The United States has released an updated list of critical minerals, highlighting the growing importance of metals that support clean energy, technology, and national security. This new list from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Department of the Interior now has 51 minerals.
The draft recommends adding six minerals—potash, silicon, copper, silver, rhenium, and lead, listed in order of risk—to the U.S. Critical Minerals List, while removing two minerals, arsenic and tellurium.
Silver and copper are included for the first time. The update shows how crucial these resources are for America’s industrial and clean energy plans. Both metals are in high demand for renewable energy systems, electric vehicles, and advanced electronics.
The U.S. wants to expand the list to boost supply security, cut down on imports, and get ready for global competition over these resources.
Why the U.S. Updates Its Critical Minerals List
Critical minerals are defined as non-fuel minerals that are vital to the U.S. economy and security but are at risk of supply disruptions. The U.S. first released a formal list in 2018, and it has been updated several times as global demand and geopolitical risks shift.
The 2025 update considers several factors, including:
- Economic importance: Minerals are essential for industries like defense, energy, and technology.
- Supply chain risks: The potential for shortages due to import dependence or geopolitical tensions.
- Future demand: Projected growth in renewable energy and electric vehicle markets.
Silver and copper were added because new data show their strategic role in clean energy. Both metals are widely available globally, but demand is increasing so quickly that supply risks are now more relevant.
This update highlights how the U.S. is adjusting its policies to keep pace with the global race for minerals.
Silver: A Rising Star in the Energy Transition
Silver’s addition to the list is significant. Traditionally known as a precious metal, silver is also one of the most effective conductors of electricity. This property makes it essential for solar panels, batteries, and electronics.
- Solar panels: Silver paste is used in photovoltaic cells to conduct electricity. Each panel requires 15–20 grams of silver, and global solar demand is expected to drive record use.
- Electronics: From smartphones to electric vehicles, silver is a critical component in circuit boards and electrical connections.
- Medical uses: Silver’s antimicrobial properties also make it valuable for healthcare applications.
According to the Silver Institute, solar energy alone could account for nearly half of silver’s industrial demand by 2030. However, global mine supply has been relatively flat, creating concerns about shortages.

By adding silver to the list, U.S. policymakers recognize the growing risk of relying too heavily on foreign sources. While the U.S. produces some silver, much of the supply comes from countries like Mexico, Peru, and China. This creates potential vulnerabilities as clean energy deployment accelerates.

Copper: The Backbone of Electrification
Copper is another critical addition to the 2025 list. Known as the “metal of electrification,” copper is vital for power grids, renewable energy, electric vehicles, and data centers.
- Electric vehicles (EVs): EVs require up to four times more copper than gasoline-powered cars, mainly for batteries and wiring.
- Power grids: Copper is a key material in transmission lines, transformers, and substations. Expanding renewable energy capacity depends on copper-intensive infrastructure.
- Clean energy: Wind turbines and solar farms use large amounts of copper in their electrical systems.
Global demand for copper is projected to double by 2035, according to industry forecasts. Yet, mining capacity has struggled to keep pace. Large new projects take years to develop, and permitting challenges in the U.S. have slowed growth.

The U.S. currently imports a significant share of its copper, with major suppliers including Chile and Canada. The government calls copper a critical mineral. This signals a plan to boost domestic production and recycling. The goal is to reduce reliance on imports.
Broader Implications of the Critical Minerals List
The new list does more than identify resources; it also influences U.S. policy and investment. Minerals on the list qualify for government programs that support domestic exploration, mining, and processing. This can include federal funding, streamlined permitting, and public-private partnerships.
For companies, being linked to critical minerals often boosts investor interest. It signals long-term demand and potential access to U.S. government support. U.S. mining firms looking for silver and copper deposits could find more financing options.
The updated list also affects international trade. By focusing on these resources, the U.S. can form new partnerships with allies that have rich mineral reserves. This move also helps cut down reliance on countries with high supply risks.
Adding silver and copper to the critical minerals list is more than just a policy shift. It impacts markets, industries, and climate goals directly. Knowing how these metals influence clean energy and tech development shows why the update is important.
The Global Race for Silver and Copper
The U.S. is not alone in its push to secure mineral supplies. The European Union, Japan, and China are updating their plans. They want to secure steady access to silver, copper, and other key resources.
- China: A dominant player in mineral refining and processing, especially for copper and rare earths. By 2025, China is set to produce 57% of the world’s refined copper. Its output is expected to rise by 7.5% to 12% each year, despite global copper shortages. China also leads in copper smelting and refining. Since 2019, it has added over 97% of the global capacity.
- Europe: The region recycles around 37% of the world’s silver. This is much higher than its primary silver production, which is only about 7%. Most of that production comes from Poland and Sweden. In Europe, up to 90% of copper in buildings and infrastructure is recycled. This highlights the importance of reuse and circular economy initiatives.
- Global supply: Silver and copper mining is concentrated in a few countries, such as China, Peru, Chile, and the DRC, raising concerns about bottlenecks.
As countries accelerate clean energy goals, competition for these metals is expected to grow. Some analysts warn of a potential supply gap in copper as early as 2030 if new projects do not come online quickly enough.

Mining, Recycling, and the Green Dilemma
While expanding mining is a logical solution to supply risks, it comes with challenges. Mining projects often raise environmental and social concerns, including water use, land disturbance, and impacts on local communities.
In the U.S., new projects frequently face delays due to permitting and opposition. Balancing the need for secure supply with environmental protections will remain a key challenge. Recycling may help close the gap, but new production will still be required.
The recognition of silver and copper as critical minerals reflects these trade-offs. Policymakers see the environmental challenges. They believe that securing supply is key to economic and climate goals.
Looking Ahead: U.S. Strategy for a Mineral-Driven Future
The updated critical minerals list reveals how the U.S. is getting ready for a future focused on clean energy, electrification, and digital technologies. Silver and copper are now seen not only as industrial metals but as pillars of energy security.
Moving forward, the U.S. will likely expand efforts to:
- Support domestic mining and refining of silver and copper.
- Increase recycling and circular economy solutions.
- Build alliances with mineral-rich countries.
- Balance environmental concerns with supply needs.
By naming silver and copper as critical, the U.S. is aligning its resource strategy with long-term economic and climate goals. The next decade will determine whether the country can secure enough of these essential metals to stay competitive in the global energy transition.
- FURTHER READING: U.S. DOE Reveals $1B Funding to Boost Critical Minerals Supply Chain
The post U.S. Releases New Draft Critical Minerals List: Silver and Copper Join the Clean Energy Race appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
Finding Nature Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain
Carbon Footprint
How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living
Americans are paying more for insurance, electricity, taxes, and home repairs every year. What many people may not realize is that climate change is already one of the drivers behind those rising costs.
For many households, climate change is no longer just an environmental issue. It is becoming a cost-of-living issue. While climate impacts like melting glaciers and shrinking polar ice can feel distant from everyday life, the financial effects are already showing up in monthly budgets across the country.
Today, a larger share of household income is consumed by fixed costs such as housing, insurance, utilities, and healthcare. (3) Climate change and climate inaction are adding pressure to many of those expenses through higher disaster recovery costs, rising energy demand, infrastructure repairs, and increased insurance risk.
The goal of this article is to help connect climate change to the everyday financial realities people already experience. Regardless of where someone stands on climate policy, it is important to recognize that climate change is already increasing costs for households, businesses, and taxpayers across the United States.
More conservative estimates indicate that the average household has experienced an increase of about $400 per year from observed climate change, while less conservative estimates suggest an increase of $900.(1) Those in more disaster-prone regions of the country face disproportionate costs, with some households experiencing climate-related costs averaging $1,300 per year.(1) Another study found that climate adaptation costs driven by climate change have already consumed over 3% of personal income in the U.S. since 2015.(9) By the end of the century, housing units could spend an additional $5,600 on adaptation costs.(1)
Whether we realize it or not, Americans are already paying for climate change through higher insurance premiums, energy costs, taxes, and infrastructure repairs. These growing expenses are often referred to as climate adaptation costs.
Without meaningful climate action, these costs are expected to continue rising. Choosing not to invest in climate action is also choosing to spend more on climate adaptation.
Here are a few ways climate change is already increasing the cost of living:
- Higher insurance costs from more frequent and severe storms
- Higher energy use during longer and hotter summers
- Higher electricity rates tied to storm recovery and grid upgrades
- Higher government spending and taxpayer-funded disaster recovery costs
The real debate is not whether climate change costs money. Americans are already paying for it. The question is where we want those costs to go. Should we invest more in climate action to help reduce future climate adaptation costs, or continue paying growing recovery and adaptation expenses in everyday life?
How Climate Change Is Increasing Insurance Costs
There is one industry that closely tracks the financial impact of natural disasters: insurance. Insurance companies are focused on assessing risk, estimating damages, and collecting enough revenue to cover losses and remain financially stable.
Comparing the 20-year periods 1980–1999 and 2000–2019, climate-related disasters increased 83% globally from 3,656 events to 6,681 events. The average time between billion-dollar disasters dropped from 82 days during the 1980s to 16 days during the last 10 years, and in 2025 the average time between disasters fell to just 10 days. (6)
According to the reinsurance firm Munich Re, total economic losses from natural disasters in 2024 exceeded $320 billion globally, nearly 40% higher than the decade-long annual average. Average annual inflation-adjusted costs more than quadrupled from $22.6 billion per year in the 1980s to $102 billion per year in the 2010s. Costs increased further to an average of $153.2 billion annually during 2020–2024, representing another 50% increase over the 2010s. (6)
In the United States, billion-dollar weather and climate disasters have also increased significantly. The average number of billion-dollar disasters per year has grown from roughly three annually during the 1980s to 19 annually over the last decade. In 2023 and 2024, the U.S. recorded 28 and 27 billion-dollar disasters respectively, both setting new records. (6)
The growing impact of climate change is one reason insurance costs continue to rise. “There are two things that drive insurance loss costs, which is the frequency of events and how much they cost,” said Robert Passmore, assistant vice president of personal lines at the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America. “So, as these events become more frequent, that’s definitely going to have an impact.” (8)
After adjusting for inflation, insurance costs have steadily increased over time. From 2000 to 2020, insurance costs consistently grew faster than the Consumer Price Index due to rising rebuilding costs and weather-related losses.(3) Between 2020 and 2023 alone, the average home insurance premium increased from $75 to $360 due to climate change impacts, with disaster-prone regions experiencing especially steep increases.(1) Since 2015, homeowners in some regions affected by more extreme weather have seen home insurance costs increased by nearly 57%.(1) Some insurers have also limited or stopped offering coverage in high-risk areas.(7)
For many families, rising insurance costs are no longer occasional financial burdens. They are becoming recurring monthly expenses tied directly to growing climate risk.
How Rising Temperatures Increase Household Energy Costs

The financial impacts of climate change extend beyond insurance. Rising temperatures are also changing how much energy Americans use and how utilities plan for future electricity demand.
Between 1950 and 2010, per capita electricity use increased 10-fold, though usage has flattened or slightly declined since 2012 due to more efficient appliances and LED lighting. (3) A significant share of increased energy demand comes from cooling needs associated with higher temperatures.
Over the last 20 years, the United States has experienced increasing Cooling Degree Days (CDD) and decreasing Heating Degree Days (HDD). Nearly all counties have become warmer over the past three decades, with some areas experiencing several hundred additional cooling degree days, equivalent to roughly one additional degree of warmth on most days. (1) This trend reflects a warming climate where air conditioning demand is increasing while heating demand generally declines. (4)
As temperatures continue rising, households are expected to spend more on cooling than they save on heating. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that by 2050, national Heating Degree Days will be 11% lower while Cooling Degree Days will be 28% higher than 2021 levels. Cooling demand is projected to rise 2.5 times faster than heating demand declines. (5)
These projections come from energy and infrastructure experts planning for future electricity demand and grid capacity needs. Utilities and grid operators are already preparing for higher peak summer electricity loads caused by rising temperatures. (5)
Longer and hotter summers also affect how homes and buildings are designed. Buildings constructed for past climate conditions may require upgrades such as larger air conditioning systems, stronger insulation, and improved ventilation to remain comfortable and energy efficient in the future. (10)
For many households, this means higher monthly utility bills and potentially higher long-term home improvement costs as temperatures continue to rise.
How Climate Change Affects Electricity Rates
On an inflation-adjusted basis, average U.S. residential electricity rates are slightly lower today than they were 50 years ago. (2) However, climate-related damage to utility infrastructure is creating new upward pressure on electricity costs.
Electric utilities rely heavily on above-ground poles, wires, transformers, and substations that can be damaged by hurricanes, storms, floods, and wildfires. Repairing and upgrading this infrastructure often requires substantial investment.
As a result, utilities are increasing electricity rates in response to wildfire and hurricane events to fund infrastructure repairs and future mitigation efforts. (1) The average cumulative increase in per-household electricity expenditures due to climate-related price changes is approximately $30. (1)
While this increase may appear modest today, utility costs are expected to rise further as climate-related infrastructure damage becomes more frequent and severe.
How Climate Disasters Increase Government Spending and Taxes
Extreme weather events also damage public infrastructure, including roads, schools, bridges, airports, water systems, and emergency services infrastructure. Recovery and rebuilding costs are often funded through taxpayer dollars at the federal, state, and local levels.
The average annual government cost tied to climate-related disaster recovery is estimated at nearly $142 per household. (1) States that frequently experience hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes, or flooding can face even higher public recovery costs.
These expenses affect taxpayers whether they personally experience a disaster or not. Climate-related recovery spending can increase pressure on public budgets, emergency management systems, and infrastructure funding nationwide.
Reducing Climate Costs Through Climate Action
While this article focuses on the growing financial costs associated with climate change, the issue is not only about money for many people. It is also about recognizing our environmental impact and taking responsibility for reducing it in order to help preserve a healthy planet for future generations.
While individuals alone cannot solve climate change, collective action can help reduce future climate adaptation costs over time.
For those interested in taking action, there are three important steps:
- Estimate your carbon footprint to better understand the emissions connected to your lifestyle and activities.
- Create a plan to gradually reduce emissions through energy efficiency, cleaner technologies, and more sustainable choices.
- Address remaining emissions by supporting verified carbon reduction projects through carbon credits.
Carbon credits are one of the most cost-effective tools available for climate action because they help fund projects that generate verified emission reductions at scale. Supporting global emission reduction efforts can help reduce the long-term impacts and costs associated with climate change.
Visit Terrapass to learn more about carbon footprints, carbon credits, and climate action solutions.
The post How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living appeared first on Terrapass.
Carbon Footprint
Carbon credit project stewardship: what happens after credit issuance
A carbon credit purchase is not a transaction that closes at issuance. The credit may be retired, the certificate filed, and the reporting box ticked. But on the ground, in the forest, in the field, and in the community, the work continues. It endures for years. In many cases, for decades.
![]()
-
Climate Change10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy7 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases11 months ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测

