Conclusion

Rather than resource nationalisms, be they of the US nuclear dominance variety or the Chilean catch-up variety or something else, a global shift toward thinking of minerals as nonhuman kin with the same rights as other plants and animals is needed.Understanding minerals as nature with rights can shake up the mineral trade by centering life in decision-making.As this book has shown, mine development and mineral trading have been led by rivalries, fears of loss of control, and nationalist designs for pro gress, rather than a measure of collective need or environmental concerns.Remarkably, as with lithium, these dynamics persist even after forty years of free-trade globalization policies, which have sidelined governments in favor of multinational corporations.In the meantime, corporations and national governments have proven to be poor environmental stewards and, since the 1990s, have consistently abdicated any leadership regarding the climate crisis-causing much harm and vio lence.A paradigm shift is, therefore, needed to remake the rules of the game and reconvene stakeholders on a dif fer ent footing, at once more equitable, humble, and nature centric.This conclusion first argues for including minerals within Rights of Nature frameworks, then contrasts this alternative to a real ity driven by speculation, and closes by synthesizing the book's argument: The mineral trade was organized to enable global resourceintensive consumerism, and this approach will not resolve the climate crisis. Minerals as Nature with RightsRights of Nature (RoN) are a legal practice that recognizes the right of nature to exist, to flourish, and to regenerate.These three rights are recognized in laws and founding charters in over thirty countries worldwide and in the Conclusion