Highlights

• Sophia Kalantzakos argues for avoiding geopolitical conflicts over rare earth elements during the global sustainable energy transition.
• The article critiques Kalantzakos's perspective by highlighting the structural challenges of China's rare earth element monopoly.
• The piece emphasizes the need for balanced, equitable approaches to rare earth mining while acknowledging complex geopolitical tensions.

In her Times of India interview (opens in a new tab), Sophia Kalantzakos (opens in a new tab) argues that the world’s transition to sustainable energy and technology should not ignite geopolitical conflicts over rare earth elements (REEs), despite China’s near-monopoly on their production.

Ms. Kalantzakos highlights the Paris Agreement's global push for decarbonization and the escalating U.S.-China competition, fueled by tariffs, supply chain realignments, and “friendshoring” initiatives. Kalantzakos contends that sustainable REE development must prioritize equity and environmental stewardship, advocating for inclusive practices, such as Greenland’s efforts to involve indigenous communities in mining projects.

Real World Realities

While her argument for avoiding conflict and promoting sustainability is compelling, it downplays key realities of the geopolitical landscape. First incoming POTUS, Donald Trump, will likely cut American ties to the Paris Agreement.  Second, China’s dominance, backed by state-owned enterprises and decades of infrastructure investment, poses a structural challenge for competitors that cannot be mitigated merely by cooperation or high standards, or for that matter, any free market solutions.

Additionally, her critique of U.S. trade and defense-driven mineral policies lacks a detailed exploration of their necessity in balancing global supply chain dependencies. The piece also avoids discussing how resource-rich developing nations might realistically compete with China’s scale and cost efficiency.

Ultimately, while Kalantzakos rightly emphasizes the need for a balanced, equitable approach to rare earth mining, her vision of avoiding conflict overlooks the entrenched competitive dynamics and geopolitical tensions that drive nations to secure critical mineral resources for economic and strategic security.

Plus, she clearly avoids any gritty insight into the fundamental changes coming to U.S.-based policy based on the results of the just recent election.  The probability of conflict now intensifies, based on the U.S., seeking to overturn China’s monopoly on rare earth processing and production. 

But it’s not clear that the U.S. itself, or at least key policy leaders and politicians, understand the implications of today’s realities in this obscure but critically important space.  As we have discussed, securing Greenland minerals doesn’t solve the unequal dynamics involving processing and value-added production for magnets and the like. Yes, it could be a step but, Rare Earth Exchanges has articulated some of the fundamental reasons for the current Chinese rare earth dominance, plus potential pathways to change the current dynamics.