SWITCHED ON
The daily technology series nobody asked for but everyone needed
The New Mineral Map: Critical Minerals and the Geopolitics of the Energy Transition
China controls roughly ninety percent of global rare earth processing capacity, not because it has ninety percent of the world's rare earth deposits, but because it made the decades-long investment in refining infrastructure that everyone else declined to make. That decision is now one of the most consequential facts in global industrial policy.
Every technology this series has covered in the energy transition — batteries, wind turbines, solar panels, electric motors — depends on a specific and surprisingly short list of minerals that are geographically concentrated in ways that make oil's twentieth-century geopolitics look almost tidy by comparison. Understanding this map is essential to understanding whether the clean energy transition can actually happen on the timeline the climate requires.
Yesterday we went behind the curtain on AI red-teaming — the deliberate, adversarial process of trying to break AI models before release, the institutions like the UK AI Safety Institute and METR that have formalised this practice, the public jailbreak ecosystem as continuous crowdsourced stress testing, and the honest epistemic limits of evaluation science. Today we are returning to a thread that has run underneath multiple episodes across all three seasons — the electric vehicle batteries, the offshore wind turbines, the solar panels — and giving the mineral supply chains beneath all of them the dedicated treatment they deserve. Critical minerals: rare earths, cobalt, lithium, nickel, and the surprisingly short list of elements whose geographic concentration is reshaping global industrial policy and geopolitics in real time.
01 — What Actually Counts as Critical
"Critical minerals" is a specific policy term, not a loose descriptor — most governments maintain official critical minerals lists (the US Geological Survey's list currently includes over fifty minerals) defined by a combination of economic importance and supply risk, meaning a mineral qualifies not simply because it is valuable but because its supply is concentrated enough in specific countries or companies that a disruption would create serious economic or strategic vulnerability for the country maintaining the list.
The minerals most central to the clean energy transition specifically include lithium and cobalt (batteries, which we covered in the electric vehicles episode), rare earth elements including neodymium and dysprosium (permanent magnets used in wind turbine generators and electric motors), copper (used extensively throughout electrical infrastructure, from wiring to motors to grid transmission, at volumes that dwarf the other minerals on this list), nickel and manganese (battery cathodes), and gallium and germanium (semiconductors and solar photovoltaics). The International Energy Agency has projected that a clean energy transition consistent with global climate targets would require mineral demand to grow by four to six times current levels by 2040, a scale of demand growth that has no direct historical precedent for these specific materials.
The clean energy transition is frequently framed as a shift away from resource dependency — away from oil, toward renewable, infinitely available sunlight and wind. This framing is only half correct. It is a shift away from one resource dependency (fossil fuels, which are burned and consumed) toward a different resource dependency (minerals, which are extracted and embedded in durable infrastructure) — with its own distinct and, in several respects, even more geographically concentrated geopolitics.
02 — The China Processing Chokepoint
The single most important fact in critical minerals geopolitics, and the one most consistently underappreciated in general coverage, is that raw mineral extraction and mineral processing are two distinct stages with very different geographic concentration, and China's dominance is overwhelmingly concentrated in the processing stage rather than raw extraction. China controls approximately sixty to seventy percent of global rare earth mining but a considerably higher share — commonly estimated at eighty-five to ninety percent — of global rare earth processing and refining capacity, the far more capital- and expertise-intensive stage that converts raw ore into the purified materials actually usable in manufacturing.
This concentration is not primarily a function of geological luck — rare earth deposits exist in meaningful quantities in the US, Australia, Brazil, Vietnam, and elsewhere — but of a deliberate multi-decade Chinese industrial policy investment in processing infrastructure, environmental permitting that historically tolerated the significant pollution associated with rare earth processing (a genuine environmental cost that other countries were less willing to accept domestically), and accumulated technical expertise that is difficult to replicate quickly even with capital investment. Similar, if somewhat less extreme, processing concentration exists for cobalt (where China controls a majority of global refining capacity despite the Democratic Republic of Congo dominating raw extraction, which we covered in the electric vehicles episode) and for battery-grade lithium and graphite processing.
China's export restrictions on specific rare earth elements and processing technologies, implemented at escalating levels since 2023 in response to the broader technology trade tensions covered in our semiconductor geopolitics episode, have demonstrated the practical leverage this processing concentration provides — restrictions that have created genuine supply disruption concerns for defence, automotive, and clean energy manufacturers across the US, Europe, and allied countries, and have significantly accelerated Western government investment in alternative processing capacity.
03 — The DRC's Cobalt Dilemma, Revisited
We covered the Democratic Republic of Congo's dominant position in global cobalt supply, and the documented labour and environmental problems associated with much of its artisanal mining sector, in the electric vehicles episode. The geopolitical dimension of this dependency deserves further attention here: Chinese companies, through a combination of direct investment and long-term offtake agreements, control a substantial and growing majority of DRC cobalt mining production — a position built through sustained investment over roughly two decades while Western mining companies, in significant part, divested from DRC cobalt assets during periods of lower commodity prices and heightened concern about the sector's labour and governance problems.
This has created a strategic dependency that Western governments have become increasingly focused on addressing, through initiatives including the US Minerals Security Partnership (a coalition of allied countries coordinating on alternative supply chain development) and direct government-backed investment in alternative cobalt sources, including Indonesia's rapidly growing nickel and cobalt processing sector and renewed interest in cobalt recycling from end-of-life batteries. The tension between the genuine ethical concerns about DRC cobalt mining conditions and the strategic reality that DRC cobalt remains, for the foreseeable future, essential to global battery supply, has not been resolved by any single approach — it requires the kind of parallel investment in mining condition improvement, supply diversification, and recycling infrastructure that no single intervention delivers alone.
04 — The Western Response and Its Realistic Timeline
The policy response to critical mineral supply concentration across the US, EU, Australia, Japan, and other allied economies has accelerated substantially since 2022, following a pattern that will be familiar from our semiconductor geopolitics episode: recognition of a strategic vulnerability, followed by significant government investment and policy support aimed at building alternative domestic or allied-country supply chains, constrained by the reality that mining and processing infrastructure takes considerably longer to build than the political announcements suggest.
The US Inflation Reduction Act includes significant tax incentives tied to sourcing battery minerals from the US or countries with US free trade agreements, explicitly designed to reduce Chinese processing dependency over time. Australia, which already possesses substantial raw lithium and rare earth deposits, has invested heavily in building domestic processing capacity rather than continuing to export raw ore for processing elsewhere — Lynas Rare Earths operates the largest rare earth processing facility outside China, though its capacity remains a small fraction of Chinese processing volume. The MP Materials rare earth processing facility in California, restarted after the previous operator's 2015 bankruptcy (itself substantially caused by Chinese processing competition undercutting Western production economics), represents the most significant US domestic rare earth processing investment in decades, with continued expansion supported by both Department of Defense funding and private capital.
The realistic timeline for meaningfully reducing Chinese processing dominance, based on the actual pace of permitting, construction, and capacity ramp-up for these projects, extends well into the 2030s for most mineral categories — mining and, especially, processing infrastructure require years of permitting and construction even with strong political will and capital availability, and the technical expertise gap built up over China's decades of sustained investment cannot be closed purely through capital spending on a compressed timeline.
05 — Recycling as the Underrated Long-Term Answer
Battery and electronic waste recycling, recovering critical minerals from end-of-life products rather than relying solely on new extraction, represents the least geopolitically contested and potentially most durable long-term solution to critical mineral supply concerns, though it currently addresses only a modest fraction of total demand simply because the global stock of end-of-life EV batteries and electronics has not yet reached the scale that will exist once the current generation of EVs and renewable infrastructure reaches end of life over the coming fifteen to twenty years.
Companies including Redwood Materials (founded by former Tesla executive JB Straubel) and Li-Cycle have built substantial battery recycling operations in the US, achieving recovery rates for lithium, cobalt, nickel, and copper from spent batteries that exceed ninety percent for several key materials — demonstrating that the technical recycling capability exists and is commercially viable at current scale. The structural advantage recycling offers over new extraction is significant: it is not subject to the same geographic concentration constraints (a recycling facility can process batteries regardless of where the original minerals were mined), it avoids the environmental and labour concerns associated with new mining, and as the installed base of EVs and grid batteries grows over the coming decades, the available recyclable material stock grows correspondingly, creating a genuinely circular supply chain that becomes structurally more self-sufficient over time rather than remaining permanently dependent on new extraction. The transition to this more circular model will take decades to fully mature, but the trajectory is one of the more genuinely encouraging aspects of the critical minerals picture.
Tomorrow we are turning to a topic that connects the AI safety and physical infrastructure threads running through this season's opening episodes — the emerging field of AI-designed materials science, and how machine learning is compressing the timeline for discovering entirely new materials, from battery chemistries to superconductors. See you then.
Switched On is a daily technology series covering the ideas, systems, and arguments shaping the digital world. Opinionated. Witty. Occasionally wrong. Always worth the argument.
