
Why China curbing rare earth exports is a huge blow to the US
What are rare earths and what are they used for?
"Rare earths" are a group of 17 chemically similar elements that are crucial to the manufacture of many high-tech products.Most are abundant in nature, but they are known as "rare" because it is very unusual to find them in a pure form, and they are very hazardous to extract.Although you may not be familiar with the names of these rare earths - like Neodymium, Yttrium and Europium - you will be very familiar with the products that they are used in.For instance, Neodymium is used to make the powerful magnets used in loudspeakers, computer hard drives, EV motors and jet engines that enable them to be smaller and more efficient.Yttrium and Europium are used to manufacture television and computer screens because of the way they display colours."Everything you can switch on or off likely runs on rare earths," explains Thomas Kruemmer, Director of Ginger International Trade and Investment.Rare earths are also critical to the production of medical technology like laser surgery and MRI scans, as well as key defence technologies.
What does China control?
China has a near monopoly on extracting rare earths as well as on refining them - which is the process of separating them from other minerals.The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that China accounts for about 61% of rare earth production and 92% of their processing.
That means it currently dominates the rare earths supply chain and has the capacity to decide which companies can and cannot receive supplies of rare earths.Both the extraction and processing of these rare earths are costly and polluting. All rare earth resources also contain radioactive elements, which is why many other countries, including those in the EU, are reluctant to produce them."Radioactive waste from production absolutely requires safe, compliant, permanent disposal. Currently all disposal facilities in EU are temporary," says Mr Kruemmer.But China's dominance in the rare earth supply chain didn't take place overnight - but rather, is the result of decades of strategic government policies and investment.In a visit to Inner Mongolia in 1992, the late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping, who oversaw China's economic reform, famously said: "The Middle East has oil and China has rare earths". "Beginning in the late 20th century, China prioritised the development of its rare earth mining and processing capabilities, often at lower environmental standards and labour costs compared to other nations," said Gavin Harper, a critical materials research fellow at the University of Birmingham."This allowed them to undercut global competitors and build a near-monopoly across the entire value chain, from mining and refining to the manufacturing of finished products like magnets."
How has China restricted exports of these minerals?
In response to tariffs imposed by Washington, China earlier this month began ordering restrictions on the exports of seven rare earth minerals - most of which are known as "heavy" rare earths, which are crucial to the defence sector. These are less common and are harder to process than "light" rare earths, which also makes them more valuable.From 4 April, all companies now have to get special export licenses in order to send rare earths and magnets out of the country.That is because as a signatory to the international treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, China has the ability to control the trade of "dual use products".According to the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), this leaves the US particularly vulnerable as there is no capacity outside China to process heavy rare earths.
How could this impact the US?
A US Geological report notes that between 2020 and 2023, the US relied on China for 70% of its imports of all rare earth compounds and metals.This means that the new restrictions have the ability to hit the US hard.Heavy rare earths are used in many military fields such as missiles, radar, and permanent magnets.A CSIS report notes that defence technologies including F-35 jets, Tomahawk missiles and Predator unmanned aerial vehicles all depend on these minerals.It adds that this comes as China "expands its munitions production and acquires advanced weapons systems and equipment at a pace five to six times faster than the United States"."The impact on the US defence industry will be substantial," said Mr Kroemmer.And it's not only in the field of defence.US manufacturing, which Trump has said he hopes to revive through the imposition of his tariffs, stand to be severely impacted."Manufacturers, particularly in defence and high-tech, face potential shortages and production delays due to halted shipments and limited inventories," said Dr Harper."Prices for critical rare earth materials are expected to surge, increasing the immediate costs of components used in a wide range of products, from smartphones to military hardware," he says, adding that this could result in potential production slowdowns for affected US companies. If such a shortage from China persists in the long-run, the US could potentially begin diversifying its supply chains and scaling up its domestic and processing capabilities, though this would still require "substantial and sustained investment, technological advancements and potentially higher overall costs compared to the previous dependence on China".And it's clear this is something already on Trump's mind. This week, he ordered an investigation into the national security risks posed by the US' reliance on such critical minerals. "President Trump recognises that an overreliance on foreign critical minerals and their derivative products could jeopardise US defence capabilities, infrastructure development, and technological innovation," said the order."Critical minerals, including rare earth elements, are essential for national security and economic resilience."
Can't the US produce its own rare earths?
The US has one operational rare earths mine, but it does not have the capacity to separate heavy rare earths and has to send its ore to China for processing.There used to be US companies that manufactured rare earth magnets - until the 1980s, the US was in fact the largest producer of rare earths.But these companies exited the market as China began to dominate in terms of scale and cost.This is largely believed to be part of why US president Donald Trump is so keen to sign a minerals deal with Ukraine - it wants to reduce dependency on China.Another place Trump has had his eye on is Greenland - which is endowed with the eighth largest reserves of rare earth elements. Trump has repeatedly showed interest in taking control of the autonomous Danish dependent territory and has refused to rule out economic or military force to take control of it. These might have been places that the US could have sourced some of its rare earth exports from, but the adversarial tone Trump has struck with them means the US could be left with very few alternative suppliers."The challenge the U.S. faces is two-fold, on the one hand it has alienated China who provides the monopoly supply of rare earths, and on the other hand it is also antagonising many nations that have previously been friendly collaborators through tariffs and other hostile actions," said Dr Harper. "Whether they will still prioritise collaboration with America remains to be seen in the turbulent policy environment of this new administration."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
7 minutes ago
- The Independent
Epstein victim condemns ‘political warfare' in Trump administration's effort to release grand jury transcripts
A victim of Jeffrey Epstein has condemned what they called the Trump administration's 'political warfare' in its handling of government files on the late convicted sex offender as the Justice Department pushes for the release of grand jury transcripts in his New York federal case. Epstein was a wealthy financier who died in a New York City jail in 2019 while awaiting trial for federal sex trafficking charges. He had been accused of sexually abusing dozens of underage girls. About a decade earlier, Epstein pleaded guilty to Florida state charges of soliciting and procuring a minor for prostitution. Early last month, the DOJ and FBI came out with a memo stating there was no so-called client list of powerful people who may have partaken in Epstein's crimes; it also said Epstein did, in fact, die by suicide, and 'no further disclosure [of information regarding Epstein] would be appropriate or warranted.' The memo sparked backlash, notably from Trump's own base, as it left many unanswered questions and concerns the government may be covering up materials that would be of interest to the public. Trump then asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to 'produce any and all pertinent' grand jury testimony from the investigations into Epstein, 'subject to Court approval,' citing the 'ridiculous amount of publicity' over them. A Florida judge quickly denied the DOJ's request but the feds' bid in New York is still being considered. Victims in the New York case were asked to respond to the DOJ's request and two of them did so in court documents filed Monday. Both were unnamed as is their right to remain anonymous. One Epstein survivor wrote to District Judge Richard Berman, 'Dear United States, I wish you would have handled and would handle the whole 'Epstein Files' with more respect towards and for the victims. I am not some pawn in your political warfare.' 'What you have done and continue to do is eating at me day after day as you help to perpetuate this story indefinitely. Why not be completely transparent? Show us all the files with only the necessary redactions! Be done with it and allow me/us to heal,' the victim said. In the letter to the judge the victim also seemingly called out the Trump administration for what they said was its protection of the wealthy over Epstein's victims. 'You protect yourself and your powerful and wealthy 'friends' (not enemies) over the victims, why? The victims know the truth, we know who are in the files and now so do you,' the victim said. It's unclear who exactly the victim was referring to, but Trump's decades-old relationship with Epstein has recently been scrutinized, and there have been reports the president was told his name appears in the Epstein files. Trump reportedly cut ties with Epstein before his 2008 plea deal and appearing in the files does not mean there was any wrongdoing. Trump himself has denied any wrongdoing. The victim asked Berman to have the attorneys of the victims review any suggested redactions if the transcripts are released. The Independent has reached out to the White House and DOJ for comment. Another victim told Berman: 'The latest attention on the 'Epstein Files', the 'Client List' is OUT OF CONTROL and the ones that are left to suffer are not the high-profile individuals, IT IS THE VICTIMS. Why the lack of concern in handling such sensitive information for the victims sake?' That survivor also called out the feds for what they saw as protecting 'wealthy men.' 'I feel like the DOJ's and FBI's priority is protecting the 'third-party', the wealthy men by focusing on scrubbing their names off the files of which the victims, 'know who they are,'' they said. The victim asked Berman to consider a third-party review of any documents that may be released ' to ensure that NO victims names or likenesses are revealed.'


Scottish Sun
8 minutes ago
- Scottish Sun
Russia walks out of ballistic missile treaty with US as Medvedev warns nemesis Donald Trump & Europe ‘expect more'
The treaty banned missiles capable of hitting targets up to 3,400 miles away ROCKET MAN Russia walks out of ballistic missile treaty with US as Medvedev warns nemesis Donald Trump & Europe 'expect more' DMITRY Medvedev slammed NATO's 'anti-Russian policy' for driving Russia to scrap the Cold War-era moratorium on nuclear missiles. In his latest online clash with Donald Trump, the ex-Russian president ominously warned the West to 'expect further steps'. Advertisement 5 The Kremlin announced on Monday it was withdrawing from its self-imposed ban on deploying mid- and short-range missiles Credit: Getty 5 Ex-President Dmitry Medvedev said Russia's withdrawal was 'the result of NATO countries' anti-Russian policy' Credit: AFP 5 Footage released by the Russian Defence Ministry on March 2024 purportedly shows the test firing of an ICBM Credit: AFP Medvedev's comments came shortly after Russia's Foreign Ministry said the country no longer regarded itself bound by the moratorium on the deployment of short- and medium-range nuclear missiles. The ex-president wrote on X on Monday: "The Russian Foreign Ministry's statement on the withdrawal of the moratorium on the deployment of medium- and short-range missiles is the result of NATO countries' anti-Russian policy. "This is a new reality all our opponents will have to reckon with. Expect further steps." The deputy head of Russia's powerful Security Council did not elaborate on the nature of the "further steps". Advertisement The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty was signed in December 1987 by US President Ronald Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev. But the US withdrew from the treaty in 2019, accusing Russia of breaking the rules. Moscow has since said it will not deploy the missiles - with ranges of 311 to 3,418 miles - unless Washington does first. But Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned last December that Moscow would have to respond to what he called the US and NATO's "destabilising actions". Advertisement The ministry said: "Since the situation is developing towards the actual deployment of U.S.-made land-based medium- and short-range missiles in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region, the Russian Foreign Ministry notes that the conditions for maintaining a unilateral moratorium on the deployment of similar weapons have disappeared." It comes as Trump said on Friday that he had ordered two nuclear submarines to be positioned to "the appropriate regions". Russia and China begin war games in Sea of Japan after Trump nuclear threat Trump and Medvedev have been locked in a war of words after the ex-Russian president accused Trump of 'playing the ultimatum game' over the White House's push to end the war in Ukraine. Trump first gave Putin 50 days to end the war - but slashed the deadline to just 10 days from July 29 due to a lack of progress on Moscow's part. Advertisement The US president also vowed to impose secondary tariffs on Russia if a ceasefire agreement is not reached by August 8. Medvedev ominously warned Trump that Russia "isn't Israel or even Iran". 5 It comes as Trump ordered two nuclear submarines to be positioned near Russia Credit: Getty 5 A photo taken from video released by the Russian Defence Ministry in August 2024 of a Russian Army Buk-2M missile system targeting Ukraine Credit: AP Advertisement "Each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war," he wrote on a post on X. Trump blasted Medvedev's comments as 'foolish and inflammatory' before ordering nuclear submarines to be deployed near Russian waters. "Based on the highly provocative statements of the Former President of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev, who is now the Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, I have ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions," Trump wrote on Truth Social. The US has the world's largest fleet of nuclear-powered submarines, led by the USS Virginia - a 377-foot vessel armed with cruise missiles. Advertisement


BBC News
8 minutes ago
- BBC News
Car brake pads to change under new rules to curb pollution
Garage owner Kevan Gibbons has noticed many changes in his 45 years in the motor are much bigger than when he started out. Driving styles have changed too, with more frequent that starting and stopping, which tends to happen more when driving in urban areas, wears down brakes do heavier vehicles and higher pad quality and prices have also lowered over time, in Mr Gibbons' experience. This is significant because "the poorer the quality, the more dust you get", he explains. While tailpipe emissions have dramatically reduced, other cars parts are producing a greater share of the many major cities, brake wear is now the biggest source of non-exhaust emissions from vehicles, according to EIT Urban Mobility - an EU-supported organisation focused on improving urban "there seems to be limited awareness of this pollution," says its director of innovation, Adriana dust contains tiny bits of metal, black carbon and other particles that enter the air due to friction and the wearing away of braking are even some studies which suggest brake dust is even more harmful to the lungs than diesel vehicles produce no exhaust emissions and have much less brake wear. Regenerative braking in EVs, which recharges the battery, does not involve friction. However, even EVs with regenerative braking also incorporate some friction the auto industry is poised to properly tackle brake emissions for the first time as the European Union introduces the world's first rules limiting the level of brake emissions next year. Under the new Euro 7 regulations, brake emissions of PM10 (particles of less than 10 micrometres in diameter) from new vehicles will be limited to 3–11 mg/km, depending on the vehicle type. At the moment, a typical car with a grey cast iron brake disc and low-steel brake pads – a common combination in Europe – emits about 8.8 mg/kg of PM10, according to EIT Urban EU predicts that by 2035, the regulations will reduce the particles emitted from the brakes of cars and vans by 27%.Other regions are likely to follow suit. "China will be the next," says Artur García, an aftermarket braking engineering manager for the auto parts maker DRiV (part of Tenneco).He's expecting so-called China 7 regulations to be announced by the end of 2025, and to focus more on PM2.5 (particles even tinier than PM10).Euro 7 is starting with brake emissions before moving onto other types of non-exhaust simpler to measure brake emissions than other types of non-exhaust emissions "because you can isolate the braking system in labs", explains François Cuenot, the secretary of the Working Party on Pollution and Energy, a UN organisation that sets standards for measuring vehicle to brakes, it's much more difficult to separate out the emissions from tyres and roads, which interact with each other in complex ways. There are two main ways that manufacturers will reduce brake emissions, Mr Cuenot cheapest method involves applying a coating that strengthens brake discs and thus reduces wear. Manufacturers can also change the composition of the brake pads to lower-wear regions have embraced different brake pad components, with a focus on either performance or comfort. Africa, Europe, Latin America and South Asia tend to use low-steel brake pads, which are more responsive to the organic brake pads are used more in North America and East Asia. They allow smoother driving over long distances, as well as significant reductions in are also concerns about the toxicity of brake pad components, which can affect water quality and human health. The EU bans asbestos in brake pads, while California goes further in also restricting 7 does not further limit materials in brake pads. In general, EIT Urban Mobility is concerned that low-wear brake systems might use more toxic materials. But some manufacturers have decided to go further than the regulations. The Greentell brake set of Italian brake manufacturer Brembo does not contain copper, cobalt or relies on a technique called laser metal deposition, which uses a high-powered laser beam to melt a material (such as a powdered metal) and layer it onto a Carminati, Brembo's head of brake-disc development, says that the company chose laser metal deposition for this premium brake product because it produces the best results in terms of both emissions reduction and driving reports that with Greentell, PM10 emissions are reduced by around 60 to 90% in lab-based testing, depending on the vehicle and its original braking auto parts maker Tenneco also offers copper-free, lower-emissions brake products. According to the company, its Fuse+ brake pads, which use a new friction material, reduced PM10 emissions by 60% in internal also help reduce noise – an aspect that drivers of electric vehicles tend to notice more, such as squeaky brakes. As for other materials, EIT Urban Mobility estimates that replacing grey cast iron discs with carbon-ceramic composite discs reduces PM10 by 81%.Particle filters can also be fitted to collect the brake dust. But regularly maintaining the filter may be a burden for the vehicle owner, Mr Cuenot says. And "if you don't maintain the filter, then the emissions will go in the atmosphere."Drum brakes might also see a resurgence because of Euro 7. In drum brakes, friction is generated by brake shoes pressing against the interior of a rotating drum. Because "they keep everything inside the drum," as Mr Cuenot says, the particles are also has noticed that though drum brake demand in the automotive aftermarket was previously declining rapidly, this has to EIT Urban Mobility, drum brakes produce around 23% less wear than disc brakes, which involve a rotating disc and brake pads. However, drum brakes have typically been less durable than disc brakes, particularly in high less-emitting brake systems, drivers might eventually notice less brake dust accumulating on the rims of their wheels, according to Mr Cuenot. Car makers, meanwhile, may notice more expensive brake parts. Companies will have to contend with the added costs of not just research and development and different materials, but also potentially new testing systems to comply with and premium vehicles may already be fitted out with low-emissions brake systems, which are costlier. The EU regulations will lead to these being extended to more affordable cars as the picture will be different in places without limits on non-exhaust emissions, like the UK. In Mr Gibbons' experience, working in Manchester in the north of England, nine out of 10 customers don't care about the health or environmental effects of things like brake the high cost of living, "it just comes down to one word, and that's money."On the plus side, lowering brake emissions should improve air quality. But mobility experts emphasise that this is only a very limited solution to the health and environmental effects of cars, including electric ones."I think it's good that there is a specific and concrete call for action," Ms Diaz says. "It's absolutely necessary." But she stresses that bigger wins will come from reorganising cities and shifting transport modes so that there's less driving is more challenging politically than imposing a brake emissions limit, but Ms Diaz remains optimistic after seeing Barcelona residents increasingly enjoying and accepting low-traffic superblocks."There will be resistance, but in the end people will appreciate and welcome having cleaner cities that we can enjoy."