It is an irony that the minerals needed to save the planet might help destroy it. Rare earths, the mineral backbones of wind turbines and electric vehicles, are now the prize in a geopolitical arms race. The trade agreement between Washington and Beijing restores rare earth shipments from China to the US, which had been suspended in retaliation against US President Donald Trump’s tariffs.
Behind the bluster, there has been a realization in Washington that these are critical inputs for the US. They are needed not just by US icons such as Ford and Boeing, but for its fighter jets, missile guidance systems and satellite communications.
This understanding suggests that Washington would scale back some of its countermeasures once Beijing resumes delivery of rare earths. The paradox is that to reduce its dependence on China, the US must depend on Beijing a little longer. This is not yet decoupling; it is deferment.
However, that might not last. Trump has signed an executive order to boost production of critical minerals, which encourages the faster granting of permits for mining and processing projects. He eyes Ukraine’s and Greenland’s subterranean riches to break dependence on China.
The West became so reliant on a single geopolitical rival for such materials — materials it once extracted and refined domestically before shuttering operations — due to cost and environmental concerns.
China, for its part, has come to dominate global rare earth processing. It has used that market power before — notably against Japan in 2010. It is hard not to think that it was strategic complacency that led to the West relying so heavily on China for key minerals.
Last month’s NATO summit has seen the West push to reindustrialize via rearming itself. This is also reawakening long-dormant extractive ambitions in the global north.
Canada, flush with critical mineral deposits, says its planned mining resurgence would be a new foundation for alliance solidarity. Last month, the EU called for strategic reserves of rare earths “to prevent supply chain disruptions and economic blackmail from China” — highlighting their importance not just for electric vehicles, but for the defense and aerospace industries. “Resilience” means digging deeper at home and controlling extraction abroad.
The same minerals we need for net zero are being justified in terms of zero-sum rivalry. It is uncomfortable that “green growth” and militarism have merged into a single policy frame, collapsing the distinction between ecological transition and arms buildup. A magnet for an electric car is also a magnet for a hypersonic missile. Meanwhile, the human and ecological toll continues to rise — largely out of sight and out of sync with the idea of environmental sustainability.
A Guardian dispatch last week from Baotou, China’s rare earth capital, found evidence of toxic ponds, poisoned soil and demolished “cancer villages” — the hidden cost of our digital and electric age. Framing this as an inconvenient necessity risks repeating past mistakes. For mineral-rich nations, the surge in global demand brings opportunity.
However, as a UN report this year noted, without strong institutions and safeguards, it risks a familiar fate: corruption, conflict and environmental ruin.
Today’s scramble for critical minerals must not see the promises of responsible sourcing give way to a familiar logic — extract first, moralize later.
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Eating at a breakfast shop the other day, I turned to an old man sitting at the table next to mine. “Hey, did you hear that the Legislative Yuan passed a bill to give everyone NT$10,000 [US$340]?” I said, pointing to a newspaper headline. The old man cursed, then said: “Yeah, the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] canceled the NT$100 billion subsidy for Taiwan Power Co and announced they would give everyone NT$10,000 instead. “Nice. Now they are saying that if electricity prices go up, we can just use that cash to pay for it,” he said. “I have no time for drivel like
Twenty-four Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers are facing recall votes on Saturday, prompting nearly all KMT officials and lawmakers to rally their supporters over the past weekend, urging them to vote “no” in a bid to retain their seats and preserve the KMT’s majority in the Legislative Yuan. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which had largely kept its distance from the civic recall campaigns, earlier this month instructed its officials and staff to support the recall groups in a final push to protect the nation. The justification for the recalls has increasingly been framed as a “resistance” movement against China and
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
RSS