20 March, 2026

Clean energy is often framed as a neat win‑win: lower emissions, cleaner air, a path to a net zero world. But a recent report from The Guardian is a reminder that the reality is messier.

On the Philippine island of Palawan – often described as the country’s “last ecological frontier” – nickel mining linked to rising battery demand is damaging coral reefs, polluting waterways and undermining local livelihoods, raising uncomfortable questions about how the energy transition is being delivered. 

It’s an important story, but it’s also important not to draw the wrong conclusions from it.  The climate crisis hasn’t gone away, and neither have the environmental harms of the fossil fuel system it’s replacing – nor their economic implications. 

We are writing this at a time when gas prices have just jumped to four-year highs and oil prices have risen 60% since the US and Israeli attacks on Iran started the war on 28th February. Historical context offers further learnings with recent analysis from the UK’s Climate Change Committee showing that the total cost of reaching net zero by 2050 is likely to be less than the cost of a single fossil fuel price shock like the one experienced in 2022. 

The lesson here isn’t that clean energy is the wrong path, but rather that we need to work hard to ensure we don’t repeat the same extractive patterns as we move towards it, with a significant focus on how the materials needed to drive the energy transition are sourced.  

Circularity plays a critical role – designing batteries, electronics and infrastructure to last longer, be repaired more easily and recycled at scale can dramatically reduce demand for virgin minerals. But it won’t remove the need for new materials entirely. So stronger protections across supply chains will be essential to ease pressure on places like Palawan without abandoning the transition itself. 

This isn’t about choosing between nature and the climate, but working out how to deliver the transition in a way that protects both.

By Lucy Bell