To reach net-zero emissions by 2050 and limit global warming to 1.5 °C, the decarbonisation of energy and transport systems is essential, and its reliance on metals inescapable. Aluminium and copper are needed in large quantities for energy transmission, while cobalt, nickel, lithium, and many others are required for energy storage. In this collection of articles from across the Nature Portfolio, we focus on lithium and copper, two metals integral to decarbonisation yet with massive projected shortfalls in their supply. We encourage submissions that explore lithium and copper resource formation processes; the environmental and societal considerations of mining them; and factors that directly influence their primary supply and demand scenarios.

“Recycling can reduce reliance on mined materials, but it cannot plug the gap. … If we are to follow current plans to limit global warming to 1.5 °C, more mining is needed”.

Although forecasts vary depending on future policy choices, technology progression, and behavioural changes, the International Energy Agency highlights that announced mining projects will meet only 70% of the copper and 50% of the lithium necessary for current paths to net zero1. As emphasized in another collection on the recovery of critical metals, recycling can reduce reliance on mined materials, but it cannot plug the gap. By 2040, more than half of the lithium in electric vehicle batteries could come from recycled sources2, but forecasts suggest that recycling will only reduce total lithium mining requirements by around 10–20%3. As one of the few metals that can be recycled without loss of quality, some 17% of copper already comes from recycling and this could rise to nearly 30% in 20401, but shortfalls persist. If we are to follow current plans to limit global warming to 1.5 °C, more mining is needed, but it comes at a cost.

In just 15 years, demand for lithium is forecast to be 7 times greater than current production but with a projected supply shortfall of over 1 Mt (5 times the current mine supply). Its status as a critical metal is not, however, a result of geologic scarcity—lithium is relatively abundant in Earth’s crust—but rather the outcome of limited investment to convert resources into reserves, operational mines, and processing facilities4.

To bring a lithium mine into production can take 5–20 years5, and many projects fail along the way. Since 2018, hard rock lithium pegmatites, primarily from Australia, have overtaken the salar brines of Chile and the lithium triangle as the dominant source of lithium. This presents a challenge for finding new deposits because pegmatites are non-magnetic and typically contain insufficient conductive or high-density minerals to provide contrast with surrounding rocks, which makes them almost invisible to geophysical surveys. To improve the discovery of lithium resources, it is necessary to better understand the formation of lithium pegmatites, improve the sensitivity of geophysical methods to facilitate the detection of buried deposits, and consider all potential lithium sources, including pegmatites, salar brines, (volcano)-sedimentary clay-hosted deposits, and direct extraction from brines.

In contrast to lithium, the extractive industry for copper is much larger and more established. A hundred times more copper than lithium was mined in 2023, yet copper demand is still expected to grow by 70% over the next 15 years1. The majority of the world’s copper currently comes from porphyry deposits, which form from the circulation of hydrothermal fluids associated with igneous intrusions6, but discoveries of new deposits are becoming rarer, deeper, and of lower grade (see go.nature.com/4kbkAej). These lower grade, harder to access ores require more energy to produce the same amount of metal, with 130% more fuel and 32% more electricity required for each unit of copper mined in Chile in 2017 compared with 20017.

Mining can bring transformative economic benefits, and it underpins net zero plans, but it is simultaneously associated with greenhouse gas emissions, pollution, environmental degradation and social and community disruption and harm8. Mine-site mapping suggests that the damage to biodiversity alone, owing to the extraction of materials for renewable energy production, could surpass the threats to biodiversity that are averted by climate change mitigation actions9. Operations for both lithium and copper have high water demands, and they are often located in regions of water stress (see https://go.nature.com/4iqpP8l), which leaves them, and local communities, particularly exposed to drought risk. To ensure that mining does more good than harm, the industry must take a proactive and transparent approach to their impacts. The early integration of community priorities into mine feasibility assessments, through initiatives such as Community Benefit Agreements10, may reduce community opposition and help to ensure that the approach to mining is as environmentally and socially responsible as possible. It is important, however, that we do not rely on goodwill alone; communities must be supported by strong policies and environmental protections.

The vision of a clean, green path to decarbonisation and net zero is predicated on the extraction of metals and minerals, yet the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals make no explicit reference to them, mining, or miners11. We cannot afford to ignore the reality that current plans to meet net-zero emission targets require more mining, that mine development takes time, and that mining can come with negative impacts that must be understood, avoided, and mitigated. There is an urgent, global need to develop lithium and copper resources, but this should not be at the expense of local environments and communities.