Listen to Esme read this article Donald Trump's return to the White House is a "major blow to global climate action". So said Christiana Figueres, the former UN climate chief, after he was elected in November. Since taking office, Trump has withdrawn the US from what is considered the most important global climate pact, the Paris Climate Agreement. He has also reportedly prevented US scientists from participating in international climate research and removed national electric vehicle targets. Plus, he derided his predecessor's attempts to develop new green technology a "green new scam". And yet despite his history on the issue of climate, Trump has been eager to make a deal with the Ukrainian president on critical minerals. He has also taken a strong interest in Greenland and Canada – both nations rich in critical minerals. Critical mineral procurement has been a major focus for Trump since he took office. These minerals are crucial in industries including aerospace and defence, but intriguingly, they have another major use too - to manufacture green technology. So, could Trump's focus on obtaining these minerals have a knock-on effect, and help unlock the US's potential in the green technology sector? Trump's right-hand man understands more than most the importance of critical minerals in the green transition. Space X and Tesla – the companies Elon Musk leads - rely heavily on critical minerals like graphite (in electric vehicles), lithium (in batteries) and nickel (in rockets). Elizabeth Holley, an associate professor of mining engineering at Colorado School of Mines, explains that each nation has its own list of critical minerals, but they are generally made up of rare earths and other metals like lithium. She says demand is booming - in 2023, demand for lithium grew by 30%. This is being driven mostly by the rapid growth in the clean energy and electric vehicle sectors. Within two decades, they will make up almost 90% of the demand for lithium, 70% of the demand for cobalt, and 40% for rare earths, according to the International Energy Agency. Such has been Musk's concern with getting hold of some of these minerals that three years ago he tweeted: "Price of lithium has gone to insane levels! Tesla might actually have to get into the mining & refining directly at scale, unless costs improve." He went on to write that there is no shortage of the element, but the pace of extraction is slow. The weakness of the US position in rare earths and critical minerals (such as cobalt and nickel) was addressed in a report published by a US Government Select Committee in December 2023. It said: "The United States must rethink its policy approach to critical mineral and rare earth element supply chains because of the risks posed by our current dependence on the People's Republic of China." Failure to do so, it warned, could cause "defense production to grind to a halt and choke off manufacturing of other advanced technologies". China's dominance in the market has come from its early recognition of the economic opportunities that green technology offers. "China made a decision about 10 years ago about where the trend was going and has strategically pursued the development of not just renewables but also electric vehicles and now dominates the market," says Bob Ward, policy director at The London School of Economics (LSE) Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. Daisy Jennings-Gray, head of prices at price reporting agency Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, explains that they are critical minerals because they are geologically restricted. "You cannot guarantee you will have economically recoverable reserves in every country." Some minerals like lithium are abundant on Earth, but often they are located in difficult to reach places, so the logistics of a mining project can be very expensive. In other cases, there is dependency on one country that produces a large share of global supply – like cobalt from the the Democratic Republic of Congo. This means that if there is a natural disaster or political unrest it has an impact on the price, says Ms Jennings-Gray. China has managed to shore up supply by investing heavily in Africa and South America, but where it really has a stronghold on the market is in processing (or the separation of the mineral from other elements in the rock). "China accounts for 60% of global rare earth production but processes nearly 90% - [it] is dominant on this stage," says Gracelin Baskaran, director of the critical minerals security program at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington DC. She says the country understands how important this is in economic trade - a few days after Trump introduced tariffs on China its government hit back by imposing export controls on more than 20 critical minerals including graphite and tungsten. What is motivating Trump is a fear of being at a disadvantage, argues Christopher Knittel, a professor of applied economics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). "I think what is driving this is because China is the dominant player on the processing side," he says. "It is that processing stage, which is the high-margin stage of the business, so China is making a lot of money." As he puts it, it is a "happy coincidence" that this could end up supporting green technology. The key question, though, is whether the US is too late to fully capitalise on the sector. In the early days, the green transition was "framed as a burden" for countries, according to LSE's Bob Ward. The Biden administration was highly supportive of green technology industries through its introduction of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) in August 2022, which offers tax credits, loans and other incentives to technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, from battery technologies for electric vehicles to solar panels. By August 2024, it was estimated to have brought $493bn (£382bn) of investment to US green industry, according to the think tank Clean Investment Monitor. And yet little work was done to support upstream processes like obtaining critical minerals, says Ms Gray from Benchmark Intelligence. Instead, the Biden administration focused heavily on downstream manufacturing - the process of getting products from the manufacturer to the end consumer. But Trump's recent moves to procure these critical minerals suggest a focus on the upstream process may now be happening. "The IRA put a lot of legislation in places to limit trade and supply only from friendly nations," explains Ms Gray. "Trump is changing tack and looking at securing critical minerals agreements that owes something to the US." There could be further moves from Trump coming down the line. Those working in the sector say whispers in the corridors of the White House suggest that he may be about to pass a "Critical Minerals Executive Order", which could funnel further investment into this objective. The exact details that may be included in the executive order remain unclear, but experts knowledgeable with the issue have said it may include measures to accelerate mining in the US, including fast tracking permits and investment to construct processing plants. Although work may now be under way to secure these minerals, Prof Willy Shih of Harvard Business School thinks that the US administration lacks understanding of the technical complexity of establishing mineral supply chains, and emphasises the time commitment required. "If you want to build a new mine and processing facility, it might take you 10 years." As a policy of his predecessor, and one that is so obviously pro-climate action, Trump has been vocally opposed to maintaining the IRA. But its success in red states mean that many Republican senators have been trying to convince him to keep it in some form in his proposed "big, beautiful bill" - the plan to pile all of Trump's main policy goals into one mega-bill - due to be revealed later this month. Analysis by the Clean Investment Monitor shows in the last 18 months Republican-held states had received 77% of the investment. MIT's Dr Knittel says for states like Georgia, which has become part of what is now known as the "battery belt" following a boom in battery production following IRA support, these tax credits are crucial for these industries to survive. He adds that failure to do so poses a real political threat for US representatives who are up for re-election in less than two years. If Trump loses even just one seat to the Democrats in the 2026 mid-terms, then he loses the house majority - limiting his ability to pass key pieces of legislation. Carl Fleming was an advisor to former President Biden's Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee and is a partner at law firm McDermott, Will & Emery, advising clients in the clean tech and energy space. He says that despite the uncertainty, investors remain confident. "In the last month, my practice has been busier than ever, and this is since quadrupling last year following the IRA." He also believes that there is a recognition of the need to maintain parts of the IRA – although this may be alongside expansion of some fossil fuels. "If you are really trying to be 'America First' and energy secure, you want to pull on all your levers. Keep solar and keep battery storage going and add more natural gas to release America's energy prowess." But the uncertainty of the US position is little consolation for its absence on the international climate stage, says LSE's Bob Ward. "When the Americans are on the ball it helps to move people in the right direction and that's how we got the Paris Climate Agreement." For those in the climate space, Trump is certainly not an environmentalist. What's clear is he is not concerned with making his legacy an environmental one but an economic one - though he could achieve the former if he can be convinced it will boost the economy. Top picture credit: Getty Images BBC InDepthis the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.
The unexpected knock-on effect of Trump's minerals 'deal of the century'
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"Trump's Focus on Critical Minerals Could Impact U.S. Green Technology Sector"
TruthLens AI Summary
Donald Trump's recent focus on securing critical minerals marks a significant shift in his administration's approach to energy and technology, particularly in the context of the ongoing green transition. Despite his history of opposing climate initiatives and withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement, Trump's interest in minerals essential for electric vehicles and renewable energy technologies suggests a potential alignment with the green sector's needs. This focus on critical minerals, which includes elements like lithium, cobalt, and nickel, is driven by the growing demand in industries such as aerospace and defense, as well as the burgeoning clean energy market. The International Energy Agency projects that by 2040, electric vehicles and renewable technologies will account for a substantial portion of the demand for these critical resources. Notably, companies like Tesla and SpaceX, led by Elon Musk, heavily depend on these minerals to produce batteries and other advanced technologies. Musk's concerns about the rising prices of lithium have even led him to suggest that Tesla may need to venture into mining to secure adequate supplies, highlighting the urgency of the situation.
The geopolitical implications of mineral procurement are also significant, as the United States currently relies heavily on imports, particularly from China, which dominates the processing of rare earth elements and critical minerals. A recent report from a U.S. Government Select Committee emphasized the risks associated with this dependence, warning that failure to diversify supply chains could jeopardize national defense and advanced manufacturing. As Trump seeks to negotiate mineral agreements, there are indications that he may issue a 'Critical Minerals Executive Order' aimed at accelerating domestic mining and processing efforts. While this could potentially bolster the U.S. position in the global market, experts caution that the complexities and time requirements involved in establishing new supply chains may hinder immediate progress. Furthermore, the success of the Biden administration's Inflation Reduction Act, which has spurred significant investment in green technologies, raises questions about whether Trump's initiatives will effectively complement or conflict with existing policies. Ultimately, while Trump's mineral deals may inadvertently support green technology industries, the broader implications for U.S. climate action and international cooperation remain uncertain.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The article provides an analysis of former President Donald Trump's approach to critical minerals and its potential implications for green technology. It highlights the contrast between Trump's past actions regarding climate change and his current focus on securing critical minerals from countries like Ukraine, Greenland, and Canada.
Purpose of the Article
The article seems to aim at shedding light on the potential paradox in Trump's policies. While he has historically undermined global climate efforts, his interest in critical minerals could unintentionally benefit the green technology sector. This duality may be intended to provoke thought about how political agendas can shift and how unexpected outcomes can arise from seemingly contradictory actions.
Public Perception
The article appears to be crafted to foster a nuanced discussion within the community regarding Trump's environmental policies. It aims to stimulate debate among both supporters and critics of Trump's administration, particularly in the context of climate action and technological advancement.
Possible Concealments
While the article does not explicitly hide information, it may underemphasize the negative impacts of Trump's withdrawal from international climate agreements. By focusing on the potential benefits of mineral acquisition, it risks overshadowing the long-term consequences of his climate policies.
Manipulative Element Assessment
The article presents a mix of facts and speculative outcomes, which might invite manipulation. The tone suggests optimism about the potential benefits of Trump's mineral deals while glossing over the significant drawbacks of his overall climate stance. The manipulation could stem from language that appears neutral but may lead readers to draw favorable conclusions about Trump's policies.
Factual Reliability
The article relies on credible sources, such as experts in mining engineering and the context of the clean energy market. However, it is essential to consider the framing of the information, as it may selectively highlight aspects that support a specific narrative.
Societal Implications
The discourse surrounding this article could influence public opinion on the feasibility of transitioning to green technologies, especially in light of Trump's emphasis on critical minerals. The potential for a renewed focus on domestic production of these minerals might excite economic and political discussions, especially in the context of the U.S. competing globally.
Target Audience
This article seems to resonate more with audiences interested in environmental policy, technological innovation, and political analysis. It may appeal to those who are skeptical of Trump's climate policies while also recognizing the strategic importance of critical minerals.
Market Impact
The discussion of critical minerals could impact stock prices in sectors related to clean energy, electric vehicles, and mining. Companies like Tesla and SpaceX, which rely heavily on these minerals, may see fluctuations in investor sentiment based on how Trump's policies are perceived to influence the supply chain and market stability.
Global Power Dynamics
This article touches on critical minerals' strategic significance in the context of global power dynamics, especially regarding U.S. relations with resource-rich nations. In light of current geopolitical tensions, this focus on mineral acquisition aligns with broader discussions about energy independence and technological leadership.
AI Influence
While it is unclear if AI played a role in crafting the article, the structured presentation of information and the balance of viewpoints suggest a methodical approach often associated with AI-assisted writing. The language and framing could indicate an attempt to guide readers toward a particular interpretation, emphasizing the complexity of Trump's policies.
The article presents an interesting perspective on Trump's mineral deals and their potential implications for green technology. However, while discussing potential benefits, it should also critically engage with the broader consequences of his climate-related decisions, which could enhance its reliability and depth.