FT Edit Subscription Service Launch

The Scramble for Critical Minerals: Why the Race to the Bottom of the Earth Matters

The global competition for critical minerals — the raw materials underpinning electric vehicles, batteries, semiconductors, and weapons systems — has intensified dramatically in recent years, reshaping geopolitics, corporate strategy, and environmental policy simultaneously. Lithium, cobalt, nickel, rare earth elements, and copper sit at the center of this struggle, and whichever nations and companies secure reliable supply chains for these commodities will hold enormous leverage over the technologies that define the next half-century.

China currently dominates nearly every stage of this supply chain. It controls roughly 60 percent of global lithium processing, around 70 percent of cobalt refining, and more than 85 percent of rare earth processing capacity. Even where minerals are physically extracted elsewhere — in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Australia, Chile, or Indonesia — Chinese state-backed firms like CATL, Zijin Mining, and Ganfeng Lithium have invested aggressively to lock up offtake agreements and ownership stakes, ensuring that the refined product flows back through Chinese industrial infrastructure. This concentration of control has alarmed Western governments, particularly after China imposed export restrictions on germanium, gallium, and graphite — moves widely interpreted as a preview of the economic leverage Beijing could deploy during a geopolitical confrontation over Taiwan or other flashpoints.

Western Governments Scramble to Catch Up

The United States, European Union, Australia, Canada, and Japan have all launched major initiatives to diversify critical mineral supply chains, but the scale of investment required and the timeline involved present sobering challenges. The U.S. Inflation Reduction Act tied electric vehicle tax credits to sourcing requirements designed to exclude Chinese-processed materials, effectively forcing automakers like Ford, General Motors, and Tesla to rethink supply agreements built over decades. The EU's Critical Raw Materials Act similarly set targets for domestic extraction, processing, and recycling capacity, aiming to ensure that no single third country supplies more than 65 percent of any strategic mineral by 2030.

Progress has been uneven. New mining projects face permitting timelines stretching a decade or more in the United States and much of Europe, a structural disadvantage compared to jurisdictions where state direction can fast-track development. Canada's Ring of Fire region in Ontario holds vast nickel and chromite reserves but remains largely undeveloped due to a combination of Indigenous land rights negotiations, infrastructure gaps, and financing uncertainty. Australia has moved more aggressively, positioning itself as the preferred anglophone supplier of lithium and rare earths, with companies like Lynas Rare Earths operating the only significant rare earth processing capacity outside China. The U.S. government has backed Lynas with Department of Defense funding to build a processing facility in Texas, a telling sign of how thoroughly the minerals issue has been absorbed into national security thinking.

Diplomatic efforts have multiplied as well. The Minerals Security Partnership, launched in 2022, groups the United States with the EU, the UK, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and Canada in an attempt to coordinate investment and information-sharing. The G7 has made critical minerals a standing agenda item. Individual bilateral deals — between the U.S. and Zambia for copper, between Japan and Canada for a sweeping economic partnership anchored partly around minerals — reflect the urgency governments now attach to the issue.

Corporate Strategy and the Investment Gap

Private capital has been slower to respond than government rhetoric suggests it should be. Mining is capital-intensive, politically risky, and subject to commodity price cycles that can devastate project economics over the decade-plus it typically takes to move from discovery to production. Battery-grade lithium prices, which spiked above $80,000 per metric ton in late 2022, collapsed to below $14,000 by mid-2024 as demand from the electric vehicle sector grew more slowly than projections had assumed and Chinese producers flooded the market. That price crash froze or outright killed dozens of lithium projects in Australia and Latin America, illustrating the fundamental tension between long-term strategic necessity and short-term market signals.

Major mining conglomerates including Rio Tinto, BHP, and Glencore have each announced ambitions to reorient their portfolios toward energy transition metals, but execution has lagged. Rio Tinto's proposed Lithium Jadar mine in Serbia was cancelled by the Serbian government in 2022 after public protests, though it was subsequently revived — a saga that captured the political volatility surrounding new mining development in democratic countries. BHP's $6.4 billion acquisition of copper producer OZ Minerals in 2023 signaled where the Anglo-Australian giant sees the most durable long-term value, given copper's indispensable role in electrical infrastructure and its less politically fraught supply profile compared to cobalt or rare earths.

Recycling and urban mining — recovering materials from spent batteries, electronics, and industrial scrap — represent a longer-term hedge, but current volumes are insufficient to materially reduce primary mining demand for at least another decade. Companies like Redwood Materials, founded by former Tesla executive JB Straubel, are building out recycling capacity in the United States, partly underwritten by federal grants, but the economics only fully work at a scale that requires a much larger installed base of end-of-life batteries than currently exists.

Geopolitical Stakes and the Road Ahead

The minerals competition is inseparable from the broader contest between the United States and China over technological and military primacy. Rare earth elements are embedded in the permanent magnets used in fighter jet engines, guided missile systems, and naval propulsion, as well as in wind turbines and EV motors. The U.S. Department of Defense has classified several of these materials as critical to national defense, and the Pentagon has become an active investor and off-taker in domestic and allied-nation mining projects in ways that would have seemed unusual a decade ago.

The developing world sits at a complex intersection in this story. Countries like the DRC, which produces around 70 percent of global cobalt, and Chile, which holds the world's largest lithium reserves in its Atacama Desert, are increasingly aware of their leverage and pushing for more value-added processing to occur domestically. Chile's partial nationalization of its lithium sector under President Gabriel Boric and the DRC's persistent renegotiation of mining contracts reflect a broader assertion of resource sovereignty that complicates Western supply diversification strategies. Securing the minerals is not simply a technical or financial challenge — it requires navigating sovereignty claims, environmental standards, labor rights, and historical grievances about extractive colonialism that will not dissolve because rich-country governments have declared a green energy emergency.