Friction from the West is Loosening China’s Grip on Rare Earths Elements
As the world grapples with the urgent need for decarbonization to combat climate change, China’s top position in the production of rare earth elements (REEs) and its growing influence in the carbon credit market have had profound implications for the global energy transition
China currently dominates the market supplying over 80% of the world’s rare earth elements. Considered a monopoly in most political circles, its prominent position has raised concerns among many nations about the vulnerability of their supply chains and the geopolitical implications. But is this tension a sign of possibile future supply limitations that pose a threat to the decarbonized future?
REEs are a set of 17 metallic elements with unique electrical and magnetic properties, playing a crucial role in the mineral supply chain market. Their applications range from magnets powering electric vehicles (EVs) and wind turbines to defense systems using precision missiles, fighter jets, and submarines, energy-efficient lighting systems etc.
All these factors come down to one thing: green energy transition, because:
China leads the production of key materials for EV batteries, refining 68% of the world’s cobalt, 65% of nickel, and 60% of lithium meeting the required grade. Additionally, it holds a significant share of ~ 75% of EV batteries, and the majority of them are manufactured in China.
China maintains its position in the rare earth industry due to its comprehensive control over the entire production chain and a substantial scale in the world economies. China’s advantages extend from mining raw materials to producing high-purity rare earths, facilitated by a cost-effective labor force.
Is this enough to sustain China’s dominance in the long run? It’s indeed a matter of concern and the answer is that there are numerous loopholes in marketing strategies, political scenarios, and supply chain management.
Interdependence of global decarbonization goals and China’s REEs
The concentration of REEs in China raise concerns worldwide. Although, the US Department of Energy once said:
“the US decarbonization goals are reliant on both Chinese firms and the Chinese government”
Yet the current geopolitical scenario is slightly different. The prime issue is that no matter where the REEs are mined, they need to undergo processing in China. This grants China substantial influence over various supply chains. But in this ESG-conscious era, investors, suppliers, and consumers must be more aware of the environmental effects of their purchases.
The extraction of rare earth minerals is a complex process and has raised serious climatic concerns. A study from the Harvard International Review stated,
“Mining to produce one ton of rare earth elements results in nearly 30 pounds of dust, 9,600-12,000 cubic meters of waste gas including substances such as hydrofluoric acid and sulfur dioxide, 75 cubic meters of wastewater, and one ton of radioactive residue—2,000 tons of toxic waste altogether.”
The report also mentioned that the world’s largest rare earth element mine, Bayan-Obo in China, produced over 70,000 tons of radioactive thorium waste which is stored in a tailing pond that has leaked into groundwater.
China, being the prime market for REEs must adopt ways to make large-scale mining more sustainable and greener. Some latest technologies include:
- Electrokinetic method is used by many Chinese companies to improve the leaching process and quantity of the extracted minerals. It’s mostly suitable for heavy REE with high atomic numbers like dysprosium and terbium.
- Biomining is a highly sustainable process that incorporates microbes to do the leaching process. One such species is the cyanobacteria- it produces organic acid to extract the REE from recycled e-waste, ores, and wastewater.
- Agromining – the process incorporates plants that have hyperaccumulation and rapid-growth capacity on REE-rich soil. Researchers say agromining works most efficiently for nickel.
However, all the sustainable alternatives mentioned above are yet to be examined deeply considering their practical values and cost effectiveness.
We can infer that China to remain in the top position in the carbon market and REEs, must operate in socially and environmentally responsible ways. The country further needs to ensure transparent supply chains free from human rights infringement and environmental damage.
READ MORE : China’s CO2 Emissions Up 4% in Q1 2023, Hit a Record High
On the other hand, the West is putting serious efforts to decrease dependence on China for rare earth mineral supply. They are exploring technologies to replace REEs or use fewer REEs.
For example, Tesla recently announced plans for next-generation motors using rare earths-free magnets. There’s a mixed review of this move. While some industry pundits say it would have minimal effect on the market because they believe EVs without rare earth will have a very low success rate. While others consider this to be a revolutionary move. It is further predicted that production of EVs in the coming years won’t experience a slump if they become independent of rare earth minerals. This in turn will directly push the carbon market and mitigate carbon dioxide emissions.

These are just some of the factors responsible for REE’s geopolitical conundrum and have given rise to an important question – does a fair trade agreement exist between China and the West over rare earth elements?
Will Friction from the West Loosen China’s Grip on REEs?
The US and Europe have shaken hands and signed deals without China. President Biden and his allies prioritize technology and green energy, while Global South nations, like India, push for EV adoption to boost energy independence.
One notable collaboration involves US and European rare earth companies processing monazite sands in Utah, followed by shipping rare earth carbonates to Estonia for further refinement.
In recent news, the United States Department of Defense (DoD) granted a $120 million contract to Australia’s Lynas Rare Earths to construct a heavy rare earths separation facility in Texas. Lynas USA LLC, a subsidiary of Lynas Rare Earths Ltd, will own and operate this facility. The objective of the contract is to bolster domestic industrial capacities for heavy rare earth elements (HREEs), involving metals like gadolinium, dysprosium, and ytterbium.
Japan has also fortified its rare earth supply chain by increasing investments in Lynas, securing a steady supply of heavy rare earths. According to UN Comtrade data, Japan has succeeded in this strategic move to decrease its rare earth dependence on China from over 90% to 58% within a decade.

Source: elements.visualcapitalist.com
The graph above showcases China’s share of global production of REE market is expected to go down from 92% in 2010 to 58% in 2020.
Despite the solid efforts put in by the US, Europe, and Japan, China continues to defend its monopoly. It has aggressively expanded its international market by acquiring stakes in some of the largest mining companies like MP Materials (US) and Vital’s Metals (Australia).
China’s tax system and production quota are highly meticulous. It has imposed 13% VAT on magnets, metals, and oxides. Simply put, domestic rare earth product manufacturers have a 13 % cost advantage in the supply chain over foreign competitors. Thus, if countries decide to diversify their rare earth supply chains away from China, it could result in increased costs for those nations.
Will this Geopolitical Tension be a Roadblock to the Green Energy Transition?
A survey conducted by The Oregon Group, explains that 2024 is expected to witness persistent volatility and surged prices in major commodities and rare earth minerals. Contributing factors are:
- supply constraints
- geopolitical tensions
- long-term underinvestment
This economic contraction particularly in the US and China can potentially supress demand and supply, especially in the critical mineral sector. It’s foreseeable that in the current year and beyond, a distinct divergence in critical mineral prices between Western nations and China may not manifest. And this leads one to the conclusion that if geopolitical tensions and inefficient strategic planning persist between the leading economies of the world, then energy transition goals for sustainable low-carbon future are most likely to get hindered.
The post China’s Grip On Rare Earth Elements Loosens appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
Want a simpler way to buy carbon credits? Discover our carbon marketplace
Most businesses that decide to act on their net-zero targets reach the same point of friction. Buying carbon credits has meant tracking down brokers, sitting through sales calls, and requesting a quote just to learn a price, sometimes with limited proof of what you are buying.
![]()
Carbon Footprint
Climate-Linked Supply Chain Risk Is Already in Your P&L
The earnings calls that quietly reframed climate from sustainability question to operating risk.
Three earnings calls in the last 18 months tell the story without any help from a press release.
Hershey, May 2024: cocoa price exposure compresses margin, and the company attributes part of the cost shock to West African weather. Olam, July 2024: coffee climate exposure quantified in the annual report. JBS, January 2025: supply chain climate disclosures expanded materially in response to investor pressure and regulatory expectation. None of these companies issued the announcement as climate news. They issued it as financial news. The climate-linked supply chain risk did not arrive with a sustainability framing; it arrived as a P&L line.
You are probably reading this article because you suspect the same thing is happening to your business. This piece walks through what is showing up on which earnings calls, how procurement and finance leaders are quantifying the exposure, and what serious corporates are doing about it before the regulator asks.
Where climate risk has already appeared in earnings
The pattern is consistent across resource-intensive sectors. A weather event compresses supply, the price spikes, the cost flows through the income statement, and the analyst on the call asks whether the event is anomalous or structural. Increasingly, the honest answer is the second one.
Cocoa is the cleanest example. The 2023 to 2024 West African harvest fell sharply on the back of erratic rainfall and disease. Cocoa futures more than tripled. Companies with concentrated West African sourcing absorbed the cost; companies with diversified sourcing absorbed less. The exposure was not climate as ESG topic. It was climate as cost of goods.
Coffee follows the same pattern. Brazilian and Vietnamese harvests have moved on weather more sharply across the last several seasons. Roasters with long-tenor supplier relationships and origin diversification have managed the volatility; roasters with spot-market exposure have not. Wheat, sugar, palm oil, beef: the same dynamic in different commodities, a pattern the IPCC AR6 Working Group II report projects will intensify across agricultural systems through mid-century.
What this means: climate risk is no longer a footnote in the 10-K. It is a line item the CFO has to explain on the call.
The three commodity exposures that hit margin first
For most companies with material Scope 3 exposure, three exposures dominate the near-term P&L risk.
- Concentrated single-origin sourcing in a climate-vulnerable region. If your tier-one supply for any material commodity sits in one geography, you have a concentration risk that climate amplifies. Diversification across origins is the obvious hedge, but it takes years to build and requires relationships you cannot acquire by tender.
- Supplier financial fragility under climate stress. Smallholder farmers, who supply a large share of the global cocoa, coffee, and palm oil market, do not carry the balance sheets to absorb yield shocks. When yields collapse, they exit. When they exit, your supply base shrinks, and the surviving suppliers raise prices. The risk is structural, not cyclical.
- Logistics and storage exposure to extreme weather. Hurricane disruptions to Gulf shipping, drought-driven Panama Canal restrictions, flooding in European inland waterways: each of these has moved input costs in the last three years, a pattern documented in Munich Re’s natural catastrophe data. The exposure shows up as a one-quarter event in the financial press but accumulates over time on the cost line.
TCFD and ISSB disclosure changes
The disclosure architecture has now caught up with the risk. The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, whose recommendations are now embedded in the ISSB’s IFRS S2 climate standard, requires companies to disclose climate-related risks across physical and transition categories, with quantification where possible.
For physical risk specifically (the climate-linked supply chain risk you are reading about), the disclosure must address both acute exposures (extreme weather events) and chronic exposures (gradual changes in temperature, precipitation, and growing seasons). The disclosure must address the time horizon over which the risk is material, the parts of the value chain exposed, and the financial impact under different scenarios.
The CSRD imposes similar requirements under European law, with double materiality (both financial and impact materiality) embedded in the assessment. The practical effect: your auditors and your investor relations team now need a defensible answer to the climate-linked supply chain risk question, and the answer needs to be quantified.
What procurement and finance can do now
Three actions matter near-term.
Map your exposure. Most companies do not have a clear view of which tier-one and tier-two suppliers sit in which climate-vulnerable geographies. Without the map, you cannot quantify the risk, and without the quantification, you cannot disclose it credibly. The map is the foundation, and World Resources Institute climate risk research provides useful public tooling to start.
Diversify and deepen, in that order. Diversification across origins reduces concentration risk, but the deeper move is to invest in the resilience of the suppliers you already have. Regenerative practices, agroforestry, soil health interventions: these reduce yield volatility under climate stress and protect your input cost trajectory.
Embed the climate spend inside procurement, not outside it. Treating climate risk as a sustainability cost line subordinates it to the ESG budget. Treating it as a procurement and resilience investment puts it in the budget that matters, which is the cost-of-goods budget that the CFO defends quarterly.
Nature-based supply chain investments are the asset class designed for exactly this purpose. They sit inside the value chain, they reduce climate-linked supply risk, they generate verifiable Scope 3 reductions, and they produce the documentation an auditor and a regulator can both test.
If you are quantifying climate-linked supply chain risk in advance of the next earnings cycle or the next disclosure period, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you map your exposure and structure a Dual-Value Model response that addresses reduction, resilience, and disclosure-readiness in a single program. Schedule a consultation.
Carbon Footprint
Where should an SME start with a carbon action plan?
More and more small and medium-sized businesses are hearing the same question from their larger customers: What is your carbon footprint? That question now travels down entire supply chains, and it arrives next to tender requirements, certification criteria, and rising customer expectations.
![]()
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year 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”
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
