The Financial Times reported that the Pentagon plans to spend up to $1 billion on critical minerals. This move aims to cut U.S. reliance on China for essential metals in defense, clean energy, and advanced tech. Led by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), this program is the largest U.S. strategic mineral acquisition since the Cold War.
Significantly, the Pentagon’s plan is part of Trump’s broader “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBA) to enhance domestic and allied resources. Under OBBA, the DLA will use a $7.5 billion allocation to:
-
Expand the U.S. stockpile by 2027 ($2 billion)
-
Invest in mineral and processing supply chains ($5 billion)
-
Launch a Pentagon credit program to support private mining and refining projects ($500 million)
Washington’s Strategic Push: From Market Reliance to State Control
China’s control over global mineral supply chains has raised national security concerns. The country refines 80–90% of rare earths and dominates other key metals, such as cobalt and nickel.
Recent Chinese export limits on rare earths have raised concerns in the U.S. Washington views these limits as an effort to weaponize mineral exports. The Pentagon’s stockpiling shows a move from market-driven sourcing to state-led resource security.
Trump Targets China with 100% Tariffs
As per the latest news, President Trump has confirmed plans to impose 100% tariffs on all Chinese imports starting on November 1. He labeled China’s export limits a “hostile act.” He noted the timeline might change, saying, “Right now it is. Let’s see what happens.”
On Truth Social, Trump accused Beijing of manipulating supply chains and warned of “100% tariffs… over and above any tariff they are currently paying.”
This tariff announcement follows China’s decision to limit rare earth exports. These actions link industrial policy more closely to national security.

Pentagon Boosts Stockpile with High-Value Minerals
According to the Financial Times, the Pentagon’s buying spree targets four key minerals vital for defense and clean energy:
-
Cobalt – Up to $500 million. Used in batteries, superalloys, and medical implants.
-
Antimony – About $245 million, partly sourced from U.S. Antimony Corp. Key for flame retardants, batteries, and defense components.
-
Tantalum – Around $100 million. Essential for missile systems and aerospace parts.
-
Scandium – A combined $45 million, reportedly from Rio Tinto and APL Engineered Materials. Used in aerospace alloys and electronics.
These purchases will expand the U.S. national stockpile, which already holds $1.3 billion in metals. The new acquisitions focus on materials critical for weapons production, energy systems, and high-tech manufacturing.
A defense official told the FT that several Pentagon offices are now “flush with cash” for mineral procurement. The government is also exploring offshore mineral resources in the Pacific Ocean, rich in nickel, cobalt, copper, and manganese.
Alaska’s Ambler Road Project Approval
President Trump approved the long-contested Ambler Road Project in Alaska. This 211-mile corridor will connect the Dalton Highway to vast mineral deposits in the northwest.
This decision reverses a Biden-era block and is seen as a vital step toward U.S. resource independence. It opens access to copper, zinc, and rare earth elements essential for clean energy and defense manufacturing.
Mineral Stockpiling: Shielding the Nation from Supply Shocks
The U.S. imports over 80% of its critical minerals and relies heavily on foreign refining, according to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This dependence exposes the country to significant supply risks, especially amid rising geopolitical tensions.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that China controls 90% of rare earth refining and significant percentages of nickel and cobalt refining. Such dominance highlights the risk of relying on a single country for critical inputs.
Thus, to tackle these challenges, the U.S. is building a stockpile of critical minerals. This will reduce supply risks, maintain production of weapons and advanced technologies, and support domestic mining investment.
In short, this stockpile acts as strategic insurance, safeguarding industrial capabilities and boosting national security.
The U.S. aligns with a global trend in mineral stockpiling. The EU requires reserves under its Critical Raw Materials Act. India launched a National Mineral Security Strategy in 2025, while Japan maintains a months-long reserve of rare earths.
Minerals with Net Import Reliance on China

Market Impact and Industry Response
The Pentagon’s stockpiling effort has caught attention in mining and rare earth stocks. Companies like U.S. Antimony and MP Materials are gaining interest as Washington increases mineral procurement.
For example, the DLA’s plan for 3,000 tonnes of antimony—about one-eighth of U.S. annual demand—may stabilize the market for this volatile metal. Analysts expect similar effects for other targeted minerals as demand becomes clearer.
In conclusion, the Pentagon’s $1 billion mineral stockpile plan marks a clear shift. The U.S. government is no longer waiting for markets to secure resources. Instead, it is actively building reserves, funding domestic projects, and aligning economic policy with defense needs.
As competition for minerals increases, the Pentagon’s stockpiling is a defensive strategy and a clear signal. It shows that the next big race among global powers will be for critical minerals. These are vital for future technologies, not oil.
The post Pentagon’s $1B Mineral Stockpile Boosts U.S. Independence from China appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
The real cost of 1 tonne of CO2: Translating carbon into hectares
Every business carbon footprint report ends with a number, the amount of carbon emissions produced by the business, less the amount of carbon reduced and offset, given in tonnes of CO₂. Many of the people who sign off on that number, including those who paid for it, cannot picture what it represents on the ground. A tonne is a unit of mass. CO₂ is invisible. The link between the amount offset in the report and a real piece of restored forest somewhere in the world is almost never indicated.
![]()
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.
-
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

