The London Times is liberal but not insane, except when it comes to Donald Trump. So it is better than nearly all American newspapers. Here, the Sunday Times blows the whistle on the fantasy of “green” energy:
Addis [Ababa] is just one hub in a global web of Chinese influence, control and money that has arisen as the world’s second largest economy races to secure the minerals needed for the future generations of electric cars, wind turbines and batteries to drive the green revolution.
To a great extent, it is a race Beijing has already won.
For the past 20 years, China has been buying up valuable resources around the world to supply its vast manufacturing industry. More critically still, even where it does not own the mines outright, it has secured deals that mean nearly 80 per cent of the planet’s supply of these crucial raw minerals is sent to China for cleaning up and processing into usable metals. From the Chinese refineries, the metals not needed by China’s own plants are then shipped off to factories in Europe, America and elsewhere.
This means that, theoretically at least, in the most important minerals for the future green economy — nickel, cobalt, graphite, lithium and so-called rare earth metals — China could effectively turn on, and turn off, the world’s supply at will.
This is all blindingly obvious, and some commentators have been warning about it for years. But our impending reliance on China for our survival is a deep secret if you depend on American corporate media for your news.
The metals needed for the green revolution include copper, the reddish metal prized for its conductivity; lithium, a silvery metal that is crucial in keeping batteries lightweight; and rare earths, a disparate collection of exotic minerals that contribute to the chemistry of batteries.
Demand for these metals is accelerating as sales of electric cars take off; lithium prices are up 500 per cent in the past year alone. This could be the tip of the iceberg: electric cars use six times the amount of battery metals that a conventional car needs, according to the International Energy Agency; an onshore wind farm requires nine times more than a gas plant. For the world to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, the World Bank has estimated that production of these key metals would need to rise by 500 per cent by mid-century.
That probably won’t happen, so that the whole “green” fantasy will come crashing down in disgrace. But demand will rise, and who will benefit? China controls mining and, to an even greater extent, processing of all the key “green” minerals:
The United States has massive deposits of many of these minerals, including copper, nickel and cobalt. But the same liberals who insist on shutting down the energy sources where the U.S. reigns supreme–fossil fuels–won’t let us develop our own minerals, and insist that we remain reliant on China for our future standard of living. To go “green” is literally to turn our economy over to the Chinese Communist Party.
Liberals are fond of calling those who disagree with them traitors. Usually, and risibly, they apply this epithet to Americans who are obviously patriotic, like Tulsi Gabbard. But–and I mean this seriously–what is the correct term for those who work tirelessly to turn control of our economy, our future and our children’s future, over to a hostile power?