At the 5th International Professional Geology Conference (IPGC) held in Zaragoza from 5-7 November 2025, Board member Marko Komac facilitated the Spotlight Session “Navigating the Path for the Green Transition”, co-organised by the International Raw Materials Observatory, the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS), and the European Federation of Geologists.
Panelists explored how to balance CRM supply with the protection of nature and communities. They argued for early, two-way engagement and cautioned against ‘green metals’ rhetoric that can sound like greenwashing. Concrete practices included open-site visits, permanent community offices, and mandated forums (e.g., in Ireland’s EPA licences) that are inclusive and transparent.
Benefits should accrue to both Europe and host regions: visible community funds for amenities, regulator-controlled remediation bonds, and clear reporting build trust. A global consumer-side levy on mineral-intensive products was floated to finance community development and reclamation. GSOs were cast as the foundation for investment—harmonised data, modern mapping, and stronger advisory roles to ministries and investors—supported by evidence that public geoscience delivers high economic returns. Yet approval speed must not confuse benchmarks with outcomes: granting a project that exports concentrate for offshore smelting won’t cut import dependence.
On risk trade-offs, the group recognised that accepting slightly higher local risk in Europe could reduce geopolitical risk—if standards, monitoring, and closure plans are strict, and long-term regional benefits are guaranteed. AI can streamline mapping and permitting and help simulate social responses, but it also amplifies misinformation and needs expert moderation. Above all, trust is earned in person: being present, listening, and making finance and oversight visible were framed as essential to ensure Europe’s green transition benefits both the continent and the communities hosting new mines and processing plants.
At the end of the vivid discussion, two young ladies, aged 8 and 10, shed light on the communication capabilities of the presentations they’d followed throughout the two-and-a-half-day conference, and their statement was very clear: “…the main thing is people my age do not want to be geologists. Most of them don’t even know what geology is because the most we’ve heard about it in school is the rock cycle. And that’s pretty much it… The thing is they think geology is boring because they have no clue what it is. I think that you need to get into a lot more aspects of kids’ lives…”. This is certainly painful yet realistic feedback on the geoscientific community’s communication capacity. We need to change it—and it has to be fast and effective.