Science

3° London Hi 9°C / Lo 1°C

Concern as China clamps down on rare earth exports

Neodymium is one of 17 metals crucial to green technology. There’s only one snag – China produces 97% of the world’s supply. And they’re not selling

By Cahal Milmo

A neodymium magnet, commonly used in motors, loudspeakers and other appliances. Neodymium is a rare earth element

ALAMY

A neodymium magnet, commonly used in motors, loudspeakers and other appliances. Neodymium is a rare earth element

Britain and other Western countries risk running out of supplies of certain highly sought-after rare metals that are vital to a host of green technologies, amid growing evidence that China, which has a monopoly on global production, is set to choke off exports of valuable compounds.

Failure to secure alternative long-term sources of rare earth elements (REEs) would affect the manufacturing and development of low-carbon technology, which relies on the unique properties of the 17 metals to mass-produce eco-friendly innovations such as wind turbines and low-energy lightbulbs.

China, whose mines account for 97 per cent of global supplies, is trying to ensure that all raw REE materials are processed within its borders. During the past seven years it has reduced by 40 per cent the amount of rare earths available for export.

Industry sources have told The Independent that China could halt shipments of at least two metals as early as next year, and that by 2012 it is likely to be producing only enough REE ore to satisfy its own booming domestic demand, creating a potential crisis as Western countries rush to find alternative supplies, and companies open new mines in locations from South Africa to Greenland to satisfy international demand.

Amid claims that Beijing is using its rare earths monopoly as a tool of foreign policy, the British Department of Business, Industry and Skills said it was "monitoring" the supply of REEs to ensure China was observing international trade rules.

Jack Lifton, an independent consultant and a world expert on REEs, said: "A real crunch is coming. In America, Britain and elsewhere we have not yet woken up to the fact that there is an urgent need to secure the supply of rare earths from sources outside China. China has gone from exporting 75 per cent of the raw ore it produces to shipping just 25 per cent, and it does not consider itself to be under any obligation to ensure supplies of rare earths to anyone but itself. There has been an effort in the West to set up new mines but these are five to 10 years away from significant production."

After decades in which they were considered little more than geological oddities, rare earths have recently become a boom industry after the invention of a succession of devices, including iPhones and X-ray machines, which rely on their specific properties.

Global demand has tripled from 40,000 tonnes to 120,000 tonnes over the past 10 years, during which time China has steadily cut annual exports from 48,500 tonnes to 31,310 tonnes.

Worldwide, the industries reliant on REEs, which produce anything from fibre-optic cables to missile guidance systems, are estimated to be worth £3 trillion, or 5 per cent of global GDP.

Beijing announced last month that it was setting exports at 35,000 tonnes for each of the next six years, barely enough to satisfy demand in Japan. From this year, Toyota alone will produce annually one million of its hybrid Prius cars, each of which contains 16kg of rare earths. By 2014, global demand for rare earths is predicted to reach 200,000 tonnes a year as the green revolution takes hold.

Nearly all of China's supply of rare earths comes from a single mine near the city of Baotou, in Inner Mongolia. The remainder comes from small and sometimes illegal mines in the south of the country, leading to devastating pollution from the poisonous and sometimes radioactive ores.

Environmentalists argue that this, coupled with widespread criticism of China's stance during the Copenhagen climate summit, adds to the need for a "plurality" of rare earth resources. One campaigner said: "There are legitimate questions over Beijing's control of these resources. Copenhagen showed they are not above putting national interest ahead of global efforts to curtail global warming."

Once extracted and refined, the rare earth metals can be put to a dizzying range of hi-tech uses. Neodymium, one of the most common rare earths, is a key part of neodymium-iron-boron magnets used in hyper-efficient motors and generators. Around two tonnes of neodymium are needed for each wind turbine. Lanthanum, another REE, is a major ingredient for hybrid car batteries (each Prius uses up to 15kg), while terbium is vital for low-energy light bulbs and cerium is used in catalytic converters.

In October, an internal report by China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology disclosed proposals to ban the export of five rare earths and restrict supplies of the remaining metals. Beijing strenuously denied that the document was an accurate reflection of its strategy, saying it had no desire to reduce trade in rare earths. But The Independent understands that the level of demand in China means that supplies of at least two crucial REEs – terbium and dysprosium – are likely to be curtailed by as early as next year.

Dr Ian Higgins, general manager of Birkenhead-based Less Common Metals, which specialises in rare earth products, said: "There is a threat that in the next 12 to 18 months, there might be some quite severe shortages of these rare earths. That is certainly going to impact those hi-tech green industries outside China."

Both Western countries and China are already dashing to secure new sources of rare earths. Last year, Australian regulators imposed restrictions on the purchase of one of the country's richest rare earth mines, causing a Chinese company to walk away from a £400m deal to buy its operator.

European and North American companies are meanwhile racing to open or re-open mines in Canada, South Africa and Greenland amid calls in the US for government-backed loans to secure supplies of some REEs which are used in the guidance systems of missiles and laser-guided munitions. Toyota has effectively bought its own rare earth mine in Vietnam by signing an exclusive supply deal.

The Department for Business, Industry and Skills acknowledged the growing concern in Western capitals. A spokesman said: "We are monitoring the situation, particularly with regard to World Trade Organisation rules. We are working with UK industry to assess the long-term demand for strategically important resources, including rare earth elements."

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Page 1 of 3
<<[1] [2] [3] >>
Perhaps
[info]ehross wrote:
Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 12:11 am (UTC)
The Chinese are pissed off with the posturing of the western world . I know that is the course I would take.
Re: Perhaps
[info]dixiedean99 wrote:
Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 02:25 am (UTC)
"The Chinese are pissed off with the posturing of the western world . I know that is the course I would take."

Isn't it as likely that it's one reason why the Chinese are stalling over an agreement on limiting fossil fuels?

If they can establish a comparative (or even asolute) advantage in renewable technologies, they can choke western economies for generations.

China is a country that would (I did say would) be extraordinarily hard hit by a rise in global temperatures (a massive population coupled with centuries of deforestation, salination and soil erosion if predictions are correct would be devastating).

In the medium to long term its attitude just didn't make sense

Peace & love
Re: Perhaps - [info]someofusknow - Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 11:14 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Perhaps - [info]dixiedean99 - Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 01:24 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Perhaps - [info]someofusknow - Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 07:16 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Perhaps - [info]ehross - Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 03:46 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Perhaps - [info]robertclondon - Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 10:16 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Perhaps - [info]rob_portugal - Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 11:11 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Perhaps - [info]robertclondon - Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 12:06 pm (UTC) Expand
It's greener, not green.
[info]pinhut wrote:
Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 12:14 am (UTC)
"From this year, Toyota alone will produce annually one million of its hybrid Prius cars, each of which contains 16kg of rare earths. By 2014, global demand for rare earths is predicted to reach 200,000 tonnes a year as the green revolution takes hold."

The thing is, what is 'green' about this? It's less dirty, it's not green. The answer is less production, period. Also, what sort of green economy is sustainable using an already scarce resource?

Answers on a postcard.
Re: It's greener, not green.
[info]kodak321 wrote:
Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 01:22 am (UTC)
Pin, given you most probably live a comfortable middle class 'lifestyle' and enjoy luxuries impoverished Chinese could only dream of (difficult when you don't have access to a dream??), send your answers on a postcard to the poor and impoverished of this world. You're that type of guy......
Re: It's greener, not green. - [info]pinhut - Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 03:24 am (UTC) Expand
Re: It's greener, not green. - [info]sidsnot - Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 07:58 am (UTC) Expand
Re: It's greener, not green. - [info]essexpieboy - Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 09:26 am (UTC) Expand
Re: It's greener, not green. - [info]dixiedean99 - Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 03:37 am (UTC) Expand
Re: It's greener, not green. - [info]kodak321 - Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 02:49 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: It's greener, not green. - [info]rabbit63 - Sunday, 3 January 2010 at 02:28 am (UTC) Expand
REEs
[info]keymoosaabee wrote:
Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 01:03 am (UTC)
No surprise here! Simple case of supply and demand. The Chinese realise they have a valuable resource, so they severely limit its supply and the price goes stratospheric. They saw the Arabs screw us on oil and they are about to do the same.
Get used to it, because those resources linked to being 'green' all seem to be in short supply. So as long as our Government seem intent on bankrupting us on the altar of going green, we may as well just hand over our wallets and purses now.
That laughing you hear, is the rest of the World!
Re: REEs
[info]midwinter1947 wrote:
Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 04:31 pm (UTC)
Yes - supply AND demand. The Chinese economy needs these resources to supply the demand often from the West for consumer goods. Without that demand things would be different. So, we have to ask ourselves, 'Have we exported our manufacturing to China for short-term reasons and is this really a problem of our making?' The answer is probably, 'Yes'. A second set of more profound questions also arise such as, 'Do we want to or need to continue with this process?' 'Are the toys we import from China actually necessary?' 'Are many of them actually worth buying?' 'Does a lack of so-called luxuries make you unhappy?' ETC.

New Year is the traditional time for new resolutions...
...so maybe we should resolve to....(?)

Hell yeah! A resource war!
[info]yosemitejoe wrote:
Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 01:06 am (UTC)
The need for a "plurality" of rare earth resources? Uh...oh!

"There are legitimate questions over Beijing's control of these resources. Copenhagen showed they are not above putting national interest ahead of global efforts to curtail global warming."

I smell the strong wind of liberal interventionism, cruise missile diplomacy and limited nuclear exchanges. All in the name of Gaia.




Shameless again!
[info]busashu wrote:
Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 01:33 am (UTC)
This raw material can be widely usef for military purpose, rather than protecting the environment.
How shameless this report is.
Does britons tend to lie?
Is any country obligated to sell its anything? Then, why not send me the London Bridge? Are your country so poor?
Re: Shameless again!
[info]tallbendyman wrote:
Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 02:27 pm (UTC)
Busashu,

Too late for London Bridge I am afraid. It was flogged off years ago, and is somewhere in Arizona

http://images.realtravel.com/media/lg/af/0d/af0dbf5a85810bc00474e76dbd4421d4.jpg

Not much cause to worry
[info]evan_millner wrote:
Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 01:36 am (UTC)
As methods are now being developed to extract there metals cheaply and effectively from industrial waste, China will soon lose its hegemony over this resource.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091215101708.htm
Re: Not much cause to worry
[info]jaded63 wrote:
Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 07:31 pm (UTC)

Very interesting link, thanks.
Re: Not much cause to worry - [info]richard_hode - Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 11:17 pm (UTC) Expand
[info]stayahead wrote:
Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 01:55 am (UTC)

Why not bomb them - Iraq style? They don't even have democracy, human rights and free speech etc. Ooh and they even have WMDs, this time not from some obscure taxi driver but a certainty. But wait, it is China, not some Muslim or poor country. No one can mess up with them.
[info]suiggy wrote:
Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 06:50 pm (UTC)
Not a smart move, engaging in a war with China would send all nations down the path of war, as different countries would be forced to take sides. China has advanced military technology as well. And where they lack compared to Western countries in this regard, they make up for in sheer numbers. They have the world's largest active military at 2.5 million personnel, with an additional 7 million in reserves. And they have over 600 million individuals fit for military service in the event of conscription.

No sane politician or military strategist would dare provoke the Chinese.
(no subject) - [info]rabbit63 - Sunday, 3 January 2010 at 02:35 am (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]corporatelies - Sunday, 3 January 2010 at 12:09 am (UTC) Expand
Independent is just ridiculous
[info]kw9751 wrote:
Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 03:34 am (UTC)
This is another example of ridiculous reporting. The Chinese made the investment to mine the rare metals, why should they sell to anyone? There is no evidence that rare metals don't exist in other countries, they just didn't bother to invest to mine it.
Re: Independent is just ridiculous
[info]dixiedean99 wrote:
Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 03:51 am (UTC)
I can't disagree K - if Western Civilisation is to be saved (and its a big if - and to be honest I'm not convinced its the model humanity should be remembered by. Hey, I'm talking in the long-term) then trying to steal other countries' resources won't cut the mustard.

if we are to save ourselves, it will be by technology - dare I say "Green" Biofuels engineered from algae, wave power (anybody who has ever upchucked on the Liverpool-Dublin ferry knows the power of the oceans) and (buries head in shame) small-scale nuclear installations (what we do with the waste in a closed ecosystem doesn't bear thinking about). Err, maybe skip that one.

Civilisations die, and we are (seriously) on our last warning.

Peace & love
Re: Don't be a quitter! - [info]leon_b09 - Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 07:41 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Don't be a quitter! - [info]dixiedean99 - Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 01:27 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Don't be a quitter! - [info]rabbit63 - Sunday, 3 January 2010 at 02:47 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Independent is just ridiculous - [info]gondorplace - Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 04:55 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Independent is just ridiculous - [info]kw9751 - Sunday, 3 January 2010 at 08:23 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Independent is just ridiculous - [info]timurlenk1 - Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 11:08 pm (UTC) Expand
Recycle the turbines
[info]thomasgoodey wrote:
Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 03:41 am (UTC)
"Around two tonnes of neodymium are needed for each wind turbine." Great - we know where we can get the neodymium we need then - just tear down those useless things!
Recycle the turbines
[info]geiseric wrote:
Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 09:34 am (UTC)
Why do we *need* 2 tonnes of neodymium to make a wind turbine? It is a windmill with a generator inside.
Re: Recycle the turbines - [info]thomasgoodey - Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 09:48 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Recycle the turbines - [info]geiseric - Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 04:04 pm (UTC) Expand
Another source of neodymium
[info]kfsorensen wrote:
Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 04:05 am (UTC)
Neodymium is one of the most common byproducts of nuclear fission. The range of neodymium isotopes formed in fission also reach nuclear stability rather quickly, with the longest taking only a few months to achieve stability. Thus, the neodymium in misnamed "nuclear waste" is quite stable and nonradioactive. Might be an interesting place to look for more.
Re: Another source of neodymium
[info]headsnoface wrote:
Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 10:16 am (UTC)
Maybe we could ask Iran for some.
The only one
[info]ehross wrote:
Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 04:07 am (UTC)
China is the only country that seems to understand the climate issue.
The issue is overpopulation, what other country has the intelligence/balls to deal with it?, all the rest is window dressing.
Re: The only one
[info]dixiedean99 wrote:
Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 01:30 pm (UTC)
I don't think that's strictly true.

Countries need to be able to feed there own population. Many third world countries with ample food to feed their populations (Ethiopia?).

Unfortunately for one reason and another the people don't have access to it

Peace & love
Does the public know anything about cassiterite yet?
[info]gulliver055 wrote:
Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 04:50 am (UTC)
'Toyota has effectively bought its own rare earth mine in Vietnam by signing an exclusive supply deal.'

From the corner of the globe that gave the Congo Leopold and Mobutu, and gave Vietnam Calley and The gap, comes an editor's honourably anti-protectionist, pro-'hidden hand' exhortation to China to 'play fair'.

This article is - I'll be generous - misconceived on every conceivable level.
misconceived..
[info]gulliver055 wrote:
Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 05:00 am (UTC)
Like posting on the wrong thread. This comment was meant for the editor's thread, not Milmo's. Apologies to the article writer.
Rare earths today, rare oil tomorrow, rare civilisation sometime later.
[info]jockmoron wrote:
Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 06:12 am (UTC)
The Club of Rome had something to say about all this over thirty years ago. Derided, scorned, and dismissed by almost every economist, politician and big-business tycoon over these years, the Club's predictions are now proving just about spot-on. As someone else posting commented, overuse or unsustainable use of any resource is not "Green". We are really going to think just that bit more deeply about the nature of relationship with each other, and the planet that sustains us. So far though, not much sign of deep thinking.
Private Indy reporting for China-bashing detail
[info]find_empire wrote:
Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 06:43 am (UTC)
The voice of nulab and Uncle Sam tells us that "Copenhagen showed they are not above putting national interest ahead of global efforts to curtail global warming." Oh really? When did getting shafted by Obama and the EU qualify as an "effort to curtail global warming?" Obama was trying to wiggle out of any mandatory emissions cap and to let developing countries pick up the tab for the climate disaster that his country created with over a century of devil-may-care pollution and waste. The EU was trying to monopolize the emissions trading market just like the Yanks and Brits monopolized the financial and commodity markets. Never in a thousand years would the US ratify Copenhagen had a real treaty been signed there, seeing how it hasn't even ratified Kyoto and how its black propagandists cooked up the climategate hoax - a storm in a teacup over a few measly out-of-context quotes misinterpreted by undereducated science illiterates - just in time to turn GW-denying, creationist Yanks and their politicians even more fanatically anti-science before Copenhagen.

China has had mandatory energy-efficiency targets for five years already. China is investing massively in renewables and energy efficiency. China is the world's biggest wind turbine producer. So the Indy and all the rest of the western China-bashing wurlitzer media can stuff it up their pieholes, China doesn't give a damn about your lies. Besides, at the rate your Crash Gordon and Banker Obama are emptying the public till into the pockets of high-finance scammers, you will all be working for a Woo or Yi or Lee before long.
[info]rupertmja wrote:
Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 07:20 am (UTC)
As a student of Asian Studies I predicted this a long time ago then forgot about it. China has been a sleeping tiger and it is slowly waking up. Watch out world. China is doing this for two reasons: 1 It needs its own resources for its development; 2 It does not wish to flex its muscles to show the West anything - it is far more careful than that - but one thing is for sure, China will do what it needs to do without fanfare and is getting braver by the say as the US dollar dies a slow death. This is not a war that has suddenly started ... it has been one for awhile. This will be Asia's century. Time to pay tribute to China ... again.
It's China's rare earth and they want to keep it, so what's the problem?
[info]whostoletyke wrote:
Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 08:01 am (UTC)
Why do we without the REEs assume that China *has* to sell it to us? It's theirs to do with what they will - or shall we invade with a double dose of shock and awe?
Re: It's China's rare earth and they want to keep it, so what's the problem?
[info]thomasgoodey wrote:
Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 09:53 am (UTC)
The division of the world up into sovereign nations is not as rigid as that. It is a convention of society which we find useful, not a rigid rule imposed by a just God! If there is a natural resource of great importance which, the luck of the draw has it, is to be dug up largely within the territory of only one nation, NO, they cannot sit on it like dogs-in-the-manger and refuse to allow the rest of the world to have any. They can charge a reasonable price for it - whatever that means - but they cannot simply monopolize it. To do so would be to stifle progress, and would be a legitimate cause for just war.
Rare earths
[info]corbycom wrote:
Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 08:21 am (UTC)
Another example of green politics backfiring.

the solution is simple: do not bother with hybrid cars the battery technology negates any green credentials.

As to light bulbs - similarly go back tot eh old tried and tested technology. "Long life" bulbs are nothing of a sort.
The power savings from switching off would outweigh savings from "green bulbs". Look at any major city nearly all the buildings leave the lights on all night, especially government ones. Also stop blancket lighting - when I was at university I had a desk light, and low level lighting in the room.
Capitalism
[info]vencejo13 wrote:
Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 09:14 am (UTC)
Why does the western world have a problem with this?

Its just pure, basic, supply and demand capitalism.
Re: Capitalism - [info]ianpurdie - Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 04:12 pm (UTC) Expand
[info]ginstick wrote:
Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 09:04 am (UTC)
"...fears that China will use it's near monopoly on rare metals as a tool of policy"

Oh how we have this one coming to us.
Because we've never done that to anyone have we?

We are due for a couple of centuries of pent up frustration being taken out on us.
Of course, it will hurt the ordinary people (that weren't responsible for that policy) and won't really hurt those who were. Never-the-less - we have ridden rough shod over the greater part of the world for decades. We denied them technology. We denied them fair markets. We kept them poor and broken in the name of cheap resources and profit. We patronised them in international meetings. We excluded them from debate and decision.
And they are angry, rightly so. And they sense our current weakness and vulnerability and have uncharitable thoughts in mind.
And we probably deserve it all.
Did I miss something here?
[info]shegelu wrote:
Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 09:42 am (UTC)
Isn't the green revolution about using less resources? From this article, it sounds like it's all about switching from one rare resource (oil) to even rarer resources.

I am no cheerleader for the Chinese government, who seem to behave like sulky dictators in foreign policy, but exactly why should they feel obliged to supply the rest of the world with a rare resource if they need it themselves?
The Chinese culture.
[info]cathinscotland wrote:
Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 09:46 am (UTC)
I am not the least bit surprised by this article. All the Chinese want, is respect and to have their place in the political arena where they deserve to be. They are not up for having people making them 'lose face' by telling them they should be doing this, or doing that and I totally agree with them, as I don't like having it done to me, either.
There will be a lot more things that will make us in the West, realise that the way we handle China needs some serious thinking. I read an article once, that said that the Chinese had a 'cure' for malaria for 30 years before the West found out about it, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they do the same thing with cancer. If they find the cure, we'll be the last to hear about it. It's not that they are unwilling, it's the fact that as they say in Glasgow 'they have been smarted', ie. we have basically annoyed the hell out of them, so as they are in the huff, we can go swing for it!
If I had to fight, the way the Chinese do, to have respect, I don't think I'd be that willing to help thy neighbour. As for their human rights issues, to them, if someone is dead, why waste that person's organs, as they are of use to someone else. I know, we don't it's right or ethical, but they waste nothing out there, and as my brother (a chef) used to say 'If it's got four legs and it's not a table, they'll eat it'. It is just their way of doing things, to survive, so why not give them a bit of the respect we give each other over here, or we, my friends, are going to pay dear.
Re: The Chinese culture.
[info]ignelius wrote:
Sunday, 3 January 2010 at 07:33 am (UTC)
Being efficient at recycling human organs and being willing to eat anything that moves is not justification for the abuse of human rights.
Tibetans, political dissidents and Falun Dafa practitioners are regularly imprisoned and tortured in China. I have spoken to many Tibetans who were severely tortured in Chinese prisons and seen their scars.

This is not to imply that Western governments respect the concept of universal human rights at all times. Most Western governments (and by extension, us?) are implicit in the exploitation and coercion of the world's poor and powerless for the sake of oil, timber, metals and power - in Iraq, Palestine, Papua, the Congo, NW Ireland, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Aboriginal Australia, the Amazon, Nigeria, etc etc etc etc etc.

What's different in the West is that we have the ability (somewhat) to express our opposition to this if we feel so inclined.
Re: The Chinese culture. - [info]chineseinuk - Sunday, 3 January 2010 at 12:16 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: The Chinese culture. - [info]kenbj - Monday, 4 January 2010 at 05:49 pm (UTC) Expand
REE
[info]amvet wrote:
Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 10:04 am (UTC)
Most of the Chinese production of REE comes from one mine. Can anyone cut the political crap and find out the current reserves of the mine? Perhaps the limiting factor is supply, not the evil Chinese cheating the honest "west".
Re: REE
[info]kenbj wrote:
Monday, 4 January 2010 at 05:50 pm (UTC)
Good point. Well said.
Overview needed
[info]barncactus wrote:
Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 10:33 am (UTC)
As usual, the 'green' lobby is not taking the complete view. There are complex interactions in life and if you cut pollution in one way you tend to create other problems in the use of rare materials, oil etc.
All this is a symptom of one key problem - there are now rather a lot of people, the wealthy among whom are pursuing scarce materials in a relentless drive to maintain or even further improve their living standards. The result will be a big problem for everyone, especially as our social policies are predicated on endless growth. Range Rovers for everyone? I think not.
[info]kingofmumu wrote:
Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 11:07 am (UTC)
Why should China be under any obligation to supply the US or the UK with anything. Individuals only sell surplus crops to obtain shortages. Maybe China is politely putting its middle finger up to the US and UK. I hope it is after the treatment they have endured throughout history. Well done China.
Thanks
[info]hugh1840 wrote:
Monday, 4 January 2010 at 11:48 am (UTC)
your comment is excellent !!
whatever they do they are damned
[info]lee_ji_me wrote:
Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 11:18 am (UTC)
have you ever thought that as they are the biggest polluters on the planet due to the fact that they are the most advanced technologically and economically they are taking the responsibility of keeping this resource for themselves and why shouldn't they? Let's face it, put the clock back 200 years and colonial Britain would have been invading with its armies for this metal by now. USA would love to dump a few atomic bombs on China and have control but now, times have moved onward and China's army would bring Britain to its feet in a second and nuclear war is impossible thank goodness. You have to just accept that China rules the world. Sorry about that.
Re: whatever they do they are damned
[info]kingofmumu wrote:
Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 02:57 pm (UTC)
"Well posted"
Re: whatever they do they are damned - [info]gondorplace - Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 04:52 pm (UTC) Expand
Page 1 of 3
<<[1] [2] [3] >>

Most popular