Smelting and processing of raw materials is a big source of GHG.
Most of scope 2 and 3 emissions go away if you decarbonize the electric grid though.
Absolutely, but that’s not what I said neither the article I link. Is talks about the emissions of mining itself and the scopes associated of that activity. It’s not mining within another activity scope.
The conclusion is basically : scope 1 and 2 emissions of mining itself is quite small compare to its scope 3 emissions. The reason is mining activity uses a HUGE quantity of steel which -in this context- produce a lot of GHG.
> Most of scope 2 and 3 emissions go away if you decarbonize the electric grid though.
I guess you talk about derived goods “we” consume away from the mines… so your assomption of scope 2 is true but as stated in the article a linked, the mining part of our scope 3 will largely more benefit of decarbonizing the steel industry (the grid won’t have much effect). But guess what ? That’s (very) expensive and the only ones that cares are some smart Norwegians.
Heh ??! Mining is a huge source of GHG, especially if you count scope 3 (you should): https://www.mining-technology.com/features/cop26-scope3-net-...
> Within mining, scope 1 and 2 emissions account for 4%-7% of global greenhouse gas emissions. This rises to 28% of global emissions however when accounting for scope 3