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.
Nature-based carbon investments deserve consideration when they address a specific business dependency and produce outcomes you can measure. Imagine Moonbucks, a global coffee roaster planning next season’s espresso blend. It is considering natural Grade 4 coffee from Jimma, in southwestern Oromia, Ethiopia. Its sourcing decisions affect the roasting schedule and the cash tied up in coffee purchases. Moonbucks needs to understand which measures could protect that supply, what they would cost and how it would judge the results.
1. Define the sourcing problem before choosing a project
Moonbucks needs a dependable component for its espresso blend. Its procurement team wants continuity of volume and an agreed cup profile. Replacing a shipment at short notice could require new sample approval and changes to the blend, and given the schedules for cultivation, processing, and freight delivery, is practically impossible. Moonbucks needs to get this right, and its initial concern is inconsistent deliveries. It commissions an assessment of the supplying farms and post-harvest chain. The questions cover land condition, harvest availability and whether drying or storage problems are affecting saleable lots.
This distinction changes the investment brief. A tree-planting proposal cannot be assumed to fix drying problems. Better storage cannot restore eroded land. The team must establish which problem exists before selecting the response.
CCC’s guide to finding nature-based solutions in your supply chain explains where to look. Here, the next task is to turn a broad concern into a testable proposal.
2. Develop nature-based carbon investments around the actual supply chain
The assessment would trace Moonbucks’ purchases back through the exporter and supplying producer groups. Which farms supply the contracted lots? Who controls land-management decisions? How long does the buyer expect to maintain the purchasing relationship?
Furthermore, Jimma natural Grade 4 cannot be treated as interchangeable with every Ethiopian coffee. Moonbucks would need to test any substitute against its own blend and quality requirements.
Suppose Moonbucks’ assessment identifies an opportunity to maintain shade trees and restore vegetation along exposed streambanks. The IPCC describes agroforestry as a way to store carbon in vegetation and soil, with potential benefits for erosion control and water quality.1 Moonbucks would need local advice on species, growing conditions and maintenance before deciding how these measures fit its sourcing plan.
The proposal now has a defined sourcing connection and a candidate intervention. The next steps are to test its effect on production, assess carbon eligibility and build the financial case.
3. Compare the proposal with other ways to protect supply
WBCSD’s Nature-based Solutions Blueprint recommends comparing nature-based options with other responses across their benefits and costs.2 For Moonbucks, that means evaluating the landscape proposal alongside drying improvements, storage controls and alternative sourcing arrangements.
The product’s natural-process designation matters. Moonbucks should examine the drying and dry-milling chain alongside land conditions. Its team would check storage practices, contamination risks and incoming-lot quality to see whether problems arise before or after the coffee leaves the farms.
The revised proposal might combine land stewardship with separate post-harvest controls. Each component needs its own purpose and budget. A sustainability label should not obscure which activity is expected to solve which problem.
The project develops as the evidence improves. Its scope should follow the diagnosis rather than preserve the first idea unchanged.
4. Establish what the carbon outcome could count toward
Moonbucks’ sustainability team now tests the proposed carbon case separately from the sourcing case. Is the objective a measurable change in Moonbucks’ value-chain emissions, verified credits for separate voluntary use, or distinct outcomes under carefully defined arrangements?
Scope 3 covers value-chain emissions. A purchasing relationship alone does not prove that a farm intervention can be included in Moonbucks’ inventory. The team needs an applicable accounting method, defensible boundaries and evidence supporting attribution.
SBTi’s FLAG Guidance (forest, land and agriculture), version 1.2, says purchased credits used as offsets cannot meet near-term FLAG or energy and industry targets. Eligible land-based removals are subject to accounting requirements.3 Moonbucks needs to test its proposal against those rules before including an outcome in its targets.
For Moonbucks’ Jimma proposal, maintaining existing trees and establishing new vegetation could involve different carbon questions. Specialists must examine the baseline and additionality, meaning what changes because the project proceeds. They must also assess measurement and the risk that stored carbon is lost. CCC’s MRV and additionality article introduces those tests.
Until that work is complete, Moonbucks should not budget an assumed Scope 3 reduction or credit-sale receipt. Direct emissions reductions remain the priority.
5. Build a financial case that survives weaker assumptions
Moonbucks’ finance team would now build a multi-year budget. UNEP’s State of Finance for Nature 2023 compares current finance with the investment needed to meet climate, biodiversity and land-restoration goals.4 The company would cost its proposed activities, farmer participation and ongoing monitoring. Verification, where required, is a separate expense. Maintenance and responsibility for replacing failed plantings must remain visible after the initial establishment budget ends.
Operational benefits need equally careful treatment. If fewer rejected lots reduce emergency purchasing, count that saving once. Do not add “supply resilience” as another financial benefit when it represents the same avoided cost.
Moonbucks should compare a base case with slower benefits, higher implementation costs and no carbon revenue. It should also distinguish production outcomes from quality and shipment outcomes. A single good harvest would not prove that the landscape intervention caused better delivery performance.
A project can remain worth funding even when its carbon case needs more work. That decision must rest on the operational evidence and the company’s objectives, without unsupported environmental claims.
6. Fund a pilot with a clear expansion decision
Moonbucks’ first approval would fund a bounded pilot, rather than commit the entire sourcing program. Before spending, Moonbucks would agree on participating farms, responsibilities and the evidence needed at review.
Its scorecard could track farmer participation, implementation costs and plant survival, alongside accepted coffee volumes and lot-quality results. Carbon measurements would follow the selected method. Farm-level traceability must connect the intervention to the actual sourcing relationship.
Suppose Moonbucks’ review later finds that storage changes explain most quality improvements, while the land measures need longer observation. Those findings would shape the next decision: expand the proven component, adjust the landscape work or pause further spending. They would not justify crediting all improvements to tree planting.
This gives nature-based carbon investments a practical place in a multi-year strategy. Funding increases as the evidence supports it, and the project can change direction before a larger commitment.
Discuss a sourcing opportunity with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital’s nature-based supply-chain investment service uses its Dual-Value Model to examine supply-chain economics alongside potential sustainability outcomes.
Schedule a consultation to discuss your sourcing exposure and the questions to resolve before allocating capital.
Sources
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, Chapter 7, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses, section 7.4.3.3 (Agroforestry).
- World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Nature-based Solutions Blueprint, 5 June 2024.
- Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, section 3.1.4, pp. 37–38.
- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), State of Finance for Nature 2023, 2023.
A plastic credit funds the collection of plastic waste in places where no formal system exists to collect it. Each credit represents a measured, independently audited quantity of plastic taken out of the environment or returned to use, tracked on a public registry.
EU carbon credit claims changed on 27 September 2026, the day the Directive (EU) 2024/825 began to apply across the European Union. The change is narrow. It changes how a company can talk about the credits it buys. A product can no longer be called neutral on the strength of compensation alone; however, every specific, evidenced statement about what a company measured, reduced, and funded stays fully available.
-
Climate Change1 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”
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
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 Energy1 year agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Climate Change2 years agoAnalysis: China’s CO2 falls 1% in Q2 2024 in first quarterly drop since Covid-19
-
Climate Change1 year ago嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测