

China Is Said to Halt Exports to U.S. of Some Key Minerals - ojbyrne
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/business/global/20rare.html

======
kqr2
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://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/09/chinese-threat-on-
rare-earth-minerals.html)

<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.

~~~
sasvari
_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 ...

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

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

~~~
ojbyrne
It seems so.

------
tyng
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...](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/18/business/global/18trade.html)

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

~~~
tyng
Interesting, please link me to the source

------
gamble
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.

~~~
bd_at_rivenhill
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.

~~~
gamble
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.

------
redcap
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.

------
noelchurchill
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.

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

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

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

------
proee
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...

~~~
kqr2
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/>

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

~~~
kqr2
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.

~~~
ubernostrum
"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.

~~~
joezydeco
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...](http://www.edmunds.com/advice/fueleconomy/articles/116513/article.html)

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.

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

------
wolfrom
More info on rare earth elements:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_element>

------
binspace
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...](http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/06/14/say_what_afghanistan_has_1_trillion_in_untapped_mineral_resources)

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.

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

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

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

~~~
oiuytrdrfghj
We could say that they didn't !

~~~
simon1ltd
We're only allowed to say that _after_ we invade.

