Highlights
- Geographer Julie Klinger argues the U.S. could meet rare earth demand through recycling mine waste and electronics rather than opening new mines.
- Her case overlooks critical scale and timing challenges.
- Recycling rates remain below 1% globally, and recovered materials still require the same processing infrastructure dominated by China.
- Recycling is a complement to, not a replacement for, domestic refining capacity.
- The real solution requires unglamorous capital investment in processing capacity first.
- This should be paired with recycling and selective mining.
- Waste recovery should not be treated as a shortcut past the supply chain's hardest step.
In a February 6 opinion essay (opens in a new tab) in The New York Times, geographer Julie Michelle Klinger (opens in a new tab) contends that fears of China’s rare-earth dominance are exaggerated. She argues that the United States could meet most of its demand by recovering rare earths from mine waste, industrial scrap, and discarded electronics, rather than opening new mines. Mining, she suggests, is slow, environmentally risky, and often unnecessary; recycling and domestic processing should take priority.
Where the Essay Is Solid
Several core points are accurate. Rare earths are not geologically scarce. China’s dominance is concentrated in processing, not in exclusive access to ore. Western nations did, over decades, outsource hazardous and capital-intensive refining to China, eroding domestic expertise. And recycling rates for rare earths remain below 1% globally, an undeniable inefficiency.
Klinger is also right to puncture repeated mining hype—from Greenland to the deep seabed—that has produced headlines rather than durable supply.
Where the Case Breaks Down
The problem is scale and timing. Recycling and waste recovery are necessary—but nowhere near sufficient in the near to medium term. Rare earths are used in tiny quantities, embedded in complex products, and locked into magnets and alloys that are expensive and chemically intensive to separate. The U.S. lacks industrial-scale collection, disassembly, and solvent-extraction infrastructure to turn theory into tonnage.
Claims that the U.S. could meet “most” of its needs through waste recovery rest on theoretical resource estimates, not operating systems. “Recoverable” does not mean recoverable economically, at purity, at scale, and on schedule—especially for heavy rare earths such as dysprosium and terbium, which are essential for defense systems and EV drivetrains.
The Missing Middle Everyone Avoids
Ironically, the essay concedes the key truth and then glides past it. Processing is the bottleneck—and recycling does not bypass it. Scrap still must be separated, refined, metallized, and qualified. Without domestic solvent extraction, metal-making, and magnet manufacturing, recycling simply feeds the same choke point China already dominates.
REEx Take
Recycling is a pillar, not a panacea. Treating it as an alternative to mining and processing risks repeating the very mistake that created today’s dependency: confusing material abundance with supply security. The real solution is unglamorous and capital-intensive—processing capacity first, paired with recycling and selective mining.
The New York Times is right to challenge mining mythology. It is wrong to suggest the hardest step can be skipped.
Source: The New York Times, Opinion
2 Comments
2 replies
Loading new replies...
Active member
Administrator
Join the full discussion at the Rare Earth Exchanges Forum →