Decarbonisation and Materials: The Hidden Constraint to Net Zero
Decarbonisation is often framed as a technological challenge, with investment and policy decisions highly focused on advancements in renewables and efficiency. This outlook misses a critical constraint: the transition to net zero is dependent on materials just as much as technological progress. Lithium, copper, cobalt and rare earth metals underpin electric vehicles, wind turbines and grid infrastructure. Demand for these resources is rising; by 2030 the UK demand for lithium is forecasted to grow between 12 and 45 times according to the UK Critical Minerals Intelligence Centre (CMIC). However, supply chains remain geographically concentrated, slow to scale and exposed to geopolitical pressure.
This is changing the nature of delivery risk. The limiting factor is no longer just capital and technological innovation, but the ability to secure and deploy materials at scale. As this constraint tightens, it is moving from a background issue to a central determinant of whether decarbonisation targets can be met.
Demand Outstripping Supply
Material constraints directly impact project delivery. Offshore wind farms depend on permanent magnets containing neodymium, yet supply remains concentrated and difficult to expand, with 70% being mined in China. Recent projections highlight the scale of the challenge. According to the International Energy Agency’s report (2025) on critical minerals, demand could increase by as much as four to six times by 2040. For some materials, projected demand outpaces expected supply growth well before then.
Even when minerals have been located, sustainability targets could be impacted by the time required to access and refine them. Developing new mining opportunities is a long-term endeavour, often taking over 15 years from discovery to production [1]. Even where resources are known to exist, environmental assessments and permitting introduce uncertainty and delays.
The result is a structural mismatch: demand can scale rapidly with policy and investment, while supply responds slowly and unevenly. This imbalance cannot be resolved in the short term, which makes it a persistent feature of the ‘transition to net zero’ rather than a temporary disruption.
The Lithium Lag
Lithium illustrates the problem clearly. In geological terms, it is relatively abundant. However, this does not translate into usable supply at the pace required for net zero targets.
Extraction, processing and refining capacity are the real bottlenecks. Battery demand is accelerating, driven by innovations in electric cars and grid storage. Yet supply expansion has been constrained by long development timelines and a period of underinvestment in more complex or lower-yield projects during the 2000s and 2010s. Analysis from Columbia University’s Centre on Global Energy Policy suggests that lithium markets could face sustained deficits as early as 2030 [2]. This is not because lithium is scarce in absolute terms, but because supply chains are struggling to scale in line with demand.
Delivery Risk Impact
Decarbonisation programmes are becoming more dependent on factors that sit beyond direct organisational control. This includes material availability, processing capacity and geopolitical stability.
This shift introduces greater uncertainty into planning and execution. Timelines become more variable, cost assumptions more exposed, and delivery outcomes more sensitive to external disruption. Projects that appear robust in isolation can be undermined by dependencies that are not immediately visible.
In this context, material exposure becomes a strategic consideration, and shapes not only how programmes are delivered, but also the initial confidence required to start a project.
What Should Organisations Do?
Organisations need to treat material risk as a core strategic factor and not as a procurement issue. This means incorporating supply chain exposure into early-stage investment decisions, rather than reacting to constraints during delivery. In addition, there is a need to build resilience into supply chains. This includes diversifying sourcing strategies, developing closer partnerships around the world, and increasing visibility of critical dependencies particularly in processing and refining.
Finally, organisations should use the reality and risks of delivery to inform decarbonisation ambitions. This does not mean slowing progress, but recognising that timelines, costs and risks are increasingly shaped by factors outside traditional programme control. Those that integrate this understanding early will be better positioned to deliver consistently in a constrained environment.
Effectively navigating these changes in addition to promoting technological innovation will define success in the decades to come. Those who continue to treat materials as a secondary consideration risk building strategies on unsustainable assumptions.
A realistic approach is one that recognises decarbonisation as both an energy and a resource challenge. In doing so, constraints can be managed and dealt with proactively as part of a successful net zero strategy.
Written by Rebecca Davis
Edited by Kate Randall