在特朗普（Donald Trump）开始第二个美国总统任期之际，中美再次打响贸易战几乎已成定局，而对能源转型至关重要的矿物可能会陷入这场交锋的漩涡。
特朗普已威胁要对来自中国、以及通过其他国家输往美国的中国商品加征关税。
与此同时，中国正在制定一套“多样化”的政策工具包，以应对日益加剧的贸易紧张局势。最近一个值得注意的例子是中国对锗、镓、石墨和锑等四种矿物实行出口管制。
所有这些矿物都在低碳技术中发挥着重要作用，但同时也具有军事等其他用途。
Carbon Brief等机构的分析表明，中国于2023年夏季首次实施的出口管制并未对关键矿物供应链产生持续影响。
然而，2024年12月初宣布的更严格的管控措施，特别是对美出口的限制，引发了关于这些措施可能产生多大影响的辩论。
在本文中，Carbon Brief探讨了美中之间围绕关键矿物的紧张关系，可能对供应链稳定性以及清洁能源转型产生的影响。
哪些矿物对清洁能源转型至关重要？
矿物对多种低碳技术的发展至关重要。
例如，铟和镓用于太阳能电池板的涂层，铜和“稀土”金属用于风力发电机的导体和永磁体，而从锂到锰的各种矿物则广泛应用于不同类型的电池。
中国在许多矿物的供应链中占据重要地位，尤其是在加工环节。如下表所示，全球超过一半的石墨、稀土元素（REEs）和钒的开采，以及大部分铝、钴、石墨、铟、锂、稀土元素和硅的加工均集中在中国。
然而，并非所有这些材料都被视为“关键矿物”。“关键矿物”是一个政治术语，用于描述那些在重要战略领域中发挥作用的矿物。
美国将50种矿物列为关键矿物，欧盟确定了34种关键矿物和另外16种“战略原材料”，而日本的清单上列出了35种矿物。
尽管中国自2016年以来没有更新其官方的关键矿物清单，但2023年11月，中国国家安全部官方公众号发布的一篇文章透露，中国至少将31种矿物视为关键矿物。
该文章比较了中国（橙色）、欧盟（绿色）和美国（蓝色）关键矿物清单中的重叠与差异部分。
大宗商品咨询公司CRU集团中国办事处特别顾问、前首席执行官约翰·约翰逊（John Johnson）告诉Carbon Brief，中国与欧盟和美国“清单上相似”的矿物在采购方面“竞争更激烈”。
尽管一些国家试图多样化关键矿物进口，以减少对中国的依赖，但国际能源署（IEA）的分析发现，根据已宣布的项目，从现在到2030年，矿物供应的现状不太可能改变。
不过，IEA指出，在电池制造等部分领域，欧洲和美国“已宣布的产能增加”应该“足以”满足2030年的国内应用需求。
但价格评估机构Benchmark Minerals Intelligence专注于石墨的高级分析师托尼·奥尔德森（Tony Alderson）对这一乐观预测表示怀疑。他告诉Carbon Brief，“对于设施利用率能达到100%的情况几乎闻所未闻”。他补充称，2030年以后，美国和欧盟对石墨的需求可能会远远超过供应。
中国控制关键矿物的能力如何演变？
在拜登政府时期，美国采用了“小院高墙”（small yard, high fence）策略，对半导体行业实施了一系列出口管制，并鼓励盟友采取类似措施。
作为回应，中国开始限制一些关键矿物的出口，包括在2023年8月对某些类型的镓和锗的出口实施管制，随后于2023年12月对石墨实施管制、于2024年9月对锑实施管制。
除锑之外，这些管制显然是北京对美国遏制中国半导体进口措施的回应。
与此同时，中国加强了出口管制制度，将分散的一系列出口管制政策统一整合为单一框架。
这包括制订“不可靠实体清单”、出口管制法、反外国制裁法和对被认为是“两用”物项的监管。
策纬咨询公司（Trivium China）的关键矿物和供应链研究负责人科里·康布斯（Cory Combs）告诉Carbon Brief：“（中国）过去的出口管制体系极为零散。”
他补充道，最近政策推进的主要目标之一是通过“确保所有内容集中管理且规则一致”来改善合规性。
这些举措为中国在2024年12月初加强关键矿物出口限制铺平了道路，其加大了对石墨出口的限制，并“原则上”禁止向美国出口镓、锗和锑。
中国商务部发言人表示，此举是对美国通过对中国芯片制造业实施广泛限制，将自己的出口管制“武器化”的回应。
初步出口禁令对关键矿物贸易流向的影响如何？
对中国初步出口管制（涉及镓、石墨和锗）的分析显示，尽管新规出台，但贸易大体上仍在继续。
如下方Carbon Brief汇编的图表所示，在2023年8月限制生效后，受限类型的镓和锗出口暂停了两个月。然而，这些出口从2023年10月起恢复，尽管水平略有下降。
并非所有类型的目标关键矿物都受到了为期两个月的暂停的影响，非管制产品（如锗氧化物）的流量没有明显变化。
对于石墨而言，主要产品的出口量总体保持稳定，但在限制措施实施前出现了出口量激增，这可能是由于囤积所致。2024年的平均出口量高于2022年水平。
奥尔德森告诉Carbon Brief，出口商发现，当局对韩国和日本的出口审批特别迅速，而针对美国和印度的产品“需要更长时间”才能获批。其他分析师报告说，大多数许可证似乎已经获批。
这种结果可能是有意为之。Trivium China的康布斯告诉Carbon Brief，初步出口管制的目标是提高中国对其加工的矿物使用情况的了解，这也是为何要求出口商申请许可证，而不是直接全面禁止出口的原因。
因此，立即切断对其他国家的供应并不是最初公告的目的。
对关键矿物的初步管制总体上遵循了中国之前非关税贸易措施的类似模式。除了锑以外，对关键矿物的管制都是为了应对被认为“损害中国国家主权、安全和发展利益”的企图，而非打响贸易争端的第一枪。
英国皇家联合研究所（RUSI）的一份报告指出，这是因为中国意识到全面出口禁令会加速其他国家实行去风险和实现供应链多样化，从而削弱中国的长期地位。
严格的出口管制也会让中国国内付出代价，影响工业活动和更广泛的经济增长。因此，皇家联合研究所认为，出口管制可能会被调整到既能吸引关注，又不会造成其所说的严重经济影响的程度。
对美管制是否标志着中国战略的重大变化？
2024年12月初宣布的措施显示，中国在对关键矿物出口管制方面进行了明显升级。
根据新规，镓、锗和锑“原则上”将不再允许出口到美国，石墨的销售也将受到更严格的控制。
康布斯与Trivium China联合创始人安德鲁·波尔克（Andrew Polk）在分析中写道，这些限制措施是一个信号，表明中国“准备更积极地反击美国的行动”。
这呼应了中国央行前行长易纲的说法。据《南华早报》报道，易纲表示：“我们都明白，从经济学角度，不予报复是最优解……但（面对国内压力），决策者几乎没有选择。”
奥尔德森指出，还需要更多时间观察政策实施的“严格程度”。就石墨而言，目前尚不清楚哪些产品会受到影响——更严格的管制可能仅限于“用于军事最终用途材料的99.999%（纯度）”，而非用于电动车电池的低纯度石墨。
Trivium China的评估指出，此次宣布表明中国将“堵住”允许“出口泄漏”的漏洞，但目前尚不清楚“北京会在多大程度上调查或惩罚涉嫌违规转口的第三国”。
彭博经济（Bloomberg Economics）高级地缘经济分析师杰拉德·迪皮波（Gerard di Pippo）对威胁的严重性持怀疑态度，他写道：“中国缺乏强制第三国遵守规定所需的法律影响力、出口管制监控能力和联盟网络。”
其他分析人士告诉《麻省理工科技评论》（MIT Technology Review），由于美国已采取措施使其供应链多样化，因此“在大多数情况下，这些禁令不会产生重大经济影响”。
尽管如此，奥尔德森表示，当前的不确定性凸显了对关键矿物的依赖者而言，“本地化至关重要”。
未来中美紧张局势会加剧对关键矿物的控制吗？
康布斯和波尔克写道，中国近期管制的动机尚不明确。这可能是为了抗议美国限制特定芯片及制造工具的出口，以及将140家中国公司列入贸易黑名单，也可能是为了“警告即将上台的特朗普政府”不要加剧紧张局势。
外界普遍预计，特朗普开始其第二任期后，美中贸易紧张关系将加剧。
美国两党都对中国“威胁”其工业能力表示担忧。然而，特朗普第二任期可能会优先使用广泛的关税来缩小对华贸易逆差。
康布斯告诉Carbon Brief，北京的目标是“改变美国的行为”，因此在争端中会使用特朗普能够理解的手段，如广泛的贸易关税，而不是出口管制等更细微的工具。
他补充说，特朗普的顾问们会在多大程度上重视关键矿物还有待观察。如果北京使用额外管制施压特定的美国公司，促使它们向美国政府施压，这一问题可能会进入决策视野。
约翰逊指出，中国有理由避免将关键矿物出口问题进一步升级，鉴于其在高纯度石英、铁矿石和钾肥等矿物出口等方面依赖于美国。
此外，他表示，各国认为的关键矿物“会随着时间而变化”，因为新技术会创造对新矿物的需求，同时使其他矿物变得过时。
回收技术的发展也可能缓解供应链压力。国际能源署指出，如果成功扩大回收利用规模，“到2050年，新采矿活动需求可降低25%至40%”。
The post Q&A: 中美贸易战对能源转型意味着什么？ appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Climate Change
“Sink or swim”: WA Gov hugely underestimating decline in regional gas demand while sleeping on green exports, new report finds
PERTH, Tuesday 13 October 2026 — A new report from Greenpeace Australia Pacific and Springmount Advisory reveals green commodity exports are an untapped economic opportunity for Western Australia in a declining Asian gas market, while offering a genuine solution for decarbonising Asia.
From Gas to Green: Building Western Australia’s Future State is a comprehensive analysis of the declining gas market in Asia, and the untapped economic opportunity for WA to become a global leader in green commodity exports while driving the regional shift away from fossil fuels.
The report offers key recommendations for the WA Government to support regional decarbonisation through an orderly phase out of gas exports in favour of green iron and other green exports. It comes as global climate leaders from across business, politics and advocacy prepare to meet for the Global Citizen Now: Perth event focused on decarbonising WA.
Key findings:
- Gas demand is falling across WA’s core markets in Asia: Gas demand fell in 2025 and is projected to continue to decline, driven by a combination of global geopolitical factors and domestic concerns.
- Policy shifts in key markets since the war on Iran now prioritise renewables and nuclear over gas: Japan, South Korea and China have legislated energy plans that prioritise renewables and nuclear over gas.
- New WA gas would arrive in a saturated, uncertain Asian market filled with cheaper gas: The US is now the world’s largest liquefied gas producer and plans to double its capacity as it also targets Asian markets.
- Green commodities offer a real solution to sustain WA’s economy: WA can lead Australia’s green commodity exports, which by 2060 could be worth almost a trillion dollars.
- Exporting more WA gas is likely to delay or impede Asia decarbonisation: Despite claims by the gas industry, there is no evidence that WA gas is displacing coal in Asia, and in fact diverts resources from genuine decarbonisation options.
Geoff Bice, WA Campaign Lead at Greenpeace Australia Pacific said: “As our export partners in Asia shift away from expensive and polluting gas, the WA Government has a golden opportunity to pivot our economy to green exports, like green iron, which is the most effective way to help our region to decarbonise.
“The writing is on the wall: gas is in decline, renewables are our future. In this context, it makes zero sense for the government to encourage high risk projects like Woodside’s reckless Browse gas proposal at Scott Reef.
“This report clearly shows that the WA Government faces a choice: sink or swim. They can either allow the gas industry to keep ripping off West Australians and continue propping up its decline, or choose the path that will deliver enormous benefits to the state and the world by becoming a leader in the rapidly expanding green economy.”
Tom Quinn, Managing Director of Springmount Advisory: “Western Australia prospers when it looks to the future and builds for future demand. Twenty years from now, what the world needs is green commodities made using WAs abundant renewable resources. Just like it did with iron ore in the 1950s and gas in the 1970s, WA should look to the future and build what the world will need, not sunsetting industries like gas that are already past their peak.”
-ENDS-
Media contact
Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
Lucy Keller on 0491 135 308 or lucy.keller@greenpeace.org
A report from Greenpeace Australia Pacific and Springmount Advisory reveals the untapped green economic opportunity for Western Australia in a declining Asian gas market, which also offers a genuine solution for decarbonisation in Asia.
Is Western Australia clinging to a fading gas industry while a thriving green future passes it by? As major Asian trading partners rapidly pivot away from volatile gas imports toward cheap solar and battery storage, this report exposes a high-stakes choice: risk becoming stranded in an oversupplied fossil fuel market, or harness WA’s unmatched sun and wind to lead the global clean energy transition.
Summary
From Gas to Green: Building Western Australia’s Future State reveals that Western Australia (WA) faces a critical juncture as falling Asian gas demand, geopolitical gas supply volatility and accelerating renewable energy deployment undermine the long-term economic viability of gas exports. By harnessing its world-class wind and solar resources, the report demonstrates that WA can execute an orderly phase-out of gas and pioneer a green commodity export economy that could generate $987 billion in economic value by 2060, create 24,000 ongoing jobs, and drive a 9.6% reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions.
Key Findings
- Gas demand is falling in Asia – WA can no longer rely on gas exports: Gas demand in core Asian markets fell in 2025 and is projected to continue to decline in 2026. Legislated energy plans in Japan, South Korea, and China now prioritise renewables and nuclear over gas.
- Asia is increasing renewables, importing gas just gets in the way: Evidence from markets like Thailand suggests that gas imports are increasingly crowding out cheaper renewable energy investments and battery storage rather than displacing coal, locking in more emissions over time.
- Green commodities offer a real solution to decarbonise Asia – this is a major win for WA: With world-class renewables, WA can lead Australia’s green commodity exports, which by 2060 could be worth almost a trillion dollars ($987 billion) and support a genuine 9.6% reduction in global emissions.
Recommendations to WA government
Recommendation 1: Plan an orderly gas phase-out aligned with a trading partner pivot plan
Implement a managed, orderly phase-out of gas exports aligned with trading partners’ decarbonisation pathways, rather than waiting for demand to collapse, by:
- Developing and implementing a staged phase-out of gas facilities aligned with feedstock supply expiry or typical end of facility lifespans.
- Committing to no new gas development for gas expansion, including Browse and Kimberley fields.
- Developing new, reciprocal trade relationships with existing gas trade partners, structured to progressively replace gas exports with green commodities – integrated with recommendation 2.
Recommendation 2: Develop an integrated green commodity export strategy, positioning WA as a global green iron manufacturing hub
Establish an integrated green commodity export strategy that immediately prioritises green iron development, positioning WA as a global green iron manufacturing hub, by:
- Committing to green commodity export targets to give industry and investors a clear demand signal.
- Prioritising green iron as the lead sector within the broader green commodity strategy, given WA’s iron ore endowment and first-mover potential.
Recommendation 3: Reject false solutions such as carbon dumping (CCS) and blue hydrogen
Reject carbon dumping (also described as carbon capture and storage, or CCS) and blue hydrogen as viable decarbonisation technologies, and prioritise green hydrogen and proven renewables for clean energy and fuel production by:
- Excluding blue hydrogen projects (and CCS-dependent projects) from all government support programs.
- Requiring existing hydrogen-based production (including ammonia, methanol, synthetic fuels) to have clear, near-term transition timelines to switch to green hydrogen production.
What you can do
Together, we can push for a prosperous green future.
You can help by:
- Sending an email to Environment Minister Murray Watt and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, calling on them to reject Browse.
- Sharing this story to help more Australians understand what’s at stake.
- Encouraging your friends and family to take action.
REPORT: “From Gas to Green” Building Western Australia’s Future State