Nathan Reynoso 
The demand for electric vehicles to curb the climate crisis is soaring sales. However, the industry’s exploitation of greenspeak provides it the opportunity to trample over the environment and human rights.
By Nathan Reynoso, Crude Accountability Communications Assistant
In George Orwell’s cautionary-tale 1984, readers are introduced not only to the dystopian world of Oceania and the authoritarian omnipresence of Big Brother but the destruction of words and the manipulation of thought via a state-created language: Newspeak. This language was comprised of reconstructed words, phrases, and expressions from English that distorts the truth and contradicts science. While fictional, the shadow of this language’s lexicon created 75 years ago is eerily showing resemblance today in the application of words within the environmental field, including the electric vehicle (EV) industry.
The EV Industry
These types of cars have been increasingly gaining global popularity. In 2023, 1 in 5 vehicles sold were EVs across the US, Europe, and China. And there is one EV brand that is accelerating sales on the market… and, no, it’s not Tesla. It’s the Chinese manufacturer company BYD, which out-paced Tesla sales in the last quarter of 2023 with 526,000 vehicles sold. BYD has over 30 industrial parks worldwide with new plants planned for Indonesia, Hungary, and Türkiye. Recently, on June 27, the first Uzbek-manufactured BYD cars rolled out of the company’s Jizzakh factory, signifying its expansion into Central Asia.
While BYD surges in the EV economy, its environmental and human rights record has been met with scrutiny. A report by Human Rights Watch, “Asleep at the Wheel: Car Companies’ Complicity in Forced Labor in China,” revealed that China has subjected Uyghurs to forced labor in its aluminum-production supply chain of automobile parts for big-name car brands, including BYD.
Likewise, Business & Human Rights Resource Centre has documented allegations of pollution from a BYD factory in Changsha harming local residents with symptoms that range from nausea to chronic coughing. Further claims of BYD’s environmental impact are exposed in a report by the UK-based NGO, Free Tibet, in the process of extracting lithium – a key element for EV batteries – which pollutes the air and nearby waters. Each of these cases highlights the lack of transparency within BYD’s supply chain and disregard for ethical treatment of its labor force and the environment.
Greenspeak
However, BYD and other EV manufacturers hide these malpractices behind their use of greenspeak. Greenspeak is the collection of words, phrases, and expressions used for discussing environmental and ecological issues, like “transition minerals,” “smart mining,” and “clean energy.” Greenwashing is not the same as greenspeak, as the former is a public image and marketing ploy used by a company to deceive or manipulate consumers into buying a product that has minor influence on sustainability or environmental protection. In the EV industry, particularly in BYD’s case, greenspeak has been exploited to skew the narrative of the production line’s environmental impact, including raw material sourcing, processing and manufacturing, to mitigate concern.
When it comes to addressing the environment, words matter. Climate scientists and organizations across the world have updated their terminology to accurately depict the dire state of the planet and the urgent need to respond to it. While the change in lingo has introduced the public to a new spate of words on climate, there is still a lack of oversight in holding public and private entities accountable within the low-carbon transition.
“Transition Minerals”
Revisiting greenspeak, examine the earlier example of the term “transition minerals.” This catch-all classification grouping of minerals to phase-out fossil fuels (i.e., lithium, cobalt, copper, nickel) are core to the development of low-carbon technology, such as wind turbines and solar panels. As previously stated, lithium is essential to the production of EV batteries. However, it is critical to point out that the extraction of lithium is not a clean endeavor. By labeling lithium as a “transition mineral,” it hands the EV industry the opportunity to exploit the environment and its labor force at the expense of safeguarding a sustainable future. As noted in a Business & Human Rights Resource Centre report, the sharp demand for “transition minerals” to meet low-carbon transition goals has led to an increase in human rights abuses across Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Therefore, the word needs to be reassessed: Lithium is a chemical element that still emits 15 tonnes of carbon for every tonne mined. As such, lithium is still hazardous and cannot be replaced with the term “transition mineral” to disguise its environmental impact.
“Smart Mining”
Similarly, “smart mining” aims to cast a similar light as “transition minerals” to mitigate concerns. Smart mining is a term coined by international finance institutions (IFIs) to introduce more sustainable mining practices within “resource-rich developing countries” for the low-carbon transition, which includes the extraction process of lithium for EV production. But mining is still mining – a sector with a long-standing history of human rights abuse. Pairing the word with a positive-connotative adjective does not lessen the impact or severity the practice has on the environment. A commentary article from CSIS’ Energy Security and Climate Change Program, “Why Responsible Mining Is a Human Rights Imperative,” emphasizes the same concern: The “race” for mining minerals essential to low-carbon technology risks rampant abuse in the industry. While IFIs package “smart mining” with a framework to ensure “responsible” mining in every level of the supply chain, the true assessment of its goals needs to be measured by its actions, not words.
“Clean Energy”
Lastly, “clean energy.” Clean energy is a term widely used across the public and private sector to describe energy technology that does not emit greenhouse gasses. This category of technologies includes the production of EVs; however, the term is misleading. The word “clean” implies purity and innocence, which pulls attention away from its environmental impact in all stages of the supply chain. As stated earlier, particularly in the EV industry, it neglects the impact of lithium mining, as well as the sourcing of electricity post-EV production to charge the battery. Just because the energy source is electric does not mean that it is cleaner.
There is also a misconception that “clean energy” is renewable energy. Though “clean energy” promotes the production of renewable technology, the production process as well as the power grid to fuel an EV are not renewable. There are studies that indicate that EVs are still overall better than fossil-fuel-dependent vehicles despite the condition of the power grid, but language is about transparency and necessary to promote a more sustainable low-carbon transition.
Language shapes our reality. As environmental and human rights defenders, it is critical to recognize the exploitation of greenspeak from businesses and practices that take advantage of the climate crisis to trample over human rights for profit, like the EV industry. Thus, deciphering greenspeak and applying more accurate words in the field not only exposes corruption but fosters a better relationship between humanity and the environment.