Environmental, economic, and geopolitical trade-offs in critical mineral mining projects: Evidence from a conjoint experiment in Argentina

The energy transition and intensifying geopolitical competition have triggered a rush for critical minerals, often extracted in developing countries. These projects have increasingly provoked public opposition. How do citizens in developing countries evaluate the trade-offs among the environmental, economic, and geopolitical dimensions of mining? We address this question empirically through a pre-registered conjoint survey experiment in Argentina. We find that local environmental harm is by far the most important determinant of public support, regardless of proximity to existing mines. The contribution of a mineral to green technologies modestly increases support, but not among those living near mining sites. Respondents consistently prefer ownership by the national state-owned company over North American and especially Chinese firms. While Argentines are reluctant to redistribute mining revenues to Indigenous communities, they favor compensation for environmental damage. Overall, the results suggest that mining projects that impose local environmental costs are unlikely to sustain broad national support, even when justified by global green transition goals. • Citizens prioritize local environmental impacts regardless of their proximity to mines. • Argentineans prefer state-owned mining over North American and Chinese ownership. • Mining for green technologies increases support but not near mining sites. • People support compensation for environmental harm but less so to indigenous communities. • Local environmental damage largest barrier to sustaining public support for mining.