Fermi Tanks 50% Amid Shock Exit of First Texas Data Center Customer

By ZeroHedge - Dec 12, 2025

Fermi America announced their first potential tenant for the Project Matador data center campus terminated their $150 million Advance in Aid of Construction agreement (i.e., lease). The stock has plunged as much as 50% in premarket trading in what is a wild overreaction with unprecedented demand for data center space (especially data centers named after the president) still offset with limited supply.

Several weeks ago, we documented Fermi's difficulties with signing their first major tenant last month for their President Donald J. Trump Advanced Energy and Intelligence campus in Texas, set to become the world's largest mixed-use data center. Co-founded by former Texas Governor and Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, the company has yet to close a deal with a data center developer for their massive 11 GW campus outside of the Pentax facility.

What is bizarre, is that the company is on track to bring hundreds of megawatts on line for the site by the beginning of next year, has 6 GW of gas turbine power already permitted, and is currently progressing with the NRC to allow the construction of 4 AP1000 reactors. Yet somehow there isn't a line of potential customers around the block desperate for rack space. At least not yet, although we expect that will change one Trump tweets about it. 

Fermi is marketing their campus towards hyperscalers, with some tenants likely to include the biggest tech players such as Palantir. One of the government’s leading AI providers, Palantir was noted as currently being in discussion with Fermi about taking up a spot at Project Matador with a site visit expected to occur in the near future.

Fermi's Project Matador - The President Donald J. Trump Advanced Energy and Intelligence Campus.

The company notes that negotiations on the terms of the lease are continuing with their first potential mystery tenant that has cut off the $150 million for construction advances, and Fermi is continuing discussions with other potential tenants.

We have noted multiple times the extreme difficulties experienced by other data center developers throughout the United States, and abroad, with overcoming local opposition from NIMBY activists. Locals are still struggling to welcome the large data center developments to their towns due to concerns about increased energy consumption and prices, along with water usage.

With some of the data centers consuming as much as an entire city’s worth of water on their own, many activists have been able to petition regional leadership to block data center development on those grounds alone. Fermi has already demonstrated that they are well ahead of this with pre-permitting already completed for new power generation and millions of gallons of water per day already secured from nearby towns with access to massive aquifers.

By Zerohedge.com

POSTMODERN SABOTAGE!

New workplace trend of ‘clock botching’ leads to productivity concerns

By Dr. Tim Sandle
August 12, 2025

EDITOR AT LARGE

DIGITAL JOURNAL


Space to work? — Image by © Tim Sandle

The term ‘presenteeism’ is well-established, this is when employees feel too guilty to call in sick or force themselves to work when their mental health is not up to it. Now there’s a relatively new workplace trend on the rise known as ‘clock botching’.

This recently coined item of jargon refers to employees who appear to be clocked in, but are not meaningfully engaged in their work. 

This can be laziness, although it is often due to low morale, burnout, or workplace disillusionment.

While both behaviours can stem from a sense of obligation, the impact on individuals and businesses can be quietly damaging.

Guy Thornton, the founder of PracticeAptitudeTests.com, tells Digital Journal how these two trends compare, what causes them, and what employees and employers can do if they notice the signs.

What is ‘clock botching’ and how does it compare to presenteeism?

Thornton explains: “Clock botching is similar to presenteeism, but instead of forcing yourself into the office or logging on when you’re clearly unwell or burnt out, it’s what happens when you’re physically present but mentally checked out.

“It might mean stretching a two-hour task across an entire day, half-engaging on video calls, or generally drifting through the workday while running on empty.

“Presenteeism is often about overperforming despite poor health. Clock botching, on the other hand, is about underperforming due to emotional fatigue, disconnection, or a lack of purpose.”

Why are these trends taking hold?

As to the current trajectory, Thornton discerns: “Both behaviours are symptoms of a wider problem. Today’s work culture can reward visibility over output, and with hybrid and remote working now the norm, it’s easier than ever to appear present without fully engaging.


“With presenteeism, the pressure comes from within or from above, usually to keep up appearances, not fall behind, or avoid being seen as unreliable.


“With clock botching, there’s often a sense of low morale, frustration, or burnout. It’s not about laziness. It’s about employees feeling stuck or unsupported, leading to quiet withdrawal.”

What are the impacts?


Any repeated unwanted behaviour adversely impacts the ebb and flow of work. Here Thornton opines: “The risks are surprisingly similar. Both presenteeism and clock botching lead to reduced productivity, poorer outcomes, and a ripple effect across teams.

“Someone forcing themselves to push through when they’re unwell is likely to make mistakes, while someone disengaged may miss deadlines or quietly fall behind.


“In both cases, other team members may be left to pick up the slack, leading to resentment or a dip in morale. If this continues over time, it can cause long-term damage to company culture.

“For businesses, the cost is hidden but real. Disengaged or burnt-out teams don’t just underperform; they’re also more likely to leave.”

What to do if you recognise the signs?

For the good employer, how doe they know if these traits are becoming manifest in the workforce. Thornton thinks: “If you’ve ever forced yourself into work while feeling unwell or found yourself aimlessly clicking around your inbox while mentally elsewhere, you could be slipping into either presenteeism or clock botching, and they’re worth taking seriously.

“Experiencing either of these behaviours doesn’t mean you’re lazy or unreliable. More often than not, it’s the result of burnout, stress, or a lack of support. But the first step is recognising the signs and allowing yourself to step back.

“If you’re regularly feeling foggy, demotivated, or disconnected, that’s your signal to reassess. Taking time off when you need it is an act of self-preservation, not weakness.

“It can be as simple as taking a proper lunch break, finishing on time, or setting clear boundaries around work and rest. Talking to someone, using your leave, and resting when you are unwell are also really important.”

Why it’s important to acknowledge the problem

As to what employers could – should – be doing, Thornton recommends: “Resting when you’re ill or mentally drained will likely lead to a quicker recovery, allowing you to return to work refreshed and ready.

“Taking a sick day, being honest about how you’re feeling, or even just stepping back for an afternoon to reset can lead to better work, stronger performance, and more job satisfaction in the long run.”

Op-Ed: The four-day week – Finally updating an obsolete social script

1933

By Paul Wallis
EDITOR AT LARGE 
August 12, 2025

The four-day week has been hanging around for a while, frightening the employment sector with strange new implications. It’s now a major initiative in Australia, with strong national union backing.

The employment sector is famous for its lack of ideas and innovation. Words like “productivity“ continue to buzz around like flies, like they still mean something.

To understand the shabby logic of this situation:

The employment sector demanded “return to the office” while failing to recognize that employees and contractors having more time and space naturally made them more productive.

It also failed to understand that the massive costs of offices, insurance, OHS, and the rest of the circus could be easily saved.

Defusing the constant stress of office environments was a positive. That didn’t register either.

Mindless commuting isn’t productive. It costs employers and employees time and money, which is otherwise lost to both.

Time management is much easier with flexible working environments. It makes it easier to meet deadlines, too.

So, what price the four-day week? Employers obviously haven’t done the numbers. Nor are they noticing multiple studies worldwide regarding the comparative values of a four-day week.

The negative response is pretty much standard. These are the descendants of management that had to be dragged screaming into the 8-hour day. Innovation is very much a constant buzzword, but so is “NIMBY”, which seems to be the net response so far.

This lack of comprehension is more than ironic in so many ways.

AI is coming.

The entire workforce and the nature of work will change beyond recognition.

Workplaces will be reconfigured to any extent within a decade.

Time will be the sole currency for the value of work and skills.

The office itself will be redundant.

Employees will be working with AI on a case-by-case basis. The plodding grind is likely to be replaced with a need for in-depth oversight of AI operations based entirely on skills.

We’re not talking chatbot-level AI here. Processing of everything from accounts to inventory to orders to value and risk assessments will be integrated.

Try fitting that into a conventional timeframe. It’s absurd. Time is devoted to operational needs. It’s like Parkinson’s Law, a bit more evolved and somewhat more cynical.

The value of the work is the issue, not the time spent on it. Anyone can be a bit of office furniture for 40 years. What’s the value of the work?

The modern workplace is more of a time abuser than an efficient time user. Remember the idiotic “workaholic” idea? Doing a job that’s supposed to fit into 7 hours somehow became better if you did the same job in 12 hours?

These days, you can do a lot more in one day than in five. Proper use of time can’t be straitjacketed into 8 hours or 5 days. Nor can you assume that the value of the work done is solely defined by time.

Flexitime is an old idea, invented in that most frivolous of countries, Germany. The idea was that you managed your time according to a basic 140-hour month. Your productivity was overseen. You had the option to manage your time and do your work according to need. You could earn a day off by simply doing the hours required within that month.

A four-day week is simply a more realistic approach to the realities of modern time commitments. Don’t hold your breath waiting for anyone to figure that out anytime soon.

Britain’s Lib Dems want to ditch their NIMBY tag and scoop up climate voters

The U.K.’s third party believes green policy is the way to hoover up Tory-backers.


Last year, Lib Dems gobbled up seats across the so-called Blue Wall — once-staunchly Conservative constituencies in the leafy home counties — and regained 18 seats from the Tories in the old Lib Dem spiritual stronghold of southwest England.

 | Jack Taylor/Getty Images

July 21, 2025 
By Nicholas Earl

POLITICO EU


LONDON — The Liberal Democrats — the third-biggest party in the U.K. parliament — reckon they have found a winning political formula.

Talking about the climate. A lot.

Fresh from landing a record haul of 72 seats at the 2024 general election by falling off kayaks and targeting customers at the upmarket Gail’s Bakery chain, the Lib Dems’ next trick will be to hammer home just how green they are.

“People are now voting for us because they do see us as a pro-environmental party and movement,” Pippa Heylings, member of parliament for South Cambridgeshire and the party’s energy and climate spokesperson, told POLITICO. “And that matters to people, because they don’t see anybody else … standing up for that.”

The Lib Dems believe the party could exploit a green-shaped gap at the top of politics.

Labour is scared of the threat posed by net-zero skeptic populists Reform UK, Heylings claimed — even if the extra cash thrown at Ed Miliband’s Department for Energy Security and Net Zero in June’s multiyear spending review suggests otherwise.

Her party’s main target, though, is Kemi Badenoch’s ailing Conservative Party.

Last year, Lib Dems gobbled up seats across the so-called Blue Wall — once-staunchly Conservative constituencies in the leafy home counties — and regained 18 seats from the Tories in the old Lib Dem spiritual stronghold of southwest England.

The Lib Dems have decided they can, by talking up net zero and the environment, poach still more “pro-international” and “outward-looking” Tory voters, Heylings said.

Badenoch’s decision to ditch a totemic policy backing net zero by 2050 — made into law by then-Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May — has triggered “real discontent, disappointment and frustration” from liberal-minded voters who have, so far, stuck with the Tories, she argued.

Shadow Tory Energy Minister Andrew Bowie said in February that setting “arbitrary” climate targets “leaves us economically worse off and at a competitive disadvantage to other nations as well.” The Lib Dems, who back hitting net zero as early as 2045, are betting that voters disagree.

The Labour government’s failure to bring energy bills under control, after promising before the election to cut them by up to £300 a year, has landed them in trouble. | Neil Hall/EPA

The latest seat-by-seat polling from YouGov shows the Lib Dems adding a further nine seats if a general election were held today.

“We're actually the largest third party in a century. The Conservatives are in a tailspin. I see ourselves as basically the unofficial official opposition, and we're constructive opposition,” said Heylings.

The local and the national

The Lib Dems’ political opponents claim hypocrisy.

“There are … countless examples of Lib Dems opposing clean energy projects at a local level across the country,” said Labour MP Josh MacAlister, a member of the backbench Growth Group that wants to see more urgency in building new homes and U.K. infrastructure.

MacAlister may be thinking of MPs like Layla Moran, a one-time Lib Dem leadership candidate who has joined her Oxfordshire constituents opposing a local solar farm. It is exactly the sort of massive clean energy project needed to accelerate to net zero so quickly — but Moran says she shares local voters’ “anger and frustration” at the plans.

Heylings nonetheless believes the Lib Dems have the data to back their green rhetoric.

A quarter of the party’s current voters named climate change and the environment among the top issues facing the country, almost twice as many as the public as a whole, according to polling commissioned in May by the party’s new internal green caucus, Liberals and Democrats for Nature and Climate.

Asked why they had backed the Lib Dems, more than a third (34 percent) of its voters gave at least one environmental reason for why the party had won their support — such as sewage leaks, nature preservation and tackling carbon emissions.

“A desire for strong action on climate and the environment is a key reason why many Liberal Democrats voted for the party at the last election. Liberal Democrat voters want and expect strong action both from the government and their local MP to protect the environment,” the paper, published by polling think tank More in Common, said.
All about bills

But talking up environmental policies at every turn brings political risk, too, especially if it looks like going green is being prioritized over voters’ immediate worries about living costs

Voters have “clear limits” on backing climate policies, the More in Common analysis argued, and would not support “significantly higher bills or taxes” to fund the green transition. The Labour government’s failure to bring energy bills under control, after promising before the election to cut them by up to £300 a year, has landed them in trouble.

The Lib Dems are trying to reassure nervous voters.

Party leader Ed Davey recently unveiled plans to break the link between gas prices and electricity costs. | Adam Vaughan/EPA

Party leader Ed Davey recently unveiled plans to break the link between gas prices and electricity costs, which he said will bring down bills and encourage people to switch from boilers to climate-friendly heat pumps. “People aren’t seeing the benefit of cheap renewable power,” he said.

They have also pledged to move clean energy generation off lucrative subsidy deals struck with developers years ago and onto new deals in line with more recent subsidies. The Lib Dems claim this move could knock £200 a year off bills.

Davey used a speech Wednesday to offer red meat to would-be Lib Dem voters, with a pledge to take on net-zero skeptics, including populists Reform UK. Going green is “a Liberal Democrat energy policy in service of the British people. Not a Nigel Farage energy policy in service of Vladimir Putin,” Davey argued.

Heylings, meanwhile, brushed off the not-in-my-back-yard tag, used by those who claim Lib Dems talk a good game on climate and the environment while working to block anything which might upset local voters.

“I’m not anti-house building. I’m not NIMBY,” she said. “I’ve been working with developers on this. You can do both house-building and nature recovery. You can do high environmental standards and they can still be affordable.”

Labour veteran Diane Abbott once called opting for the Lib Dems the “dustbin” vote. The party has between now and 2029 to persuade voters they are a lot cleaner and greener than that.

 

Yes, in my back yard: people who live near large-scale solar projects are happy to have more built nearby

Scientists studying the impact of solar power on local neighborhoods find that most people living close to large-scale solar plants wouldn’t mind if a new plant was built nearby

Frontiers

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

Would you like living next door to a solar farm? Traditionally, it’s been thought that although people like the idea of renewable energy plants, they don’t want them close by. Now research investigating how people who live near large-scale solar projects feel about them has found that 82% of people living within an hour’s walk of current projects would support, or are neutral towards, new projects in their area.  

“Most neighbors of existing large-scale solar projects either support or feel neutral about additional projects in or near their communities, with only 18% opposing it,” said Dr Sarah Mills of the University of Michigan, an author of the article in Frontiers in Sustainable Energy Policy. “Just as has been documented for wind energy, we found that the NIMBY — not in my backyard — explanation for opposition to solar was overly simplistic and unhelpful in explaining neighbors’ sentiments.” 

Not in my backyard? 

The US already has more than 4,000 large-scale solar energy plants which can produce more than a megawatt of electricity each. Some studies suggest that the country could increase its solar capacity by up to 70 gigawatts a year in the next decade, which would mean building approximately 1,650 projects annually. But if this transition to green energy is going to work, we need to understand what impacts solar plants have on communities. 

The scientists sent out surveys to people living within three miles of large-scale solar projects installed between 2017 and 2021, asking about their support levels for new solar projects, as well as their experience of living near an existing solar project. They ultimately received 979 responses, covering 379 different solar projects ranging in size from one to 328 megawatts across 39 states.  

“Large-scale solar projects require approximately five to eight acres of land per MW,” said Mills. “The projects we studied were on average about 400 acres. But some were over 2,000 acres, or three square miles.” 

Green light 

Overall, 43% of respondents said they felt positively about their local solar project, 42% were neutral, and 15% felt negatively. This almost exactly matched the support levels for new solar projects: 43% would support new projects, 39% remained neutral, and 18% said they would oppose additional solar projects.  

To explore the factors influencing this, the scientists created two models. The first focused only on objective variables, such as the date a project was installed. The second model also included subjective variables like the reported impact on quality of life.  

Most of the variables in the objective model only weakly correlated with support: the most influential was the size of the existing project. Respondents living near large projects were less likely to support additional projects. Subjective variables were much more strongly associated with support for additional solar projects, especially the perceived impact on community quality of life and aesthetics. There was one notable exception: residents who reported greater familiarity with the existing project were less likely to support a new one. 

“We can’t be certain that more familiarity causes lower support for additional solar,” said Mills. “Rather, we find that more familiarity is correlated with lower support. Our hypothesis is that residents who see the project more regularly feel that their community already hosts their fair share of infrastructure.  

“That said, most respondents rarely saw, or were totally unaware of, the project prior to receiving our survey. So it could be that most in the community are essentially unaffected, whereas a minority sees it frequently and does not wish to see more.” 

A solar-powered future? 

The researchers did find that many people living near solar projects seemed to be poorly informed about their local projects, suggesting that developers need to engage with locals more. But this research indicates that most people who live near solar projects are comfortable with their renewable energy neighbors. These findings could help guide energy infrastructure development, informing how we manage new renewable energy plants for a greener future.  

“This survey was really just one snapshot in time,” cautioned Mills, calling for more follow-up research to understand how impacts on the community and local opinion change over time. “We strongly encourage future work to conduct longitudinal social science research — for example, to collect data throughout the planning, development, construction, and operational phases of large-scale energy plants.” 

---

Journal

Frontiers in Sustainable Energy Policy

DOI

10.3389/fsuep.2025.1579170 

Method of Research

Survey

Subject of Research

People

Article Title

More Power to Them: U.S. Large-Scale Solar Neighbors' Support for Additional Solar

Article Publication Date

17-Jun-2025

New Lithium Mines Could Cut EU Imports By Half

NIMBY 

NOBODY WANTS THEM IN THEIR COUNTRIES

ASK THE SERBS

 June 15, 2025

By Eurasia Review

The most important mineral in today’s electric car batteries is lithium. China completely dominates the market, with no extraction taking place in Europe. However, a new study shows that there is great potential for European lithium production, which would bring improvements in competitiveness, the climate and security. The study also points out that there are complex international trade dependencies that affect supply and demand.

European car manufacturing, which currently accounts for six per cent of the European Union’s GDP, risks becoming a thing of the past unless Europe is able to start producing its own electric cars and batteries. Twenty per cent of new cars currently produced in Europe are electric. The EU is aiming to phase out internal combustion engines in vehicles by 2035.

Lithium is the most important mineral in modern electric batteries, which are used in consumer electronics (phones, power tools, watches) and vehicles. Other metals such as cobalt and nickel can be substituted, but not lithium. While research on primarily sodium (salt) is underway, those batteries have lower performance and the path to commercialisation is uncertain. In other words, whoever owns the mining and refining of key metals has a strong hand. It is China who holds those cards.

“The Chinese state has been providing strategic support funding to Chinese green technology companies for many years. The EU has a goal of boosting its own production and may have to do something similar in order to catch up. The investment cost and risk are too high for individual countries,” says André Månberger, a researcher and expert on critical metals at Lund University in Sweden. 

André and former visiting doctoral student Qifan Xia have mapped out trade dependence on the coveted mineral. The results confirm China’s dominance and verify the intricate interdependencies between the countries of the world, especially as supply is not only about extraction but also about refining, component manufacturing and, ultimately, battery production itself. 

“The risk of China’s dominance is not only that Europe will lose its domestic automotive industry and thus its prosperity, but also that we could become a target for blackmail in the event of global conflicts,” says André Månberger. 

In a new study published in Cell Reports Sustainability, he and Qifan summarised the deposits identified by geologists in Europe, China and the United States that have the potential to be mined. A few have been identified in Europe, but commercial extraction is yet to begin. The deposits are mainly found in Spain, Portugal, Germany, France, Serbia and Finland. 

Månberger concludes that if these were to be exploited, the EU could more than halve its future import dependence. The researchers compared the EU’s lithium needs in the 2030s with the amount the mines could produce in that period. In weight terms, this amounts to 325,000 tonnes of lithium carbonate around the year 2030.

However, the path to large-scale lithium mining across Europe is fraught with conflicting objectives. These include investment costs, opposition from local residents, the risk of chemicals leaking into groundwater, the impact on nature and various liability issues. 

“Promising technologies are being tested in Germany where lithium extraction is recovered from geothermal energy sources. When hot water is pumped up for use in gheating, lithium comes up too as a “free gift.” New membrane technologies can filter this lithium out and it can then be used. This method reduces the impact on nature and the risk of conflict with neighbours, but unfortunately these deposits are only a small part of the projects and conventional mines will also be needed if Europe is to reduce its dependence on imports.”

André Månberger hopes his study will demonstrate the significant potential of extraction in Europe. 

“The significant potential within Europe may mean that not all deposits need to be developed and hopefully this knowledge can contribute to a discussion about how different objectives are prioritised.” 

Import independence is not an end in itself, he emphasises, and more studies are needed that also examine other possibilities such as diversifying imports and reducing the growth in demand by using materials more efficiently. 

But does Europe really have a chance of getting domestic production of electric batteries off the ground? China’s products are so cheap, and there is even talk of them dumping goods in Europe, especially if the US tariffs go through.

“It will not be easy. The EU is now working on several levels to develop entire battery value chains within the EU, with the aim of increasing competitiveness. Battery know-how could play an important part in the development and production of the electric vehicles of the future. If the energy transition results in Europe losing significant industries, it remains to be seen whether the acceptance of ambitious climate targets will endure.”

Eurasia Review

Eurasia Review is an independent Journal that provides a venue for analysts and experts to disseminate content on a wide-range of subjects that are often overlooked or under-represented by Western dominated media.

NIMBY

New lithium mines could cut EU imports by half

Lund University

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

The most important mineral in today's electric car batteries is lithium. China completely dominates the market, with no extraction taking place in Europe. However, a new study shows that there is great potential for European lithium production, which would bring improvements in competitiveness, the climate and security. The study also points out that there are complex international trade dependencies that affect supply and demand.

European car manufacturing, which currently accounts for six per cent of the European Union's GDP, risks becoming a thing of the past unless Europe is able to start producing its own electric cars and batteries. Twenty per cent of new cars currently produced in Europe are electric. The EU is aiming to phase out internal combustion engines in vehicles by 2035.

Lithium is the most important mineral in modern electric batteries, which are used in consumer electronics (phones, power tools, watches) and vehicles. Other metals such as cobalt and nickel can be substituted, but not lithium. While research on primarily sodium (salt) is underway, those batteries have lower performance and the path to commercialisation is uncertain. In other words, whoever owns the mining and refining of key metals has a strong hand. It is China who holds those cards.

“The Chinese state has been providing strategic support funding to Chinese green technology companies for many years. The EU has a goal of boosting its own production and may have to do something similar in order to catch up. The investment cost and risk are too high for individual countries,” says André Månberger, a researcher and expert on critical metals at Lund University in Sweden. 

André and former visiting doctoral student Qifan Xia have mapped out trade dependence on the coveted mineral. The results confirm China's dominance and verify the intricate interdependencies between the countries of the world, especially as supply is not only about extraction but also about refining, component manufacturing and, ultimately, battery production itself. 

“The risk of China's dominance is not only that Europe will lose its domestic automotive industry and thus its prosperity, but also that we could become a target for blackmail in the event of global conflicts,” says André Månberger. 

In a new study published in Cell Reports Sustainability, he and Qifan summarised the deposits identified by geologists in Europe, China and the United States that have the potential to be mined. A few have been identified in Europe, but commercial extraction is yet to begin. The deposits are mainly found in Spain, Portugal, Germany, France, Serbia and Finland. 

Månberger concludes that if these were to be exploited, the EU could more than halve its future import dependence. The researchers compared the EU's lithium needs in the 2030s with the amount the mines could produce in that period. In weight terms, this amounts to 325,000 tonnes of lithium carbonate around the year 2030.

However, the path to large-scale lithium mining across Europe is fraught with conflicting objectives. These include investment costs, opposition from local residents, the risk of chemicals leaking into groundwater, the impact on nature and various liability issues. 

“Promising technologies are being tested in Germany where lithium extraction is recovered from geothermal energy sources. When hot water is pumped up for use in gheating, lithium comes up too as a “free gift.” New membrane technologies can filter this lithium out and it can then be used. This method reduces the impact on nature and the risk of conflict with neighbours, but unfortunately these deposits are only a small part of the projects and conventional mines will also be needed if Europe is to reduce its dependence on imports.”

André Månberger hopes his study will demonstrate the significant potential of extraction in Europe. 

“The significant potential within Europe may mean that not all deposits need to be developed and hopefully this knowledge can contribute to a discussion about how different objectives are prioritised.” 

Import independence is not an end in itself, he emphasises, and more studies are needed that also examine other possibilities such as diversifying imports and reducing the growth in demand by using materials more efficiently. 

But does Europe really have a chance of getting domestic production of electric batteries off the ground? China's products are so cheap, and there is even talk of them dumping goods in Europe, especially if the US tariffs go through.

“It will not be easy. The EU is now working on several levels to develop entire battery value chains within the EU, with the aim of increasing competitiveness. Battery know-how could play an important part in the development and production of the electric vehicles of the future. If the energy transition results in Europe losing significant industries, it remains to be seen whether the acceptance of ambitious climate targets will endure.”

 

Footnote: An existing small mine in Portugal extracts lithium for the production of glass and ceramics. It is insignificant in this context.

Key facts about lithium

Lithium is a reactive metal found in many types of rock and is a highly conductive element. Some people associate lithium with medicine, and the metal remains important in the treatment of bipolar disorder. It has also been used in the production of lubricating oil. However, since John Bannister Goodenough's discovery and development of the lithium-ion battery – for which he also won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2019 – the element has become more widely used in rechargeable batteries.

In a few years, as more electric batteries start to reach the end of their useful life, lithium recycling may be introduced, although the need for new extraction will remain. Recycling will require new technologies that, while not yet in place, are expected to take off as “waste mountains” grow and demand increases.

 

---

Journal

Cell Reports Sustainability

DOI

10.1016/j.crsus.2025.100404 

Article Title

Long on expectations, short on supply: Regional lithium imbalances and the effects of trade allocations by China, the EU, and the USA

 

Study shows higher concentration of cannabis retailers in low-income neighborhoods with more Black and Hispanic residents

An analysis in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine highlights inequalities in geographic distribution of cannabis retailers across 18 legalized states in the US

Elsevier

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

Ann Arbor, June 2, 2025 - A novel study reveals a significantly higher concentration of recreational (nonmedical) cannabis retailers in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas and neighborhoods with greater proportions of populations of color across 18 US states in which cannabis use is legal for adults. The study, appearing in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, published by Elsevier, offers critical insights for policymakers and public health officials, underscoring the need for strategies to ensure equitable distribution of cannabis retailers.

Using 2023 US state agency lists, researchers identified 5,586 recreational cannabis retailers and geocoded address data in 18 states with recreational cannabis legalization laws. These states included Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington where recreational cannabis sales were legalized between 2012 and 2022. Multilevel logistic and negative binomial Poisson regression was used to model the relationship between neighborhood deprivation and extreme concentration indices with census tract cannabis retailer presence.

Lead investigator Lindsay L. Kephart, PhD, MPH, Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, says, “The most significant finding of our study was that cannabis retailers were located in just over 10% of census tracts in legalized states, with the most disadvantaged neighborhoods consistently showing higher cannabis retailer presence. Neighborhoods with high concentrations of low-income Black residents had 2.53 times the number of cannabis retailers compared to high-income, predominantly White neighborhoods, and those with high concentrations of low-income Hispanic residents had 2.67 times the number. This pattern held across different conceptualizations of disadvantage and was observed across 18 states with legalized adult-use cannabis, regardless of US regional location or the timing of legalization.“

A well-established body of research shows that tobacco and alcohol retailers are located more often in neighborhoods with higher proportions of lower-income residents and communities of color. With the legalization of adult-use recreational cannabis across a growing number of US states, cannabis has become another product that is legally sold through storefront retailers, much like alcohol and tobacco. Researchers of the current study found that cannabis retailers are following the same distribution patterns.

Dr. Kephart explains, “This kind of spatial patterning may not always be intentional, but it can contribute to disproportionate substance use exposure among communities that are already marginalized—often shaped by historical zoning and land use policies that concentrate undesirable land uses in disadvantaged areas. The persistence of this pattern seems to be driven by structural factors such as Not-In-My-Backyard (NIMBY) policies, which place such businesses away from more privileged communities.”

A sensitivity analysis of the data suggested that the relationship between racial disadvantage (independent of income) and cannabis retailer availability was not significant. This implies that socioeconomic factors may be more influential than race alone.

Dr. Kephart adds, “However, neighborhood racial demographics should still be considered, especially when combined with low income, as these neighborhoods with the greater proportions of low-income residents of color had the highest likelihood of cannabis retailers and thus greater cannabis availability.”

Cannabis is among the most commonly used drugs in the US, with nearly 19% of people aged 12 or older reporting use in the past year. As of November 2024, 24 US states have legalized the sale of cannabis for recreational adult use.

Dr. Kephart notes, “The growing community presence of recreational cannabis retailers may play a critical role in driving individual cannabis use through pathways such as increased accessibility, lowered perceptions of health risks, and the promotion of novel products that appeal to youth. On the other hand, there may also be benefits such as reduced demand for illicit cannabis, a regulated supply for adult use, and increasing home values.”

Existing research suggests a link between recreational cannabis legalization and rising home values, particularly in early-adopting states like Colorado and Washington. While the exact causes are still under study, potential drivers include increased housing demand due to job growth tied to the cannabis industry as well as higher consumer spending that contributes to local economic development. “Legalization may also reduce stigma and concerns about crime, making neighborhoods more appealing. In some communities, tax revenue from cannabis sales is being reinvested into infrastructure and public services, which could potentially drive up property values as areas become more desirable to homebuyers,” Dr. Kephart explains.

In conclusion, Dr. Kephart emphasizes, “Evidence-based research can empower communities to make informed decisions about strategies to ensure equitable distribution of cannabis retailers, maintaining a safe and controlled supply for adults. Additionally, it highlights the potential for local policies, such as capping or zoning regulations, to limit exposure near youth.”

---

Journal

American Journal of Preventive Medicine

DOI

10.1016/j.amepre.2025.107643 

Method of Research

Data/statistical analysis

Subject of Research

Not applicable

Article Title

The Unequal Geography of Recreational Cannabis Retailer Availability in the U.S.