Climate Change Policy Is Really About Swapping Exploiting Minerals Instead of Oil – Opinion

The U.S. is preparing to save the world from climate change because of fossil fuels by preparing to pockmark the planet’s surface with mineral mines.

In a February 16, 2022 session by the Atlantic Council titled, “Preparing the United States for a mineral-intensive future,” the American strategy for adapting to a world shedding oil was discussed.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-AK (the session’s first speaker), reviewed the risks of the United States taking on mineral resources in a post-climate-change industrial base world. It states that the United States will be more dependent upon countries such as Russia and China for the construction and maintenance of post-oil infrastructure.

Murkowski made the point that America must find and use domestic mineral resources to provide the infrastructure needed for a future population that doesn’t rely on fossil fuels in the same way that they do now. Bottom line, we’ll be digging new holes in the ground because our cars will need four to 10 times as much metal and mineral content per vehicle. You have to get it from somewhere. It must come from somewhere, whether it is in Alaska’s wild pristine wilderness or elsewhere we find rare earth minerals.

Reed Blakemore (Atlantic Council deputy energy director) moderated the session. J. Peter Pham (special envoy to Africa) and Gen. Douglas Lute (ambassador to NATO), were joined by Helaina Matza, U.S. State Department Director, Office of Energy Transformation.

The three shifted the direction of the conversation away from Murkowski’s focus on U.S. resource independence and focused on the U.S. integrating into the future worldwide supply chains of key minerals.

The panelists paid tribute to the fact certain minerals are from China and Russia. They discussed the sensitive topic of how this economic leverage could be used to advantage political enemies as the US grows dependent on mineral resources.  But, I couldn’t help but ponder if Murkowski’s position that the U.S. would have no choice in the future but to dig holes to maintain strategic independence with respect to peer adversaries.

Pham observed that many minerals come from Africa. As such, the U.S. has to not only maintain diplomatic relationships that allow private companies access to those countries, but also, Matza noted, to give American companies the ability to compete with African nationals, like China and India, which have a strong supply chain.

One of the aspects of the evolving shift to minerals I’ve been most curious about is how the U.S. will tackle the role of supporting allies who will also need minerals for their economies but can’t dig holes.

The days when Western Europe invested heavily in colonial empires for resources are long gone.  NATO can’t be simultaneously hostile to Russia and rich in mineral resources, but the European Union is growing more dependent upon good economic relations for access to those resources.

Japan, on the other hand, once dreamed about imperial supply chains, which are now gone. State Department’s Matza noted that Japan has become one of the first nations to hoard strategic minerals because of experiences with supply chain embargoes.

Murkowski made it clear in her remarks, that the U.S. needs to think about strategic mineral reserves as a means of defending and securing its borders. New tensions arise from the lack of resources and competition.

These power projection and reserve supply games are insignificant compared to the infrastructure and social reengineering that climate change advocates envision for the first world. It is necessary to find a solution for electrifying the cities of the world in order to reach the Paris Accord 2050 emissions goals. They are where so much energy flows so that people can live, work and then go home to enjoy Netflix. This means that

• Replacing nearly all gasoline-powered vehicles with electric ones that require batteries and electronics 4x-10x as many minerals than the oil economy technology version.
• The creation of new power grid capacity in order to provide these vehicles. It’s the energy supply chain substitution equivalent of replacing every gas station on the landscape. Yes, all of them.
• It is necessary to create enough power sources for this new network of fast charging outlets.
• Retrofitting some cities may prove too costly. In these cases, it is necessary to make tough decisions about building new cities that are electric-centric, relocating people and moving them.

This is because existing power sources, including solar and legacy power plants are already used to provide power for households. Or, at the very least, completely new urban grid overlays. If you look around the internet, you’ll quickly find mention of the one source of power generation that could supply that much power without burning dinosaurs. The term nuclear power is no longer as dirty.

Finally, there’s a reality check. In the next 100 years, it’s only going to be a portion of the First World that will make the conversion to this expensive, mineral-based system. All of the rest will still be burning oil and gasoline. And most of the human race’s population growth will take place in those parts of the world. So, by my reckoning, the trajectory of the carbon emission curve of planet Earth isn’t going to change much. It’s just the way it is.

The extent of strip mining and other ore processing that the climate change advocates have committed to in order to achieve their goals is still unknown by environmentalists. There will be a lot of money to be made, as ordinary people’s lives are forced to change. I’m anticipating this clash of values among the “woke” is coming as reality sets in.

RedState readers who are meat-eaters and wood stove cooks can expect a Rugby bar fight to spill into the streets as a spectator sport for the next quarter of 50,000 years. The same hurdles, delays, project failures, and obstacles that the oil and natural gas industry has had to face are expected for urban planners and policy-makers. Here, the only constant is human nature and our reaction to changes. The best mineral resources will require strip mining at the most pristine locations and urban renewal in the most NIMBY areas. Irony is a common theme in such situations.

The reality is that there just isn’t a free lunch here. It is very literal for humanity to exchange one type of scorching earth for another. Who has economic and political power will be affected by where the resources are located. It’ll create economic competition among the world’s industrialized societies for minerals that will cause stress, embargoes, and wars. It’s how matrices work. This is inevitability’s sound.

I’ve always been uncomfortable with this “woke” version of climate change. I know I live on a harsh planet that doesn’t care about the thin layer of pond scum on its surface. Science geek me knows full well that Earth has evolved from the inhospitable environment of acrid volcanic activity to a super-oxygenated Permian canopy for billions of years.

The planet is extremely stable and hospitable. Scientifically, it’s due in large part to the configuration of the tectonic plates that create great ocean basins that, combined with the spin of the earth, circulate deep ocean currents that even out heat buildup around the globe. Due to the immense radiant power from a star at 93,000,000 miles, climate conditions fluctuate.

But, I also respect that this planet’s true core competency is routinely wiping out 99 percent of life forms on its surface. Earth collides. Earth turns its magnetic poles. It then wipes out the protective magnet field. And then, Earth happily starts again, building one smiling amoeba at a time, like it’s playing with a new LEGO set.

In contrast, humans throw our garbage all over everything. When we stop polluting by burning dinosaurs, we’ll do it by digging holes all over the place to turn dirt into ingots and ingots into microchips and batteries. There are many of them. Now, we are considering covering the entire planet with a layer of junk. That’s what we humans do.

We will be seeing more in the remaining 21^{It is possible to}Century will see the consequences of Climate Change policy decisions made now. My instinct says they won’t be pretty. The best thing is to not turn over the apple carts. Constant is the First World’s voracious energy intake. Changes in diet are all that we can do.

Listening to what the policy community has to say about future planning may be a mistake. Bit of a Pandora’s Box. It could be naive, not thought through, or it can lead to hubris.