U.S. President Donald Trump signed new agreements on rare earth and critical minerals with Japan and some Southeast Asian countries. The deals were finalized during his October 2025 Asia tour. They aim to lower reliance on China, which leads to global production of these key materials.
Rare earth elements are vital for many things, including electric vehicles (EVs), wind turbines, smartphones, and defense systems.
Global demand is rising fast as countries invest more in clean energy and digital technologies. These new partnerships are among the biggest efforts yet to build alternative supply chains for critical minerals.
Japan Deal: Strengthening Industrial and Energy Security
On October 28, 2025, Trump and Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi signed a key deal. This agreement aims to secure supplies of rare earths, lithium, cobalt, and nickel. The agreement expands past U.S.–Japan cooperation and includes new plans for joint investments, technology sharing, and transparent supply management.
Under the deal, both countries plan to:
- Build processing and refining plants for rare earths and battery minerals.
- Create strategic stockpiles and improve recycling systems.
- Support magnet production for EVs and defense industries.
- Explore nuclear fuel supply cooperation for next-generation reactors.
Japan still relies on China for about 65% of its rare earth imports, even after years of trying to diversify. The new deal aims to cut this dependence by sourcing from U.S. allies like Australia and Vietnam. Also, it will process materials locally or in partner nations.

The plan supports Japan’s economic security law, which pushes companies to find new material sources. Tokyo has set aside about ¥400 billion (US$2.7 billion) in funding to help domestic rare earth and battery material projects through 2027.
Southeast Asia: Expanding the Network Beyond China
Trump also announced new cooperation deals with Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, and Indonesia. These countries hold key mineral reserves and play important roles in regional trade.
Malaysia already operates one of the world’s few large rare-earth processing plants outside China. Vietnam has about 22 million tonnes of rare-earth reserves, second only to China. Indonesia and Thailand are major producers of nickel and tin, vital for EV batteries.
The Southeast Asia deals aim to:
- Bring in U.S. and Japanese investments for mining and refining projects.
- Train local workers and improve technical skills.
- Cut tariffs and export barriers that slow regional trade.
- Support cleaner and safer mining technologies under ESG standards.
Experts say these efforts could create an “Indo-Pacific mineral corridor.” This would link mines in Australia, processors in Southeast Asia, and manufacturers in Japan. This network would help reduce China’s control over the middle stages of the supply chain.
Why Rare Earths Matter: A Market Under Strain
Rare earths are a group of 17 metals used in many high-tech and clean energy products. The most valuable are neodymium, praseodymium, and dysprosium. These elements are essential for strong magnets used in EV motors, drones, and wind turbines.
China controls around 60–70% of mining and 85–90% of refining for rare earths. This gives Beijing major influence over countries that depend on these materials.

In 2024, the world produced about 350,000 tonnes of rare earth materials. The International Energy Agency (IEA) expects demand to reach over 500,000 tonnes by 2030. Market value could rise from $13 billion in 2024 to over $25 billion by 2030.
The U.S. currently makes about 12% of global rare earth ore, mostly from the Mountain Pass mine in California. However, much of it is still sent to China for processing. That dependence makes the new deals with Japan and Southeast Asia even more important.
Strategic and Economic Significance
For the United States, these deals mark a new stage in mineral diplomacy. Washington aims to safeguard clean energy and defense industries. It plans to do this by securing long-term supply agreements in Asia to help protect against disruptions.
Japan gains stronger support for its automotive, electronics, and robotics sectors. The country is restarting its rare earth recycling programs. These programs slowed down after Chinese export limits in 2010 made prices rise sharply.
For Southeast Asian nations, the agreements promise foreign investment, new jobs, and technology sharing. Malaysia and Vietnam might become key centers for refining and magnet production. This could create jobs for thousands of skilled workers.
The deals also back U.S. efforts to counter China’s export restrictions. In 2024, China limited exports of gallium, germanium, and certain rare earth magnets for “national security” reasons. Those actions disrupted supply chains and forced manufacturers in Japan, Europe, and the U.S. to look elsewhere for materials.
Rare Earth Market Outlook: Rising Demand, Tight Supply
Demand for rare earth magnets, especially neodymium-iron-boron (NdFeB) magnets, might triple by 2035. This rise is fueled by electric vehicles (EVs) and wind turbines. Each electric vehicle needs 1–2 kilograms of these magnets, while one offshore wind turbine can use up to 600 kilograms.

The price of neodymium oxide has climbed from about US$70 per kg in 2020 to more than US$120 per kg in 2025, showing strong pressure on supply. China’s quota limits and environmental checks have made availability uncertain.
The U.S., Japan, and the European Union are expanding recycling programs. They aim to recover rare earths from old motors and electronics. This helps reduce reliance on mined materials. Yet, recycling currently provides less than 5% of total global demand.
The Cost of Breaking Free from China
Building alternative supply chains is difficult. Several challenges include:
- High costs: Rare-earth plants are expensive and take years to build.
- Environmental risks: Poor waste management can pollute water and soil.
- Financing issues: Price swings make investors cautious.
- Geopolitical tensions: China may respond by lowering prices or tightening exports.
Experts say that without strong government support, new producers may not compete with China’s scale and low costs. Both the U.S. and Japan are studying tax credits and loan programs to help new projects move forward.
Forging a New Indo-Pacific Supply Chain
These rare earth agreements send a clear message: the U.S. and its allies want to reshape global supply chains around trusted partners. The next steps include choosing priority projects, securing funding, and coordinating trade rules.
If successful, these efforts could shift 15–20% of global refining capacity away from China by the early 2030s. That would mark the biggest industry shift in decades.
For the U.S., Japan, and Southeast Asia, the deals combine economic security, industrial growth, and clean energy goals. They also show how the energy transition and geopolitics are now closely linked.
In the long run, building diverse and stable rare earth supply chains could make clean energy industries stronger and less dependent on any single country.
- FURTHER READING: MP Materials (MP Stock): The Rare Earth Magnet Powering America’s Clean Energy and Climate Goals
The post Trump Inks Rare Earth Deals with Japan and Southeast Asia to Secure Supply Chains appeared first on Carbon Credits.
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.
Carbon Footprint
Carbon credit project stewardship: what happens after credit issuance
A carbon credit purchase is not a transaction that closes at issuance. The credit may be retired, the certificate filed, and the reporting box ticked. But on the ground, in the forest, in the field, and in the community, the work continues. It endures for years. In many cases, for decades.
![]()
-
Climate Change9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases9 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 Gases10 months ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测

