ASIA
14 November 2025
Critical mineral dilemmas in the US
Whoever controls the production and processing of lithium, copper and other critical minerals could dominate the 21st century economy.
Whoever controls the production and processing of lithium, copper and other critical minerals could dominate the 21st century economy, much as producers of fossil fuels defined the 20th century, writes Ernest Scheyder in his book The War Below: Lithium, copper, and the global battle to power our lives.
Scheyder, a senior Reuters correspondent covering critical minerals and the global energy transition, travelled from Arizona to Minnesota, Nevada to Idaho, and Washington DC to Bolivia to collect evidence on the obstacles to the United States’ critical minerals production.
Lithium, copper and other critical minerals are building blocks for electric vehicles, solar panels and wind turbines, all seen as necessary for fighting climate change. These minerals also provide inputs for cell phones, household appliances and other electronic devices. Moreover, they are important for AI and many military weapons. Unsurprisingly, there has been an explosion in demand for critical minerals over the past decade, and demand will only continue to grow. But the US faces a host of challenges in satisfying its need for critical minerals.
While the US is rich in deposits of lithium and some other critical minerals, Scheyder reports that mining can be deeply unpopular. This tension has sparked what he calls ‘the war below’, as industry titans, conservationists, community groups and policymakers battle over the habitats of rare plants, sensitive ecosystems and indigenous holy sites.
Critical minerals were produced in much larger quantities in the US around 75 years ago. But such mining was left to wither on the vine. Today, the US holds about a quarter of the world’s lithium reserves, but the bad news is that it is expected to domestically supply only about 3 percent of its annual needs by 2030.
A leading role in Scheyder’s narrative is played by Tiehm’s buckwheat, a small buckwheat plant that sits atop Australian company Ioneer’s Rhyolite Ridge Lithium Project. Conservationist groups oppose the project as Tiehm’s buckwheat is found nowhere else on Earth and risks extinction, This highlights the dilemma between environmental preservation and the growing demand for lithium. Another such case involves the proposed Resolution Copper mine in Arizona. This project—a joint venture owned by Rio Tinto and BHP—would require the destruction of Chi’chil Billdagoteel, a site sacred to the San Carlos Apache tribe.
Relying on foreign suppliers for deposits of critical minerals does not provide an easy solution. In countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, the mining of critical mineral deposits often involves child labour and other human rights abuses. The US and some European countries are in talks with Australia and some countries in South America around critical minerals. On 20 October, the US and Australia signed a framework to guide cooperation on critical minerals and rare earths mining and processing.
More than 80 percent of the world’s lithium is processed in China, which also processes many other critical minerals. This is partly because China has the world’s largest electric vehicle market but also because some US companies have processing facilities in China. But China’s dominance in processing can create a bottleneck and facilitate economic coercion: China used this tactic against Japan in 2010 and against the US this year.
China’s weaker environmental standards—particularly around toxic waste and its contamination of soil and water—could also be enabling its dominance in lithium processing. Scheyder writes of a tailing pond in China bigger than New York’s Central Park, something that would not be allowed in the US or many European countries.
The US’s critical mineral industry is further limited by a lack of qualified workers. For example, in 2023, a major copper-mine expansion project in Arizona failed not because of regulations or protests but because the company didn’t have enough people. Much of the existing mining workforce is ageing out, while the number of students pursuing mining engineering in the US has collapsed. Last year, the US saw 600 such enrolments, while China had more than one million.
Recycling lithium-ion batteries and other electronic waste can help reduce the need for new mining projects by recovering lithium, copper, nickel and cobalt, which can then be used to manufacture new batteries and other products. But the US lags behind China in battery recycling capacity, and most Americans don’t want a giant recycling plant in their neighbourhoods.
Scheyder believes that US society must face up to difficult choices that must be made, but he laments the American public’s lack of understanding of these issues. He argues that the US needs a national strategy for critical minerals that balances national security, resource development and environmental protection. This will require consistency over the longer term, as these dilemmas cannot be solved overnight, but the US government’s activism is evident in its partial ownership of companies such MP Materials and Lithium Americas.
Scheyder, a senior Reuters correspondent covering critical minerals and the global energy transition, travelled from Arizona to Minnesota, Nevada to Idaho, and Washington DC to Bolivia to collect evidence on the obstacles to the United States’ critical minerals production.
Lithium, copper and other critical minerals are building blocks for electric vehicles, solar panels and wind turbines, all seen as necessary for fighting climate change. These minerals also provide inputs for cell phones, household appliances and other electronic devices. Moreover, they are important for AI and many military weapons. Unsurprisingly, there has been an explosion in demand for critical minerals over the past decade, and demand will only continue to grow. But the US faces a host of challenges in satisfying its need for critical minerals.
While the US is rich in deposits of lithium and some other critical minerals, Scheyder reports that mining can be deeply unpopular. This tension has sparked what he calls ‘the war below’, as industry titans, conservationists, community groups and policymakers battle over the habitats of rare plants, sensitive ecosystems and indigenous holy sites.
Critical minerals were produced in much larger quantities in the US around 75 years ago. But such mining was left to wither on the vine. Today, the US holds about a quarter of the world’s lithium reserves, but the bad news is that it is expected to domestically supply only about 3 percent of its annual needs by 2030.
A leading role in Scheyder’s narrative is played by Tiehm’s buckwheat, a small buckwheat plant that sits atop Australian company Ioneer’s Rhyolite Ridge Lithium Project. Conservationist groups oppose the project as Tiehm’s buckwheat is found nowhere else on Earth and risks extinction, This highlights the dilemma between environmental preservation and the growing demand for lithium. Another such case involves the proposed Resolution Copper mine in Arizona. This project—a joint venture owned by Rio Tinto and BHP—would require the destruction of Chi’chil Billdagoteel, a site sacred to the San Carlos Apache tribe.
Relying on foreign suppliers for deposits of critical minerals does not provide an easy solution. In countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, the mining of critical mineral deposits often involves child labour and other human rights abuses. The US and some European countries are in talks with Australia and some countries in South America around critical minerals. On 20 October, the US and Australia signed a framework to guide cooperation on critical minerals and rare earths mining and processing.
More than 80 percent of the world’s lithium is processed in China, which also processes many other critical minerals. This is partly because China has the world’s largest electric vehicle market but also because some US companies have processing facilities in China. But China’s dominance in processing can create a bottleneck and facilitate economic coercion: China used this tactic against Japan in 2010 and against the US this year.
China’s weaker environmental standards—particularly around toxic waste and its contamination of soil and water—could also be enabling its dominance in lithium processing. Scheyder writes of a tailing pond in China bigger than New York’s Central Park, something that would not be allowed in the US or many European countries.
The US’s critical mineral industry is further limited by a lack of qualified workers. For example, in 2023, a major copper-mine expansion project in Arizona failed not because of regulations or protests but because the company didn’t have enough people. Much of the existing mining workforce is ageing out, while the number of students pursuing mining engineering in the US has collapsed. Last year, the US saw 600 such enrolments, while China had more than one million.
Recycling lithium-ion batteries and other electronic waste can help reduce the need for new mining projects by recovering lithium, copper, nickel and cobalt, which can then be used to manufacture new batteries and other products. But the US lags behind China in battery recycling capacity, and most Americans don’t want a giant recycling plant in their neighbourhoods.
Scheyder believes that US society must face up to difficult choices that must be made, but he laments the American public’s lack of understanding of these issues. He argues that the US needs a national strategy for critical minerals that balances national security, resource development and environmental protection. This will require consistency over the longer term, as these dilemmas cannot be solved overnight, but the US government’s activism is evident in its partial ownership of companies such MP Materials and Lithium Americas.