A recent study of studies (a study that pulls together all the peer reviewed evidence on a topic over a period of over a decade to find a most likely case or average result of the findings and is itself peer reviewed as a paper) has been published on climate change. It should be big news but the coverage has been limited.
Below is a few exerpts of bits of commentary/summaries of it. Worrying stuff.
There is. The technology has developed hugely and will continue to do so. Solid state batteries which are now being produced in China require a tiny tiny percentage of the minerals a standard lithium ion battery does and are massively more efficient at storage. And with the potential to be hundres of thousands of times more efficient, BYD are saying they think in a couple of years they will be able to produce a battery the size of a football that can power a house for a month.
The issues with batteries have only every focused on lithium ion batteries which have only ever been a temporary solution, a stepping stone as better technology develops. Whilst I'm not writing off the issues here (part of which are clearly down to not having the regulations on how to ethically mine and despose of the material) articles like this are focusing on a temporary problem. And as demand for electric tech grows this drives investment in new tech and so the tech gets better. Which is why governments setting targets for electric vehicles and stimulating demand with incentives while the tech isn't quite perfect is still the right thing to do. As it speeds up the development of new tech and improved tech.
Nationally, England recorded its warmest June on record after the driest spring for 132 years.
According to Yorkshire Water, reservoir levels currently stand at just over 50% - a record low for the time of the year and "significantly below" the average for early July, which is nearer 80%.
There is. The technology has developed hugely and will continue to do so. Solid state batteries which are now being produced in China require a tiny tiny percentage of the minerals a standard lithium ion battery does and are massively more efficient at storage. And with the potential to be hundres of thousands of times more efficient, BYD are saying they think in a couple of years they will be able to produce a battery the size of a football that can power a house for a month.
The issues with batteries have only every focused on lithium ion batteries which have only ever been a temporary solution, a stepping stone as better technology develops. Whilst I'm not writing off the issues here (part of which are clearly down to not having the regulations on how to ethically mine and despose of the material) articles like this are focusing on a temporary problem. And as demand for electric tech grows this drives investment in new tech and so the tech gets better. Which is why governments setting targets for electric vehicles and stimulating demand with incentives while the tech isn't quite perfect is still the right thing to do. As it speeds up the development of new tech and improved tech.
There is. The technology has developed hugely and will continue to do so. Solid state batteries which are now being produced in China require a tiny tiny percentage of the minerals a standard lithium ion battery does and are massively more efficient at storage. And with the potential to be hundres of thousands of times more efficient, BYD are saying they think in a couple of years they will be able to produce a battery the size of a football that can power a house for a month.
The issues with batteries have only every focused on lithium ion batteries which have only ever been a temporary solution, a stepping stone as better technology develops. Whilst I'm not writing off the issues here (part of which are clearly down to not having the regulations on how to ethically mine and despose of the material) articles like this are focusing on a temporary problem. And as demand for electric tech grows this drives investment in new tech and so the tech gets better. Which is why governments setting targets for electric vehicles and stimulating demand with incentives while the tech isn't quite perfect is still the right thing to do. As it speeds up the development of new tech and improved tech.
Sorry, who's BYD?
Chinese electric car company (plenty of them on the roads in the UK once you spot one you keep spotting them). Widely thought of as top of the range tech wise for EVs now and ahead of Tesla. They have been investing heavily in battery tech for a while as they know cracking that will make them market leaders in EV sales. They have got the first solid state batteries out in China. Not yet quite right for cars but suitable for home solar/small scale off grid stuff. Needs a bit of adapting for cars and to get full potential from the tech.
The world can have non-Chinese rare earths — for a price
Here’s what I thought I knew about rare earths: One, they’re important. (They’re in our smartphones! We can’t live without smartphones!) Two, they’re rare. Three, they come mostly from China, which mines and processes them in ways that are both dirty and ethically problematic.
They’re certainly important: They’re needed not just in phones but in cars, semiconductors, medical imaging chemicals, robots, offshore wind turbines and a wide range of military hardware.
But it turns out they’re not all that rare: They can be found all over the world. They’re just very spread out and hard to refine.
And as it happens, the world doesn’t have to depend on China for them either. As I learned from reading two stories about rare earths by my colleagues this past week — one from China and one from France — relying on China for these strategically important resources was a choice: For Western countries, it outsourced pollution; for everyone, it kept production costs down.
But rare earths could be produced differently. They could be cleaner. They could come from non-Chinese sources. All of this, however, has a price tag attached.
Baotou vs. La Rochelle
This year, my colleague Keith Bradsher traveled to Baotou, a flat, industrial city of two million people in the Inner Mongolia region of China that calls itself the world capital of the rare earth industry. While the air in Baotou no longer has the acrid, faintly metallic taste that he found during a 2010 visit, a huge lake of toxic and radioactive waste has not been cleaned up. He also traveled to Longnan, in south-central China, another town that produces rare earths. There, he found a creek in front of some mines that was, as he put it, “bright orange and bubbling mysteriously.”
Contrast these scenes with the warehouse my colleague Jeanna Smialek visitedin La Rochelle, a picturesque port city that has long ranked among the most livable places in France. A new rare-earths production line there takes recycled materials and, using “giant metal tanks topped by gently whirring motors,” distills out two key minerals used in magnets. (Fun fact: Rare earth magnets can be 15 times as powerful as iron magnets of the same weight.)
The catch? It costs about 20 percent more than importing the rare earths directly from China.
Longnan, a Chinese rare earths production hub. Keith Bradsher for The New York Times
Lower cost, higher risk
Importing cheap Chinese rare earths comes with big risks. In April, in response to President Trump’s tariffs, China temporarily suspended almost all exports of seven kinds of rare-earth metals, as well as some of the very powerful magnets made from them.
The resulting shortages at car plants in the U.S. and Europe — a Ford Explorer factory in Chicago had to close temporarily — brought home the real cost of outsourcing these strategic minerals.
So the question is: Are countries prepared to shell out more, not just for cleaner rare earths, but also for their own strategic independence?
It’s not clear that the answer is yes. Europe has, for example, long relied on cheap Russian gas and avoided investing in military deterrence. And even though China first cut off rare earth supplies to Japan in 2010, few countries have since taken meaningful steps to diversify.
But reading these two pieces together, it’s hard not to be struck by the stark contrast between two different versions of the same industry. Rare earth production can be relatively clean. It doesn’t have to be the near-exclusive domain of a country that weaponizes its industry dominance. But this sort of rare earth would be more expensive. Is anyone willing to pay?
Without quoting the whole post. that last sentence is the key point but as I said above as the tech develops to require less of these materials then it becomes more economically viable to get them from cleaner sources.
Comments
Perhaps there’s another way?
The issues with batteries have only every focused on lithium ion batteries which have only ever been a temporary solution, a stepping stone as better technology develops. Whilst I'm not writing off the issues here (part of which are clearly down to not having the regulations on how to ethically mine and despose of the material) articles like this are focusing on a temporary problem. And as demand for electric tech grows this drives investment in new tech and so the tech gets better. Which is why governments setting targets for electric vehicles and stimulating demand with incentives while the tech isn't quite perfect is still the right thing to do. As it speeds up the development of new tech and improved tech.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2073zy4k9o
Nationally, England recorded its warmest June on record after the driest spring for 132 years.
According to Yorkshire Water, reservoir levels currently stand at just over 50% - a record low for the time of the year and "significantly below" the average for early July, which is nearer 80%.
A New York Times Article - 09/07/25
The world can have non-Chinese rare earths — for a price
Here’s what I thought I knew about rare earths: One, they’re important. (They’re in our smartphones! We can’t live without smartphones!) Two, they’re rare. Three, they come mostly from China, which mines and processes them in ways that are both dirty and ethically problematic.
They’re certainly important: They’re needed not just in phones but in cars, semiconductors, medical imaging chemicals, robots, offshore wind turbines and a wide range of military hardware.
But it turns out they’re not all that rare: They can be found all over the world. They’re just very spread out and hard to refine.
And as it happens, the world doesn’t have to depend on China for them either. As I learned from reading two stories about rare earths by my colleagues this past week — one from China and one from France — relying on China for these strategically important resources was a choice: For Western countries, it outsourced pollution; for everyone, it kept production costs down.
But rare earths could be produced differently. They could be cleaner. They could come from non-Chinese sources. All of this, however, has a price tag attached.
Baotou vs. La Rochelle
This year, my colleague Keith Bradsher traveled to Baotou, a flat, industrial city of two million people in the Inner Mongolia region of China that calls itself the world capital of the rare earth industry. While the air in Baotou no longer has the acrid, faintly metallic taste that he found during a 2010 visit, a huge lake of toxic and radioactive waste has not been cleaned up. He also traveled to Longnan, in south-central China, another town that produces rare earths. There, he found a creek in front of some mines that was, as he put it, “bright orange and bubbling mysteriously.”
Contrast these scenes with the warehouse my colleague Jeanna Smialek visitedin La Rochelle, a picturesque port city that has long ranked among the most livable places in France. A new rare-earths production line there takes recycled materials and, using “giant metal tanks topped by gently whirring motors,” distills out two key minerals used in magnets. (Fun fact: Rare earth magnets can be 15 times as powerful as iron magnets of the same weight.)
The catch? It costs about 20 percent more than importing the rare earths directly from China.
Lower cost, higher risk
Importing cheap Chinese rare earths comes with big risks. In April, in response to President Trump’s tariffs, China temporarily suspended almost all exports of seven kinds of rare-earth metals, as well as some of the very powerful magnets made from them.
The resulting shortages at car plants in the U.S. and Europe — a Ford Explorer factory in Chicago had to close temporarily — brought home the real cost of outsourcing these strategic minerals.
So the question is: Are countries prepared to shell out more, not just for cleaner rare earths, but also for their own strategic independence?
It’s not clear that the answer is yes. Europe has, for example, long relied on cheap Russian gas and avoided investing in military deterrence. And even though China first cut off rare earth supplies to Japan in 2010, few countries have since taken meaningful steps to diversify.
But reading these two pieces together, it’s hard not to be struck by the stark contrast between two different versions of the same industry. Rare earth production can be relatively clean. It doesn’t have to be the near-exclusive domain of a country that weaponizes its industry dominance. But this sort of rare earth would be more expensive. Is anyone willing to pay?