Misalignment between national resource inventories and policy actions drives unevenness in the energy transition

The study investigates whether national mineral resource inventories and policy actions are aligned with global climate targets that require rapid scaling of energy transition minerals (ETMs). In the context of escalating international urgency from the IPCC and UN to fast-track decarbonization, the authors distinguish between global transition imperatives and the national policy instruments that determine the feasibility and timing of mineral supply. Given long average lead times for mines (IEA estimate ~16.5 years from discovery to production), the research asks how prepared ETM-rich countries are—both in terms of project development stages and policy frameworks—to mobilize near-term supply. The purpose is to gauge alignment between resource readiness and policy action across key ETM-producing and resource-holding nations, and to assess implications for achieving Paris Agreement timelines. The study emphasizes the importance of ETM location, governance, and national capacities in shaping the pace and distribution of the energy transition.

Prior work highlights geographic and socio-political constraints on mineral supply for the energy transition, noting the need for stronger social and environmental safeguards during any ETM "rush." Scholarship documents the high social cost of fossil fuels and the urgency for structural energy reforms, while also recognizing that mineral deposit locations and governance conditions can impede rapid scaling. Studies point to risks such as resource nationalism, community resistance, legal challenges, corruption, and debt, all of which influence project timing and feasibility. The IEA’s projections of rapidly rising ETM demand and long development lead times underscore the challenge of meeting near-term targets. Additionally, literature on procedural rights (e.g., FPIC) and overlaps with Indigenous lands in “safe” jurisdictions suggests that even high-governance settings face procedural uncertainties that can affect timelines. Overall, the literature indicates that national governance systems and policy instruments are primary determinants of extraction scale and speed, yet are often overlooked in global policy debates about transition timelines.

Design: A mixed-methods approach combined quantitative resource inventory analysis with a qualitative review of national policy actions, followed by cluster analysis to group countries by similarity in development/governance indicators and ETM inventory profiles. Country selection: Focused on minerals with fast-growing demand from low-carbon technologies where 2040 demand is at least double 2020 demand and exceeds 10% of current annual production (IEA SPS). Selected ETMs include lithium, graphite, cobalt, nickel, copper, molybdenum, rare earth elements (REE), and tantalum. Using USGS production data and S&P Capital IQ reserves/resources, the authors identified top-3 producers and top-3 reserve/resource holders, yielding an initial set of 20 countries. Russia and China were excluded due to geopolitical supply-independence trends and data limitations, resulting in 18 countries: Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, DRC, Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Mozambique, Myanmar, Peru, Philippines, Rwanda, Tanzania, USA. Resource inventories: From S&P Capital IQ Pro (extracted 22 March 2023), the initial dataset had 24,269 properties. Inactive (n=15,079) and rehabilitation (n=60) properties were removed, leaving 9,130 active entries. ETM properties were identified using a 29-ETM list; projects where ETMs were the primary commodity were retained (n=3,897). Projects were grouped by development stage: Grassroots & Reserves Development (n=2,724), Feasibility & Preproduction (n=347), and Production & Closure (n=826). Country-level counts by stage and mineral were compiled. Policy actions: Publicly available national-level documents (Jan 2020–Apr 2023) intended to hasten ETM extraction were collected from reports, government sources, company/industry news, and academic/professional intelligence, supplemented by 12 rounds of discussions with policy/advocacy representatives. Inclusion criteria: (i) adopted or announced 01/01/2020–04/30/2023; (ii) federal/national level; (iii) aimed at enabling or accelerating ETM extraction. Exclusions: sub- or supra-national policies, international partnerships, generalist initiatives (e.g., infrastructure or broad investment/geoscience strategies), or pre-2020 documents. Final sample: 67 documents categorized into a policy hierarchy: Legal & Regulatory Instruments (n=27), Policy Pipeline Instruments (n=25), Media Releases & Statements (n=15). Development/governance indicators: HDI (very high, high, medium, low), OECD membership, and RGI (very high, high, medium, low) used as proxies for development level and governance quality. Analysis: Cluster analysis using Gower distance (mixed data) and PAM (Partitioning Around Medoids) grouped countries based on economic/political characteristics (HDI, OECD, RGI) and ETM inventory variables (counts by development stage; log transforms applied to positively skewed counts). The clustering identified three clusters. The authors then related cluster-level resource profiles to policy-action patterns and evaluated alignment. Statistical analyses and visualizations used R 4.1.0 and the ‘cluster’ package.

- Resource distribution and readiness: ETM distribution and near-term production-readiness vary widely across the 18 countries. Most countries have a large share of projects in early stages; relatively few are construction-ready (Feasibility & Preproduction). - Policy actions: 67 national-level policy actions (01/2020–04/2023) were identified: 27 Legal & Regulatory Instruments, 25 Policy Pipeline Instruments, and 15 Media Releases & Statements. Only one policy explicitly addressed expansion of existing assets, indicating a strong global bias toward new project development over expansions. - Price context: Between 2021 and 2022, lithium and cobalt prices roughly doubled; copper, nickel, and aluminum rose by over 25%. Despite favorable prices, a notable enabling-policy response was not observed. - Cluster structure and early-stage project concentration: Three clusters emerged. Over 85% of ETM projects in early stages (Grassroots & Reserves Development plus Feasibility & Preproduction; total n=2,655) are concentrated in Cluster 2; 9.5% (n=292) in Cluster 1; 4% (n=124) in Cluster 3. - Cluster characteristics and alignment: • Cluster 2 (OECD, very high HDI/RGI; Australia, Canada, Chile, Japan, Mexico, USA): Highest counts of early-stage projects; higher share of Policy Pipeline Instruments; positive correlations between pipeline instruments and both Feasibility & Preproduction (0.77 by counts) and Grassroots & Reserves Development (0.87 by counts); negative relationship between Grassroots & Reserves Development and Legal & Regulatory Instruments (-0.3). Indicates moderate alignment and procedural progression consistent with liberal democracies. • Cluster 1 (non-OECD established mining economies; Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Peru, Philippines): Larger share of projects already in Production & Closure; relatively fewer in early stages (suggesting lower exploration/pre-development investment). Strong positive relationships between Grassroots & Reserves Development and Policy Pipeline Instruments (0.83 counts; 0.49 shares), and between Feasibility & Preproduction and Legal & Regulatory Instruments (0.69 counts; 0.47 shares); strong negative relationship between shares of Grassroots & Reserves Development and Media Releases & Statements. Limited evidence of public strategies or consultations targeting rapid supply. • Cluster 3 (non-OECD, strong exploration potential but weaker governance; DRC, Mozambique, Myanmar, Rwanda, Tanzania): Few reported projects across all stages; low HDI/RGI and higher socio-political risk. Few publicized policy actions (on average <1 per category); strong negative relationships between Media Releases & Statements and early-stage projects (shares: -0.93 for Grassroots & Reserves Development; -0.76 for Feasibility & Preproduction), suggesting low transparency; positive relationship between Legal & Regulatory Instruments and Feasibility & Preproduction (0.51 counts). - Country-level diversity: Australia, Brazil, Canada, and the USA show highest mineral diversity; Japan has reserves in REE and nickel but a less diverse inventory; Peru has large copper reserves/resources but less diversity. Many countries show predominance of Grassroots & Reserves Development over Feasibility & Preproduction. - Misalignment pattern: OECD countries (Cluster 2) show stronger alignment between policy actions and project readiness than non-OECD countries, signaling an uneven trajectory in scaling ETM supply relative to global climate targets.

The findings directly address the research question by showing that national policy actions and resource inventories are unevenly aligned with global climate objectives requiring rapid ETM supply growth. Despite favorable commodity prices, enabling national policies did not consistently accelerate near-term supply, and only one policy explicitly targeted expansions of existing mines. The cluster analysis reveals that OECD countries (Cluster 2) have more early-stage projects and more structured policy pipelines, suggesting better near-term readiness. However, procedural requirements (e.g., FPIC, consultations) in high-governance jurisdictions can introduce uncertainties and potential delays, as illustrated by the Resolution Copper case in the United States. Non-OECD established mining economies (Cluster 1) have substantial operating inventories but thinner pipelines of early-stage projects, implying near-term scaling would likely require expansions at existing sites, which carry social and environmental risks and often complex cross-border corporate and legal dynamics. Countries with lower development and governance indicators (Cluster 3) hold significant ETM potential but face transparency, capacity, and investment challenges that impede timely mobilization. Together, these dynamics suggest that global climate mitigation timelines predicated on rapid ETM supply may be undermined by national-level misalignments, raising the prospect of delays, uneven transitions, or fragmented outcomes structured by resource endowment, governance quality, and wealth.

The paper contributes an integrated assessment of ETM resource inventories and national policy actions across 18 key countries, identifying systematic misalignments that could delay or unevenly distribute the energy transition. It shows that OECD countries exhibit stronger alignment but still face procedural uncertainties, while many non-OECD jurisdictions either lack robust early-stage project pipelines (Cluster 1) or face governance and transparency constraints (Cluster 3). Four implications are emphasized: (1) misalignments imply elevated social costs from delayed ETM supply, necessitating reassessment of timeframes and impacts; (2) the strongest near-term supply proposition is expanding large existing operations in Clusters 1 and 2, but this requires careful integration of social, human rights, and environmental safeguards; (3) reprocessing and re-mining of exhausted resources could contribute with further innovation and investment, albeit with significant social and environmental risks; (4) more nuanced transition and demand scenarios are needed to reflect evolving alignments and alliances, as well as tensions between procedural rights and supply urgency. Future research should incorporate sub- and supra-national policy dynamics, expand country coverage (including China, India, and Russia as data improve), assess the role of supply chains, and refine models to reflect heterogeneous geographies and timeframes of transition.

- Data scope: Focused on large-scale projects in S&P Capital IQ Pro; artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM) alluvial deposits are not captured and are unlikely to meet ETM scale needs. - Country coverage: China, India, and Russia excluded due to incomplete inventories and limited public reporting; this constrains analysis of global cooperative trends and supply strategies. - Policy scope: Only national-level actions (2020–2023) were analyzed; sub-national and supra-national instruments (e.g., EU Critical Raw Materials Act) and international partnerships were excluded, as were generalist infrastructure/investment/geoscience initiatives. - Generalizability: The study does not attempt to redefine transition timeframes or model future impact scenarios arising from delays or unevenness; supply chain complexities beyond national extraction policies were not fully analyzed. - Data dynamics: Future mineral demand and reserves/resources data are continually updated; country selection and results may evolve as knowledge improves.