Energy and Our World

This article originally ran on Forbes.com on June 19, 2024. All rights reserved.

Daniel B. Markind is a Forbes.com energy column contributor. The views expressed in this article are not to be associated with the views of Flaster Greenberg PC.

Along with the incessant calls of “from the river to the sea...,” one refrain that is heard often among pro-Palestinian protesters at college encampments is this expressed by Barnard college student Maria Grosso, who wants “the United States to stop their war machine."

Ms. Grosso, a Palestinian supporter who believes Israel has no right even to exist as a Jewish country, (Source), expressed a refrain often heard in these protests. Not only are the protesters supporters of  the Palestinians, but they also demand that the United States stop being involved in international affairs entirely.

Assume that this view prevails and that the United States returns to the isolationism that generally dominated this country’s foreign policy for more than a century prior to World War II.  What effect would that have on our ability to effect green energy transition and to move away from fossil fuels?

Unlike fossil fuels, electric energy is not a material thing. It cannot be transported in a pipeline or a truck. It needs battery storage and near constant transportation via transmission lines to be of any value to civilization. That means rare element (REEs) metals like lithium and cobalt are required, in order to have citizen access to robust, available, and usable green energy supplies.  Without these REEs, utilizing electricity generated by things like solar farms windmill structures, hydroelectric plants, and the like is not economically viable, nor would it be practical.

The largest lithium deposits worldwide are found in South America, at the border of Chile, Argentina, and Bolivia. (Source) Of the three countries sharing borders, Bolivia has the largest proven deposits. Unfortunately for the United States, Bolivia has granted development rights to its lithium to a Chinese company. (Source) That means that the United States may have to look elsewhere for this crucial element. A recent study from the University of Pittsburgh claims that much of America's lithium needs can be provided from wastewater used in hydraulic fracturing operations. (Source). However, this technology is still only exploratory, and it has not been proven, yet, to be workable at scale. Other areas in the United States, such as Panamint Valley near Death Valley, California have also been identified as potentially having lithium deposits, but to date environmental concerns have prevented real exploration in those locations. (Source). In short, the United States’ ability to locate and mine or otherwise produce usable lithium is constrained by features and practicalities beyond our control, and we may very well need to secure access to lithium from international sources in order to ensure that we will have access to enough of this rare metal to carry out our green energy plans.  Should countries like China not share our urgency in achieving energy transition, there is little prospect that such energy transition even can be attempted.

What about cobalt? Most of our cobalt presently comes from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where it is mined utilizing child slave labor. (Source). Should we dismantle the American "war machine", any ability that the United States might otherwise  have to pressure the Congo to eliminate use of such child labor would no doubt stop.   From a strictly geopolitical standpoint, our further access to cobalt would then be greatly at risk. This is not only because the Congo, a truly huge country geographically, is often politically unstable. but t is also because over the last few years there have been numerous political coups in sister countries to the Congo, like Guinea, Niger, and Burkina Faso. However, each time the military took power it pledged allegiance to Vladimir Putin. (Source). Putin certainly has no compunction about sending his war machine wherever he believes it to be advantageous. Should that wind up happening in the Congo, our supply of critical cobalt likely could end very soon thereafter.

There are numerous lesser known REEs necessary to implement true energy transition.  What protects American access to them other than the sheer power and influence of our own “war machine”, which is a muscle that we very often only need to flex a bit to get results that we desire?  Meanwhile, China has used soft power to gain most of its influence, to date, but along with that it has massively built up its military to the point that it might even consider attacking Taiwan in a few years.  The world knows this.  Russia, of course, will send its soldiers anywhere Mr. Putin thinks will be advantageous.

Imagine a world in which a “Green Party” wins power in the United States, then promptly guts the military as promised, then withdraws from international affairs and declares that all the money spent on the military now will be spent on energy transition – without regard to how that transition could even be affected in the absence of continuing supplies of REEs like lithium and cobalt.  Will we be doing the planet the biggest favor it has ever received by dismantling our “war machine”, or will we hurtle ourselves very quickly into a scenario where whatever is left of that war machine will have to be used to safeguard our ability to even attempt such a transition?