Avoiding old geopolitical paradigms for new energy challenges

The US needs critical minerals for the energy transition, but its strategy for securing supplies should not mirror its approach to fossil fuels

I joined a workshop in early April on the geopolitics of the energy transition, hosted by nonprofit the Stanley Center for Peace and Security and climate change thinktank E3G. Although the workshop touched on a wide range of challenges, those related to critical raw minerals (CRM) stood out. Washington has clearly woken up to the need to secure CRM, but it risks overlaying old frameworks onto new challenges. Specifically, it risks overplaying great power rivalry and treating CRM like fossil fuels. At stake is the pace and extent of the energy transition, and the commercial opportunities it should yield. For context, the workshop laid out a few key points. First, that the transition to clean

Welcome to the PE Media Network

PE Media Network publishes Petroleum Economist, Hydrogen Economist and Carbon Economist to form the only genuinely comprehensive intelligence service covering the global energy industry

 

Already registered?
Click here to log in Subscribe now
to get full access Register now
for a free trialAny questions?
Contact us

Comments

Comments

{{ error }}

Add Comment

{{ comment.comment.Name }} Editor • {{ comment.timeAgo }}

{{ comment.comment.Text }}