| 摘要 | Let’s put an end to heavy U.S. dependence on foreign supplies of strategically imported minerals. Effective action on minerals is long overdue. Reversing our growing reliance on imports, many from geopolitical rivals, starts with commonsense reform to the permitting process for American mining companies.
For years, U.S. manufacturers were content to rely on other countries for minerals. Reducing imports wasn’t worth the trouble since other countries were dependable suppliers. But given the increasing willingness of China and Russia to use economic and military pressure for political ends, dependence on imports for critically important minerals such as lithium, cobalt, and vanadium is getting riskier by the day. These minerals are needed for weapons systems and high-tech products such as storage batteries and electronic devices.
The best way to keep the supply of minerals conflict-free is for the U.S. to do what has served it so well in years past: make greater use of our own mineral resources.
The Department of Defense uses 750,000 tons of minerals each year, and a large amount comes from China. Today, China is the primary supplier of 26 out of the 48 minerals that the U.S. is at least 50% import-dependent on. Among the minerals that supply China controls are rare earths, which have a wide range of uses in key technologies, from laser-guidance systems for weapons, jet fighter engines, and night-vision goggles to batteries for electric vehicles and smartphones.
For the most part, the U.S. government believed that as China grew more powerful and engaged more with the world, it would come to accept international rules and norms. Although this strategy helped avoid major crises, it did not prevent China from blocking the sale of rare earths to Japan during a dispute several years ago over sovereignty in the South China Sea. More recently, it looked as if China might retaliate against U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports by halting the sale of rare earths to the United States.
China is not the only country to do some mineral saber-rattling. Russian President Vladimir Putin has threatened to restrict uranium exports should the U.S. impose trade sanctions against Russia or its client states. Currently, 93% of the uranium used in the U.S. is imported, much of it from Russia and former Soviet states, and our import dependence is expected to reach 99% by the end of this year. Those countries are using state-subsidized exports of uranium to drive free-market companies in the U.S. and other countries out of business. China’s stake in global uranium production is increasing as well.
An embargo or a spike in world uranium prices would hobble the U.S. fleet of nuclear-powered battleships and submarines, threaten the operation of nuclear power plants, and limit the use of uranium in many industries.
The best way to protect our national security and economy lies in adopting a strategy aimed at reopening domestic mines and taking advantage of the estimated $6.2 trillion in U.S. mineral resources. Demand for minerals is expected to soar as the production of electric vehicles and other mineral-intensive technologies increases. Solar panels, wind turbines, and lithium-ion batteries rely on minerals that we can produce in the U.S.
For that to happen, Congress must commit to reducing the permitting barriers that have weakened the competitiveness of U.S. mining operations. The mine permitting process is so redundant and cumbersome, it often takes 10 years or more for a company to obtain a permit. In contrast, the process takes an average of three years or less in Canada and Australia.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, head of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has taken the lead in sponsoring legislation that would expedite decision-making and eliminate redundancies in the permitting process, while delegating more authority to states in the West where most of the minerals are found.
Now is the time for Congress to take decisive action. The U.S. would be far better off if it aligns mineral policy with ever-growing mineral demand. Our defense, advanced manufacturing, and energy technology ambitions depend on it.
Mark J. Perry is a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a professor of economics at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan. |
