The Biden administration\u2019s \u201crush-to-green energy policies\u201d designed to create a \u201cnet-zero carbon power sector\u201d by 2035 are causing economic upheaval and making the United States reliant on imported minerals and products, including from China, several witnesses warned during nearly 10 hours of hearings before House committees Feb. 7-9 in Washington.<\/p>\n
While \u201cpromising utopia,\u201d critics say the administration is steaming ahead in pushing electric vehicles (EVs),\u00a0for instance, without a domestic supply chain to support it, inducing demand for imported lithium and EV batteries.<\/p>\n
China controls more than 80 percent of the global markets for raw lithium and batteries, making the Chinese Communist Party among beneficiaries of Biden\u2019s energy policies, witnesses and Republican panel members agreed.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, the demand for minerals key to emerging technologies is set to explode by 2040. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), demand for lithium will grow 40 times; for graphite, cobalt, nickel 20\u201325 times; for copper by 200 percent; with \u2018\u2018rare earth elements\u2019 to see three to seven times higher demand.<\/p>\n
Many of these minerals\u2014and much of the capacity to develop them\u2014\u201care controlled by adversaries like China and Russia,\u201d Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio) said. \u201cWe cannot stake our future on certain technologies that then rely on our adversaries for the minerals and mineral-processing needed to develop them.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThese \u2018rush-to-green energy policies\u2019 are unsustainable and lead to greater reliance on countries like Russia, or in our case, China,\u201d\u00a0<\/span>House Energy & Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) said. \u201cThis is not a future any of us want.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe U.S. must focus on supplying these materials at home, as well as restoring domestic smelting, refining, and processing capabilities,\u201d National Mining Association (NMA) Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Katie Sweeney said. \u201cMineral security is energy security.\u201d<\/p>\n The NMA, which represents more than 275 mining and hard rock companies, is among organizations lobbying for adoption of the proposed \u2018Securing America\u2019s Critical Minerals Supply Act<\/a>,\u2019 which seeks to secure a domestic critical minerals<\/a>\u2019 \u201csupply chain all the way back to the mine.\u201d<\/p>\n The act is the flagship legislation among bills dealing with strategic minerals and mining introduced by Republicans since January. One prohibits importation of Russian uranium, others call for permitting reform and loosening regulations related to \u201ccritical\u201d or \u201cstrategic\u201d minerals in the Clean Air, Toxic Substances Control, and Solid Waste Disposal acts.<\/p>\n The critical minerals bills are part of a 17-bill package introduced by Republicans and discussed during hearings before the House Energy & Commerce Committee on Feb. 7, Natural Resource Committee on Feb. 8<\/a>, and Natural Resources Committee\u2019s Oversight & Investigations Subcommittee on Feb. 9<\/a>.<\/p>\n Congressional reps won\u2019t return to the capitol until Feb. 27 following consecutive \u201cdistrict work\u201d weeks. The concerted GOP push to \u201cunleash\u201d the nation\u2019s domestic energy production is not pausing during the break, but hitting the road with public hearings across the country, including the Natural Resources Committee\u2019s Energy & Mineral Resources Subcommittee\u2019s \u2018Federal Energy Production Supports Local Communities<\/a>\u2019 hearing at the University of Texas campus Feb. 13 in Midland, Texas.<\/p>\n Sweeney said the United States has the resources and the industrial capacity to meet domestic needs as well as become an exporter of many critical minerals, but after a decade of dithering over how to develop that foundational supply chain, little has been done.<\/p>\n In fact, she said, \u201cDespite the rhetoric around securing our mineral supply chains, we are at a crisis point. In 2022, the U.S. reached its highest recorded mineral import reliance\u201d in its history.<\/p>\n Imports now constitute more than one-half of 51 \u201cnon-fuel mineral commodities\u201d consumed in the United States, up from 47 commodities that met that metric in 2021, Sweeney said.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Mark Menezes, who served as U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Deputy Secretary in the Trump administration, testified that, \u201cThe U.S. relies on imports for 31 of the 35 critical minerals necessary for America\u2019s defense and economy\u201414 of which we are totally dependent on imports.\u201d<\/p>\n Therefore, Sweeney said, \u201cAs we enter the most mineral-intensive era in human history, [the U.S.] needs to focus on securing domestic supply chains all the way to the mines. Those who control these critical materials and possess the processing and manufacturing know-how will hold the balance of industrial power in the 21st century.\u201d<\/p>\n Citing the surging demand for EV batteries reinforcing reliance on China and the United States\u2019 \u201clack of domestic production,\u201d she said American automakers are among domestic industries imperiled by\u00a0<\/span>the Biden administration\u2019s energy policies.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cAutomakers understand that truth, and worry that the coming battery mineral shortfall will decimate the EV revolution,\u201d Sweeney said.<\/p>\n The estimated value of U.S. metal mine production in 2022 was $34.7 billion, 6 percent lower than the revised value in 2021, Sweeney said. In 2022, the U.S. mining industry\u2019s capacity utilization was 61 percent, leaving a lot of unused assets not producing, she added.<\/p>\n There is an estimated $6.2 trillion \u201cworth of mineral resources here in the United States\u201d that could meet these needs, including lithium and uranium, she said, noting with \u201cfurther mapping all the time, there\u2019s more likely to be found.\u201d<\/p>\n But rather than encourage \u201ca highly trained and highly compensated workforce\u201d to tap into these resources under \u201cworld-class environmental and safety standards,\u201d Sweeney said the Biden administration has hamstrung the nation\u2019s mining industry with burdensome regulations and permitting complexities.<\/p>\n \u201cWithout permitting reform, the U.S. will be watching the global competition for energy dominance from the sidelines\u201d she said, \u201cand each new announcement of a blocked mine, such as Twin Metals Project in Minnesota, or [canceled] foreign sourcing agreements with countries\u201d because of a host of issues, \u201clocks in our position of competitive weakness.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Sweeney cited several examples of federal land-use and environmental regulations nixing mining projects, including recently \u201clocking up more than 225,000 acres in federal Forest Service lands from mining for two decades,\u201d and terminating 60-year-old federal\u00a0<\/span>leases in areas with \u201cthe nation\u2019s largest reserves of nickel, cobalt, copper, platinum, and palladium.\u201d<\/p>\n These decisions \u201ccould only be described at best as short-sighted and at worst self-sabotage\u201d if domestic energy security is the objective, she said.<\/p>\n \u201cThis must stop,\u201d Johnson agreed, accusing the Biden administration of \u201cpromising utopia while prohibiting our own mineral production, like canceling leases for nickel mines in Minnesota, lithium mines in Nevada, and rescinding a land swap necessary for a copper mine in Arizona.\u201d<\/p>\n Menezes said among initiatives in the proposed \u2018Securing America\u2019s Critical Minerals Supply Act\u2019 is amending the DOE\u2019s organizational structure to \u201cdesignate an agency with clear authority to address \u2026 securing the supply of critical energy resources necessary to develop energy technologies and the operation of energy systems.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThis bill is a needed clarification of DOE\u2019s responsibility and leadership throughout the interagency process,\u201d he said, noting another proposed measure would authorize the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator to waive requirements, sanctions, fees, \u201cwith respect to processing or refining of critical energy resources at a critical energy resource facility, and for other purposes.\u201d<\/p>\n Congress and federal agencies must also focus on the industrial capacity to process minerals and metals, a domestic industry that has been regulated into paralysis, he said.<\/p>\n \u201cWhile plenty of attention is on the supply chains of critical minerals, we mustn\u2019t forget that, as a nation, we should continue to ensure the operation of our critical energy facilities producing our critical energy resources during emergencies and threats to our energy security,\u201d Menezes said. \u201cCongress has recognized the importance and efficiency of executive agency action necessary to ensure the speedy recovery from natural disasters.\u201d<\/p>\n Other bills address administrative bottlenecks in several key environmental laws, including the 1972 Clean Air Act, that Sweeney and others said would allow the nation\u2019s mining industry to produce the materials necessary for robust and independent energy generation.<\/p>\n \u201cPermitting delays have been, and continue to be, one of the most significant risks to meeting domestic mineral production goals,\u201d she said. \u201cAs the permitting process for important projects across the U.S. drags on, geopolitical rivals are taking advantage of our bureaucratic inertia.\u201d<\/p>\n Sweeney said opening or expanding a mine in the United States typically involves multiple agencies and \u201ctens or even hundreds of permitting processes at the local, state and federal levels\u201d over an average of seven-to-10 years.<\/p>\n The process comes with \u201clittle transparency into status, delays arising from duplication among federal and state agencies, an absence of firm timelines for completing environmental assessments, and failures in coordination of responsibilities between various agencies,\u201d she said, noting it takes less than three years to process similar permits under similar environmental rules in Australia and Canada.<\/p>\n \u201cThe NMA believes that valid concerns about environmental protection should be fully considered and addressed but permitting processes should not serve as an excuse to trap mining projects in a limbo of duplicative, unpredictable, endless, and costly review without a decision point,\u201d Sweeney said.<\/p>\n She agreed with Menezes in noting the bills don\u2019t just seek to unchain the nation\u2019s mining industry but seek to \u201cimprove supply chain security\u201d by allowing for \u201cmore smelting, processing, and refining capabilities in the United States necessary to claw back these essential processes from geopolitical adversaries like China, which controls more than 80 percent of global rare earth element production, nearly 90 percent of global mineral processing capabilities as well as the market prices for rare earth elements at each step of the process.\u201d<\/p>\n Demand for lithium and cobalt \u201cwill skyrocket 30\u201340 percent\u201d in less than two decades, Johnson said. \u201cThis is hard to comprehend. The bottom line is, we need a lot more mining and a lot more mines. We can do that with the right permitting in place.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cWe need the right policies in place to unblock that potential,\u201d Sweeney said. \u201cWe\u2019re not asking for shortcuts, we\u2019re asking for a more transparent, predictable process. We have to bring battery production here. To do that, we have to solve these things and we don\u2019t have much time.\u201d<\/p>\n Committee Democrats and several witnesses claimed the bills propose ways to skirt regulations with solutions that don\u2019t address shortfalls in critical minerals but merely reinstall gas and oil as the dominant source of energy generation.<\/p>\n \u201cSeveral of the bills would create new loopholes in important environmental laws,\u201d Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) said, noting the 17-bill slate is to be \u201cfast-tracked \u2026 with little concerns for Americans\u2019 air, water, and safety.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cFew bills of the 17 we have here today actually establish a definition of \u2018critical energy sources,\u2019\u201d Earthjustice Legislative Director for Healthy Communities Raul Garcia said. \u201cWhat they actually say is, \u2018Let\u2019s leave that definition up to the Secretary of Energy.\u2019 That\u2019s a Trojan horse. That means everything can suddenly become a critical energy source\u201d depending on the whim of a bureaucrat.<\/p>\n Garcia cited a proposed amendment to the Toxic Substances Control Act \u201cthat would have us consider the economic impacts, the economic costs, when determining if a substance is toxic or not.\u201d<\/p>\n That makes so little sense, he said, it\u2019s bound to be lethal.<\/p>\n \u201cThat would mean, if we put poison in three cups of water, we are going to drink them all and figure out what the economic costs would are going to be to us\u201d of drinking three cups of water with poison in them,\u2019 he said.<\/p>\n \u201cSo,\u201d he concluded, \u201canother question I have to the proponents of the bill is, \u2018What is the cost of a human life? What is the cost that poison is going to inflict on a human being?\u2019 We haven\u2019t talked about [risks] here yet, so that is what I think we need to focus on in this committee because these bills fail\u2014flat-out fail\u2014to do that.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n![\"Epoch](\"https:\/\/img.theepochtimes.com\/assets\/uploads\/2022\/07\/12\/GettyImages-1163776858-1200x801.jpg\")
GOP\u2019s New Agenda<\/b><\/h2>\n
Rhetoric Vs. Reality<\/b><\/h2>\n
Imports Up, Industry Idles<\/b><\/h2>\n
Permitting, Regulatory Reform<\/b><\/h2>\n
Time to Get Digging<\/b><\/h2>\n
\u2018Fast-Tracking\u2019 Criticism<\/b><\/span><\/h2>\n