the doctor doesn’t know, but it’s a question we need to ask, and answer, before politicians run away with an agenda that maximizes their bank account while simultaneously maximizing economic and environmental damage.

In September, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon stated that geopolitics is the world’s biggest risk and, more specifically, that we have dealt with inflation before, we dealt with deficits before, we have dealt with recessions before, and we haven’t really seen something like this pretty much since World War II. And while he didn’t mention power politics in particular, we’ve seen a lot of first world countries elect leaders with protectionist/centrist viewpoints, a directorial demeanor, and anti- free-trade stances.

Due to a loss of jobs, a loss of manufacturing, and a lack of reliability of supply, we’ve seen a lot of pushback on China (which is a major global source of many raw materials, and rare-earths in particular) while India is gaining ground in the BRICS (thanks to the anti-Russian Sentiment among those Pro-Ukraine and the instability of the Brazilian economy along with the China pushback), the United States implementing Buy American policies, the EU taxing anything they are sanctioning or trying to enforce “Buy EU” policies on, and the UK making decisions since (and including) Brexit that no one understands.

Now, we should all be buying local to the extent possible (which might be the local farm, the state farm, or the farm one country south if ours is too cold to grow the produce we need; and, similarly, a factory in the country or a neighbouring one), when it comes to certain raw materials, especially rare earths and metals for which we do not have (more sustainable) alternatives, one doesn’t always have a choice. And the reality is that, for a given country, only one country will have the most sustainable source of rare earth and/or metal supply when you take into account the mining operation, the processing operation, and global shipping. And if protectionist/centrist/trade policies prevent purchasing from that country, and the next two or three most sustainable (and/or most economical if your company is in/selling primarily to a developing country and you can only afford so many sources), the alternatives are not good.

So while it’s hard to quantify what the current era or power politics will have on the sustainable acquisition of raw materials and (precious) metals, it’s a question your organization needs to answer if you rely on such, and take steps to inform your local lobbying organizations to make sure that critical, sustainable, sources of supply are not blocked until alternatives are developed (especially if your organization needs to hit carbon [reduction] targets).

And if you don’t think this is an important topic, then why did Dr. Naoise McDonagh, a Lecturer at Edith Cowan University and a former Board Member of the Australian Institute of International Affairs, recently publish an article in the interpreter (published by the Lowy Institute) on why Australia must play the geoeconomics game, or risk being side-lined.

Dr. McDonagh believes that acts such as the US’ IRA (Inflation Reduction Act) or the EU’s Critical Raw Materials Regulation, designed to drive growth in a particular industry (and, in particular, North American or EU-based EV supply chains) will act as a vast black hole sucking global capital from other destinations operating on purely comparative advantage terms which includes Australia.

Dr. McDonagh argues that these acts, and similar measures being implemented globally, are part of a geopolitical transition that is creating a two-level world economy: a standard economy with normal market access and a de-risked economy with restricted access for actors of concern. And since the types of restricted access we are seeing typically revolve around rare earths and metals, this means that we need to ask the question we asked in the title: What Impact Will Power Politics Have on the Sustainable Acquisition of Raw Materials?

the doctor doesn’t think the answer is obvious, and definitely doesn’t agree that Dr. McDonagh’s insistence that the answer for Austrailia is the 10-year Australian Renewable Industry Package because the doctor believes the question is more nuanced than anyone currently understands. However, the doctor does agree with Dr. McDonagh’s reading of the situation and that power politics is quickly becoming one of the most significant risks to your supply chain, which is even more unpredictable than strikes and natural disasters.

If you have a partial answer, comment on LinkedIn. We need them before bad decisions are made for us.