Shd have been rate earths AREN’T really rare.
> On Sep 1, 2025, at 5:36 PM, Keith Sanborn via nettime-l > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Petter, > > They don’t go into it in a lot of detail, but they do point to Indonesia as a > model of technology transfer from China and point to the emerging consensus > in REE rich countries that they need to process the material themselves. > Several examples are listed, among them Chile and Brazil. That seems to be > the key point, though Rare Earths are really rare, processing facilities and > technology for them is. And as you point out, that’s overwhelmingly in China. > Another issue, however, is that current methods of processing them are > extremely dirty and have lead to wide-spread pollution in China. Without an > improvement in that technology, it would be inviting additional eco-disaster, > something to which Brazil for example is no stranger. > > Keith > >> On Sep 1, 2025, at 6:04 AM, Petter Ericson via nettime-l >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> It's a great article and podcast, but one thing that I think might be >> relevant >> that they don't go too much into is the role of Rare Earth Elements/Minerals >> (REE), and their role in high-tech electronics in general, and the position >> of >> China in particular in their production. >> >> Briefly, while you can certainly build an electric generator and basic >> semiconductors using elements and with processes that are widely available, >> for >> high-power and high-efficiency electrical components, there is a need for >> REE, >> and while REE are widely spread in the earth's crust (despite the name) the >> actual >> _mining_ and especially _processing_ of REE is highly concentrated in China. >> >> This does place China in a more central position in purely material terms >> than >> maybe is implied by the article, in addition to their massive economic and >> logistic importance. It is definitely a very different position compared to >> the >> petro-state however: Instead of having a paradigm where the raw mining of the >> energy-carrying medium itself (oil) is quite geographically limited, with its >> production and refinement even moreso (a massive part of global shipping is >> either crude oil going to refineries or refined products going back to where >> the crude oil was mined), the electric paradigm is one step removed: the >> centralised control and vulnerable supply chain is not on the _energy itself_ >> but on the _energy producing and energy using components_. >> >> In order to survive an oil blockade, you need to stock up on massive amounts >> of >> refined products that are used and gone quite quickly, but an REE or solar >> panel blockade would have a much slower and potentially more complex >> progression. >> >> These are just some thoughts I had reading and listening to these excellent >> works. >> >> /P >> >>> On 01 september, 2025 - Felix Stalder via nettime-l wrote: >>> >>> >>> This is one of the best articles on geopolitics that I've read in a long >>> time, not the least because it puts BRICS at the center, rather than the US. >>> >>> https://www.phenomenalworld.org/analysis/brics-in-2025/ >>> >>> The basic argument is that the competition between China and the US is now >>> also a competition between two techno-political paradigms, one based on >>> (green) electricity and one based on fossil fuels, with China being the >>> largest producer of green energy (by far), while the US as become the >>> largest exporter of fossil fuels. >>> >>> And these are really two paradigms from which very different industrial >>> policies, geopolitics, eco-politics, and even cultures (think >>> petromasculinity) flow. >>> >>> There is now a fierce geopolitical competition between these two paradigms, >>> and the US has relatively little to offer, so it has to revert to brute >>> force to keep other countries in line. This works best with allies (think >>> Europe promising to buy LNG and scrapping tariffs on US monster cars). Also >>> domestically, the US uses brute-force to keep fossil fuels competitive, >>> cancelling almost finished green energy installations and gutting the EPA to >>> offload more of the costs to public. >>> >>> On the other hand, the China model (and cheap Chinese exports), allow >>> countries like Pakistan to leap-frog in terms of energy production, >>> installing 17GW of solar capacity in 2024 in a largely bottom-up process (as >>> a comparison, Germany installed about 20GW). >>> >>> As they write: >>> >>> "China’s package of automation, digitalization, and electrification offers >>> firms and nations not just carbon-reduction but also—more >>> persuasively—productivity, efficiency, and energy sovereignty. The material >>> basis of the global production, consumption and information systems are >>> being remade. One doesn’t have to be a Marxist to think that will imply a >>> radical transformation in global politics." >>> >>> They summarize this shift as "Diversify, dedollarize, decarbonize". >>> >>> And, interestingly, AI plays an important, but somewhat subordinate role, as >>> part of a new industrial infrastructure, which underpins the electrification >>> and digitization in all its aspects. No AGI necessary. >>> >>> The article even contains an update of Carlotta Perez famous chart on >>> techno-economic paradigms, with the IT/software paradigm in decline. >>> >>> >>> >>> I came across this article via Paris Marx's Tech Won't Save US podcasts, >>> where the two authors. Kate Mackenzie and Tim Sahay, were interviewed. >>> >>> https://techwontsave.us/episode/291_how_chinas_renewable_push_upends_geopolitics_w_kate_mackenzie__tim_sahay >>> >>> -- >>> | |||||||||||||||| http://felix.openflows.com | >>> | |||||||||| https://tldr.nettime.org/@festal | >>> | for secure communication, please use signal | >>> >>> -- >>> # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission >>> # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, >>> # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets >>> # more info: https://www.nettime.org >>> # contact: [email protected] >> >> -- >> Petter Ericson ([email protected]) >> -- >> # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission >> # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, >> # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets >> # more info: https://www.nettime.org >> # contact: [email protected] > > -- > # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission > # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets > # more info: https://www.nettime.org > # contact: [email protected] -- # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: https://www.nettime.org # contact: [email protected]
