kalantzakos1_STRAFP via Getty Images_rare earth minerasl

Politics

المعادن الحرجة والجغرافيا السياسية الجديدة

Oct 2, 2020 Sophia Kalantzakos

أبو ظبي- تضع أزمة المناخ والثورة الصناعية الرابعة- بتقنياتها المتقدمة مثل الذكاء الاصطناعي وشبكات الجيل الخامس- العالم على مسار تصادم جيوسياسي. ويعتمد كل من الدافع لإزالة الكربون، والمعركة من أجل التفوق التكنولوجي العالمي على قطاع المعادن الحرجة مثل عناصر الأتربة النادرة، والليثيوم، والكوبالت- وكلها تتركز إلى حد كبير في بضعة أماكن، بما في ذلك الصين.

ويتزايد السعي نحو السيطرة على سلاسل التوريد الخاصة بهذه العناصر. فعلى سبيل المثال، تعمل السيارات الكهربائية التي تصنعها شركة Tesla (تيسلا)، وشركات السيارات الأخرى ببطاريات أيونات الليثيوم، لكن حفنة قليلة من البلدان تنتج معظم الليثيوم في العالم. وسيزيد التوتر بين التركيز الجغرافي للموارد الحرجة وبين المنافسة العالمية المتزايدة على العرض من زعزعة الجغرافيا السياسية في القرن الحادي والعشرين.

وهكذا، تقترب حقبة طويلة من المنافسة المستقرة على الموارد من النهاية بسرعة. ففي الماضي، كانت الإمبراطوريات محصورة في سلاسل التوريد الاقتصادية، والمنافسة المُدارة. وخلال دورة إنهاء الاستعمار الطويلة بعد عام 1945، دعمت الولايات المتحدة، بصفتها القوة الاقتصادية العالمية المهيمنة، قواعد التجارة العالمية ومعاييرها. وفي الوقت نفسه، أصبحت إمدادات الموارد الحرجة- خاصة الوقود الأحفوري- أكثر انتشاراً، حيث ساعدت المعلومات الجيولوجية المحسنَة، والتقنيات الجديدة (مثل التنقيب في أعماق البحار والتكسير) على التخفيف من قبضة منظمة الأوبك.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

PS_Sales_BlackFriday_CyberMonday_1333x1000

CYBER MONDAY SALE: Save $50 on all new PS subscriptions

Subscribe now to gain greater access to Project Syndicate – including every commentary and our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – starting at just $34.99.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 3 Comments on this article

Robert Callaghan Oct 6, 2020

Electricity is 20% of global energy, renewable electricity is 4% of global energy, solar & wind electricity is 2% of global energy. Fossil fuels are 80% of global energy and have been over 25 years -- we have to stop burning 50% in 10 years to survive runaway habitat collapse and hothouse extinction. The first dominoes start to tip near 1.5 C around 2030. Water stress will affect 66% of human population by 2025. Greenhouse gases went up 45% in 30 years.

*4% of energy is renewable + 4% of mammals are wild*
California wildfires doubled in size from 2019
Earth is warming at 5 nuclear bombs per second = 5X more than 1968 - 1992
Ice is melting 1 million tons per minute per year
Greenhouse gases have gone up 45% in 30 years
66% of humans will live in water stressed areas by 2025

96% of mammals are livestock and human by weight ( Ecowatch 2018 )
96% of tigers gone in 100 years ( IFL Science 2019 )
90% of elephants gone in 100 years ( Hurriet 2019 )
90% of lions gone in 100 years ( African Impact 2019 )
90% of Leatherback sea turtles gone since 1980 ( Earth Watch undated )
90% of Monarch Butterflies gone in 20 years ( Inhabitat 2014 )
80% of Antarctic Krill gone in 30 years ( Research Gate 2005 )
77% of Eastern lowland gorillas gone since 1996 ( Treehugger 2020 )
68% of world’s wildlife has been wiped out since 1970 ( Mongabay 2020 )
50% of Marine vertebrates gone since 1970 ( WWF 2015 )
50% of Great Barrier Reef gone since 1985 ( Live Science 2012 )
40% of Giraffes gone since 1990 ( NRDC 2019 )
40% less insects in next 30 years ( PNAS 2019 )
4% of mammals are wild ( Vegan News 2020 )

2020 : Greenhouse gases up 45% in 30 years
2020 : Fossil fuels have been 80% of global energy for 25 years
2020 : 4% of global energy is renewable after 30 years trying
2020 : Electricity is 20% of total global energy
2020 : 2% of global energy is solar & wind after 20 years trying
2020 : 6 million annual tons of solar waste by 2050 currently unrecyclable
2020 : Oncoming water stress threatens 50% of thermal power capacity
*2025 : 66% of the globe will live in water stressed areas*
2030 : Runaway hothouse mass extinction starts at 1.5 °C
2020 : Emissions must go down 50% in 10 years to stay under 1.5 °C
2040 : 15% of global energy will be renewable
2050 : 28% of global energy will be renewable

Petrochemical demand rose 7 X human pop growth for 20 years
Refrigerant coolant smuggling: 1 kilo CFC worth $2 in China is worth $20 in Europe
10 years cutting air pollution in China raised global north temps 0.1 °C
To get 30% of energy from algae ponds requires a country the size of Argentina
Abrupt permafrost thaw is not modelled
Europe burns 80% of its recycled plastic & paper for electricity
Europe burns 50% of its palm oil shipments in cars & trucks
Europe burns 50% of its renewable electricity importing rain forest pellets
It takes tree plantations 30 years to recoup 10% of their carbon offset
Wildfire suppression cannot be scaled up for future wildfire scenarios
Planting tree farms won't change wildfire wildlife loss

27 Nobel Prize winning economists support James Hansen's private monthly dividends, including:
3,589 U.S. Economists, 4 Former Chairs of the Federal Reserve and ALL 15 Former Chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers
vvv
*sources available at Loki's Revenge blog*

...
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
cesarsantagadea2013 Oct 5, 2020

As a bolivian citizens I am ofended by this article. The reason why so many developing countries do not trust Western multinational corporation for the exploration and production of natural resources, is the infinity capacity to avoid taxes and avoid payinga fair share of the profit. If you add the lack of flexibility in offering a wholistic approach to the development of natural resources with the stablishment of production chains and technology transfer, is clear that china has something to offer.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Oct 3, 2020

Sophia Kalantzakos says among the issues that highlight the US-China rivalry is the control over rare earth metals, which are crucial for the hi-tech future. China controls 97% of global rare earth metals production. Such total domination of a strategic resource becomes impossible to ignore when China uses it to shape geopolitics. In 2010 it halved its export quotas, disrupting manufacturing in Japan, Europe and the US. Beijing also banned its sale to Japan, after an incident in the East China Sea near Senkaku Islands, which China calls the Diaoyu Islands and “claims as its own.”
As technology has fueled the growing demand for rare earths, their occurrence in minable deposits is limited. Last year Beijing geared up to use them as a tit-for-tat in its trade war with Washington. The US imports about 80 % of its rare earth elements from China, used in a host of “vital inputs” for everything from electronics, mobile phones, electric vehicles, wind turbines to defence systems. The leadership in Beijing is “seriously” considering restricting rare earth exports to the US and may also implement other countermeasures.
The author says, the US, the EU, and Japan did not seem have learned the lesson a decade ago, and they “still haven’t produced effective strategies to free themselves from China’s resource grip.” While Beijing hinted it might use their rare earth metals to gain a leverage over the US in the ongoing trade war, “breathless media reports of rare-earth discoveries in Afghanistan, Greenland’s melting glaciers, the abyssal sea, asteroids, and planets demonstrate that magical thinking continues to trump effective policymaking.”
In recent years several key minerals had been discovered that are crucial to a low-carbon future. This in turn “places a premium on further breakthroughs in battery technology and storage, which is why global lithium production skyrocketed.” China controls “more than 60% of global manufacturing capacity for lithium-ion batteries.” Argentina, Bolivia and Chile in South America, and Australia, have substantial rare-earth and lithium reserves. But they are not in the position to challenge China as “alternative” suppliers.
According to the author, Western industrial nations must devise a strategy to “best manage the competition-concentration tension regarding critical minerals, especially if traditional global institutions are on the wane.” She proposes an option which seeks “to revive the old colonial model of carving up regions to manage competition.”
However this game may no longer work, because there is little appetite for a return to colonialism. Although “China has been able to extend its global economic influence without the baggage of having been a colonial power,” its economic mercantilism is highly controversial. Unless Western industrial nations come up with a good proposal, these “small developing countries now have other options and preferences, and often side with China, Russia, India, or other powers.”
Another option requires the “traditional powers…. to build a new framework for cooperation.” But Trump vows to adhere to his “America First” tenet, and “a lack of coordination among former allies currently stand in the way.” This year, following the outbreak of Covid-19, “repeated calls by governments to desinicize supply chains achieve little; ministers fulminate about competition but do not address the needs and interests of countries where key strategic resources are concentrated.”
The author says “China has demonstrated its increasing economic power by systematically forging a global network of partners. The powers of old must now build new avenues of trust and cooperation with developing countries, not only to secure the critical minerals vital to powering the world in the Anthropocene era, but also because a perilous planet is a threat to everyone.”
Meanwhile the US is paranoid about losing its global leadership in technology to China, allowing Beijing to control hi-tech production. China may not be using its dominance so much as geopolitical leverage, but it certainly seeks to meet the demand of its growing internal market. Chinese authorties want to get better control over an expensive, dirty and dangerous mining process, and to get more factories set up inside the country. This nativist agenda no doubt raises environmental concerns and doubt whether it would meet demand from its own high-tech manufacturing industry.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/lmnX1b7ar

المعادن الحرجة والجغرافيا السياسية الجديدة

CYBER MONDAY SALE: Save $50 on all new PS subscriptions

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

المعادن الحرجة والجغرافيا السياسية الجديدة

CYBER MONDAY SALE: Save $50 on all new PS subscriptions

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification