Rare earths and climate change

In a hole?

Demand for some rare-earth elements could rapidly outstrip supply

See article

Readers' comments



You don't need rare earths for electric motors in cars, you can use induction motors, like Tesla. You only need rare earths to make permanent magnets for D.C. motors. Induction motors (like in most home appliances) have no permanent magnets and no brushes, which is why they're so reliable. Tesla uses an inverter to convert dc to ac. I think they control speed using pulse modulation, but don't quote me on that.

My background = PhD in electrical engineering.


You missed an important point. Way too much of the rare earth metals end up in landfills, incinerators or burning piles of electronics in developing countries. We need to be much better at recycling these valuable resources. The problems and ways to solve them are well described in the Cradle to Cradle design concept. The economic incentives to start doing this increases day by day.

x2y2 in reply to kassoe

When China cut off deliveries of rare-earth metals to Japan in 2010 over a diplomatic dust-up (something about a ship being rammed), Japan started what it called "urban mining." It was quite successful with it, in terms of maintaining supplies, but I don't know about how the cost compared to the raw materials that China eventually started exporting again.


I agree with Blue Skys Blue Water.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but its concentration in the atmosphere (390ppm or 0.04%) is insignificant to cause the kind of warming predicted by the IPCC computer models.

Man's modern contribution to the increase of CO2 is 110ppm (or 0.01%).
Therefore, all the alarmist theories about catastrophic global warming are predicated on the positive feedbacks caused by CO2-induced warming increasing the concentration of water vapor (the bigger greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere.

This has been empirically proven to be false. In fact water vapor concentrations have been pretty much constant since measurements have been taken. Moreover, more water vapor introduces negative feedbacks, by means of clouds (that reflect sunlight) and rain (that cool the surface).


More recent studies from CERN and other places show that climate is strongly influenced by solar (sunspot) cycles.

Here is a recent peer-reviewed scientific paper which discusses the very high positive correlation between between solar cycle length and temperature in the following eleven years.:

I find it really surprising that the Economist has not picked up on these new finding. (But then again, should I be surprised? The Economist seems to be on-board with the same AGW propaganda machine as Al Gore and his climate cronies).

Sense Seeker in reply to machani


This argument is analogous to saying a teaspoon full of arsenic could not possibly kill a man: the amount is simply too small.

There is no doubt among scientists that the direct effect of a doubling of CO2 is a 1.1C increase in average global temperature. Even Fred Singer - not known for supporting meanstream science when it gets in the way of free enterprise - does not agree with you on this one (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=3263).

machani in reply to Sense Seeker

I do not doubt that a doubling of CO2 could cause a 1C increase in temperature, all other factors being the same. The doubling of CO2 (i.e., from 280ppm to 560ppm) is likely to occur in the early 22nd century (going with the modern rate of 1.5ppm increase per year). The IPCC has perhaps got this correct.

Therefore all IPCC's projected catastrophic global warming hinges on the theory of additional forcings by water vapor, the bigger greenhouse gas. If you review the link I posted earlier, this theory is simply does not "hold water", so to speak.

Sense Seeker in reply to machani

You can always find a study that contradicts the majority findings, so basing your opinion on a single study is hazardous. You have an outlier there, machani.

The broader evidence base strongly suggests that water vapor amplified the warming caused by CO2 - see http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm.

And anyway, when confronted with a range of estimates, is it really wise to assume the most reassuring one is correct and ignore the rest?

Blue Skys Blue Water

Global Warming from mans CO2 emissions is an outright lie. Even Al Gores lying hockey stick graph demonstrates that CO2 peaks occur AFTER temperature peaks, therefore CO2 is the RESULT of global warming NOT the cause. That being said the motivation for electric cars should not be about the mythical warmest mantra. I suggest the electric car remains a valuable ambition to reduce smog, but please stop blabbering about the global warming by man mythology.

Thank you for sharing your ignorance.

As to CO2 historically following temperature changes, that is true. But it is bad news, because it means that a bit of warming is followed by the release of CO2 from natural sources, which leads to further warming. CO2 didn't initiate warming after past ice ages but it did amplify it. Hence the need to limit warming to 2C or less.

See http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

Life is ultimately happier with warmth as opposed to a cooling of the planet. Sadly this field of science has been politicized to the point that global warmest ethusiats have become dogmatic and obstructionist to the purity of science. Of further concern is the diversion of revenue to build wind machines that are parasitic to the economies that they have infected. If one thinks CO2 is a major driver of climate, one would be terrified by the recent volcanic activity that has poured more CO2 into the atmosphere in the last two years than man has produced since we crawled onto land. Ultimately CO2 levels are no more influential on the earths temperature than mercury in a thermometer.

Please take time to review http://thecloudmystery.com/The_Cloud_Mystery/The_Documentary.html where by you will be educated about how the big shiny thing in the sky affects the earths climate and weather.
For those that prefer multimedia over reading, enjoy this film


I encourage you to review the scientific literature at http://www.nipccreport.org/index.html where you will find a wealth of PHDs submitting scientific literature that disputes the global warming promoted by the green industry agenda.

I hope you will find these references of interest and expand your understanding of our beautiful planet as it carries us through the cosmos.

The NIPCC report as 'the scientific literature'? Don't make me laugh!
That's a sad consultancy piece paid for by vested interests via the Heartland Institute and other instruments of mass deception. Did you not read the news? You must be desperately wanting to be deceived.
Really, if you want to know about climate science you don't go to the Heartland or WSJ, just like you wouldn't go to a tobacco company for information about the health consequences of smoking.
If you don't trust the IPCC (I don't know why you wouldn't, but let's suppose), you ask NOAA (http://www.climate.gov/#understandingClimate), NASA (http://climate.nasa.gov/), the US Academies of Science (http://dels-old.nas.edu/climatechange/understanding-climate-change.shtml). Or you browse through top scientific journals like Nature or Science. All of them will confirm CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that global warming is really happening. Whether you want to believe it or not.

I am fearful Seeker that you are entrenched without recourse into a dogma that does not broke any criticism of its belief system.
The evidence is clear in the material I presented for others to explore, who are open to examining all of the information in a factual light without censorship. Yes CO2 is a green house gas. Is it accountable for a global warming ? Did the Rhine river freeze over this winter ? Is the ice cap growing or shrinking ? Do food plants prosper in the cold or in the bosom of warmth ? Why does the green movement refer to CO2 as carbon yet they do not refer to H2O as Hydrogen ? What Green industries benefit from carbon being demonized ? In 2008 what environmentalist group (Not F'n World Wrestling) sought to have their pet project Amazon Region Protected Area (ARPA) carbon valued to the tune of $60 billion.
I agree Seeker, there certainly are a lot of questions to be asked about fact and motives.

You seem confused about the science. First you write: "Ultimately CO2 levels are no more influential on the earths temperature than mercury in a thermometer." Now you say: "Yes CO2 is a green house gas." Now, what is it? If CO2 is a greenhouse gas, increasing its concentration increases the earth's temperature. If increased CO2 doesn't produce warming, it isn't a greenhouse gas. You can't have it both ways.

"The evidence is clear in the material I presented." Regrettably, it clearly gives a false picture, too.

So I assume you think NOAA, NASA and the US Academies of Science are in on this vague conspiracy of yours, and present false facts? You're free to believe what you like, but knowing who's behind the NIPCC and the other quasi-science you referred to, you must be mad to believe the latter.

Again, if you want to know about science you ask scientific organisations. You don't rely on the blogosphere and the links provided by commenters who can't give consistent and coherent arguments on simple matters like whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes warming.

Dear Seeker;

LOL I am far from confused about science. I encourage you to explore the papers available via the NIPCC. You will find a wealth of documentation and published scientific journal material all seeking peer review and input. Science is a process of questioning everything, and never taking anything for granted. Dogma is injurious to discovery. Please enjoy your exploration of the scientific papers and the videos links provided in previous comments with an open mind.

The internet is an amazing opportunity to democratize science so that everyone can share knowledge and improve on what went before. Blogs and web sites act as gateways to the science and as such should be embraced and celebrated.

As for the validity of the IPCC I encourage readers to review Ross McKitrick's insights into the failed process within the IPCC


Enjoy your summer Seeker.

That'll be winter here, BSBW.

And yes, "The internet is an amazing opportunity to democratize science so that everyone can share knowledge and improve on what went before."

It is also an amazing opportunity to spread false information and skewed selections of science so that everyone can share long-falsified nonsense, as you do.

The internet can be a great source of knowledge, or a great way to be deceived by vested interests and outright idiots. It comes down to judging which source is credible and which is not.

On climate change, for example, Ross McKitrick is simply not credible. He is an economist with no apparent expertise in climate science. The report you referred to is from the 'Global Warming Policy Foundation', a UK Foundation funded by donors that remain anonymous but apparently include coal-fired power companies (http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation). This stinks 'vested interest' to high heavens and no sane person will take your report seriously.

Again, for scientific matters you don't go to fossil fuel-industry funded websites and reports, but to scientific organisations.

Have a nice day, BS.


The Economist would appear to be correct in stating that the geographical concentration of supply would be more of an irritant than an existential crisis.

The article briefly referred to China's export quotas on these minerals, and that topic does deserve a comment.

The US especially is pursuing China's export restrictions through the WTO as well as in its own courts, in an attempt to force China to open the gates to an ulimited supply of these metals.

But to see this in its proper perspective, we need to reverse the position.

Assume for a moment that the US controlled 90% of these metals which are so important to high technology and to military weapon supremacy.

Does anyone imagine the US would freely open the doors and export unlimited amounts to China?

In fact, the US would do as it always does, which is to claim "national security" concerns, and cut China off entirely.

We might want to keep this in mind when listening to all the discussions about being "a good global citizen" and "playing by the rules" and just wanting "a level playing field".

The colonialist mentality dies hard.

OutsideOpinion in reply to watchingchina

The US is just attempting the easy solution first. If they can get China to remove the quota, all will be well with little effort. If not, they'll just reopen the mines in the US. Seems like a pragmatic approach to me.

watchingchina in reply to OutsideOpinion

You're correct, of course.

But the US does everything with a hammer. Never a soft touch.

Pull out all the stops; the WTO, the media barrage on China's unfairness and "rule-breaking", threats in the US courts to change the rules. The gathering of allies to bully China into submission, just as with the RMB and other matters.

We don't negotiate, ever. We fight. I win, you lose. That's the system.

guest-wssieia in reply to watchingchina

It's been a while since the US blocked exports of a commodity, hasn't it? The last time I can remember is when the US stopped oil exports to Japan, in protest of their invasion of... some country, I don't recall. But I'm sure Americans are colonialists who hate China.


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Libya: Can it pull back from the brink?
Pomegranate 2 hrs 5 mins ago
The Economist explains: The legal puzzle of MH17
The Economist explains July 28th, 23:50
Poverty measures: Width, not depth
Free exchange July 28th, 19:10
1970s French fiction: Dans le noir
Prospero July 28th, 16:27


Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

