E Weekly Commodity Review, Climate Change, Rare Earth Metals And La Nina

00:04:05

Two years ago the IPPC (International Government Panel on Climate Change) argued that we must cut global emissions in half by 2030 in order to meet the goal of keeping global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius as agreed to in Paris in 2015 at the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 21). In response to such dire predictions, the world is moving toward renewable and smart technologies at an accelerating pace.

Climate solutions, such as solar energy, wind energy, and electric vehicles, depend on rare earth metals. These so-called "green tech metals" have unique magnetic and luminescent qualities that make them very difficult to substitute with other elements. In 2017 the World  Bank launched its first major study on green tech metals. The authors argue that meeting the Paris Accord will result in skyrocketing demand for metals such as cadmium, neodymium, and indium.

Source: Greenbiz.com

As countries transition to low-emissions economies, we need to make sure we source metals in an environmentally and socially sustainable manner. We can do so by committing to three practices: repatriating primary mining; recycling metals; and repairing our technology rather than replacing it. 

Greenland promises to be the world's 2nd biggest producer of Rare Earth metals after China. However, political issues pose a challenge for a country that has seen Climate Change, first hand, for years.

Here is an interesting article I wrote that discusses a bit more about the importance of Greenland a major rare earth metal source.

Unfortunately, Greenland is in the midst of political turmoil that threatens the discovery and production of Rare Earth metals, important for technologies related to Climate Change, itself.

However, I firmly believe regardless of whether or not Greenland becomes a leader in the Rare Earth Metals solution, investing in an ETF such as RMEX Is a good long-term investment. I continue to see the planet-warming as a whole and in contrast to certain scientists who feel that solar activity, not C02 and other greenhouse gases will save the planet. Impossible in my opinion. 

1 2
View single page >> |

This is an excerpt from James Roemer's premium subscription newsletter. Try a free trial subscription by clicking here.

How did you like this article? Let us know so we can better customize your reading experience.

Comments

Leave a comment to automatically be entered into our contest to win a free Echo Show.
William K. 5 days ago Member's comment

One question now is "what about the solar heat output? How does it compare with 50 and 100 years ago? And how accurate were the measurements 100 years ago?

AND, is it possible that global warming causes increased carbon dioxide levels?

James Roemer 4 days ago Author's comment

Hi Bill,

Scientists are able today, to look at C02 ice cores and measurements from not only 50-100, but tens of thousands of years ago. Certainly, technology today is more advanced than years back, but digging into ice cores, millions of years old can determine a lot about earth's secrets. I am a big believer in Climate Change and talk about it some in my newsletter Climatelligence. Happy to send you a free copy with an email address. All the best, Jim

William K. 4 days ago Member's comment

There is a line of thinking that asks if global warming causes an increase in carbon dioxide. In addition there is also a rather fundamental acknowledgement that correlation does not prove causation.

The part that originally caused my doubts is that the group that started making all of the noise seemed to contain a lot of the same folks who for quite a while had been complaining about how unfair it was that just a few countries were consuming such a large portion of the world's resources and having so much nicer and healthier life style. The problem with that is that most of the undeveloped countries have been around much longer than the more advanced countries. So if those areas had a 500 year head start in the race, how can it be our fault that they do not surpass us late starters??