The United States has released an updated list of critical minerals, highlighting the growing importance of metals that support clean energy, technology, and national security. This new list from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Department of the Interior now has 51 minerals.
The draft recommends adding six minerals—potash, silicon, copper, silver, rhenium, and lead, listed in order of risk—to the U.S. Critical Minerals List, while removing two minerals, arsenic and tellurium.
Silver and copper are included for the first time. The update shows how crucial these resources are for America’s industrial and clean energy plans. Both metals are in high demand for renewable energy systems, electric vehicles, and advanced electronics.
The U.S. wants to expand the list to boost supply security, cut down on imports, and get ready for global competition over these resources.
Why the U.S. Updates Its Critical Minerals List
Critical minerals are defined as non-fuel minerals that are vital to the U.S. economy and security but are at risk of supply disruptions. The U.S. first released a formal list in 2018, and it has been updated several times as global demand and geopolitical risks shift.
The 2025 update considers several factors, including:
- Economic importance: Minerals are essential for industries like defense, energy, and technology.
- Supply chain risks: The potential for shortages due to import dependence or geopolitical tensions.
- Future demand: Projected growth in renewable energy and electric vehicle markets.
Silver and copper were added because new data show their strategic role in clean energy. Both metals are widely available globally, but demand is increasing so quickly that supply risks are now more relevant.
This update highlights how the U.S. is adjusting its policies to keep pace with the global race for minerals.
Silver: A Rising Star in the Energy Transition
Silver’s addition to the list is significant. Traditionally known as a precious metal, silver is also one of the most effective conductors of electricity. This property makes it essential for solar panels, batteries, and electronics.
- Solar panels: Silver paste is used in photovoltaic cells to conduct electricity. Each panel requires 15–20 grams of silver, and global solar demand is expected to drive record use.
- Electronics: From smartphones to electric vehicles, silver is a critical component in circuit boards and electrical connections.
- Medical uses: Silver’s antimicrobial properties also make it valuable for healthcare applications.
According to the Silver Institute, solar energy alone could account for nearly half of silver’s industrial demand by 2030. However, global mine supply has been relatively flat, creating concerns about shortages.
By adding silver to the list, U.S. policymakers recognize the growing risk of relying too heavily on foreign sources. While the U.S. produces some silver, much of the supply comes from countries like Mexico, Peru, and China. This creates potential vulnerabilities as clean energy deployment accelerates.
Copper: The Backbone of Electrification
Copper is another critical addition to the 2025 list. Known as the “metal of electrification,” copper is vital for power grids, renewable energy, electric vehicles, and data centers.
- Electric vehicles (EVs): EVs require up to four times more copper than gasoline-powered cars, mainly for batteries and wiring.
- Power grids: Copper is a key material in transmission lines, transformers, and substations. Expanding renewable energy capacity depends on copper-intensive infrastructure.
- Clean energy: Wind turbines and solar farms use large amounts of copper in their electrical systems.
Global demand for copper is projected to double by 2035, according to industry forecasts. Yet, mining capacity has struggled to keep pace. Large new projects take years to develop, and permitting challenges in the U.S. have slowed growth.
The U.S. currently imports a significant share of its copper, with major suppliers including Chile and Canada. The government calls copper a critical mineral. This signals a plan to boost domestic production and recycling. The goal is to reduce reliance on imports.
Broader Implications of the Critical Minerals List
The new list does more than identify resources; it also influences U.S. policy and investment. Minerals on the list qualify for government programs that support domestic exploration, mining, and processing. This can include federal funding, streamlined permitting, and public-private partnerships.
For companies, being linked to critical minerals often boosts investor interest. It signals long-term demand and potential access to U.S. government support. U.S. mining firms looking for silver and copper deposits could find more financing options.
The updated list also affects international trade. By focusing on these resources, the U.S. can form new partnerships with allies that have rich mineral reserves. This move also helps cut down reliance on countries with high supply risks.
Adding silver and copper to the critical minerals list is more than just a policy shift. It impacts markets, industries, and climate goals directly. Knowing how these metals influence clean energy and tech development shows why the update is important.
The Global Race for Silver and Copper
The U.S. is not alone in its push to secure mineral supplies. The European Union, Japan, and China are updating their plans. They want to secure steady access to silver, copper, and other key resources.
- China: A dominant player in mineral refining and processing, especially for copper and rare earths. By 2025, China is set to produce 57% of the world’s refined copper. Its output is expected to rise by 7.5% to 12% each year, despite global copper shortages. China also leads in copper smelting and refining. Since 2019, it has added over 97% of the global capacity.
- Europe: The region recycles around 37% of the world’s silver. This is much higher than its primary silver production, which is only about 7%. Most of that production comes from Poland and Sweden. In Europe, up to 90% of copper in buildings and infrastructure is recycled. This highlights the importance of reuse and circular economy initiatives.
- Global supply: Silver and copper mining is concentrated in a few countries, such as China, Peru, Chile, and the DRC, raising concerns about bottlenecks.
As countries accelerate clean energy goals, competition for these metals is expected to grow. Some analysts warn of a potential supply gap in copper as early as 2030 if new projects do not come online quickly enough.
Mining, Recycling, and the Green Dilemma
While expanding mining is a logical solution to supply risks, it comes with challenges. Mining projects often raise environmental and social concerns, including water use, land disturbance, and impacts on local communities.
In the U.S., new projects frequently face delays due to permitting and opposition. Balancing the need for secure supply with environmental protections will remain a key challenge. Recycling may help close the gap, but new production will still be required.
The recognition of silver and copper as critical minerals reflects these trade-offs. Policymakers see the environmental challenges. They believe that securing supply is key to economic and climate goals.
Looking Ahead: U.S. Strategy for a Mineral-Driven Future
The updated critical minerals list reveals how the U.S. is getting ready for a future focused on clean energy, electrification, and digital technologies. Silver and copper are now seen not only as industrial metals but as pillars of energy security.
Moving forward, the U.S. will likely expand efforts to:
- Support domestic mining and refining of silver and copper.
- Increase recycling and circular economy solutions.
- Build alliances with mineral-rich countries.
- Balance environmental concerns with supply needs.
By naming silver and copper as critical, the U.S. is aligning its resource strategy with long-term economic and climate goals. The next decade will determine whether the country can secure enough of these essential metals to stay competitive in the global energy transition.
- FURTHER READING: U.S. DOE Reveals $1B Funding to Boost Critical Minerals Supply Chain
The post U.S. Releases New Draft Critical Minerals List: Silver and Copper Join the Clean Energy Race appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Most businesses that decide to act on their net-zero targets reach the same point of friction. Buying carbon credits has meant tracking down brokers, sitting through sales calls, and requesting a quote just to learn a price, sometimes with limited proof of what you are buying.
The earnings calls that quietly reframed climate from sustainability question to operating risk.
Three earnings calls in the last 18 months tell the story without any help from a press release.
Hershey, May 2024: cocoa price exposure compresses margin, and the company attributes part of the cost shock to West African weather. Olam, July 2024: coffee climate exposure quantified in the annual report. JBS, January 2025: supply chain climate disclosures expanded materially in response to investor pressure and regulatory expectation. None of these companies issued the announcement as climate news. They issued it as financial news. The climate-linked supply chain risk did not arrive with a sustainability framing; it arrived as a P&L line.
You are probably reading this article because you suspect the same thing is happening to your business. This piece walks through what is showing up on which earnings calls, how procurement and finance leaders are quantifying the exposure, and what serious corporates are doing about it before the regulator asks.
Where climate risk has already appeared in earnings
The pattern is consistent across resource-intensive sectors. A weather event compresses supply, the price spikes, the cost flows through the income statement, and the analyst on the call asks whether the event is anomalous or structural. Increasingly, the honest answer is the second one.
Cocoa is the cleanest example. The 2023 to 2024 West African harvest fell sharply on the back of erratic rainfall and disease. Cocoa futures more than tripled. Companies with concentrated West African sourcing absorbed the cost; companies with diversified sourcing absorbed less. The exposure was not climate as ESG topic. It was climate as cost of goods.
Coffee follows the same pattern. Brazilian and Vietnamese harvests have moved on weather more sharply across the last several seasons. Roasters with long-tenor supplier relationships and origin diversification have managed the volatility; roasters with spot-market exposure have not. Wheat, sugar, palm oil, beef: the same dynamic in different commodities, a pattern the IPCC AR6 Working Group II report projects will intensify across agricultural systems through mid-century.
What this means: climate risk is no longer a footnote in the 10-K. It is a line item the CFO has to explain on the call.
The three commodity exposures that hit margin first
For most companies with material Scope 3 exposure, three exposures dominate the near-term P&L risk.
- Concentrated single-origin sourcing in a climate-vulnerable region. If your tier-one supply for any material commodity sits in one geography, you have a concentration risk that climate amplifies. Diversification across origins is the obvious hedge, but it takes years to build and requires relationships you cannot acquire by tender.
- Supplier financial fragility under climate stress. Smallholder farmers, who supply a large share of the global cocoa, coffee, and palm oil market, do not carry the balance sheets to absorb yield shocks. When yields collapse, they exit. When they exit, your supply base shrinks, and the surviving suppliers raise prices. The risk is structural, not cyclical.
- Logistics and storage exposure to extreme weather. Hurricane disruptions to Gulf shipping, drought-driven Panama Canal restrictions, flooding in European inland waterways: each of these has moved input costs in the last three years, a pattern documented in Munich Re’s natural catastrophe data. The exposure shows up as a one-quarter event in the financial press but accumulates over time on the cost line.
TCFD and ISSB disclosure changes
The disclosure architecture has now caught up with the risk. The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, whose recommendations are now embedded in the ISSB’s IFRS S2 climate standard, requires companies to disclose climate-related risks across physical and transition categories, with quantification where possible.
For physical risk specifically (the climate-linked supply chain risk you are reading about), the disclosure must address both acute exposures (extreme weather events) and chronic exposures (gradual changes in temperature, precipitation, and growing seasons). The disclosure must address the time horizon over which the risk is material, the parts of the value chain exposed, and the financial impact under different scenarios.
The CSRD imposes similar requirements under European law, with double materiality (both financial and impact materiality) embedded in the assessment. The practical effect: your auditors and your investor relations team now need a defensible answer to the climate-linked supply chain risk question, and the answer needs to be quantified.
What procurement and finance can do now
Three actions matter near-term.
Map your exposure. Most companies do not have a clear view of which tier-one and tier-two suppliers sit in which climate-vulnerable geographies. Without the map, you cannot quantify the risk, and without the quantification, you cannot disclose it credibly. The map is the foundation, and World Resources Institute climate risk research provides useful public tooling to start.
Diversify and deepen, in that order. Diversification across origins reduces concentration risk, but the deeper move is to invest in the resilience of the suppliers you already have. Regenerative practices, agroforestry, soil health interventions: these reduce yield volatility under climate stress and protect your input cost trajectory.
Embed the climate spend inside procurement, not outside it. Treating climate risk as a sustainability cost line subordinates it to the ESG budget. Treating it as a procurement and resilience investment puts it in the budget that matters, which is the cost-of-goods budget that the CFO defends quarterly.
Nature-based supply chain investments are the asset class designed for exactly this purpose. They sit inside the value chain, they reduce climate-linked supply risk, they generate verifiable Scope 3 reductions, and they produce the documentation an auditor and a regulator can both test.
If you are quantifying climate-linked supply chain risk in advance of the next earnings cycle or the next disclosure period, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you map your exposure and structure a Dual-Value Model response that addresses reduction, resilience, and disclosure-readiness in a single program. Schedule a consultation.
More and more small and medium-sized businesses are hearing the same question from their larger customers: What is your carbon footprint? That question now travels down entire supply chains, and it arrives next to tender requirements, certification criteria, and rising customer expectations.
Want a simpler way to buy carbon credits? Discover our carbon marketplace
From Belém to Antalya – gains, gaps and challenges for a new Just Transition Mechanism
‘Bloody dangerous territory’: UN report an indictment of govt climate inaction
-
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”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy10 months 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
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits