Puneet Singla & Prateek Tongar

Abstract

The pursuit of sustainable development has led to the rapid growth of green technologies, particularly in transportation and energy. Electric vehicles (EVs) and biofuels like ethanol-blended petrol are often hailed as environmentally friendly alternatives to traditional fossil fuels. However, beneath the surface, these technologies come with significant environmental trade-offs. EV batteries, especially those made from lithium-ion, contribute to pollution through resource extraction and limited battery lifespans. Similarly, the production of ethanol consumes vast quantities of water, creating a strain on already limited freshwater resources. This article delves into the paradox of green technologies—how these solutions, while designed to mitigate environmental harm, often introduce new challenges that require comprehensive evaluation. We will explore the environmental impact of EVs, the production and disposal of lithium-ion batteries, and the ecological costs of ethanol production, offering a balanced view of these seemingly green alternatives.

Part I: Electric Vehicles – The Environmental Dilemma

1.1 The Promise of Electric Vehicles

Electric vehicles (EVs) have been positioned as a key solution in the battle against climate change, offering the potential to reduce emissions and decrease dependence on fossil fuels. Powered by electricity rather than gasoline, EVs are heralded for their ability to reduce air pollution in urban areas, where transportation contributes heavily to poor air quality. Governments worldwide have incentivized EV adoption through tax credits, rebates, and other policies to encourage consumers to switch to electric alternatives .

However, while EVs promise to reduce tailpipe emissions, a closer look at the full lifecycle of electric vehicles reveals several environmental challenges that undermine their green image. From the extraction of raw materials to the disposal of batteries, the environmental cost of EVs may, in some cases, rival that of conventional gasoline-powered cars .

1.2 Lithium-Ion Batteries – A Key Culprit

At the heart of most EVs lies the lithium-ion battery, a crucial component responsible for storing and delivering electrical energy. These batteries are energy-dense and can be recharged multiple times, making them ideal for electric cars. However, the environmental impact of producing lithium-ion batteries is significant. The extraction of lithium, cobalt, nickel, and other minerals required for these batteries is energy-intensive and often leads to ecological degradation .

Lithium, in particular, is sourced from regions like Chile and Bolivia, where it is extracted from brine under harsh conditions. The process requires vast amounts of water—approximately 500,000 gallons to produce one metric ton of lithium . This has led to water scarcity in regions already struggling with limited freshwater resources. Additionally, cobalt, another essential component of lithium-ion batteries, is often mined in regions with poor environmental and labour standards, particularly in the Democratic Republic of Congo .

1.3 Short Battery Lifespan and Disposal Issues

An often-overlooked issue with EVs is the limited lifespan of lithium-ion batteries. The typical EV battery lasts only about 5-10 years before its capacity diminishes, rendering it inefficient for further use . Once a battery reaches the end of its useful life, it must be replaced, raising concerns about disposal and recycling.

While some progress has been made in recycling lithium-ion batteries, the process is expensive and inefficient. Many batteries end up in landfills, where they pose significant environmental risks, such as soil and water contamination from toxic chemicals . The limited recyclability of these batteries calls into question the long-term sustainability of electric vehicles as a solution to climate change.

 1.4 Hidden Carbon Footprint

Another paradoxical element of EVs is their hidden carbon footprint. Although EVs do not emit carbon dioxide directly, the production of electric vehicles, particularly their batteries, generates substantial greenhouse gas emissions. Studies have shown that manufacturing an EV can result in up to 70% more emissions than building a traditional gasoline car, primarily due to the battery production process .

Moreover, the electricity used to charge EVs is often derived from non-renewable sources like coal or natural gas, especially in regions where renewable energy infrastructure is underdeveloped. This means that while EVs may reduce tailpipe emissions, they are still indirectly contributing to carbon emissions through the power grid .

1.5 Addressing the Challenges

To mitigate the environmental impacts of EVs, several solutions have been proposed. These include improving battery recycling processes, increasing the efficiency of battery production, and investing in renewable energy sources to power the electrical grid. Some companies are also exploring alternative battery technologies, such as solid-state batteries, which may offer higher energy density and longer lifespans while reducing the need for environmentally damaging materials .

However, without significant advancements in these areas, the environmental benefits of EVs will remain limited by the paradoxical nature of their production and lifecycle. Policymakers and manufacturers must consider the full environmental impact of EVs, from cradle to grave, to ensure that the transition to electric transportation truly benefits the planet.

Part II: The Water Footprint of Ethanol-Blended Fuels

2.1 The Rise of Ethanol-Blended Petrol

Ethanol, derived from agricultural crops such as corn, sugarcane, and soybeans, has been promoted as a cleaner alternative to gasoline. Ethanol-blended petrol, often referred to as E10 or E15 (containing 10% or 15% ethanol, respectively), has gained traction in many countries as a way to reduce carbon emissions and promote renewable energy . Proponents argue that ethanol is a renewable fuel that produces fewer emissions when burned compared to traditional gasoline, making it an attractive option for reducing the carbon footprint of the transportation sector .

However, the production of ethanol comes with significant environmental costs, particularly in terms of water consumption. Ethanol is a water-intensive fuel, and the cultivation of crops for ethanol production requires vast amounts of water, leading to concerns about the sustainability of this green technology .

2.2 Water-Intensive Agriculture

The production of ethanol primarily depends on crops such as corn in the United States and sugarcane in Brazil. While these crops are renewable, their cultivation requires substantial water resources. Corn, for instance, is a highly water-intensive crop, requiring up to 2,500 litres of water to produce just one liter of ethanol. This presents a significant challenge, especially in regions that already suffer from water scarcity or drought conditions .

In the United States, where corn is the primary feedstock for ethanol, large-scale irrigation is often necessary to maintain yields. This can place significant pressure on local water supplies, particularly in the Midwest, where water resources are already being depleted. Additionally, the production of ethanol requires water not only for irrigation but also for the processing of crops into biofuel, further exacerbating water usage concerns .

Sugarcane, another major feedstock for ethanol, is also water-intensive. In Brazil, the world’s largest producer of sugarcane ethanol, the demand for water in sugarcane cultivation has led to deforestation and environmental degradation in sensitive ecosystems such as the Cerrado, a vital tropical savanna biome. The water-intensive nature of ethanol production creates a paradox: while biofuels are promoted as sustainable alternatives, their production often results in unsustainable water use and environmental harm .

2.3 The Impact of Ethanol on Water Resources

The large-scale production of ethanol also has broader implications for global water resources. A 2010 study conducted by the National Academy of Sciences highlighted that the expansion of biofuel crops could increase competition for freshwater resources, potentially leading to conflicts between agricultural, industrial, and urban water users . The diversion of water for ethanol production can also impact aquatic ecosystems, as water-intensive agriculture often results in reduced water availability for rivers, lakes, and wetlands.

Additionally, ethanol production can contribute to water pollution. Fertilizers and pesticides used in the cultivation of biofuel crops can run off into nearby water bodies, leading to eutrophication and the degradation of aquatic ecosystems. This is particularly problematic in the U.S. Corn Belt, where fertilizer runoff from cornfields has created a large dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, an area where oxygen levels are too low to support marine life .

2.4 The Carbon Emissions Paradox

Ethanol-blended petrol is often promoted as a low-carbon alternative to gasoline, but the carbon emissions associated with its production and use present a more complex picture. While ethanol burns cleaner than traditional gasoline, reducing tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other pollutants, the overall lifecycle emissions of ethanol can be comparable to or even greater than those of conventional fossil fuels. This is due in part to the energy-intensive nature of agricultural practices and the use of fossil fuels in ethanol processing and transportation .

Moreover, the conversion of land for ethanol crop cultivation can lead to carbon emissions through deforestation and soil disturbance. In many cases, land that was previously used for food production or natural habitats is converted to grow biofuel crops, releasing stored carbon into the atmosphere. This phenomenon, known as indirect land-use change (ILUC), can significantly offset the carbon savings achieved through ethanol use. A study by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that when ILUC is factored in, the greenhouse gas emissions from ethanol can be as high as or higher than those from gasoline .

2.5 Ethanol’s Impact on Food Security

The shift towards biofuel production has also raised concerns about food security, particularly in developing countries. As more agricultural land is dedicated to growing biofuel crops like corn and sugarcane, less land is available for food production. This can drive up food prices, making it more difficult for low-income populations to access affordable food. The “food vs. fuel” debate has been a point of contention in many countries, as governments weigh the benefits of reducing carbon emissions against the potential social costs of rising food insecurity .

In 2007-2008, a global food crisis was partly attributed to the increased demand for biofuels, which contributed to higher prices for staple crops like corn and wheat. While biofuels like ethanol are designed to promote energy independence and reduce carbon emissions, their impact on global food prices and food availability cannot be overlooked. This paradoxical outcome challenges the notion that ethanol is a truly sustainable solution to the world’s energy needs .

2.6 Alternatives to Ethanol-Blended Fuels

Given the environmental and social challenges associated with ethanol-blended fuels, alternative biofuels and technologies are being explored. One potential solution is the development of second-generation biofuels, which are derived from non-food sources such as agricultural waste, algae, or cellulosic materials. These biofuels have the potential to reduce the water and land-use impacts associated with first-generation biofuels like ethanol, as they do not compete directly with food crops .

Another alternative is the use of hydrogen fuel cells, which produce zero emissions and can be powered by renewable energy sources. Hydrogen fuel cells offer a promising alternative to both gasoline and ethanol-blended fuels, but the technology is still in its early stages and faces significant challenges related to infrastructure development and cost .

Finally, improving the efficiency of internal combustion engines and promoting the use of electric vehicles can also help reduce reliance on ethanol-blended fuels. By increasing fuel efficiency standards and investing in public transportation and other low-carbon mobility options, governments can reduce the environmental impact of the transportation sector without relying on biofuels that have significant environmental and social trade-offs .

2.7 Policy Considerations

Policymakers must consider the full environmental and social impacts of ethanol-blended fuels when developing energy strategies. While ethanol offers potential benefits in terms of reducing tailpipe emissions and promoting renewable energy, its water-intensive production, contribution to deforestation, and impact on food security make it a less-than-ideal solution in many contexts.

To create truly sustainable energy policies, governments must adopt a holistic approach that considers the trade-offs associated with biofuels and other green technologies. This may involve supporting research and development into alternative fuels, improving agricultural practices to reduce water and fertilizer use, and ensuring that biofuel production does not come at the expense of food security or environmental protection .

Part III: Exploring Alternatives to Current Green Technologies

3.1 The Quest for Sustainable Energy Solutions

As the environmental drawbacks of electric vehicles (EVs) and ethanol-blended fuels become more apparent, the global energy sector has been pushing to develop alternative green technologies that can provide sustainable solutions without the same level of environmental trade-offs. These new technologies aim to reduce carbon emissions, minimize resource consumption, and mitigate the ecological impacts that current green technologies are known for.

Several promising alternatives, such as hydrogen fuel cells, solid-state batteries, and next-generation biofuels, offer potential improvements over current solutions. Each of these technologies comes with its own set of challenges, but they represent crucial steps toward a cleaner, more sustainable future. In this section, we will examine these alternatives, their potential environmental benefits, and the hurdles that need to be overcome to ensure they live up to their green promises.

3.2 Hydrogen Fuel Cells – A Zero-Emission Alternative?

Hydrogen fuel cells have gained significant attention as a possible replacement for fossil fuels in the transportation sector. Unlike internal combustion engines or EVs powered by lithium-ion batteries, hydrogen fuel cells produce zero tailpipe emissions, emitting only water vapor and heat. This positions hydrogen as a potentially superior alternative to both gasoline-powered vehicles and electric vehicles, which still contribute to pollution during battery production and electricity generation .

Hydrogen can be produced through several methods, with the most sustainable being electrolysis, which uses electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. When powered by renewable energy sources like wind or solar, this process can be entirely carbon-neutral. However, hydrogen production is currently dominated by natural gas reforming, which still generates significant carbon emissions. For hydrogen fuel cells to be truly green, there must be a large-scale shift toward renewable hydrogen production, which requires substantial investment in infrastructure and technology .

Another challenge facing hydrogen fuel cells is storage and distribution. Hydrogen is highly flammable and must be stored under high pressure, making it difficult to transport and store safely. Additionally, there is currently a lack of hydrogen refuelling infrastructure, making widespread adoption of hydrogen-powered vehicles difficult . Nonetheless, with continued investment and innovation, hydrogen fuel cells offer a promising long-term solution to the environmental challenges posed by both traditional and electric vehicles.

3.3 Solid-State Batteries – The Future of Electric Vehicles?

One of the most significant limitations of current EVs is the reliance on lithium-ion batteries, which are not only environmentally costly to produce but also have relatively short lifespans. A promising alternative is the development of solid-state batteries, which use a solid electrolyte instead of a liquid one. Solid-state batteries offer several potential advantages over traditional lithium-ion batteries, including higher energy density, faster charging times, and increased safety .

In terms of environmental impact, solid-state batteries could reduce the need for environmentally damaging materials like lithium and cobalt, which are used in large quantities in conventional batteries. Some solid-state battery designs even eliminate the need for these materials altogether, replacing them with more abundant and less harmful elements . Additionally, solid-state batteries have the potential for longer lifespans, reducing the frequency of battery replacements and the subsequent waste associated with battery disposal.

However, solid-state batteries are still in the early stages of development, and there are significant technical challenges that must be addressed before they can be widely adopted. These challenges include improving the durability of the solid electrolyte and scaling up production to meet the growing demand for electric vehicles. Despite these hurdles, many experts believe that solid-state batteries could eventually replace lithium-ion batteries as the standard in electric vehicles, offering a greener and more efficient alternative .

3.4 Next-Generation Biofuels – Beyond Ethanol

While ethanol-blended petrol has faced criticism for its environmental impact, researchers are working on the development of next-generation biofuels that could offer a more sustainable solution. These advanced biofuels, often referred to as second- or third-generation biofuels, are produced from non-food sources such as agricultural waste, algae, or cellulosic materials. By utilizing waste materials or crops that do not compete with food production, these biofuels aim to address many of the criticisms levelled against first-generation biofuels like ethanol .

One of the most promising next-generation biofuels is cellulosic ethanol, which is made from the inedible parts of plants, such as stems, leaves, and husks. Unlike traditional ethanol, which is derived from food crops like corn or sugarcane, cellulosic ethanol does not compete with food production and has a lower environmental footprint. Additionally, the use of agricultural waste products reduces the need for large-scale crop cultivation, minimizing water and fertilizer use .

Algae-based biofuels are another exciting development in the field of renewable energy. Algae can be grown in water-rich environments, including wastewater, and produce high yields of biofuel with relatively low land and resource use. Moreover, algae have the ability to capture carbon dioxide as they grow, offering the potential for negative emissions when used as a fuel source. However, scaling up algae production to meet global energy demand remains a significant challenge, and further research is needed to make algae-based biofuels commercially viable .

3.5 Renewable Energy Integration – The Role of Solar and Wind

Beyond transportation, the broader energy transition away from fossil fuels requires a massive shift toward renewable energy sources like solar and wind. One of the primary benefits of EVs and hydrogen fuel cells is that they can be powered by renewable electricity, further reducing their carbon footprint. However, the potential environmental benefits of these technologies are limited if they rely on electricity generated from coal or natural gas .

To maximize the sustainability of green technologies, governments and energy providers must invest heavily in renewable energy infrastructure. Solar and wind power have seen tremendous growth in recent years, but challenges remain in terms of energy storage and grid stability. Technologies such as battery storage, pumped hydro, and smart grids are essential for ensuring that renewable energy can meet the demands of an increasingly electrified transportation sector .

Incorporating renewable energy into the transportation sector also requires the development of more efficient and widespread charging infrastructure for electric vehicles, as well as refuelling stations for hydrogen-powered vehicles. Policymakers must prioritize the integration of renewable energy with transportation to ensure that green technologies live up to their potential in reducing emissions and environmental harm.

3.6 Policy and Economic Considerations

While technological advancements play a critical role in addressing the paradoxes of current green technologies, policy and economic frameworks are equally important. Governments must implement policies that encourage the development and adoption of truly sustainable energy solutions while addressing the shortcomings of existing technologies. This can include subsidies for research into next-generation batteries and biofuels, incentives for renewable energy development, and regulations that promote responsible resource extraction and recycling practices.

Economic incentives, such as carbon pricing or cap-and-trade systems, can also play a role in reducing the environmental impact of green technologies. By putting a price on carbon emissions, governments can encourage companies and consumers to adopt cleaner technologies and reduce their carbon footprints. Additionally, international cooperation is essential, as many of the materials used in green technologies, such as lithium and cobalt, are sourced from countries with limited environmental regulations. Global standards for sustainable resource extraction and environmental protection are needed to ensure that the environmental costs of green technologies are minimized .

3.7 The Future of Green Technologies

As we look to the future, it is clear that green technologies will play a central role in the transition to a low-carbon economy. However, the paradoxes inherent in current technologies, such as electric vehicles and ethanol-blended fuels, must be addressed to ensure that the transition is truly sustainable. The development of alternatives like hydrogen fuel cells, solid-state batteries, and next-generation biofuels offers hope that these challenges can be overcome. However, significant investments in research, infrastructure, and policy are needed to bring these technologies to scale and minimize their environmental impact .

Governments, industries, and consumers must all play a role in ensuring that green technologies live up to their potential as solutions to climate change and environmental degradation. By adopting a holistic approach that considers the full lifecycle of these technologies and their broader environmental and social impacts, we can create a more sustainable path forward for energy and transportation.

Part IV: Overview and Reflections on the Paradox of Green Technologies

4.1 Summary of the Environmental Paradoxes

Green technologies, such as electric vehicles (EVs) and ethanol-blended fuels, have emerged as essential tools in the global fight against climate change. They aim to reduce carbon emissions, decrease our reliance on fossil fuels, and promote cleaner, more sustainable energy sources. However, these technologies come with their own environmental trade-offs, creating a paradox that challenges their sustainability claims.

In Part I, we examined electric vehicles, particularly the environmental impact of lithium-ion battery production and disposal. While EVs reduce tailpipe emissions, the extraction of lithium, cobalt, and other raw materials necessary for battery production causes significant ecological harm, including deforestation, water contamination, and land degradation  . Moreover, the short lifespan and limited recyclability of these batteries introduce further sustainability concerns .

In Part II, we explored ethanol-blended fuels, which are often promoted as a cleaner alternative to gasoline. However, the water-intensive nature of ethanol production exacerbates freshwater depletion, particularly in regions already facing water stress . Additionally, converting land for biofuel crop production has been linked to deforestation and biodiversity loss . Ethanol production also contributes to the “food vs. fuel” dilemma, as the diversion of crops like corn for biofuel threatens food security .

In Part III, we discussed alternatives to current green technologies, such as hydrogen fuel cells, solid-state batteries, and second-generation biofuels. These technologies promise to reduce some of the environmental challenges posed by EVs and ethanol. However, these emerging technologies face challenges related to infrastructure development, cost efficiency, and scalability .

4.2 The Lifecycle Approach to Green Technologies

One of the key takeaways is the importance of adopting a lifecycle approach when evaluating green technologies. Too often, evaluations focus on emissions reductions at the point of use, without considering the broader environmental and social impacts throughout the lifecycle of the technology—from resource extraction to production, usage, and disposal .

For example, while EVs eliminate tailpipe emissions, their full lifecycle emissions, including those associated with battery production and reliance on non-renewable electricity, can rival those of conventional vehicles . Similarly, ethanol’s potential to reduce carbon emissions at the point of combustion must be weighed against the water, land, and energy resources consumed during its production .

The lifecycle approach promotes a more holistic understanding of green technologies, recognizing that true sustainability requires minimizing negative environmental impacts at every stage of a product’s lifecycle . This comprehensive evaluation is essential for policymakers and stakeholders to make informed decisions about which technologies to promote and invest in.

4.3 Policy Recommendations

Given the complex environmental trade-offs of green technologies, policymakers must craft strategies that prioritize long-term sustainability over short-term gains. Here are several policy recommendations aimed at addressing the paradoxes of green technologies:

1. Promote Research and Development (R&D) of Sustainable Technologies

Governments should increase funding for R&D into next-generation green technologies, such as hydrogen fuel cells, solid-state batteries, and second-generation biofuels . Additionally, investment in battery recycling technologies is critical to minimize the environmental impacts of lithium-ion battery production and disposal .

2. Incentivize Renewable Energy Integration

The effectiveness of green technologies, including EVs and hydrogen fuel cells, depends heavily on the energy grid’s reliance on renewable sources. Governments must incentivize the development of solar, wind, and other renewable energy sources to ensure that these green technologies are powered by clean energy . Policies supporting grid infrastructure expansion and energy storage technologies will be critical in achieving this transition .

3. Implement Stronger Environmental Standards for Resource Extraction

The extraction of raw materials like lithium and cobalt for battery production has significant environmental and social consequences, particularly in developing countries. Governments must implement stringent environmental and labour standards for mining activities . International cooperation on certification systems, similar to the Fairtrade model, could help ensure that these materials are sourced sustainably and ethically .

4. Encourage Circular Economy Models

Policymakers should promote circular economy models that prioritize reuse, recycling, and material recovery to extend the lifecycle of green technologies . This could include mandating battery recycling programs and providing incentives for manufacturers that adopt sustainable production practices .

5. Address the “Food vs. Fuel” Dilemma

To mitigate the negative impacts of biofuel production, policymakers should prioritize the development of biofuels that do not compete with food production, such as second-generation biofuels derived from agricultural waste or non-food crops . Policies encouraging efficient water use and sustainable agricultural practices can help reduce the environmental costs associated with biofuel production .

4.4 The Role of Consumers and Corporations

Beyond government action, both consumers and corporations have a crucial role to play in addressing the paradox of green technologies. Consumer demand can drive companies toward adopting more sustainable practices. For example, consumers can choose to purchase electric vehicles powered by renewable energy or support companies that invest in battery recycling .

Corporations, especially in the automotive and energy sectors, must take responsibility for reducing the environmental impacts of their products throughout their lifecycle. This could involve adopting sustainable sourcing, investing in cleaner production technologies, and embracing transparent environmental reporting standards .

Moreover, corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives that focus on sustainability can help companies balance profit-making with environmental stewardship. As awareness of the environmental costs of green technologies grows, companies that proactively address these issues may gain a competitive advantage .

4.5 Moving Toward a Sustainable Future

The paradox of green technologies highlights the complexity of achieving true environmental sustainability. While EVs, ethanol, and other green technologies are often presented as solutions to the climate crisis, they come with environmental costs. Addressing these trade-offs requires identifying technologies and policies that address the full spectrum of environmental impacts .

The transition to a low-carbon economy requires a multifaceted approach, involving not only technological innovation but also the development of supportive policy frameworks, responsible corporate practices, and informed consumer behaviour. By taking a holistic view of green technologies and addressing their paradoxes, we can ensure that the solutions we adopt today lead to a cleaner, healthier, and more sustainable planet .

4.6 Conclusion

The paradox of green technologies—where solutions designed to protect the environment can introduce new environmental challenges—poses a dilemma for policymakers, corporations, and consumers. Electric vehicles, ethanol-blended fuels, and other green technologies have clear environmental benefits, but they also have hidden costs that must be addressed for them to be genuinely sustainable .

By promoting next-generation technologies, integrating renewable energy, and adopting a lifecycle approach, we can begin to resolve these paradoxes. Collaborative efforts between governments, industries, and civil society can ensure that the green technologies of the future live up to their promise without compromising the environment they aim to protect . 

 Footnotes:

1. Jones, P. _The Environmental Cost of Electric Vehicles_. ScienceDirect, 2019.
2. Hale, C. “Mining Lithium’s Dark Side,” _Environmental Science Journal_, 2020.
3. DOE Report, 2022. “Lifecycle Analysis of EV Batteries.”
4. Smith, R. “Ethanol Production and Water Use,” _Journal of Environmental Studies_, 2021.
5. World Resources Institute. “Biofuels and Land Use Impacts,” 2019.
6. Muller, A. _The Food vs. Fuel Debate: Global Impacts_, Oxford University Press, 2020.
7. IEA. “The Future of Hydrogen: Seizing Today’s Opportunities,” International Energy Agency, 2021.
8. Goldman, L. _Lifecycle Impacts of Green Technologies_, Springer, 2020.
9. Greentech Media, “EVs and Hidden Emissions,” 2020.
10. NRC. “The Environmental Impact of Biofuel Production,” National Research Council, 2021.
11. UNEP. “A Lifecycle Approach to Sustainable Development,” 2020.
12. OECD. “Investment in Clean Energy Technologies,” 2021.
13. European Battery Alliance. “Advances in Battery Recycling,” 2022.
14. IPCC, _Renewable Energy Integration Report_, 2021.
15. IRENA, “Grid Infrastructure and the Role of Renewables,” 2020.
16. Global Mining Review, “Sustainable Mining Standards,” 2021.
17. BHRRC, “Ethical Sourcing of Critical Minerals,” 2022.
18. Ellen MacArthur Foundation, “The Circular Economy and Technology,” 2021.
19. US DOE. “Battery Recycling Mandates and Incentives,” 2020.
20. FAO, _Biofuels and Global Food Security_, 2021.
21. UN Water, “Water Efficiency in Agriculture,” 2020.
22. WWF. “Consumer Power and Sustainable Technologies,” 2021.