Is Lithium Really That Dirty?
What the memes say vs. what the emissions data shows
I glanced at the lithium extraction using sodium hydroxide described in this article. It seems interesting, but like every other process announced each week, it’s years away from even reaching the pilot stage, if it ever gets there at all.
Now, what I really want to look at is this:
“According to MIT, the process of mining one metric ton of lithium releases 15 metric tons of carbon dioxide.”
This 15-ton figure shows up a lot in anti-EV posts, which is usually a red flag that the person posting has learned most of what they know from a meme. And if you actually try to track down how they arrived at this 15 tons per 1 ton of lithium carbonate, you’ll quickly hit a dead end when it comes to data that support this.
The MIT article that’s often cited in posts and memes doesn’t include the math behind the number. Instead, it points to a 2020 BBC Future article titled “The new gold rush for green lithium.” But all that article does is cite a report created to promote a Direct Lithium Extraction (DLE) company, Vulcan Energy. The problem is there is no real data available from this data, no real comparisons, and no context.
MIT’s Role: The MIT Climate Portal uses the 15-ton figure to highlight the environmental footprint of lithium mining, but it simply repeats what the BBC said. It doesn’t appear that MIT independently verified the number, which raises questions about its reliability.
Hard rock mining – where the mineral is extracted from open pit mines and then roasted using fossil fuels – leaves scars in the landscape, requires a large amount of water and releases 15 tonnes of CO2 for every tonne of lithium, according to an analysis by the raw materials experts Minviro for the lithium and geothermal energy firm Vulcan Energy Resources.
The BBC article, written by Catherine Early in 2020, cites the 15-ton CO₂ per ton of lithium figure in the context of Australian hard rock lithium operations, but it provides no link to a peer-reviewed study or detailed industry report. Instead, it relies on a simplistic infographic from a life cycle assessment (LCA) conducted by Minviro for Vulcan Energy Resources, a company promoting its low-emission DLE methods.
I’ve seen another section of this LCA that Vulcan has used for their promotional campaigns cited in other media outlets, where it misrepresents water usage by equating brine extraction at salar projects with freshwater consumption. This questionable data undermines the report’s credibility and suggests it serves more as a promotional tool for Vulcan Energy. In my article The Usage of Brines vs. Water in the Extraction of Lithium, I explain how brine is saline and part of a distinct hydrological cycle—not the same as potable freshwater—a distinction supported by a 2023 Nature Reviews Earth & Environment article. While Minviro is considered a reputable LCA firm, much of the data for Vulcan appears proprietary, which could explain the lack of transparency and the focus on buzzwords and figures. Still, that doesn’t justify the uncritical acceptance of these figures by outlets like MIT and the BBC, which failed to verify the methodology behind them.
So where exactly did the numbers in this “report” from Minviro come from?
Mining vs. Processing: Where Most CO₂ Emissions Come From
Recent studies make it clear that processing lithium generates far more CO₂ emissions than mining itself. While mining accounts for roughly 15% of total emissions, processing is responsible for about 85% of the carbon footprint in hard rock lithium production.
Where lithium is processed and the energy source used have a major effect on CO₂ emissions. China, the global leader in lithium refining, still relies heavily on coal-fired electricity for much of its spodumene processing. In some cases, this pushes emissions as high as 20 tons of CO₂ per ton of lithium produced. However, lithium processing in China is a relatively young industry, having expanded rapidly over the past decade. It is still developing its infrastructure and methods, with a policy shift underway that encourages innovation and efficiency over sheer production growth. Meanwhile, CO₂ emissions from China’s power generation and construction have begun to plateau and are starting to decline. This is due in part to the increasing share of renewables in the grid mix, the gradual retirement of older coal plants, and improvements in industrial energy use.
Transportation adds to the carbon footprint, though to a lesser degree. Shipping spodumene concentrate from Australia to China contributes about 0.5 to 1 ton of CO₂ per ton of lithium, and trucking can add another 0.1 to 0.3 tons depending on distance. While these logistics account for just 3% to 5% of the total, they are often left out of simplified lifecycle figures like the commonly cited 15 tons of CO₂ per ton of lithium.
Australia’s grid has moved increasingly toward renewables such as solar and wind, supported by battery storage. This shift has helped bring emissions from spodumene refining down to around 9.6 tons per ton of lithium carbonate—roughly half of what is seen in regions still powered by coal. Cleaner energy sources reduce the emissions tied to calcination and other thermal processes.
In South America, lithium is produced from brine pumped from salt flats, or salars, using either solar evaporation or Direct Lithium Extraction (DLE). Solar evaporation produces lower CO₂ emissions—typically between 2.8 and 5.7 tons per ton of lithium carbonate—but has long lead times, often measured in months or even years. Because of this, companies are transitioning to DLE, which extracts lithium more efficiently from brine. When powered by renewable sources like solar or geothermal, DLE can reduce emissions to below 1 ton of CO₂ per ton of lithium, sharply cutting the carbon footprint compared to older methods.
A similar shift is underway in spodumene processing. Traditional methods rely on high-temperature roasting to convert the ore into a leachable form, which accounts for a large portion of emissions. But companies such as Tesla are turning to high-pressure soda leaching. Although calcination is still required, using renewable electricity for that step, combined with soda leaching, can cut emissions by 40% to 50% compared to conventional roasting and refining. This makes hard rock lithium more competitive with brine-based sources in terms of emissions.
Overall, while lithium processing remains energy-intensive, the industry is in transition. Cleaner technologies, improved energy efficiency, and a shift toward renewable power are already reducing emissions. As a relatively young sector in many regions—including China—there is still considerable room for improvement, particularly as policy incentives and economic pressure favor lower-emission methods.
Measuring Emissions per kWh
A more grounded way to assess lithium’s environmental impact is by measuring CO₂ emissions per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of battery capacity. This shifts the focus from how much lithium is extracted to how much carbon is tied to the energy the battery can actually store.
This approach is commonly used in the industry and was even used in a report prepared by Minviro for the European Federation for Transport and Environment. Rather than isolating emissions by individual metals, the report looked at the full battery cell production process. For a typical NCM-811 cell with a graphite anode, the carbon footprint was estimated at 76.7 kilograms of CO₂ per kWh. This offers a more complete picture of the emissions tied to producing a working battery, rather than just breaking it down by material.
To estimate how much of the total CO₂ comes from the lithium itself, you can use the average amount of LCE required per kWh. For NCM-811 cells, this figure is about 0.12 kilograms of LCE per kWh.
If the lithium is spodumene processed in Australia, with an emission rate of 9.6 tons of CO₂ per ton of LCE (or 9.6 kg CO₂ per kg LCE), then:
0.12 kg LCE × 9.6 kg CO₂/kg = 1.15 kg CO₂ per kWh
If the lithium is spodumene processed in China, at the high end with an emission rate of 20 tons of CO₂ per ton of LCE (or 20 kg CO₂ per kg LCE), then:
0.12 kg LCE × 20 kg CO₂/kg = 2.4 kg CO₂ per kWh
So depending on the spoduemen processing location and method, lithium carbonate equivalent can contribute between 1.15 and 2.4 kilograms of CO₂ per kWh for NCM-811 cells.
Brine-based lithium sources, when paired with cleaner electricity, generally result in lower emissions—around 2.8 tons of CO₂ per ton of LCE (or 2.8 kg CO₂ per kg LCE). Using the average amount of LCE required per kWh for NCM-811 cells, about 0.12 kilograms of LCE per kWh, this works out to:
0.12 kg LCE × 2.8 kg CO₂/kg = 0.34 kg CO₂ per kWh
So brine-based lithium can contribute approximately 0.34 kilograms of CO₂ per kWh for NCM-811 cells.
A Tesla Model 3 Standard Range Plus has a 53.9 kWh battery. The CO₂ emissions tied to the lithium in that battery vary depending on how and where the lithium is produced:
Australian spodumene: 53.9 × 1.15 = 62.0 kg CO₂
Chinese spodumene: 53.9 × 2.4 = 129.4 kg CO₂
Brine-based lithium: 53.9 × 0.34 = 18.3 kg CO₂
Lithium refined at Tesla’s Texas facility, which began operating in December 2024, is estimated to emit just 0.092 kg of CO₂ per kWh. For a 53.9 kWh battery, that works out to:
53.9 × 0.092 = 5.0 kg CO₂
That makes lithium from Tesla’s Texas plant the least carbon-intensive option currently available. This, however, will not be an outlier. Most lithium projects in North America plan to use low-carbon power sources, advanced extraction methods, and, for sites that involve mining ore, automated trucks along with hybrid or fully electric mining equipment.
The emissions for one source of ore still remains unclear and that is lithium extraction from sedimentary claystone. Full lifecycle data is limited, but early indications suggest emissions may fall between those of hard rock and brine-based direct lithium extraction (DLE). This is due to shallower deposits and less energy-intensive mining and processing steps, which could place it closer to the low end of the range.
Even at the higher end, lithium extraction represents a relatively small share of the battery’s overall emissions. The production of a lihtium-ion cell that emits 76.7 kilograms of CO₂ per kWh, lithium’s contribution often remains under 5%. Still, when scaled to meet global battery demand, the gap between low- and high-emission sources becomes more meaningful.
Framing emissions per kWh allows for clearer comparisons between lithium sources, processing methods, and energy inputs. It shifts the focus from raw material extraction to the actual energy delivered by the battery, highlighting where the most effective emission reductions can be made—through cleaner energy, improved process design, and more efficient technology. This approach is especially useful for understanding the carbon footprint of batteries used in electric vehicles and grid storage.
Conclusion
The widely cited figure of 15 tons of CO₂ per ton of lithium carbonate mostly reflects older spodumene operations that rely on coal-heavy power grids and long-distance transport to processing centers like China. Newer approaches—such as high-pressure soda leaching, renewable-powered calcination, direct lithium extraction from brines, and emerging claystone projects—have the potential or are already beginning to reduce that footprint. As the industry shifts to cleaner energy and more efficient processing, lithium’s carbon intensity is expected to decline further. However, the lack of transparent, peer-reviewed data still makes it difficult to compare methods accurately. More work is also needed from these companies to demonstrate how lowering CO₂ emissions can also lower production costs—a change that could ultimately benefit consumers.
There’s one source of lithium not covered in this article: recycling. Lithium-ion battery recycling could cut emissions by up to 70% compared to hard rock mining, while also reducing costs and easing dependence on volatile raw material markets. With battery demand accelerating, interest in recycling technologies is growing. A future article will examine how this could reshape the lithium supply chain.
Disclaimer: This article is intended solely for educational purposes only and should not be construed as investment advice, a solicitation to buy or sell securities, or a recommendation of any investment strategy. The author has not received compensation from any companies mentioned and is not responsible for decisions made based on this information. Readers are encouraged to consult primary sources and professional advisors before making investment decisions.
References:
BBC.com – The new gold rush for green lithium (2020) BBC.com
MIT Mechanical Engineering – How Much CO₂ Is Emitted by Manufacturing Batteries? (2022) meche.mit.edu
ScienceDirect.com - Carbon footprint and water inventory of the production of lithium in the Atacama Salt Flat, Chile (2024) ScienceDirect.com
Journal of Cleaner Production – Constructing a Life Cycle Inventory of Spodumene Concentrate Production: Greenbushes Case, Western Australia (2025) Sciencedirect.com
Various - Estimating the environmental impacts of global lithium-ion battery supply chain: a temporal, geographical, and technological perspective (2023) figshare.com
Benchmark Mineral Intelligence – Tesla Charts a Battery-Powered Future: Key Takeaways from 2023 Investor Day (2023) benchmarkminerals.com
Controlled Thermal Resources – Direct Lithium Extraction (2022) ctlithium.com
Nature Communications - Carbon footprint distributions of lithium-ion batteries and their materials ( 2024) nature.com
Nature Reviews Earth & Environment – Environmental Impact of Direct Lithium Extraction from Brines (2023) nature.com
International Lithium Association – Direct Lithium Extraction (DLE): An Introduction (2024) lithium.org
Minviro – Comparative Life Cycle Assessment Study of Solid State and Lithium Ion Batteries (2022) Digitaloceanspaces.com
Lithium Americas – Mining and Processing (2021) lithiumamericas.com
Lithium Harvest – Lithium Extraction Methods (2025) lithiumharvest.com