Dr. Ibrahim Hafeezur Rehman

In an old-world scenario, one usually turned “green with envy.” Given the climate imperatives of the modern technology-driven world, everything needs to transition to green, not from an envious perspective, but from an environmentally focused, holistic dimension. Therefore, whether it is green energy, mobility, infrastructure, or the economic dimension involving green jobs, every aspect of growth and development must align with environmentally positive pathways.

In the rush to turn everything green, we must pause and reflect on a critical question: how green is green? Take the mobility sector, where electric vehicles (EVs) have become synonymous with sustainability. If a significant share of the global population transitions to EVs, the demand for precious metals required for battery production could significantly impact the overall green balance of EVs.

There are currently over 1.4 billion cars worldwide. If 60% of internal combustion engine vehicles were replaced by EVs, we would have around 850 million electric cars.

Given that each EV battery requires approximately 8 kg of lithium, this shift would demand nearly 6.72 million tonnes of lithium. With current mineable lithium reserves estimated at just over 20 million tonnes, the entire resource could be exhausted within just 2–3 generations of EVs.

Of course, this is a simplified analysis. One could question the data or argue for alternative materials or pathways. But the core issue remains: for any green measure to be truly effective, it must include a component-level life cycle assessment (LCA) and a holistic circularity strategy—carefully broken down into each subset of the initiative.

For a green initiative, when broken down into its various components, the positive attributes of individual parts may not always align in the right direction—even if, at a glance, the overall initiative appears green. It is equally important to recognize that while carbon dioxide emissions and the associated carbon footprint deserve close attention, other aspects such as resource depletion, waste generation, and related pollution are also critical. Technologies labelled as green may carry hidden environmental and social costs. The adage “all that glitters is not gold” aptly applies to some such initiatives, where a closer look—or a deeper dive—reveals that the green façade may shift towards yellow, orange, or even red when viewed through a comprehensive environmental perspective.

It is in this context that the Manufacturing Engineering Technology (MET) sector needs to integrate Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) as an essential part of the manufacturing process, with each component analysed separately. From a manufacturing perspective, a product’s LCA can be segmented into: Cradle to Factory Gate (raw material input), Input Gate to Output Gate (within the factory process), and Output Gate to Grave (post-production use). Furthermore, the aim should be to establish systems that enable products, after their intended use, to bypass the “grave” stage and enter regenerative or resource-recycling pathways—whether through reuse, repurposing, or upcycling.

While the climate and environmental imperatives require immediate and focused attention, this urgency must be balanced with an in-depth assessment of new approaches and pathways. For, in our haste, we must avoid driving further resource depletion or accumulation of more waste, literally and figuratively.