4 ms·
That's essentially it. China made it a strategic goal to become globally dominant in rare earths. It was a position the US held previously. China's share of th
by adventured 7y ago
That's essentially it.
China made it a strategic goal to become globally dominant in rare earths. It was a position the US held previously. China's share of the market eventually climbed into the high 90% range. It's now back down to closer to 70% to 75% depending on the source. Between their state subsidies for the sector, meant to maintain their position, and their willingness to ignore the environmental disaster that the rare earth metals industry often is, they can simply do it cheaper than everyone else.
Japan's moves after China used rare earths against them a decade ago, were extremely successful. They were largely responsible for the drop in China's market share.
The US has been very irresponsible about this. It's pretty wild that the military industrial complex has not been forcing the issue extremely aggressively. It would not be difficult for the US to be entirely self-sufficient on rare earths.
If the US were not so circus-like on matters of strategic importance (too many clowns focused on everything that isn't actually important), it would immediately put $10-$20 billion to work with the Army Corp of Engineers and whatever US mining companies were necessary (the US has several of the world's largest miners), and it'd nationalize the Mountain Pass mine as an issue of extreme national security. There would be no niceness, no pleasantries. All environmental reviews would be ignored as a matter of national security, it would be a violent rush to production no matter the initial cost. It would then ramp up production enough to deflate China's position down toward 50% globally (through a combination of domestic production and working with foreign partners eg in Australia and elsewhere to boost their production further asap), and ensure the US has a lever it can always use if China tries to pull this again. It's simply taking the club out of China's hands on this issue. And as far as stupid spending goes, this would not be all that expensive.
The US would further use the nationalized mine (ideally do this with multiple mines) - in a modestly subsidized fashion over time - to build up an enormous stockpile of rare earths, exactly like and for the same reason as the strategic petroleum reserve. The US has a small version of this now, it should increase that drastically.
- selestify 7y agoHow and why did China use them against Japan a decade ago? Is there an incident I can read up on?
- iSnow 7y agohttps://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/business/global/23rare.html https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/business/global/23rare.ht... but also read https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-05-30/we-all-need-to-calm-down-about-rare-earths https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-05-30/we-all... and https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/08/18/did-china-really-ban-rare-earth-metals-exports-to-japan/ https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/08/18/did-china-really-ba... as it seems this isn't really that clear cut. The US's current smearing of China probably has a big part in it.
- pjc50 7y ago> There would be no niceness, no pleasantries. All environmental reviews would be ignored as a matter of national security, it would be a violent rush to production no matter the initial cost This is how you get things like http://nmindepth.com/2014/07/07/remembering-the-largest-radioactive-spill-in-u-s-history/ http://nmindepth.com/2014/07/07/remembering-the-largest-radi... How many people would you poison to, essentially, make a point against China? Besides, the whole project of demonstrating how the US is a superior place to China by, er, nationalising a mine at gunpoint, poisoning the surroundings, and disallowing people legal redress for complaints?
- Chris2048 7y ago> the whole project of demonstrating how the US is a superior place Or just avoiding war. The "point" dissuades china warring against the US.
- pjc50 7y agoThe nuclear weapons and the carrier battle groups do that, surely? Messing around with the flow of trade goods to disrupt the economy of other countries that you're nontheless inextricable from is a form of conflict, but not a warlike one.
- Chris2048 7y agoPetrol is stockpiled because the military needs it, not just the economy. REs are needed for many military machines too.
- turtlecloud 7y agoIsn’t that like the whole point of globalization? It’s an equalizer for all countries in the world. For the US to realistically stay competitive in rare earths it has to run similar tactics that other countries with less environmental regulations use. It’s a race to the bottom. The same could also be said about wages and income inequality. I don’t see how globalization will prevent the bottom half of the labor force from competing against Indian peasants.
- roenxi 7y agoThat plan has a lot of unnecessarily extreme facets. The US could just impose a strategic subsidy or tweak the legislation to allow rare earths a special exemption from environmental legislation. No need to nationalise anything or send in the army corps. The US crushed the Soviet Union by being able to fund their logistical support networks while the soviets couldn't. Arbitrary nationalisation of things because there are security issues is a great way to see the roles reversed for the tussle with China. Rare earths can be mined anywhere at a nominal profit, mining isn't a game of cheap labour. It is only the USs environmental standards that is making a difference between mining in the US vs China.