as it was more about the consequences of consumption. It bears some resemblance to my TB essay in the way that I emphasized attention and I felt like I was being repetitive, but at the same time, I think it’s an important point to make that perhaps isn’t discussed as frequently as it should be. Every time I write an essay I feel like I’m being so repetitive, but then I read versions where I’m not restating things as often and I’m like “I have no idea what’s going on.”

I chose the topic for this section because I’d heard a lot about oppression in Congo this winter and I wanted to learn more about it. I feel like I didn’t include enough about how cobalt is being phased out of a lot of batteries, but it’s so much longer than I intended as it is and I barely have time for this essay, so it didn’t make it in. I hadn’t heard anything about graphite production, but I’m really glad I stumbled across the article I used, because it’s truly devastating how many people are being affected by graphite factories. It’s frustrating how much injustice is ingrained in every aspect of our lives, but understanding the situation is a big part in counteracting it, along with sharing it with others. So here I am! Sharing it with you! I hope you can take away some knowledge of this week’s synopsis and maybe pass on some knowledge yourself. Stay tuned to learn with me!

Works Cited

“Forced Evictions at Industrial Cobalt and Copper Mines in the DRC.” Amnesty International, 31 Oct. 2023, http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/09/drc-cobalt-and-copper-mining-for-batteries-leading-to-human-rights-abuses/. 

Gersony, Laura. “Hotspots H2O: In Chile’s Lithium Mines, Climate and Environment Are Dueling Priorities.” Circle of Blue, 9 Dec. 2022, http://www.circleofblue.org/2022/hotspots/hotspots-h2o-in-chiles-lithium-mines-climate-and-environment-are-dueling-priorities/. 

Katwala, Amit. “The Spiralling Environmental Cost of Our Lithium Battery Addiction.” Wired, Conde Nast, 5 Aug. 2018, http://www.wired.com/story/lithium-batteries-environment-impact/. 

“Major Electronics Brands, Including Apple, Samsung and Sony, Are Failing to Do Basic Checks to Ensure That Cobalt Mined by Child Laborers Has Not Been Used in Their Products, Said Amnesty International and Afrewatch in a Report Published Today.” Amnesty International USA, 15 Jan. 2016, http://www.amnestyusa.org/reports/this-is-what-we-die-for-human-rights-abuses-in-the-democratic-republic-of-the-congo-power-the-global-trade-in-cobalt/.

Whoriskey, Peter. “In Your Phone, in Their Air.” Washington Post, 10/02 2016. ProQuest; SIRS Issues Researcher, https://explore.proquest.com/sirsissuesresearcher/document/2262759360?accountid=163174.