LETTER TO THE EDITOR
The global shift toward clean energy is one of the most important transformations of our lifetime. Electric vehicles, solar storage, and grid-scale batteries are essential tools in our fight against climate change. But there is a hidden piece of this story that we can no longer ignore: the deadly conditions under which much of the world’s recycled lead is produced.
Lead-acid batteries, still widely used in vehicles, backup systems, and industrial equipment, depend on recycled lead. Lead is infinitely recyclable, which should make it an environmental success story. Instead, the recycling process has been outsourced to unregulated smelters in countries such as Nigeria, where investigations by The New York Times have documented horrific conditions: workers handling toxic materials without protection, molten lead poured in openair yards, and neighborhoods permeated with poisonous fumes.
Children growing up near these facilities are showing dangerously high levels of lead in their blood. Lead poisoning is irreversible. It damages the brain, lowers IQ, impairs development, and increases the risk of lifelong disability. That this suffering persists in the name of “clean energy” should trouble every one of us.
The most disturbing part of The Times’ investigation is not simply the harm being done, it’s how easy it would be to stop it. According to reporting by Peter S. Goodman, improving safety standards at these recycling plants would increase the cost of a battery by roughly one dollar. One dollar is all that separates safe recycling from neurological injury in children.
So why does the problem persist? Because our global supply chains are intentionally opaque. Batteries are exported from the U.S. and Europe to the cheapest available recyclers. Those recyclers often subcontract to even cheaper smelters. Manufacturers buy the resulting lead through intermediaries, allowing each layer to deny responsibility. When everyone in the chain can say “we didn’t know,” no one is held accountable.
This is not an accident. It is a design. Complexity becomes a shield against responsibility.
But we have solutions. Other industries have already proven that enforceable supply chain rules can work. After public pressure over conflict minerals in consumer electronics, nations adopted chain-ofcustody requirements. After illegal timber flooded global markets, the U.S. strengthened the Lacey Act to prohibit the import of wood tied to environmental destruction. These laws did not collapse their industries; they helped clean them up.
We need similar reforms for the lead that enters our batteries.
First, companies must be required to track the full chain of custody for every shipment of recycled lead. Every battery should be serialized, logged, and traced from collection to final processing. This must be government- verified, not self-policed by industry.
Second, the United States should ban the import of lead recycled in facilities that do not meet basic environmental and worker-safety standards. If a smelter does not provide adequate ventilation, emission control, slag containment, or worker blood-lead testing, American companies should not be permitted to buy its output.
Third, we need corporate due-diligence laws that impose real liability. Not voluntary ESG reporting, but enforceable requirements modeled on the laws recently adopted in France, Germany, and the European Union. A company that sources materials from unsafe recyclers should face penalties, not praise for sustainability branding.
Fourth, we must strengthen export controls. When the U.S. ships hazardous batteries abroad, it must ensure they go only to certified facilities. Countries with no regulatory infrastructure cannot be the world’s dumping ground for toxic waste.
These are not radical ideas. They are basic principles of fairness and public health. Clean energy should not come at the cost of poisoning Black and brown children in poorer countries. Especially when the alternative is a one-dollar increase in production costs.
America can lead on this. We are at our best when we match innovation with responsibility. If we want a clean-energy future we can be proud of, it must be clean all the way down the supply chain.
The transition to renewable energy is essential. But it cannot be built on invisible suffering. The real test of our commitment to sustainability is not how green our technology looks on the outside. It’s how humane it is on the inside.
A cleaner future is within reach. The question is whether we are willing to pay one dollar to get there.
Chase Norris San Marcos
