Highlights

• Dr. Jessica DiCarlo and collaborators propose “just-shoring” in Nature Energy—a framework requiring community co-governance of critical mineral extraction to prevent new sacrifice zones during the clean energy transition.
• Current strategies (on-shoring, re-shoring, friend-shoring) improve geopolitical security but risk relocating environmental burdens to Indigenous and agrarian lands without adequate protections or benefit-sharing.
• The framework asks: Who benefits? Whose risks increase? How much extraction is necessary?—challenging policymakers to balance supply chain security with social legitimacy and environmental stewardship.

---

A commentary published in Nature Energy by Dr. Jessica DiCarlo (opens in a new tab), a human geographer at the University of Utah’s School of Environment (opens in a new tab), Society & Sustainability, together with collaborators Raphael Deberdt, Nicole Smith, Scott Odell, Aaron Malone, and Lydia Jennings, proposes a new framework called “just-shoring” to guide how countries secure the critical minerals required for the global energy transition. The authors argue that current Western strategies—such as on-shoring, re-shoring, and friend-shoring supply chains for materials including lithium, cobalt, copper, and rare earth elements—may improve geopolitical security but risk repeating historical patterns of environmental harm and social inequality. Their proposal calls for stronger governance structures that give affected communities—particularly Indigenous and agrarian populations—a meaningful role in decision-making across the entire mineral lifecycle, from exploration and permitting to mine closure and recycling. Without such protections, the authors warn that the global race to secure materials for electric vehicles, wind turbines, semiconductors, and advanced defense systems could recreate “sacrifice zones” reminiscent of earlier fossil-fuel extraction.

Study Approach: A Conceptual Framework for Resource Governance

Unlike empirical mining studies that analyze geological deposits or production economics, this article is a policy commentary and conceptual framework. The authors synthesize research on energy transition minerals, environmental justice, and global supply chain governance.

Their analysis focuses on how governments currently attempt to secure critical raw materials (CRMs).

Three dominant strategies are identified:

• On-shoring – developing new domestic mining or processing capacity
• Re-shoring – bringing back industries previously moved offshore
• Friend-shoring – relocating supply chains to politically aligned countries

The commentary examines how these strategies interact with climate goals, geopolitical competition, and community impacts. The authors highlight a structural concern: many proposed mining and processing projects tied to the clean-energy transition are located on or near Indigenous or agrarian lands, raising questions about land rights, environmental protection, and equitable distribution of economic benefits.

Key Findings: Security Without Justice?

The central argument of the commentary is that supply chain security alone does not guarantee ethical or sustainable mineral extraction.

Several key observations emerge:

1. Mineral supply chains remain geographically concentrated.

Production and processing of some critical minerals remain heavily concentrated in a small number of countries. For example, China maintains a dominant role in rare earth refining and processing.

2. Reshoring strategies may simply relocate environmental burdens.

Shifting mineral supply chains away from China or other dominant suppliers could move extraction pressures to regions where communities may have limited regulatory protections or political influence.

3. Communities often have limited decision-making power.

Many mining projects affecting rural or Indigenous lands move forward with limited local participation in governance or benefit sharing.

4. Climate urgency can accelerate extraction pressures.

The authors caution that the urgent push for decarbonization may sometimes be used to justify the rapid expansion of mining without fully addressing social and environmental consequences.

The “Just-Shoring” Proposal

To address these concerns, the paper proposes a “just-shoring” framework guided by three core questions:

• Who benefits from extraction?
• Whose risks are amplified?
• How much material extraction is actually necessary for a just energy transition?

Under this framework, communities would gain stronger roles in co-governance and oversight of mining projects, potentially influencing permitting, environmental safeguards, operational practices, and mine closure planning. The authors argue that this approach could increase transparency, accountability, and public trust in the emerging clean-energy mineral economy.

Study Limitations

Because the article is a conceptual policy proposal rather than an empirical study, it does not provide quantitative modeling of supply chains, economic costs, or production timelines.

Critics may also argue that expanding community co-governance requirements could slow the development of new mining projects, potentially complicating Western efforts to rapidly expand non-Chinese supply chains for rare earths and other strategic minerals.

In addition, the commentary does not deeply address the technical and industrial bottlenecks that already constrain Western mineral supply chains, including separation technology, refining capacity, and capital-intensive processing infrastructure.

Implications for the Global Critical Minerals Race

The commentary arrives at a pivotal moment. Governments in the United States, Europe, Japan, and Australia are racing to secure mineral supply chains essential for electric vehicles, renewable energy technologies, and advanced defense systems.

The “just-shoring” concept reframes the debate: supply chain security must be balanced with environmental stewardship and social legitimacy.

For policymakers, this could mean integrating stronger community participation and governance provisions into mining approvals and supply agreements. For the industry, the proposal underscores the growing importance of maintaining a social license to operate, alongside geological resources and financing.

Whether the concept evolves into an enforceable policy remains uncertain. However, the commentary highlights a central tension in the energy transition: how to obtain the minerals required for decarbonization without reproducing the inequities and environmental harms of past resource booms.

Citation: DiCarlo, J., Deberdt, R., Smith, N., Odell, S., Malone, A., & Jennings, L. (2025). A just energy transition requires just-shoring critical materials. Nature Energy. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-025-01940-4 (opens in a new tab)