 My name is Ewa Sufin-Zhekma and I would like to welcome you on behalf of the Board of Directors of Green European Foundations and on behalf of the Management Board of the Strefa Zieleni Foundation, which is the Polish Green Foundation. This is yet another event in a series of meetings under project Metals for Green Europe. Later in the webinar we will hear some more about it from one of our panelists. The transition that is ahead of us and that is really necessary because of the prospects of climate catastrophe. We have very little time to prevent it because scientists tell us that we have to cut the emissions of greenhouse gases by at least half until 2030 and we must become a neutral for the climate in 2020 at the latest, which actually leaves us no other choice but take radical steps and undergo a green pro-climate transition, mainly in the field of energy, but it must be supported by digital transition. And then, due to the COVID-19 pandemic has started happening very quickly, we've seen a very great leap in this transition. So we know that we have to undergo this transition, but in order to be able to do it, we need metals. So one of our speakers will explain why we need metals and why it is important for green organizations. Raul Gomez, our partner from Spain, the Director of Transition Verne will talk about it. Other panelists tonight are excellent speakers, mostly women. Miriam Kenneth from Green Economics Institute from Oxford, founder of this excellent organization, I think, TANK, one of the biggest think tanks in the world, which studies green economics. We also have with us tonight Professor Johanna Kulczewska from the Mineral Energy Economy Research Institute of the Polish Academy of Sciences. And she's also in the International Resources Panel. And tonight, we are also joined by Guillaume Petron, a French journalist and author of a book, War of the Metals, which has already been published in Polish in 2019. He's coming to tell us about his book. And last but not least, Dr. Krzysztof Dudek, a geologist from the AGH University of Science and Technology in Krakow. Well, I would like to give the floor to Raul first. Can you tell us a little bit about our common project? Thank you, Eva. Good afternoon. First of all, of course, I would like to thank the Dacia Strefa Geleni, the Green European Foundation and you personally for inviting me to participate in this session. When I heard that the Green European Foundation was going to launch a project on this issue, I rushed to join it, because I think that one of the responses of our organizations is to anticipate environmental problems before we encounter them. And moreover, in my country in Spain, there are hundreds of new mining projects because of metals that we will be talking about in this event. So, allow me to introduce this project in which I think the lead partner, Richard Woters, from the Dutch organization Wetenshape-Licht Bureau of Brand Links, is doing a great job. So let me try to share my screen. Okay, I hope you are all now seeing the presentation. The project for the Green European Foundation is about metals, but more specifically about the metals that will be needed to realize the energy and digital transition plans being promoted by the European Union. I want to make it clear that the energy transition is essential to tackle climate change, but that does not mean that it is not without problems. In fact, we can define this need for metals as the Achilles' heel of the energy transition, of these transitions, energy and digital transitions. Nowadays, when you look at the news, you can find that there is currently an increasing difficulty in meeting the demand for key elements in certain sectors. Precisely those sectors in which the energy and digital transition is to be realized. If there are already problems in the current situation, as you can see this is a recent new, if in the current situation we are having problems, imagine what we'll have to face in the future if we take into account that we are going to need a much larger amount of certain minerals than we are using. As you can see in this image, according to the European Commission, by 2050 we will need 60 times more lithium, 15 times more cobalt, and 10 times more rare earths than today. These amounts are for the energy transition alone. I mean, without taking into account the digital transition, an added problem for us in Europe is that we depend on the imports for most metals between 70 to 100% in some cases. And these lead us to be in a very fragile situation at a geostrategic and economic level. So what are the main issues to be tackled in such a project like this? The first would be the rapid depletion of certain metal ores. And do we have the right to use all the resources available in the planet? What does it mean for the future generations? We have wasted something so valuable as oil and something such absurd as moving a ton of metals to drive a human body to work. Will we do the same with these metals? Will we left nothing for those that come behind? The second, the use dependence on imports, especially from China. This undermines the EU's strategy autonomy. If we take the example of the rare earths, the EU imports the 98% of what it needs from China. And as I mentioned before, this put the EU in a fragile and dangerous situation. The third issue is the ecological damage and human rights violation. Because mining, particularly in developing countries, is usually carried out with a huge environmental impact and violations of human rights are widely reported. We all may know the situation of coal mining in the Democratic Republic of Congo, for instance, but not only. According to Global Witness, mining in Latin America is the greatest source of social conflict and the one that has provoked the most crimes, in many cases, murders against environmental defenders. So another question we can make ourselves, is it fair that poor people and communities struggling to defend the environment in developing countries are collateral damage in our energy and digital transition? Another issue could be the clash between the EU demand for raw materials and developing countries ambition to move up the value chain. I'm sure that Miriam Kenneth from the Green Economic Institute will go in deep with this issue later, but we can think that it's absolutely normal that some countries with raw materials research want to develop their own industry and offer manufactured products and they have the right to do that, but the EU wants the raw materials, so here is a clash that we have to take into account. The fifth issue is the new mining projects within the European borders with the environmental impact and the social controversy that it conveys. We all want to have electricity, be high vehicles, computers or smartphones, but no one wants a mine near their home, not in our backyards. But at the same time, the European Union wants to achieve as much independence as possible in the procurement of strategic metals, and this is going to lead us to a contradiction that is very difficult to resolve. On one side, mining in Europe could guarantee much higher environmental and labor standards than those currently existing in developing countries. But on the other hand, we are talking about many, many projects. As I mentioned before in Spain, for example, we're talking about almost a thousand new mining projects and all of them strongly opposed by society. This is important and the last issue that we are going to focus to work on in this project is the opportunities and limitation of a circular economy for metals. Circular economy is a concept that is increasingly used, but it is often associated mainly with recycling. This session will focus on the recycling of metals. In the case of the metals we are talking about, recycling them is not at all simple and will certainly have to be taken into account, but in any case, recycling will be not enough. Firstly, because if, for example, we were to recover all the lithium that has already been extracted, refined and put into circulation, mainly for batteries, it will only give us enough for one year of electric car, electric vehicle production. And secondly, because as we saw earlier, the amounts we will need in the coming decades will be increasingly larger. When we talk about the circular economy, as you can see in this image, those of us who think that we need to modify an economic and consumption system based on growth, like to remember that there are three concepts that must be taken into account first. Refuse, rethink and reduce. We must refuse the idea that it will be possible to replace all fossil fuel cars with electric cars, which need 30 times more critical metals than the current vehicles. We must rethink whether it would not be smarter to share vehicles, for example, and we must reduce the number of devices that are put on the market. We should not replace something as valuable as a smartphone every two years, for example. And it is also essential when we're talking about circular economy to work more on eco-design. If we think about the subsequent recovery of materials from the moment of design, reduce and neglect rates really need a lot. And what are we doing in this project? Regarding this Green European Foundation transnational project, metals for a green and digital Europe, we are already organizing 10 events mostly online because of the pandemic situation. The two first of them were carried out in Spain and also this one is part of these events. We will only have an online multimedia dossier and discussion platform that is already hosted in the Fretensapeli website, MetalsforEurope.eu, and you can check in that direction. And our final output will be a final publication and agenda for political action at all levels and it will be translated into seven languages. So it will be available for all the partners, the countries where partners are working. And these partners are seven organizations, seven foundations from seven different countries. And you can see here some of all of them. As I mentioned before, the lead partner is the Fretensapeli from Dutch, from the Netherlands. We are also from Poland, from Finland and many others. So seven foundations from seven different countries working in this project. And I think that that's enough just to introduce the project and now it's time for the real experts to talk about and to show us so that we can learn more about the issue. Thank you very much, Raul. Could you just add one word about your Spanish events? What are your projects? What events did you have already? If after you could put the links to those events because some of them were, they were registered in English, so it would be interesting maybe for our public also to watch them after. And just in few words, what are the biggest challenges for Spain because each country has a very specific situation. So, so if you could add a few words about the Spanish specificity of Spanish situation. Yes, I have just shared a link via the chat where you can summary of our two events that we that we carried out in Spain and there you can find links to the videos of the entire session in English. If anyone wants to go in deep with them. The first session we made was about the geopolitical situation, the why, what kind of world can we find after this problem I've been talking about. And we had as well to be lumped on there to talk about this because his book is really interesting on this topic. And we made a second session on limits and impacts. We have Alicia Valero, who were talking about the physical limits of the planet. There are no enough metals for all we want, of course, and these metals are in small concentrations. And we were she made a good presentation and if you want to go in deep in on how much metals is it supposed to still be underground you can go on the video and check her presentation and about the Spanish situation. Answering your question here in Spain we have a problem with the mining law, because it's from 1973. It's incredibly old, and it has not been adapted enough to the changes that have been in society environmental protection in labor protection. Nowadays, maybe there are some proposals to change this money. So, and the debate in Spain is not as much on metals on if we are going to use them well or not, but only on mining, because if I say told you 1000 projects mining projects here are making people be very concerned with the mining, the mining controversies and social struggles against them. But at the same time here in Spain happened something very interesting that an abandoned mine of a tin mine in Galicia in the northwest of Spain was closed in 1985. A couple of years ago or three years ago in 2018, I think they have started to exploit the mining waste that were there led there, and they found the two metals that make coltan. So, suddenly we have the only coltan mine in Europe from mining waste in in in Galicia and that's very important, because it's, it's not a magical solution of course because we are going to need a huge amount of metals and many minerals The European Commission itself, they say that recovery of raw materials from instructive and industrial waste has a remarkably high potential to contribute to a sustainable and supply. So, that's a chance to remind these wastes and to obtain as much valuable metals as possible. The problem is the scale 60 times more lithium 15 times more cobalt we are talking about incredible huge amounts, but at the same time we have to start for reminding for sure because because the impact is much lower and we have it in here. So in Spain we have a lot of mining projects one successful cobalt mine. I must say that it can be a wonderful introduction to our discussion after that, because at the end with Professor kuchitska we will have examples of how we are using those waste of mining and extraction industry waste. So we will make a circle and we will come to this point. Thank you very much. And now I would like to ask you. Why did you write this book. Thank you very much for inviting me. I'm very honored to be part of this panel, especially outside of France where this book was published three years ago. Before I answer your question, I might say that many people who listen to us should be and are certainly very surprised about what what Robert Gomez has said. And maybe shocked to think that actually in a nutshell what is being said is that the energy transition brings new issues and it solves a lot of issues. And the problems we are facing with this new green world are just different, but they are shifted from cool and oil industries to rare metals industries. And the question is how did we, how did we see that. How have we come to just discovering right now this reality that has been understood by specialists for years and decades. And I think we'll have to answer that question at some point how did we miss this point. People talk about this story as a dead angle of the energy transition, but that is a 360 degree dead angle, and we haven't seen it. Maybe because these minds are far away, because we don't mind our countries because we eat finished products and use finished products and we have gained buying power for the last decade, we've lost buying knowledge. And certainly for these reasons we are not aware of this. Maybe ecological parties were not aware of this. I think they were not. Some of them were but didn't understand the scope of the issues and the volumes at stake that it's been mentioned by by Ronald Gomez. And now we come up to these new challenges that we will discuss in the in this panel. I as a journalist, I came up on to this issue in 2009. And I was fascinated by these metals which were already cold 10 years ago, 12 years ago, so new oil. And nobody cared about it. And the media was uninterested in my country about it. No one knew really about rare earth, no one knew about gallium antimony, beryllium, tungsten, cobalt in a way. And I was absolutely certain that that was a very important subject that we would have to tackle for the next decades. It was already seen at a new oil. And I said to myself, I'm going to write a book. I'm going to investigate for six years. I haven't done that all of my six years, but one 25% of my time I researched this story across four continents in 12 countries to actually interview the specialist who knew about it, the geologists, industrialists, and also to go to the field because I have I'm a reporter so my point is really to go to the field, and to really talk about what I see and I came up with this story. And I said to myself when the book was published in France, nobody will care about it as usual, because nobody cared about it for a while. I was organizing conferences on the strategic metal that the French parliament I can tell you, nobody really cared. And I said, I don't care, I'll do this story. And in a couple of years, that's going to be important. And people will say, Oh, yes, there was a book about it a couple of years ago, no one cared about it. But, okay, we can maybe go back to Amazon.com and find the used book and buy a copy. And the book was a huge, had a huge, brought a huge interest in France, because suddenly we would talk about the downsides and the dark side of this green energy transition will go, you know, further than just green conventional language saying that everything will be clean, and that the world will be the world will be wonderful with this with this new technologies. And there is a question, but where are we going to get these metals? At what cost for the environment and for the humans, and who's going to hold the production of these metals and who will be the next Saudi Arabia's of critical and strategic metals. Will there be wars and armies being waged in the future to secure the most strategic minds in order to secure these strategic needs. The energy transitions choose a bias of these metals. This is a complete underside, a complete total story that we unveil. And I have a very few minutes to expose that. So I will try to make it short, but then we can develop. But my point comes in three points. I want to develop three main points. First, the green world won't be clean. And we can talk about an energy transition. I want to mention whether we can talk about an ecological transition, because these metals that we need, whether they are rare or not rare. You know, we need copper for energy transition. Copper is not a rare metal. It's an abundant metal. We need rare metals because these metals are much more rare in the Eucharist than copper. They can be one to 3,000 times more rare. This is why we call them rare, even if we find them everywhere on Earth. These metals are called critical because there are risks of supply shortages, as the European Commission puts it. And these metals need to be extracted and refined from the ground. And it comes at a huge ecological price that I've seen and witnessed several times, especially in China. And we have no idea about this because the mines are far away, because we don't mine these metals. We have relocated the mines. We have relocated the pollution of the green technologies by letting the poor countries extracting these metals instead of us. And we could just buy the clean metal, put them in the green technologies and say we're clean. And obviously the situation is a bit more complex than that. There is an economic point, which is that we, and Raoul Gómez has said it, we need to extract, we need to get these metals from specific countries which have developed a specialization in setting these metals to the rest of the world. And China is probably the most important producer of these strategic metals today. And China doesn't want to sell the metals. China wants to sell the electric battery with the metals inside and keep the added value money in order to sustain its economic development. So the question is, how can we depend, keep being dependent upon Chinese supplies when we see that naturally, legitimately, China wants to actually keep the added value of these metals for its own transition and get the green jobs instead of us. And the third point is geopolitical. There is a geopolitics of renewable energies. There is a geopolitics of the Green Deal. Appearing under our eyes right now, because we're going to have to get these metals from somewhere, where are we going to get it? Well, we could look in our own soil as Raoul Gómez studied, and we can extract lots of these metals on the European territory. But also, as it's been said, we don't want to, you know, bear the ecological consequences of this green world. So we are, we European consumers in a contradiction here. We want the benefits of the green world, but we don't want to drawbacks of it. But I think we're going to have to extract some of these metals at some point. We won't have the choice. It's going to be a matter of mineral sovereignty. But for our mineral sovereignty, we could also look at other supplies outside of the world, outside of our borders, outside of the 27 countries borders, European countries borders. Nickel can be found in Indonesia. Rare earths can be found in, and platinoids can be found in Africa. We could get niobium and lots of other metals in South America. Green land has lots of rare earths and suddenly green lands arrives on the map because the Chinese wants to get the rare earths from Greenland. So what is going to be the geopolitics of these rare minerals and then the geopolitics of the green world that is ahead of us? And these are the questions that I've tried to answer and to address. Just let me be very clear on that. And that's my last point. We need to do this energy transition. And I completely agree with Viral Gomez, and I'm sure with everyone. I'm not a supporter of coal or oil that won't fund me because people say, he may be found by this kind of people, or maybe he just doesn't want to have the energy transition done. Let me be clear. I want this done. And this needs to be done. But we need to address right away the cost of it. And we need to mitigate them. And this is what we're going to talk about. We're going to talk about recycling substitution and also other techniques circular economy to mitigate the cost of this green world coming ahead. We need to do this transition for sure. And I'm sure we're going to have this case about the solutions for making for making it greener than what it what it is today. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I wanted to at this stage ask you just one question because in Poland. There are two strong fights or debates between the coal and the renewables and between the renewables and the nuclear. Because there is a very strong movement from nuclear and maybe in this case. What is your opinion is nuclear more green in this case than renewable energies. Very difficult question. It's hard to answer whether nuclear is greener or less green than green technologies so called green technologies. Obviously in a way nuclear technologies don't emit CO2. So if the urgency is to fight climate change, obviously nuclear technologies must be used and actually I'm not the one saying it. This is a GEC as an Intergovernmental Body Panel Climate Panel saying it's saying that's nuclear industry is part of the actions that we must take in order to to fight climate change. As you know, it's going to come up and it's already coming up with huge other issues relating to the waste radioactive waste. Personally, in my view, I would say that we need to recourse to these nuclear energies because that's the best way in the short term to to address an urgent question so that hope that answers your point that's and that's my my my belief. But concerning the resources that are needed. Because I saw in some presentations that there are also a lot of metals in the and a lot of mining in needed for nuclear energy so so that that's why my question because you know the defences of nuclear energy they're presenting that for renewables they get a lot of resources a lot of mining but as for nuclear we would need nothing so but in fact it's not the case anyway we need we need the metals and we need money. Obviously and you know I'm not a specialist about the nuclear industry but for sure I could never say that you don't we don't need nothing for nuclear energy. First we need uranium and obviously this uranium must be must be extracted somewhere the French for example extracted one of its part of its uranium in Niger in in Africa, and second for nuclear power plant. We find every metal that you can find in the main delay of table, including the oldest metals that we've mentioned for green technologies. So they must be found. I haven't had the figures yet in front of my eyes but if we want to compare the need for metals for the nuclear industry compared to the need for metals for the for the for the green technologies solar panels or wind turbines or electric batteries. I don't think that I mean the comparison would show that the needs for metals for the nuclear industry is much less. Even if there is there are still some needs the real questions with the nuclear industry comes with the radioactive waste. And this is a real issue that must be tackled and which is obviously huge and we shouldn't show away from them. So I hope I answer your question in this way. Thank you. So now let's come back to mining and the way we after that to all the questions concerning our main topic of the discussion today. But for the moment they would like to ask Miriam Kenneth Miriam you organized with green economics Institute. Recently, a whole day conference mining for metals, can it be fair. So I wanted to ask you why did you focus on mining in this for your event and what were the main conclusions or this conference what were the participants and what are the what were the main conclusions. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you for inviting me. This is a really very important subject course. It's the future, the digital economy, the green economy. Very important, but it's also our history. So in England, mining has been going on for thousands of years and humans have been mining for thousands of years. So this is very interesting. And in England, 10% of the water is polluted, and it's old mines are leaching pollution, hurting people's health from ancient mines. So if we have more mines, we're going to have more trouble with safe drinking water. So it's, it's not a new problem. The effect of mining affects everyone, even today. And in my village, nuclear too. So it's really quite a problem for our health. But our project was about whether mining is fair. Can it ever be fair. And so we want you to look at the construction of mining. What is mining. So I want to, I want to make it a bit more personal. Okay. One thing I want to say to you is this. I brought some props. So here we have gold. Okay. Can you see gold? Nice gold. It's not gold, of course, but it's, it's not gold. What is it about gold. That is so wonderful. What is it about gold that says we can mine it. We can take it. We can affect people's health. Why is gold so important. We can't eat it. We can't breathe it. We can't drink it. It's not food. So what is it that we want about gold. And that made me think. So several years ago in 2010, I think it was, I went to an event in the House of Commons in England, the parliament. And there there was a court case brought by South African miners, gold miners. And these people brought a court case after many years because they were suffering from terrible diseases and for senior TB. You have to look up the word lung diseases, specific lung diseases, and these diseases killed them slowly and meant that many of their families had no social security, no support, and were in terrible poverty. But when we buy our gold necklace, when we buy our gold ring, I don't wear incidentally, we think this is a product that's beautiful. This is a product that gives value. This is a product a man maybe gives to a woman to say he values her family in less than some countries gold on her body. But actually, if we look at the supply chain of that gold, we see death, we see illness, we see sickness, we see poverty, we see families ravaged by AIDS. And the years and years of society destroyed, if you like, what for? It's mass, actually. So as greens, as we embark on, if you like the green transition, and we use technology as a solution. We are doing something similar we are saying a technological fix will solve our problems or solve our greed, solve our need. Like just a bit more technology, and we can change things. But actually, as we've learned with nature as we love the climate, we are part of nature, we are animals in nature, if you like. We are off the earth. Nature is us and we are nature. And by ripping nature to pieces and by mining for its own sake. We destroy our relationship with nature, and we hurt deeply some people on the planet. So in our event, we looked at some of the examples of who was gaining and who was being hurt, and how gosh my computer's gone. And how they're still there and how we can change that whole philosophy that we have with nature with the earth. And it's the same question we have when we look at climate and biodiversity and green issues. We probably have to do more with less. We probably have to think more perhaps like indigenous people teach us that we need to have a better relationship with the earth and if we ruin the earth. And then we go to Mars and take all its minerals. This is not a cure. This is not necessarily helpful, I think. And I must tell you, my experience started when I went to the COP United Nations Climate Conference in 2009, I think it was 20th, COP 15. And the Chinese delegate was asked what China's position was and China was then an emerging economy, emerging country. And they said, we've got rare earth metals. We will win the green economy. We know we will win it and we don't need to comply now because we know in the end we will win with the rare earth metals. So the geopolitical battle, if you like, the geopolitical powers that be have been waging, have been rolling for many years in this. No one will win if we rip off the earth and if we continue like this. So we see it in many countries. What we see and what we noticed in our project is that the geopolitical forces are similar everywhere. So what happens is an expensive, rich investment company in a country says we want to make money. Not we want to build ring. Not we want to make solar panels. We want to make money. And we will invest in a mine in cheap countries, in cheap countries or on indigenous lands where it's easy and the legal costs are low because the contract for ownership of the land is small. So then what they do, and we explored examples of say, Canada, which then went to the Okavango Delta, which is one of the world's most beautiful and important natural services. And they invest there and like my this in indigenous countries, we looked at the Sami indigenous lands in the Arctic, where somebody else comes from another country and makes a mind on their lands. And the big thing is the local people in general either get paid almost nothing for mining. So they are characterized generally at being low wage and poor, not everywhere, not in Poland, but in many other countries. And secondly, they are offered voluntary sustainability or voluntary corporate social responsibility codes, but they are not offered. The community is not offered. Yes, or no. So the community has not said, do you want the mine here? No, thanks. The community is given the mine or forced on the mine. Often their water is polluted as a result, their land is removed, their sacred sites are removed, whatever it is, or they have very low wages or their health is compromised. They are not allowed to say no because they have no legal status and that decision to mine or not to mine was taken somewhere else by others with great power and rich and poor today is huge, much bigger than ever before. So those local people have no ability to say no thanks. I don't want it. I think what we can take away from this is next time somebody offers you a gold ring or offers you a new phone or a new computer, or, you know, all sorts of things. Think about, has a child had to go down the mine, sorry my computer is going out, has a child had to go down the mine, or been a child soldier in order to fight for this, you know, for these metals. There's been proxy wars by ex-colonial powers who want metals and use local people to fight each other to get it because they're desperate. So this whole issue in my view comes back to supply chains, what's in the product, what is the product, what is the consumption, what does it represent in those people, and what is the investment, who is deciding, those decisions are being made in other countries. I can argue, some people argue it's the neo-colonial economic argument, but it's more than that. This is a new wave of huge disparity, disparity between groups, between economic groups, between countries. And really, if we really want to be greens we have to say, not really, I don't want any part in that. Do I need this product? Is there another way to do it? I think we need to live, I think it is a case of living lighter on the earth, thinking about even in a thousand, two thousand, four thousand years, is this going to pollute the water of my descendants? Is that good to know? Can it ever really be fair? I think it's quite difficult to argue that it can, and therefore maybe the answer is, maybe we need to keep it momentum. But I think we need, most of all, educate the public that every decision they make has an impact on life, non-human life on creatures, on the earth, wetlands, I don't know, all sorts, and we need to look after the earth and particularly other humans. It's just not fair, no, probably not. Thank you. Thank you Miriam. It was a strong message, of course, there was a question of responsibility and our own responsibility inside, we are part of it. So, when we are, we are now working for the green and digital transition, we must not forget that we have 200 years of development and the colonial developments are also of our civilization. And as developed countries, we have a historical responsibility, not only for climate change, but also for the destruction of environment of many communities in many places in the world. So, now it's not states that are colonialists, but huge global international companies, but there are some, maybe there are some hopes when we see that Shell was just condemned in Netherlands to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions. So, so citizens maybe will start to, I don't know, to control better those companies because in our economic system we are pushed for the consumption. So, this is the system who is pushing us, trying to explain to us that our consumption is for the good of all the system, and is necessary for economics. And as a Green Economics Institute, what is your opinion about the economic model that is behind that? I think, yes, the growth model, what I call the high mass consumption model, which came in after World War II was designed, I believe, by the Kennedy administration to stop communism, because this idea that if we consume we're not communists, but actually the world has completely changed now, and utter consumption, we know is not possible on a finite planet, is very destructive, and it's quite depressing as well, where you have tons of stuff that you don't need, and all the pollution that goes with it. So that has to stop. There is no choice. This one generation that had high mass consumption made a terrible mistake, which humans and the planet will have to pay for for thousands of years. The earth, the seas, the fish, they're all struggling with that. So we have to change that economic model. And the only way that we can survive, and I think it is about survival, is to realign our economics, our whole philosophy, I believe, with the earth. We must see ourselves as a very good indigenous speaker said last year at one of the climate conferences. We're part of the earth. We really are. We are of the earth. You know, we're made of all the same stuff. We're made of those minerals actually, I believe, aren't we? So we can't see ourselves as different. We're not. And this philosophical idiocy that said economics was above the earth, that is not in the earth. It's completely wrong. It's just wrong. It's as silly as saying the earth is flat. We live in the earth. We live on the earth. We're part of the earth, and the earth is part of us. And we must see all our economic modeling like that. No question. Thank you, Miriam. So you said that you doubt that mining could be fair. But Christoph, I would like to go to mining in Europe and especially in Poland. So now, because we have a Polish event, if you want, we can switch to Polish now. So we are moving to Poland now by changing the language. So Christoph, you participated in a conference, which was organized by the Queen Economics Institute. It was a conference about mining. Could you please tell us what the metal mining situation is like in Poland now? And please tell us some things about copper in particular, because mining in Poland is mostly about coal and about copper. Voice over to you, Christoph. Good evening, everyone. Okay, so start with, I'd like to make some introductory remarks. Metals make for some 80% of all chemical elements. However, it is not related to how much of those metals. You can find on our planet. There are some metals which are not active in chemical terms. This would be gold, for example, or silver, and some copper as well. Most metals that we know and reuse in our economy can be found in a natural way as minerals. So these are not pure metals. This is one thing and another thing. And even though metals make for 80% of elements on the periodic table, they are not as abundant in terms of mining. And there are some metals which we do not see as metals usually, such as calcium, for example. Sodium. So except these, there are some other metals which are very rare. So we can mine them, but we cannot find a lot of them. It's really something rare you can find. It's like, you know, looking for raisins in a piece of cake. You can find some, but there are just few. And in Poland, we have mostly minerals, not pure copper. And the main producer is a company called KGHM, which bought a Canadian company some time ago. So now they are called KGHM International. And they are a global producer now. And now they are mining, not just in Poland, but also in Germany and in America. And some time ago they said that some assets that they had bought, like a mine in Arizona in the United States of America, that they want to sell them. But they focus on mining in Poland and in Chile, especially at the Sierra Gorda mine, which is an open cast mine, which is cheaper. And they're also mining in the desert where there is hardly any rain, so you can actually have an open cast mine without any risks. And you can have all your technological processes there without the risk of rain. And when you want to find copper, you're looking for, as I said, some raisins in a piece of cake. And sometimes you can actually find a nice piece of cake and there are some raisins in it. That's what we have in Poland, in a particular region of Poland. It's towards the northeast of Poland. And it is called Sechstein in German. And you can find these rocks there. And it's some 1000 meters underneath. And they continue towards the northeast. And that's why KGHM got a concession to mine even further. But they are mining underneath, so some 1000 meters under the ground. It's not an open cast mine. And before that, they were also mining on the Czech-Polish border. But they did not find a lot of these resources there. And they were also mining in the so-called Erzge-Bürger around the Czech border too. But like the small mines in Spain, these mines were just closed. And of course it's controversial whether it makes any sense to open such a small mine. And KGHM, as I said, is a clear leader. And what are they mining? Copper. And by saying copper, I mean minerals. It's not pure copper. And when we have such a mine, they will also mine sandstones, dolomite, limestone. And Kupferschiefer, it's a German expression. So copper bearing shales. And these resources contain some copper. But they also contain minerals of other metals, such as silver, for example, or even gold, or platinum, or osmium, or iridium. But in much smaller amounts than copper. So this is actually copper bearing shale, so this dark part. And this lighter part is actually sulphide of copper. And these are also proportions. So 90% would be limestone sandstone or shale. And just 2% sulphide of copper or other metals. Well, in this piece of rock it is blue, but it's the same compound. And, okay, mining gallery at the depth of more or less 900 meters and the locations, Lubin Rudna and the few others. Okay, GHM mines about 30 million tons of ore every year. And in this material, in this output, you would find one or two percent of copper and even less silver because it's about 50 ppm. So out of these 30 million tons of rock. And in the processing, they can extract half a million tons of copper, 1300 tons of silver, and six tons of metallic rhenium and as for gold or other normal metals, even less. So out of these 30 million tons of output, you have to process it to separate the valuable minerals, copper minerals from more base minerals, which are lighter. And that's why the method you use is called flotation. It's a mechanical method and after that you have 6% of concentrate of and 94% is considered waste. Then this material, so this 6% go to a smelting plant and is further processed, which generates more waste, slug, etc. and dust, but of course to a much smaller extent than it used to be 30 years ago. So in the communist days. And this process of separation of minerals. Copper minerals from base minerals requires a lot of water because all these processes are carried out in a suspension so for every ton of output of rock you will need a few cubic meters of water. So again, 30 million thousand of rock is mined and 96% of that is considered waste. And this is actually where the waste ends up in this. This is this large sediment basin called culture last night. Most and every year, another 30 million tons of waste is deposited there, but they claim they have reserves for a few decades of further mining after some catastrophes and accidents in Brazil 10 years ago and in Hungary, where there were problems with such basins because the dam was was broken and some regions were flooded KGHM was forced to more to secure it and now they claim it is, it is safe. And as I said then smeltering processes and other chemical treatments in order to obtain different minerals including silver and actually KGHM is the leading company in the production of silver and also Poland is a leader of EU as regards the production of silver, because it is extracted is actually by product of mining copper. I'm not going to concentrate too much on the ways and the smeltering process and the emissions. You can see it in the diagram KGHM both with the fact that 450 years ago it generated much more pollution than nowadays and that it meets EU norms now, and they have separate diagrams for sulfur dioxide for particulate matter and then others. Well, obviously, mining is a huge burden on the natural environment. And the KGHM tries to recover as much as minerals as possible. However, in the end, some pollution, some waste containing heavy metals ends up in these sediment tanks or basins. It is quite close to the surface so it's dangerous in the past, but I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that, as of today, this mine is actually meeting all EU standards. In 2017, 2018, two thirds of copper in Europe was mined in Nordic countries, Apollo in Sweden and also in other countries. And he visited the workings in Falun, he said this is what health must look like. And in the 17th century, there was a huge campaign of deforestation in these regions to create mines and actually that was before gunpowder was invented. So they used all the water just to burn it, to heat up the rock, the output to be able to extract the minerals they wanted, the sulphates of copper, etc. And of course, then they needed to oxidize it and they did it anywhere they could actually in villages just between huts and they would light up a fire. And they oxidized the order minerals. For this reason, the average lifespan was not very long. This is no wonder considering how much copper sulphide they briefed in the situation was no different in Olkusz in Poland where they mined lead sulphide called Galena in Polish. So it was mostly near Olkusz, but also Darnowskie Góry. Mining operations are still carried out near Olkusz, even though the minerals there are fewer and far between. The mine near Olkusz is closed, it is now considered a historical site, they have a museum. But there is another city I would like to tell you about the Olże mine in Bytom. After the transformation political transformation 30 years ago, they stopped extracting zinc and lead from the ores, but the cooperation continues to operate. Now they process metals obtained from batteries and sources. So medical research carried out at the end of the 20th century provided evidence that in this region, especially poor people often suffered from serious lung diseases because of mining operations. And by the way, Silesia is a mining region, but not only for coal, but also different metals. So for decades, miners had a much shorter lifespan than miners' widows or other professions. So yes, as I said in this region, they mined for lead and silver. Then in the 19th century, as zinc became more popular, then for many decades actually the spoils and waste heaps that were left after the previous lead mines were explored and mined for zinc. And because the dolomites near Olkusz are, this is this region, it is called Jura Krakowsko-Czestochowska. And there is a discussion whether or not they should mine for zinc and cadmium because these minerals are still there on the ground. They would have to dig deep, it's several dozen meters, or whether this region should be left as it is for tourism. It is actually brought that debate not only for Silesia because also in the north-eastern corner of Poland, there are iron ore, for example. But these deposits are not very rich, it's about a thousand percent of an adium for titanium, it is one percent. But because these deposits are big, there's a lot of such rocks for such, some time there was a debate whether or not they should be mined or not. Now, of course, there is another debate because technology has developed. So these deposits are being reconsidered with the main question whether or not it would be cost-effective to mine it and how it would affect the natural environment. So that would be my general remark about mining metals in Poland. Thank you very much Krzysztof for your presentation. So thank you for this overview of mining metals in Poland. I just wanted to underline that this north-eastern corner of Poland is not a typically mining region. It's a very attractive region in terms of ecology, nature, lots of beautiful lakes and forests. It's a paradise, a natural paradise for tourists or lovers of nature. So the decision to mine it will not be an easy one. And if it is made society will probably not be willing to accept it. So we don't know whether these discussions will continue. But if the European Commission makes enough pressure and really pushes for mining metals in EU countries, perhaps this will be made and this part of Poland will be mined. Now I would like to hand over to Professor Kulczycka. Now let's speak about waste, the waste of mining and chemical waste. She is expert of this topic and she will present what is the exploitation of mining and chemical waste in Poland. Thank you very much for this introduction. I can speak Polish so it's needed. I don't know, it's perfect for us. Okay, because I prepared in presentation in English so maybe it's also easier to speak English in that sense. I'm an economist but I'm working with geologists mostly so even I have economic background but I've been on the lectures at the Academy of Mining and Metallurgy from Geology also. I visited many mines in my life because that's what was in scope of my interest. And I really focus on life cycle assessment so we combine economic assessment with environmental one. And because the mining is on the beginning of the life cycle it's always interesting in that sense. But first of all I would like to remind a little bit what's going on on the European level. So you probably well know what is in this but what's the particular interest that is of course in the new Green Deal and in the new circular action plan. That's the critical raw materials and resources are very important in these documents. But what is worth to underline about this that the critical raw material is updated every three years but also in Poland we developed our list of key raw materials for the Ministry of the Environment. So we have the whole book and our own methodology about the important or critical raw material from Poland. The other aspect about metals when we are talking about copper or other metals is that from the point of view of an environmental point of view, compared to plastic or compared to paper is that the metal can be recycled forever without losses. So even not pure without losses but that can be recycled so without losses of the quality that's what I would like to say so if you recycle the paper seven or eight or 10 times. It has completely different quality but when you go to the aluminum or the other metals, it do not lost the quality value. So without degrading the value so it's, it's from the environmental point of view, it's quite nice. And also when you recycling metals, of course, it's less energy consuming. Life's like perspective from environmental point of view, it's, it's a good point for for for metal. Of course, the key point is compare the mining, the metal from primary sources to the secondary sources. We cannot, we, the share of recycling for the demand of metal it's, it's not as high so we have to mine to keep the demand for the metals because we, the recycling size is not enough for for our for our demand, because how much we consume we consume really a lot. What's European Commission is talking 16 ton of raw materials per year per person in Europe, of which metal is also a significant part of this of course the most is industrial minerals and when we mine we usually landfill. So that's that's a general conclusion from the from the documents which we why and and so metal is important for us. When we go to the resource panel, we also analyze the information about the consumption of raw materials. And of course divided in into four groups. And when we look at the metals. So it's, it's the, the extracting has been increasing so when you look at the 1970 it was 2.6 billion tons and 2017 9.9 billion so that's really a lot when you look at the dynamic of this. And of course, when what was already said that when we look at metals it's not on we we consume more different type of metals we need more different times very often rare, rare, rare metals. And what is in policy European policy and also what is important for you know, please, you know, resource panel is the coupling so the coupling it means that division between the well being and the consumption or impact of consumption of raw materials. And that's the main aim. And the question is how we can do it. Of course, first of all, we try to analyze it so to use material flow analyzes and to analyze the flow of materials that's the first point. So the second point is is to use these materials which is less harmful for the environment so that's usually when we use the life cycle assessment methodology methodology for this and try to assess this this impact. And one of the point is to use the waste as a resources. So that's, that's the very hot topic in the policy. And, of course, the key point is when we would like to use the waste as the resources is not only to extract this metals from the waste but also to use the other parts. So not to produce waste from waste that would be the best if it would be possible. So, because when we have about half of percent of metal in the run of mine or in the waste, then again over 99% is something else. So that's that would be the best solution which is not easy. But of course what what else we need we need to have good data and to understand what we are talking what is waste what is not waste what is by product where is the end of criteria. The legislation we in Spain it was already mentioned about the legislation. So in Poland legislation is updated quite often, even too often, but what we missing, I think we missing really a good policy, a good policy for resource efficiency, good policy for for this information. And we created a lot of info we have in Poland a lot of data and I have to say that even we have one of the best data about database about waste in Poland as in Poland it was introduced it in the end of in the end of the 80s. The environmental fee and fine and with this environmental fee and find which was reported by the company. It was also reported the amount of waste. So this was reported to the martial office on the regional level. And nowadays it is created something like central statistical what is created like the whole central database. So the data was collected by martial office the data was collected by central statistical office the data about waste was collecting but mining authorities. And also we have quite a lot of information collected by state geological Institute, but even to this when we would like to have raw materials by raw materials, it's not it's not easy to have the full information. Because what we, what we know in Poland that we have total waste in Poland generated over 100 million tonne and the most of them is waste from fortation so nonferos flotation it's mentioned about the that is Kagey gem so Kagey gem as the largest one copper producer and one of the largest producer of silver so it's also about 30 million of flotation is going from Kagey gem. In this year it was also some from from from zinc but now it's not any longer. We have waste from cleaning minerals so it's mostly from coal the processing, and we have some dust and and nonferos metal and soil. So this is the, this is the section there which we are talking about mining as a as a general so so we have 61 million tonne for for the section there as a waste generation. But with the, when we talking about waste hierarchy we could see, especially in mining and also in mining in Poland, that there are a lot of activities for minimizing the waste generation. It's minimizing both on through the efficiency of the process, but also through the reuse of of waste already existing so from the from the dump and one of them. I think one of the most innovative and also in scale of Europe and also in the large scale it's the installation which is in operation in the GH Bolesław. This is the installation where they reuse waste from flotation from zinc flotation, and they recover zinc and association metal from the waste generated through the last 5050 years so from the tailing pond simply. And nowadays, the Orkusz Pomorzany is closed in this year so they only produce zinc and lead from the from the from the tailing dump so from from from waste. It was a big investment for for that mine, this is the near crack of social so South part of Poland, very innovative the company it's innovative itself because they make create a lot of industrial symbiosis so this is in line with the new circular economy policy, because they use not only their own flotation tailings but also the waste like dust and slack from other from other activities. So this is one of the nice case study from our region from our Polska. When we're talking about the coal mining and especially open pit, then we're going to the largest pit loud largest hole in Europe. So, for example, in Bełchatów so that's how it's look like and the big discussion is that but what about what about waste. It's still when it's well managed, we could have nearly no waste from such operation like like open pit, because when we have overburden so overburden is not treated as a as a waste and intergrove into Larry and the deposit it's also treated as a overburden. And when we have selective extraction for with this soil and rock mass, it can be really well managed for the different main product and also by product. So associated minerals, if it can be sold it can be treated as a as a byproduct and not classified as a as a waste so so from when we're talking about the mining area. It can be really aggregate production from from brown coal and other byproducts also possible. Again, when we go to the industrial minerals, so some achievements in case of industrial minerals, it's also very rational use of of minerals and the best example can be some like felt sparrow they can produce rock with very fine grain and we might remanufacture it and the other processing so so even in some mines we can have the information that what they mined so all run of mine can be used so no no waste and this is one of the of the best best examples for industrial minerals. So we go to the visu which which you were interested in and also ask about the the waste which are from the chemical because that was mining now we go to the to the chemical visu plant which were closed few years ago, but the still waste from the dump which still exist, it's still in this area. It's not reused even it has a big potential for for this. And a few years ago we did the very detailed analysis for the waste dump in in in in visu. Just to recover the rough element proposal for recover rough element from this from this dump and because this the this dump is all the time it has about five million tons of waste and it has the waste of the same characteristic so it was the all the time from from one delivery. So we know that this material and when we verified is in is unified so it's not so different and the the the key point for this it was to find the technology which is zero waste so not to produce waste. Not to produce wise rather element and again to produce waste and it was successful the proposal was successful to produce on hydrate and to have a concentrate of rough element, but unfortunately, even it was successful and economic viable looks like economic viable. It was not implemented due to, I think another aspect that the company was bankrupt, and the, the waste is still exist and it's changing the ownership for for for many times from that time. But when you look at the at this process which was proposed. It was the leaching it was crystallization rather concentrate and the result which were proposed by by chemical people by the whole group of people was really interesting even the radioactive was verified and the possibility of different rather element could be obtained, but for the economic analyzes the most important was not only to have rather element, but also to have this answered right from from from the deposit so not to have what I said the waste from the waste so that's that was the key point like this and you can see the dump, which looks very nice still still exist and the last is what I would like to say it's quite important that to go with the circular economy hierarchy and to maximize use of material that's very very important from the very beginning so that's echo echo design it could be the key point from from this and what we really need we need the transparency and the approval for for such a coin innovation solution, which is not easy because it's usually disruptive innovation and also social license to operate is not easy to to to get to this so that even when you would like to clean the area. I think that I know is I don't think I know I can see that there is always a big discussion with the society so better corporate social responsibility is really needed for even for such. Investment, as you can see here so a lot of good investment, a lot of good case study for revitalization of post mining area can be seen. We just treated all as a tourist area or as a sport area or other application so we can see a lot of changes thanks European money quite often like this. And some of them like village castle mine is very famous with them. Even now you can you can go to the village castle mine and you can recover after COVID so there are special place where you can go with good breathing and recover covered some lectures thank you very much for this. Thank you. It was optimistic at the end. It is a little bit I would like to ask you for reaction because you were traveling around the world to China to all those places where there were a lot of problems and human problems and here we are in Europe. Is it a little bit more optimistic? Is there any hope? I think there can be hope and because you know talking about this is could be seen as depressing and my the point is really to show that in front of these challenges there are solutions and I really believe things can go better in many ways. I really believe in relocation of mining. I know this is a bit provocative to say that but I think relocating the mining is not only good for strategic supplies but it's also good for ecology. Because if we relocate the mining in our countries and have responsible mining and for mining being done by our companies rather than Chinese companies. I think that's going to be better for the environment and I think responsible mining will be possible in Europe. So that's one first thing that makes me hope that we could do better. And as it's been mentioned before recycling is important circular economy is extremely important. I know you have developed was seen in the document in the commentaries of the paper do more with less. This is exactly the point of circular economy. By 2060 the objective is to actually produce twice as many wealth twice as much wealth with the same amount of resource. So for $1 produced today with a specific amount of resource circular economy could make it possible to produce $2 of wealth. So that's so that we can do more with less. And I redirect you to the fact of four study which has been actually made by the Institute in Germany about that. So that makes me hope. I just want to add that circular economy and recycling won't be the perfect solution either. And we need to keep that also in mind because our needs are evolving very quickly. And actually the needs for certain metals is growing 10% a year. So if you make 10% plus 10% it's exponential. Which means that by the moment we can recycle the metal which was introduced in the economic loop 10 years before. 10 years after let's suppose that we can recycle 100% of this metal we still need to have more needs. Sometimes 100% more needs. So we still have to go back to the mine and we always will have to deal with the mine. So recycling and circular economy can bring part of the solution. But we should not be too much optimistic in my view that it will be the only solution in the entire solution because we always have to dig a scar somewhere in the ground. Thank you. Thank you. I would like to ask to Łukasz Dołgi to add to our discussion Richard Wauters who is with us as an attendee. Could you Łukasz add Richard to our discussion please? And waiting for that I will ask the question that Richard put in the chat. Is KGHM considering to use the rare earth in the copper deposits? I believe it's a question to Krzysztof Dudek. Well, rare earth elements, rare earth metals are generally very rare. So we cannot speak about deposits rich in these elements, but about some rocks, rock formation, somewhat more or less enriched in rare earth elements. And the rocks exploited by KGHM are sedimentary rocks, sound stones, dolomites, sheaths, copper beering, sedimentary rocks, which are mineralized with sulphides of copper, iron, iron. Lead, zinc, silver and some other metals. And in such rocks rare earth elements are not at all concentrated. So there is no use to try to extract rare earth elements, which are very rare and at minor level. So the second part of questions, so where to look for rare earth elements. Such elements are concentrated at the end of crystallization of magmatic rocks. After crystallization of granites, there are in lower temperatures, there are sort of rocks called pegmatite androtermal veins, which are enriched in incompatible minerals and elements, which are such pegmatites are enriched in such minerals as boron minerals, tungsten. Tin also, lithium is concentrated in maicas and also such rocks are rich in apatite. Apatite is prime material for chemical forest forest industry apatite is for forest mineral and in such rocks are rare earth elements somewhat concentrated. So I'm afraid that we cannot combine extraction of copper, silver, metallic rhenium, gold, platinum minerals with rare earth elements. So I would like to ask Richard to comment on our discussion today. What did you learn from today? What are your remarks after this discussion? Thank you Ewa. I must say that I learned a lot. Let me start with Guillaume Pitron. I think he writes that ecologist parties while advocating the energy transition were not aware of the volumes of materials that we would need. There are some exceptions. For instance, the green German MEP Reinhard Pitkofer was the first to underline the need for rare earths for energy technologies and the fact that we should not remain dependent on China. Of course in ecologist thinking, so being the idea that we should not only produce clean energy but also save a lot of energy by consuming less, changing our lifestyles. And it is clear that we have to revitalize that strain of ecological thinking. For instance, by not replacing every fossil fuel car with an electric car but replacing every five fossil fuel cars by one shared electric car. We could save a lot of lithium and cobalt for instance. It would probably reduce Europe's need for these metals by 50%. The question is, are we willing to advocate such a huge change in our mobility and can you win elections with it? Can you have the next green chancellor in Germany with a program like that? This is exactly the main point I believe because the problem is will people, I believe that maybe the hope is in the new generation but that's why programs like ours and project like ours with discussions like ours and this communication. The book like the one of Keel is the book that must be read. It's not something because I completely agree that even green politicians were not aware of how much metals we need. I heard myself for years that yes we need rare metal heirs but I was not aware of how much we are using them. Because the problem is that we are changing technologies all the time. So when we are speaking about recycling and circular economy, there are two points. First of all, there is this eco design. So how products are invented, conceptualized at the beginning that we must imagine the end of their life and it's for everything. And I'm thinking about buildings. When we are watching all these new generation of buildings for offices. There are a lot of metals there and how will we recover them for how long time they will stay with us. Because we saw with COVID that we are working more and more in our houses, in our homes. So we don't need all these offices. And will they stay here for 20 years, 30 years, 50 years or a few hundred years as a former generation of buildings that we see in Paris, in Roma and in all the towns. So our civilization, we must rethink our civilization and be responsible where we are producing anything, anything. So as well, buildings as all kind of products that we consume. And of course I believe that this circular economy of repairing and obliging companies to make products repairable, repairable, not changeable, but repairable. This is maybe our political obligation and some some state started and maybe European Union must really push on this to make things repairable as an obligation. And something that the Miriam was speaking about and she repeats to us all the time at each conference, our responsibility and supply chains that we must not forget our colleagues from other continents and our friends and our people from other continents but also weaker communities inside the European Union. We saw it with our colleague representing semi-community in Sweden in such a civilized modern country where we when we think about Scandinavia we think about everything the best and we see that even in such a country in such a big level of civilization, very high level of civilization. Indigenous communities are not not strong enough to they are not listened to. They have not the know that they can say and we see it in all the public consultation with for all the investment that local populations communities cannot say no. There is CSR politics. They can negotiate better conditions, better protection, environmental protection, but they cannot say no because decisions are made above their heads and very often before the consultation is done the decision is already taken. And this is something that that that must be definitely changed. This is one of one of big conclusions from our debate. I believe one of conclusions from our debate is about democracy, democracy of investment and the dialogue with between the investors so that the worries between the common interest of on the global scale on the European level, national level and this local community. We must learn to to have this dialogue, open dialogue, honest dialogue and to let people choose so to to explain to them and let them take a decision. And there was also something that I learned from from the Miriam's conference because we had those speakers from other countries and from developing countries that what Guillaume is not writing enough, I believe in his book about it that there are countries they are very much dependent for jobs because there is huge unemployment when we see in Africa like in Democratic Republic of Congo. There are countries that there is such an unemployment that they need some activity and it's not only the problem of stopping mining and stopping this activity, but what you are stressing very often Richard that we must help them build partnerships to let them develop the value chain and produce some of things that we produce in our civilizations in our societies, let them produce some under products or finished products to make a more fair trade. So I believe that we have already a good material for our for our final it's not the end we didn't finish in Poland we will have still a round table we will try to invite as many stakeholders as we can for an open dialogue on this topic in one month and after at the end of August we will have a green days where we will have a seminar where we will finish invite our colleagues our friends and we will conclude our project on the Polish side. So thank you very much if I can if you can add something you can add something Richard to close. Yes, yes to close. I want to thank Christopher Juana for their presentations. I learned a lot from that and I was particularly glad to learn that the idea of reusing the waste from past mines is so studied so seriously here in Poland. I think there are big opportunities there, especially if you combine it with the rehabilitation of old mining sites. And I just want to show you that there are more webinars on different aspects of mining coming up. One in French and one in English and you can find all the details on the website of the Green European Foundation. And then we have this draft text on metals, which is online. We are improving it all the time. And you can help us improve it by leaving your comments on that website. And you can even do that in Polish. We'll manage to translate it. Thank you. Thank you very much. First, thanks a lot to our wonderful panelists. Thanks. Thank you very much for having accepted our invitation. I think Krzysztof Dudek Krzysztof Dudek is our wonderful green geologist that we appreciate a lot. Thank you Krzysztof for being with us. Thanks again, Petro. Big success. I wish a big success to your book. We should give a book to each green politician working on the green and digital transition. Thanks Raul Gomez, our wonderful Spanish partner and a lot but not least. Thanks a lot Miriam Kenneth. Your work is always powerful. Thanks a lot for being with us. Thanks Richard and bye-bye to everyone. Thanks to you too. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Wonderful. Thank you everyone. Yes, thanks. Very interesting. Bye-bye. Bye-bye.