The U.S. Department of Energy is intensifying efforts to secure critical minerals as global supply risks rise. In a new collaboration, the DOE’s Ames National Laboratory and the Critical Materials Innovation Hub have joined hands with Amazon to recover high-value materials from waste.
The partnership focuses on extracting battery-grade graphite and key minerals from discarded textiles and electronic waste. This move reflects a broader U.S. strategy—reduce import dependence, build domestic capacity, and create a circular supply chain for critical materials.
Assistant Secretary of Energy (EERE) Audrey Robertson, leading DOE’s Office of Critical Materials and Energy Innovation, said:
“At scale, the recovery of critical minerals from end-of-life technologies and textile waste has the potential to transform our domestic critical materials supply chains. This pioneering work, made possible by an exciting new partnership with Amazon, supports the Trump Administration’s efforts to reduce our reliance on foreign imports and strengthen our national security.”
U.S. Aims for Domestic Graphite Supply
The collaboration combines materials science with artificial intelligence. Ames Lab and CMI bring decades of expertise in metals refining and advanced materials. Amazon contributes AI, logistics, and large-scale supply chain capabilities.
Ames Laboratory Director Karl Mueller also noted,
“This is an excellent match for Ames National Laboratory’s deep expertise in materials science. For decades, Ames Lab has led the nation in metals refining, purification, and critical materials research—and applying that strength to real-world challenges.”
Turning Textiles into Battery-Grade Graphite
A major project aims to convert discarded textiles into battery-grade graphite. This is significant because graphite is essential for lithium-ion batteries used in electric vehicles (EVs) and energy storage systems.
Today, the U.S. remains heavily dependent on imports for graphite. In fact, more than 90% of global battery-grade graphite processing is concentrated in China, creating a major supply risk.
- As of 2024, the U.S. imported about 60,000 metric tons of natural graphite, down from roughly 84,000 tons in 2023.
- China remained the largest supplier, accounting for around 67.6% of all natural graphite imports by value.
This is worth roughly $375 million. It represents a slight decrease in volume but still a dominant share of the market.
By extracting graphite from waste, the U.S. can reduce both landfill pressure and foreign dependence. This approach aligns with the DOE’s push to secure materials from “secondary sources” such as waste streams.
AWS Powers AI-Driven Mineral Recovery
A second initiative focuses on recovering minerals like gallium from end-of-life IT hardware. Gallium is a critical input for semiconductors, power electronics, and defense technologies.
The importance of this effort is clear. In recent years, China has restricted exports of gallium and germanium, disrupting global supply. These restrictions effectively removed up to 90% of global gallium supply from international markets, exposing major vulnerabilities.
Here, Amazon Web Services will deploy AI tools to map supply chains, identify recovery opportunities, and assess economic feasibility. At the same time, CMI researchers will develop efficient extraction and refining methods.
This fusion of AI and materials science could transform recycling. Instead of being discarded, old electronics could become a reliable domestic source of critical minerals.
A Fragile Supply Chain: Why the U.S. Is Acting Now
Critical minerals are the core of modern industries—from EVs and renewable energy to semiconductors and defense systems. However, U.S. supply chains remain highly vulnerable.
According to recent industry analysis:
- The U.S. is 100% import-reliant for at least 13 critical minerals
- Over 20 additional minerals have an import dependence above 50%
- The country exports much of its raw materials for processing overseas due to limited domestic capacity
China dominates refining and processing, backed by decades of industrial policy. This concentration creates risks of supply disruptions, price spikes, and geopolitical leverage.
To address this, the U.S. government is mobilizing large-scale investments. In 2025, the DOE announced nearly $1 billion in funding to strengthen domestic critical mineral supply chains, with a strong focus on battery materials processing and recycling.
Additionally, new initiatives such as strategic stockpiles and international partnerships are being developed to secure long-term supply.
CMI Hub Leads the Shift to Circular Supply Chains
The Amazon–DOE partnership reflects a major shift in strategy. Traditionally, supply security depended on mining new resources. Now, recycling and “urban mining” are becoming equally important.
The CMI Hub is leading this transition through research in:
- Expanding material supply sources
- Developing substitutes for scarce minerals
- Recovering materials from waste
- Accelerating the commercialization of new technologies
Recycling offers several advantages. It is faster to deploy than mining, less environmentally damaging, and often more cost-effective in the long run. For example, the U.S. has already committed funding to advanced graphite recycling projects to build domestic battery supply chains.
CMI Hub Director Tom Lograsso
“This collaboration is a natural extension of the expertise that CMI Hub was created to deliver. CMI’s mission is to move breakthrough materials technologies from the laboratory into real-world applications on timelines that meet industry’s needs. Working with Amazon gives us the opportunity to apply our capabilities at scale—combining CMI’s materials science expertise with Amazon’s AI to turn innovations into practical solutions that strengthen the nation’s critical materials supply chains.”
Public–Private Partnerships Drive Scale
This collaboration also highlights a broader trend—closer ties between government research institutions and private companies.
Amazon brings AI, data analytics, and global logistics. Ames Lab and CMI contribute scientific expertise and research infrastructure. Together, they aim to move solutions from the lab to real-world deployment at scale.
Such partnerships are critical because the challenge is not just technical. It also involves economics, infrastructure, and supply chain coordination. By combining strengths, these collaborations can accelerate innovation and reduce risks.
Conclusion: A Strategic Shift With Global Impact
The U.S. is clearly redefining its critical minerals strategy. Instead of relying only on mining, it is tapping into waste as a new resource base.
This approach offers strong advantages:
- Waste streams are abundant and underutilized
- Recycling reduces environmental impact
- Domestic recovery improves supply security
However, challenges remain. Domestic processing capacity is still limited, and scaling recycling technologies will require sustained investment and policy support.
At the same time, AI is emerging as a key enabler. It can optimize recovery processes, improve efficiency, and reduce costs. As adoption grows, it could become a critical tool in securing mineral supply chains.
And the partnership between the DOE, Ames Lab, CMI, and Amazon marks a turning point in how the U.S. approaches critical minerals.
- READ MORE: DOE Launches $500M Funding Drive to Strengthen U.S. Battery Supply Chains and Critical Minerals Processing
- LATEST: AI Solutions from Microsoft and NVIDIA Power DOE’s Nuclear Energy Genesis Mission • Carbon Credits
The post DOE and Amazon Partner to Secure Critical Minerals Through AI-Driven Recycling 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.
