US and EU looking to create 'critical minerals club' to ensure their own supplies

The US and Europe could be moving towards another area of cooperation, this time over critical minerals needed for electric vehicles and other technologies, with the creation of a de facto free-trade status for such resources. Representatives from France and Germany have met with key US officials during a visit to Washington, …

[DS999]

What about Canada and Mexico?

They should probably be included too, both have a lot of land area where new sources of critical minerals might be found. For Mexico, in particular, anything that helps grow their economy helps reduce the incentive for its people to want to illegally migrate to the US (or for those fleeing central American countries to want to come to the US instead of stopping in Mexico) so it should have support from republicans who want to reduce illegal (or lets face it, all) migration to the US on the southern border.

[pdh]

Re: What about Canada and Mexico?

The article says "it requires that a certain amount of components or critical minerals for electric vehicles be sourced in the US or from countries that have a free trade agreement;" that sounds like it already includes Mexico and Canada via the NAFTA.

[Youngone]

Re: What about Canada and Mexico?

It seems to me that America was super keen on free trade until it didn't suit them suddenly, when China did that thing that Marx warned everyone about, and started to use capitalism against itself.

China priced some of these elements at a low enough price that the competition closed down which is capitalism 101. If America wants to compete I suppose they'll have to match the subsidies China has.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: What about Canada and Mexico?

"... until it didn't suit them suddenly, ..."

Amanda was happy with Charlie until she couldn't stand the beatings anymore... ?

[thames]

Re: What about Canada and Mexico?

It's about the electric car market. The US introduced highly protectionist subsidy legislation for the US domestic car market. The goal was to establish US manufacturing sites in the market before other countries got their foot in the door. This was in direct violation of NAFTA rules, and Canada and Mexico threatened retaliation.

Canada then offered the US a face saving formula of "access to critical minerals" in return for watering down the protectionist measures. What exactly that means is anybody's guess, as nobody was seriously talking about export bans to the US (or anyone else) anyway. However, Canada has been using the "critical minerals" phrase (very vaguely defined) in trade talks with a variety of countries (particularly in the Far East). Canada is also very good at finding and exploiting American political weak points, and found a formula that played to American fears about China. Mexico was brought into the plan and the two presented a united front that got the Americans to water down their protectionist measures.

The EU were already unhappy about the new American auto market protectionism and were also talking about retaliation in the form of action through the WTO. This is something which the US would be guaranteed to lose, but would take years to get a final decision on (assuming the US didn't simply ignore it). Once they saw the US reverse course in the face of threatened Canadian and Mexican retaliation, the EU demanded a similar deal. The same "critical minerals" red herring was brought into the discussion for the same reasons.

Biden is as protectionist as Trump ever was, even more so in some ways. This latest venture in the form of the "Inflation Reduction Act" is an absolute disaster for free trade and a major step towards state control of industry. International auto trade would be a major casualty of it if it isn't de-fanged.

Any talk about a "critical minerals club" controlled by the US (or the US and EU) is simply talk. None of the big exporters have any incentive to sell to anyone other than the highest bidder and really aren't interested in being used as cannon fodder by the great powers.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: What about Canada and Mexico?

more pertinently, what about the UK ?

Remember, the UK either has to negotiate for itself, or accept the same terms the EU gets.

Hopefully.

[M.V. Lipvig]

Re: What about Canada and Mexico?

Don't know about politicians, but this Republican supports it. If it stops the flood of illegals I'm all for it.

Course, it's pretty hypocritical of people from nations who don't let illegals overrun them for looking down on America for trying to do the same thing. Legal immigrants are always welcome, and it doesn't matter where they come from as long as it's the legal way.

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking through the window

The UK has no influence on this anymore. We'll be left picking up the crumbs from the floor of EU/US agreements.

The idiots believed the liars and we all lose out.

[Michael Strorm]

Re: Looking through the window

Reports are coming through that the UK has strongly rejected anything involving the EU in favour of its own arrangement with blackjack and hookers. They already have a tentative agreement with the Federated States of Micronesia (i.e. they ticked "please send me further details" on the form when they were asked if they'd like to join).

The setup is to be known as the Little Englander Supply Service.

A UK government spokesman said, "Thanks to Brexit, the people of the United Kingdom now have LESS."

[M.V. Lipvig]

Re: Looking through the window

If the UK fails because of Brexit, it'll be because the Remain-duuurs refused to help the UK succeed. You'd rather see the UK fail because you failed to vote and didn't get your way. I'm sure glad none of you are airline pilots because you't probably throw a fit and crash the plane if the stewardess said there's no fish left, you'll have to have the chicken.

How about you (the royal you, not you specifically) quit bellyaching about what's done, accept the new reality, and start building your nation back up? Yes, it'll be hard work but in another 5 to 10 years, you'll be better off than under the EU, IF you'll just make the effort. I have confidence in the UK, why don't you?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Looking through the window

(Note: I'm not the same AC you were replying to above)

> If the UK fails because of Brexit, it'll be because the Remain-duuurs refused to help the UK succeed.

Hate to say "I told you so", but I'd already guessed back in 2016 that "It's all the remainers' fault for sabotaging/not being enthusiastic enough about Brexit! " would be the response when it failed to deliver the promised unicorns and rainbows.

Also, get your terminology right- the accepted term used by mouth-breathing Leave voters against their opponents is "remoaners", not "remain-duuurs".

> How about you (the royal you, not you specifically) quit bellyaching about what's done, accept the new reality, and start building your nation back up?

Yes, because calling people childish names like "Remain-duuurs" (ha ha) is certain to get them listening to you when you lecture them on things like this...!

Then again, considering how you refer to Britain as "you guys" in this post where you criticise "socialized medicine" and imply the US is better, it appears that you're actually an American lecturing another state.

Can't think of anyone more easily dismissed than someone arguing in favour of the US health system which leads to fucked-up insurance situations like this for retirees being an issue in the first place. (Pure coincidence that I saw that story a few minutes before posting this, but shows it's not unusual).

You said there

> socialized medicine is only fine when you're young and healthy. When you're not, well, I guess you'll find out.

Wrong way round. You can afford to risk a fucked-up, atrociously expensive and discriminatory-against-expensive-ill-people health system (a la the US) far more when you're younger and less likely to need it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Looking through the window

> Besides, there's nothing wrong with telling you to put your big boy pants on, quit whining about what can't be changed, and work with the new reality.

And there's nothing wrong with telling some puffed-up yank coming in and telling other people how they should feel about- and deal with- their country where to go.

> Socialized medicine works for those who don't need it, but when you're old and do [etc]

Waiting list for a bypass under the NHS isn't likely to be anything like 16 months. But, regardless, you do understand that private healthcare is still available in the UK if you're that desparate (and can afford it, which is the same exact problem you'd face in the US anyway)?

You can argue all you like about what you think "socialized medicine" is like, but I've seen the NHS and I've seen the utterly broken American system. And while the NHS isn't perfect, I'll take my chance with that.

Anyway, I suspect you're ideologically opposed to "socialized medicine" and since I've no intention of living in the US now or in the future, the US can run its healthcare however it likes- it's your funeral (if your insurance doesn't cover that heart bypass, anyway! :-) )

[M.V. Lipvig]

Re: Looking through the window

Yes, I'm a USAian, never made a secret of it. Get lectured plenty about US problems from Brits, so turnabout is fair play. Besides, there's nothing wrong with telling you to put your big boy pants on, quit whining about what can't be changed, and work with the new reality.

On the old vs young, wrongo. Socialized medicine works for those who don't need it. When you're old you need it now, not next year, and you need more than pain pills for curable diseases even if your value to society is no longer what it once was. As I said, you'll find out, when one day you find yourself booking a flight to the US for a heart bypass or somesuch because the docbsays you have a month left and NHS says next available is 16 months from now. Course, by then the US may have the same system, and you show up here to be told next available is 20 months out. Probably ought to plan for Thailand instead, although you risk waking up to a plumbing rejigger there.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Looking through the window

Interesting, I notice that you've withdrawn your original version of this comment (which I'd already replied to here) and posted this updated version which pretty much replaced the second paragraph.

Not sure that it fundamentally alters anything I had to say in response, and I'm not inclined to play along with this delete/repost nonsense to suit you.

[Persona]

Cobalt?

Lithium is relatively abundant. Rare earth metals aren't all that rare. Cobalt is just as important as lithium and much harder to obtain. There are some deposits in Europe (mainly Finland) but not enough. 50% of global cobalt production comes from the Democratic Republic of Congo. Unfortunately China is currently the leading foreign investor in the DRC.

Perhaps the "critical minerals club" will decided to invade the DRC to bring "peace and stability".

[Casca]

Re: Cobalt?

You have missed that Europes largest find of rare earth metal was announced last month in Sweden?

[Persona]

Re: Cobalt?

No. I did point out that Rare Earth metals aren't particularly rare. Did you miss the second sentence. ;-)

[Helcat]

Re: Cobalt?

"50% of global cobalt production comes from the Democratic Republic of Congo"

Think you're quoting the reserves, not production there. This is from a quick search on Cobalt mining:

"The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is home to half of the world’s known resources, and currently accounts for around 70% of global production."

Also see:

https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2021/mcs2021-cobalt.pdf

Second page has a list of countries mining cobalt, the volume and reserves. Quick calculation puts the Congo at 69% of the supply.

Reports from the Congo also suggest (aka state) that mining there was ramped up to meet demand, with no consideration as to the consequence resulting in the worst polluting mining operation around.

It's the big argument regarding EV batteries, too: That with the increase in demand, short cuts are taken to supply the materials, and that's resulting in an increase in environmental damage. That the Congo is the largest producer to cobalt and is yet the 4th poorest nation in the world (as of 2022) does paint a rather unpleasant picture of greed when it comes to mining these minerals.

[Potemkine!]

Re: Cobalt?

EV has always been about moving the pollution elsewhere, not to deal with it.

[Professor_Iron]

Re: Cobalt?

Let's give credit though: "critical minerals club" is possibly the most PC name for colonization ever since the East India Company.

[M.V. Lipvig]

Re: Cobalt?

Neither cobalt or lithium is required. Graphene aluminum-ion batteries are the wave of the future, and the first car maker to switch to them will jump way out front. GMG Manufacturing is making them, and once they hit the market lithium fires go bye-bye. So does 2/3 of the weight for the same range, as well as a large part of the cost and toxidity.

[Persona]

Re: Cobalt?

Interesting. Are they currently making them in any sizes bigger than 2032 coin cells?

[M.V. Lipvig]

Re: Cobalt?

Yes, they plan to make pouch cells designed for EVs. While the coin cells may be a product, pretty sure they were more proof of concept. I'm really hoping it takes off before we get too deep into the lithium mess. The idea of the same range with a third of the battery pack weight is appealing, as is having a battery that isn't affected by temperature and can handle a 100 percent recharge in 10 minutes without killing its lifespan. Lithium only likes a small temp window requiring active heating and cooling systems (even more weight), and doesn't like going below 20 percent or over 80 percent on a regular basis.