China Is Said to Halt Exports to U.S. of Some Key Minerals | Hacker News Reader

China Is Said to Halt Exports to U.S. of Some Key Minerals

nytimes.com

52 pointsojbyrne41 comments

The US actually has a lot of rare earth minerals, however, mining halted in around 2002 because of environmental concerns and cheaper prices from China. Domestic mining will probably pick up again.

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/09/chinese-th...

http://www.molycorp.com/

Also:

Throughout the halt on exports of rare earth minerals, China has allowed exports of manufactured products that use them, like powerful magnets, and highly purified rare earth metals.

Note that they allow the sale of purified rare earth metals; just not the raw minerals. Also, since a lot of parts and sub-assemblies are made in China, this will probably lessen the impact.

Note that they allow the sale of purified rare earth metals; just not the raw minerals. Also, since a lot of parts and sub-assemblies are made in China, this will probably lessen the impact.

They might just want to have some more elements of the value added chain ...

I don't really think they want to mess with Japan, US and Europe at the same time about that issue. But I may be wrong with that ...

The first paragraph says they've also stopped shipments to Europe.

That's what I mean: are they really up to fight the whole world about that?

It seems so.

> I don't really think they want to mess with Japan, US and Europe at the same time about that issue.

I agree. It wouldn't be in China's interest to piss off everyone else, particularly all at the same time. As you say, China probably just wants to do more value-added stuff.

The article mentions that it could take some time for mining to pick up again.

Now how would feel about this if we'd outsourced all of our farming to one particular country and that country suddenly decided not to sell us any? Or if a sizable number of them got together to impose an embargo on us?

Naturally, this sort of thing is just not meritocratic and leads to higher prices for everyone, but you'd be a talking head if you didn't recognize the limitations to our most cherished ideologies.

Wait, so the US stopped mining rare earth material for environmental concerns, but wants China to mine more of them and export the material to the US - what about the environment in China? And remember when "an incovinient truth" was at its height US officials blamed China for causing so much environmental issues - c'mon, what do you really want them to do?

A link in the above article points to another article where there's a similar scenario of trade vs clean energy - isn't government subsidy of clean tech an universally good action for our environment? - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/18/business/global/18trade.ht...

Most of those are not mined in China, but in Africa.

Interesting, please link me to the source

An embargo like this was inevitable. I'm sure it will not be the last time they reserve a resource for Chinese businesses. Commentators in the west sometimes forget that China is not like western countries; its political elite do not buy into neoliberal ideas and are not easily corrupted to promote American business interests, like in so many of America's trading partners.

Simply put, it makes no sense for Chinese representatives to scour the globe snapping up resources if they don't intend to reserve them for Chinese use at below-market rates.

One problem with this line of reasoning is that an embargo will cause a trade war, which will reduce demand for Chinese manufactured goods. The end result would be unemployment and social instability, which is the most important thing to be avoided as far as the Party is concerned.

Maybe. So far, China has been able to get away with some stunningly protectionist policies. Keep in mind that there is a significant mercantilist/nationalist faction in the Chinese government that sees the US as a declining power with little leverage over China and a history of accepting one-sided trade with Asian states.

They are also playing the long game on this one. It may be enough for now simply to own the resources, and only exploit their control on specific issues like the recent spat with Japan and American pressure on their currency.

China's advantage is that they can sell incredibly cheap products in vast quantities. The west has become utterly dependent on them. What will they do if China pisses them off? They're not going to manufacture at home.

China has been stockpiling the rare elements for some time now. They're necessary for a lot of high-tech goods, and would be very useful as a trade lever.

Regarding the embargo on Japan, it was seen as a response to the recent territorial disputes over the Senkaku isles. China later stated that they weren't embargoing nuthin', but importers here in Japan were having a lot of problems getting shipments in due to much more strenuous customs inspections, etc.

The Japanese response has been to open dialogue with Mongolia about starting mines for rare earth minerals there, as Mongolia are supposed to have a great deal of reserves.

International tensions are rapidly increasing. With currency wars, trade wars, etc, it is going to be very interesting to see how the next few years play out.

I kind of disagree. On the whole, isn't now essentially the most peaceful time history has ever known?

There's war going on somewhere that your media doesn't cover.

Yeah, but much less than usual. Even in the Congo, Sudan, Somalia and the like it's pretty quiet.

So has there always been. Peacefulness as I understand it isn't boolean.

that doesn't say anything about continuation of the trend

This week's Economist on the coming currency / trade war:

http://www.economist.com/node/17251850?story_id=17251850&...

http://www.economist.com/node/17252006?story_id=17252006&...

I've often wondered how much of the world's lithium reserves it would take to convert every cars in the world over to EVs with lithium batteries. 0.1%, 5%, 10%?

Is it even feasible? And if not, why are people running around promoting their Prius and the like...

Yes, in general, a used fuel efficient gas car is better for the environment since it takes quite a bit of energy to manufacture a Prius.

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2008/05/the-ultimate-pr/

So you're comparing a used fuel efficient gas car to a new Prius? Why not compare new-to-new or used-to-used?

A lot of people who purchase a Prius think they are doing something environmentally friendly. In fact, that's part of Toyota's marketing campagin. Not only that, but the government helps subsidize these purchases by giving tax breaks.

If the real goal was to do what's best for the environment, then it's not to buy a brand new hybrid.

"When bought brand-new, it has consumed more energy than it has saved" does not imply "buying this is never the best choice for the environment". Instead, it implies that one should work out where the break-even point -- beyond which the net is savings over a gasoline-powered vehicle -- occurs, whether that point will realistically be reached and passed by the majority of owners, etc.

The Toyota Prius, when compared to a Toyota Corolla LE, takes 16.2 years to break even. Data from 2008.

http://www.edmunds.com/advice/fueleconomy/articles/116513/ar...

Note that this is only comparing from the start of ownership. If you want to compare the offset in energy in making the hybrid vs the gasoline engine, we're getting into multiple decades.

Which is a much better argument, and what I was hoping someone would come up with :)

That logic is unsustainable. New vehicles will (have to) be purchased.

Going out and buying a Prius for the sake of being environmentally friendly would be dumb. But choosing a Prius instead of a Charger for your new car purchase makes plenty of sense IMO.

Yes, but driving your current car a few more years is better yet.

(Unless it's REALLY old and therefore likely a heavy polluter.)

> Going out and buying a Prius for the sake of being environmentally friendly would be dumb.

I understand and acknowledge that.

Why not?

Buy a brand new hybrid and use it for more than 10 years, instead of buying a 10 years old used car and use it for two three years until its mechanical parts are so used that it fails constantly.

Of course the best for the environment is to buy a bike(you only need to manufacture 10 kilograms instead of +1000), or just walk, if you are going to buy a car anyway buying a Prius helps to develop electric cars, witch is better at least for cities environment(less diesel particles in the air, asthma, cancer and allergies).

It is way easier to control energy plant combustion particles than in individual cars, and on some places in the world you could use local wind solar , geothermal, biomass(wood, stubble) or nuclear energy along with gas or coal.

The answer is 0.000.......0001 %, with too many zeros to count. Lithium comprises 0.005 percent of the earth's crust, the 15th most abundant element on earth. Yes, the price might go up, perhaps dramatically, but we're not going to run out.

More info on rare earth elements: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_element

Good thing the US invaded Afghanistan, I suppose... Afghanistan has lot's of mineral resources. Let the exploitation begin.

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/06/14/say_what_afgh...

Hopefully, Afghanistan has a functional (and non-oppressive) government that can stand on it's own soon. That will be tough, if possible, to accomplish.

Why do you think the US went there? Surely you didn't think it had something to do with terrorists?

So can't we just say they have weapons of mass destruction and then go and 'liberate' them (and their minerals) ?

The reason the USA can't do the second part is that China actually does have weapons of mass destruction.

We could say that they didn't !

We're only allowed to say that after we invade.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com