U.S. Pressure is Firming Up a Multipolar World

by Ted Snider | Aug 7, 2025 

U.S. tariffs wear the cloak of financial policy to address trade imbalances, but they mask deeper geopolitical ambitions. That strategy may backfire. The pressure of U.S. tariffs is firming up the multipolar world it is meant to prevent. 

Pressure from sanctions has already fused Iran even tighter with Russia, Iran and even Saudi Arabia. It is now, stunningly, contributing to the birth of relations with Egypt, a Middle Eastern power with whom Iran has had broken relations since 1979.

In 2024, Iran and Egypt both became members of BRICS, a large and growing international organization whose primary purpose is to balance U.S. hegemony in the new multipolar world. 

In June, Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi met with Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty and President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in Cairo. Araghchi posted that “After many years, diplomacy between Iran and Egypt has entered a new phase. The level of political interaction and cooperation, and more importantly, the level of trust and confidence in relations between the two countries, is unprecedented.” Abdelatty said “There is a mutual desire to develop our relations, taking into account the concerns and perspectives of each side.”

The meetings produced a region shifting agreement “to launch periodic consultations at the sub-ministerial level to address aspects of bilateral cooperation.”

U.S. foreign policy is also pushing other nations toward BRICS. On July 27, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said, “Maduro is not the President of Venezuela and his regime is not the legitimate government…. Maduro is the leader of the designated narco-terrorist organization Cartel de Los Soles.” 

Miguel Tinker Salas, Professor of Latin American History at Pomona College and one of the world’s leading experts on Venezuelan history and politics, told me that Venezuela is “very much interested in joining BRICS.” 

The realization of that interest has been frustrated so far, Salas says, by “some tensions with Brazil over Venezuela’s admission in the wake of the past presidential election.” Russia has supported Venezuelan membership. Venezuela is lobbying hard to join BRICS, and in January, Maduro expressed optimism about joining, saying “As far as BRICS is concerned, I hope that the way will be cleared and that the reality will be recognized – Venezuela is part of BRICS.”

Venezuela has increased ties with BRICS nations. Russia says “the Russian-Venezuelan strategic partnership is developing in a wide range of areas.” Venezuela is also “actively building a political dialogue with India” and “actively cooperating with Iran.” China is the largest exporter to Venezuela.

Most of the biggest nations in BRICS are facing pressure from U.S. sanctions and tariffs. On July 30, the U.S. slammed Brazil with 50% tariffs on all exports. The move revealed that Trump’s tariff strategy is not all about trade imbalances. Last year, the U.S. had a $7.4 billion trade surplus with Brazil. Washington claimed the tariffs were meant to pressure Brazil to drop charges against former president Jair Bolsonaro who faces charges for his involvement in an alleged conspiracy to subvert the 2022 Brazilian elections.

Brazil criticized the interference in its domestic affairs and the violation of its sovereignty and took its case to the World Trade Organization. Brazilian President Lula da Silva reminded the U.S. that “Brazil is a sovereign nation with independent institutions and will not accept any form of tutelage.” He said, “The political motivation behind the measures against Brazil violates national sovereignty” and warned against “threats that could compromise the independence of national institutions.” 

But the U.S. tariffs are not just about Bolsonaro or interfering in Brazil’s domestic affairs either. Politico reports that it was Trump’s anger at the BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro that led him to hit Brazil with the massive tariffs. “BRICS tipped the scale,” said Mauricio Claver-Carone, a close ally of Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Trump’s former special envoy to Latin America.

But if the tariffs were meant to weaken BRICS, it seems to be having the opposite effect with Brazil saying the U.S. pressure will strengthen the organization’s agenda, pushing them, and others, away from U.S. dependence and towards the multipolar world represented by BRICS. American threats and unreliability as a trade partner have further cemented Brazil’s view that the economic partnerships with other BRICS+ countries need to be further fostered. As Al Jazeera and others have reported, “This dispute only strengthens the case for accelerating such integration.”

And Brazil is not alone. The U.S. is using tariffs to try to force India to choose sides, something the country, who is committed to multipolarity, is not likely to do. In the new multipolar world, nations do not have to choose between sides or line up consistently behind American hegemony. As India’s Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar explains, in a multipolar world, countries can deal “with contesting parties at the same time with optimal results” for their “own self-interest.”

The U.S. has placed 25% tariffs on India’s exports to the United States. But it does not stop there. India will be hit with an additional 100% tariff if they refuse to stop purchasing Russian oil. Russia is the top supplier of oil to India, accounting for 35% of its imports, and that amount is increasing. 

Rubio made the need to choose sides clear when he said that India “buys its oil from Russia…. And that – unfortunately that is helping to sustain the Russian war effort. So it is most certainly a point of irritation in our relationship with India.” Stephen Miller, deputy White House chief of staff, said that Trump has said very clearly “that it is not acceptable for India to continue financing this war by purchasing the oil from Russia.”

Despite the pressure to fall back in line with U.S. hegemony, India has made it clear that they will continue to purchase oil from Russia. India’s foreign ministry says that “The government is committed to prioritizing the welfare of Indian consumers. Our energy purchases will be based on price, availability and market conditions.” Tellingly, India’s foreign ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said India has a “steady and time-tested partnership” with Russia.

Like India, China is also being threatened with 100% tariffs on exports to the U.S. if they continue to buy Russian oil. And like their BRICS partners in India and Brazil, China is refusing America’s attempts to enforce its hegemony. China has responded that it is a sovereign nation and that it will purchase its oil in accord with its own internal policies. Asked about the U.S. warning and the consequence of disobeying, China’s Foreign Ministry Spokesman Guo Jiakun replied that “China will take energy supply measures that are right for China based on our national interests. Tariff wars have no winners. Coercion and pressuring cannot solve problems. China will firmly safeguard its own sovereignty, security and development interests.”

BRICS has long said that they oppose alliances and blocs and that they are against no one. But hostile U.S. pressure against many countries is building BRICS. American attempts to maintain its hegemony through the weaponization of the economy may be having the opposite effect, exerting pressure that is fusing the multipolar world more firmly together. 

Ted Snider is a regular columnist on U.S. foreign policy and history at Antiwar.com and The Libertarian Institute. He is also a frequent contributor to Responsible Statecraft and The American Conservative as well as other outlets. To support his work or for media or virtual presentation requests, contact him at tedsnider@bell.net.

 

Trump’s Tariffs against Latin America

Part of a global battle

by Francisco Domínguez / August 9th, 2025

President Donald Trump answers questions from reporters after signing an executive order about the 2028 Los Angeles Olympic Games, in the South Court Auditorium of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House campus, August 5, 2025

Trump’s threat of imposing a crippling 50 per cent tariff on all Brazilian imports to the United States took everyone by surprise, especially, considering the US enjoys a trade surplus with the South American giant (surplus it has enjoyed since 2007). Lula made it clear that Brazil would reciprocate in kind.

Trump tariffs against Brazil are in line with his overall policy of applying tariffs on all countries in the world. Under Trump US imperialism seeks to establish a global system that it suits itself such that it can impose or change any rule any time it wants and attack any country it dislikes.

As with many other global institutions, Trump, following in the footsteps of previous US administrations, is prepared to run roughshod over World Trade Organisation rules that US imperialism itself was central in establishing in 1995.

Thus, his attack on Mexico is not surprising either, country with which it has a substantial trade deficit caused by its southern neighbour’s incorporation into US supply chain arrangements ever since the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta).

The US has had a trade deficit with Mexico ever since 1995, exactly one year after Nafta.

To Trump’s chagrin, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has vigorously defended her country’s sovereignty and has skilfully navigated US provocations.

To the charge of Mexico being a drug-trafficking hub, she has pointed out to US negotiators that the “the US itself harbours cartels, is the largest narcotic consumer market, exports the majority of armaments used by drug barons and hosts money-laundering banks.” She has also resolutely refused the deployment of US troops on Mexican soil.

Back in January 2025, Trump threatened Colombia with sanctions and 25 per cent tariffs on all its exports to the US. When Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro did not allow US planes carrying deported Colombians in, refusing to receive them in military aircraft and handcuffed, Trump threatened to make the tariffs “extendable to 50 per cent [plus] exhaustive inspections of Colombian citizens and merchandise, and visa sanctions for Colombian officials” plus “sanctions on banking and other areas.”

In response, Petro announced he would impose 50 per cent tariffs on US products entering the Colombian market. Furthermore, Petro, condemning the war on Gaza, argued that Colombia should break from Nato to avoid alliances involving militaries that “drop bombs on children.”

By the end of July Trump announced 50 per cent tariffs on imports of copper but when he realised it would substantially increase costs for US manufacturers — making its price nose-dive by 22 points with US traders facing heavy losses — he was forced to abandon it. He amended the tariff to apply only on semi-manufactured products such as wire and tube, excluding refined copper (until January 2027). In 2024, Chile, Canada and Peru accounted for more than 90 per cent of US refined copper imports.

On July 7, in a tweet Trump declared that Jair Bolsonaro was being witch-hunted by the Brazilian authorities. Bolsonaro is being tried for insurrection, coup plotting and his involvement in staging a January 6 Capitol assault-style riot against parliament and the judiciary buildings in Brasilia. Trump claimed Bolsonaro “is not guilty of anything, except having fought for the people.” Trump’s message sought to depict Bolsonaro as a political leader being politically persecuted, but nothing could, of course, be further from the truth.

Lula’s immediate response was that the US president’s statements were an interference in Brazil’s internal affairs and demanded respect for Brazilian sovereignty: “The defence of democracy in Brazil is a matter for Brazilians.” And in a sharp barb, Lula added: “We do not accept interference or tutelage from anyone. We have solid and independent institutions. No-one is above the law. Especially those who attack freedom and the rule of law.”

Trump’s attacks against Latin America are part and parcel of US imperialism’s efforts to destabilise governments it doesn’t like.

Adding to the comprehensively tight sanctions regime being applied to Cuba and Venezuela and to a lesser extent to Nicaragua, Trump is now targeting Cuban and especially Venezuelan migrants, falsely presenting them as members of criminal organisations.

And, in a human-trafficking operation run with far-right El Salvador President Nayib Bukele, Trump is sending hundreds of them to CECOT, El Salvador’s concentration camp.

Reversing decades of US encouragement of migration aimed at weakening their governments, Trump has terminated the Temporary Protection Status (TPS) of hundreds of thousands of Nicaraguans, Cubans and Venezuelans, a key component of the ICE campaign of terror against Latinos.

The Trump administration, following from his Democrat and Republican predecessors, is seeking to expand its military presence in Latin America as much and as quickly as possible. It has deployed troops on Mexico’s southern border; Ecuador’s President Daniel Noboa has succeeded in getting the constitution amended to allow the US to have military bases on the Galapagos islands; the US holds regular and massive joint military manoeuvres in Guyana (where it has at least one military base); and the US also has a number of military bases in Central America, Colombia, the Caribbean, Peru, and a new military base in Argentina.

Though Trump’s tariffs on Latin America are chaotic and simplistic, they have a strategic objective: to slow down, reduce and if possible, eliminate altogether the drive to a multipolar world.

In short, to stop China’s drive to foster a new geopolitics not determined by the weaponisation of the dollar, economic sanctions or military aggression. One in which relations are not dictated by coercive zero-sum games but by voluntary collaboration in mutually beneficial economic relationships.

US imperialism (and the Trump government) find the ever-closer relationship and collaboration between the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (Celac) and China simply intolerable. US officials repeatedly argue that China’s trade relations and co-operation with Latin America represent an existential threat to the US.

Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua have forged strong links with China and so has Brazil. Lula was presiding over the Brics summit in Rio de Janeiro when Trump launched the dig about fascist Bolsonaro.

Claudia Sheinbaum attended as an observer and Mexico is rapidly developing links with China. In Peru China has built the port of Chancay (a Belt and Road initiative) — the largest deepwater port on the western coast of South America.

Honduras has cut ties with Taiwan and recognised the People’s Republic of China and Colombia has joined the Brics.

Furthermore, China is the main trading partner of South America and the second-largest trading partner of Central America. Trump has threatened all Brics countries with 100 per cent tariffs.

The US Southern Command recognises that China’s trade with Latin America has gone “beyond raw materials and commodities to include traditional infrastructure (road, bridges, ports) and ‘new infrastructure’: electric vehicles, telecommunication, and renewable energy.”

Benefits never offered by the US to countries in its “backyard.” This ever-closer relationship explains Trump’s aggression towards the countries mentioned, to browbeat them economically and politically into drawing away from China.

A US success story is Panama, where President Jose Mulino’s capitulation to Trump’s threats to retake the Panama Canal by military means led him to accept Washington’s pressure to exit China’s Belt and Road Initiative, “one of the most ambitious infrastructure projects ever conceived.”

These contradictions are as a matter of course presented as the outcome of US-China rivalry, inevitable between these superpowers.

However, such a framework is deceptive since the nature of the contradictions stems from two conceptions of how to organise the global economy.

The US considers itself the “indispensable nation” which has always engaged in zero-sum games whose outcome produces winners (the US and its economically developed accomplices) and losers (the vast majority of humanity who reside in the global South).

Trump’s tariffs intend to keep it that way, while Latin America’s orientation towards Asia, China and the Brics is correctly pushing in the opposite direction: to a fairer, multipolar world.

• First published at MorningStar.

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Francisco Domínguez is a member of Executive Committee, Venezuela Information Centre. Read other articles by Francisco, or visit Francisco's website.

 

Petrostates and Oil Lobbies Could Derail Global Plastics Treaty

By Tsvetana Paraskova - 

As delegates from 184 countries begin talks in Geneva on a global treaty to curb plastic waste and pollution, the negotiations that began in 2022 are nowhere close to an agreement.

Geneva hosts the second part of the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to develop an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, after the first part failed to reach a deal in South Korea late last year.

This year, chances of a comprehensive global treaty are not high, either. Major petrostates and oil and petrochemical lobbies are looking to water down a final text and limit it to recycling plastics, instead of capping plastics production.

Petrochemicals, made of fossil fuels, are the key building blocks of plastics production. And the biggest oil-producing countries bet on boosting petrochemicals output, which will drive global oil demand growth in the coming years, while demand for road transportation fuels is set to level off.

In fact, China, the world’s top crude oil importer, has seen its oil demand growth slow as electric vehicle (EV) sales surge and gasoline and diesel consumption decline.

That’s why the biggest petrostates are expanding petrochemicals ventures in demand markets to capture a share of the growing petrochemicals market.

These petrostates don’t want a cap on plastics production.

The Geneva session is set to discuss targets on reducing the production of single-use plastics and a universal guidance on the design of plastic products.

However, major oil-producing countries, including Saudi Arabia and Russia, will likely challenge the provisions that include caps on production and would push for voluntary measures, delegates have told Reuters.

The Trump Administration isn’t keen on production caps, either. The U.S. Department of State will send a delegation to support a treaty that doesn’t impose restrictions on producers that could affect U.S. companies, the State Department told Reuters.

While the U.S. and the petrostates will not endorse restrictions on plastics production, the EU and the small island nations most affected by plastic pollution will be leading efforts to cap plastics output and address the beginning of the supply chain that ultimately leads to plastic pollution.

These fundamental disagreements could lead to a failure in talks once again, and the world won’t have an international, legally binding instrument on plastic pollution for who knows how long.

Many analysts expect a watered-down treaty without binding targets and a lot of “voluntary” adjectives in the text.

The UN has expressed hope that the Geneva talks could result in a treaty.

“Over the coming days, we have an opportunity to make a real difference — by negotiating an effective Plastics Treaty and identifying comprehensive solutions and measures that address the full life cycle of plastic,” said Katrin Schneeberger, Director of the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), a non-profit organization providing legal counsel to some countries attending the Geneva talks, says that the petrochemical industry is poised to invest billions of U.S. dollars to expand plastic production by 40% in the next few decades.

“If they succeed, plastic will outweigh fish in our oceans by 2050,” CIEL notes.

Plastic production is set to triple by 2050, and “If left unchecked, plastics could burn through one-third of the Earth’s remaining carbon budget, derailing efforts to limit global warming,” CIEL’s attorneys and campaign specialists say.

The non-profit calls for a cap on plastic production, but warned last month that the second part of the “final” talks might not be the last.

“The current draft text now stands at 22 pages with more than 370 brackets, indicating areas where there is no agreement,” CIEL said.

The next two weeks will show whether the gap between proponents of production caps and petrostates can be bridged.

By Tsvetana Paraskova for Oilprice.com

 

The Global Struggle to Meet Renewable Energy Goals

By Felicity Bradstock - Aug 10, 2025

• A new report by Ember reveals that global national renewable energy targets are far below the COP28 goal of 11 TW by 2030.
• 
  
• Major emitters including the U.S., China, and Russia have not updated their national targets, while political shifts—especially in the U.S.—are stalling climate progress.
• 
  
• The first UN global stocktake warns that current efforts are insufficient to meet the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C target, calling for greater ambition and accountability worldwide.
• 
  

Year after year, studies are showing that many countries around the world are falling short on their renewable energy targets by not accelerating away from fossil fuels to green alternatives fast enough. By the beginning of 2025, all 197 countries of the United Nations had endorsed the 2015 Climate Agreement, although United States President Donald Trump has since announced the withdrawal of the U.S. from the agreement. Most of the countries that signed the agreement have made tangible targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and take other action to limit global warming. However, stating these targets and actually meeting them are two very different things.

The energy think tank Ember published a report at the end of July assessing the progress with climate action across countries worldwide. It opens by saying that while 133 countries agreed to triple global renewable energy capacity at the 2023 COP28 climate summit, the policy action by many of these states has not aligned with the pledge. Ember’s study assesses the national 2030 renewable capacity targets of 96 countries and the EU, which together account for 97 percent of the global renewable capacity, 96 percent of electricity sector demand, and 96 percent of power sector emissions, as of 2024.

Almost two years ago, at COP28, 133 countries agreed to reach 11,000 GW of renewables globally by 2030. However, by July this year, only seven non-EU countries had updated their 2030 national targets, with five increasing targets and two lowering them. This was supported by several countries in the EU finalising their National Energy and Climate Plans (NCEP) in line with the bloc’s deadline. Within the EU, France and Spain increased their targets by 5 GW and 19 GW, respectively, while Germany and Italy made no changes. EU countries are not expected to update national targets between now and the next NECP deadline in 2029, which will focus on 2040.

Ember’s report shows that the global sum of national targets is just 2 percent higher than at COP28, at 7.4 TW, compared to a 7.2 TW target in 2022. While this target is double the 2022 global renewable energy capacity, it is far off the 11 TW 2030 goal needed to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Meanwhile, nine of the top 20 of the world’s largest power sectors have not yet updated their targets, including China, South Africa, Canada, Russia, Turkey, and the U.S.

Ember says that raising national targets is critical for advancing climate goals, enhancing energy security, and promoting economic growth. The think tank says that up-to-date targets help guide supporting policies, incentives and planning, and reduce risks like overcapacity or grid congestion. Going into COP30 in Brazil in November, participant states will likely face criticism for their lack of action in line with the aims stated in COP28 and 29, which could encourage countries to update their targets.

One of the biggest concerns at the international level of late is U.S. President Donald Trump’s backtracking on the country’s climate action. Trump called former President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act climate policy a “Green New Scam. Greatest scam in history, probably.” Since coming into office in January, he has waged a war on green energy, moving to undo much of the former administration’s climate progress by cutting funds for green energy and electric vehicles, weakening regulations on air pollution and other climate issues, and pulling the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement.

The U.S. was rapidly becoming one of the world leaders in terms of the green transition under Biden, with other countries following in its footsteps, as seen in the EU and the U.K. However, Trump’s commitment to fossil fuels and disdain for wind and solar energy are expected to hinder progress at a time when the country’s power demand is set to grow significantly, as tech companies construct giant data centres, which will likely lead to higher greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years.

In terms of international progress, every five years, UN member states are expected to assess their progress toward implementing the Paris Agreement through a “global stocktake” process. The first report, which was published in September 2023, warned governments that “the world is not on track to meet the long-term goals of the Paris Agreement.” Most climate scientists agree that national pledges are, on average, not ambitious enough and will not take place fast enough to limit the global temperature increase to 1.5°C. Many suggest that greater international action must be taken, beyond the Paris Agreement, to make a meaningful impact on climate change.

“The Paris Agreement is not enough. Even at the time of negotiation, it was recognised as not being enough,” stated Council on Foreign Relations’ Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment, Alice Hill. “It was only a first step, and the expectation was that as time went on, countries would return with greater ambition to cut their emissions.” This suggests that even if countries were to keep up with the aims of the Paris Agreement, more needs to be done on an international level to encourage a global green transition and hold states accountable for their action – or inaction. 

By Felicity Bradstock for Oilprice.com

 

EV Batteries Get Second Life in Energy Storage Revolution

By Haley Zaremba - Aug 10, 2025

• Used electric vehicle batteries are being repurposed for energy storage systems, providing a second life for lithium-ion batteries and contributing to domestic energy capacity.
• 
  
• This repurposing helps conserve critical minerals like lithium, nickel, and cobalt, reducing reliance on new mining and mitigating environmental impacts.
• 
  
• The growing market for energy storage offers a crucial safety net for EV battery manufacturers amidst a cooling EV market and increasing strain on power grids from AI and electrification.

Used and recycled electric vehicle batteries are getting a second chance at life through energy storage systems across the country. Lithium-ion batteries are retired from their role powering EVs when they still have a lot of life left in them, and repurposing them for one of the fastest-growing energy industry sectors is a no-brainer.

Diverting lithium-ion batteries away from landfill and into storage projects yields multiple overlapping benefits. First, it helps build up domestic energy storage capacity in a cost-effective and efficient manner. According to Dimension Market Research, the global Energy Storage Market is on track to reach USD $204.8 billion by 2033, up from USD 58.9 billion in 2024. This represents a massive compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 14.8%. 

As renewable energy sources become more prevalent in the national energy mix, energy prices become more volatile and can even dip into the negatives when supply outpaces demand. This is because wind and solar energy are variable, meaning that they produce energy when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, irrespective of demand. As a result, utilities need to ramp up energy storage installation to stabilize inflows and outflows of energy to maintain profitability and to keep the lights on. 

The second benefit is that reusing EV batteries for energy storage avoids throwing away critical minerals including lithium, nickel and cobalt at a time when supplies for those elements are growing increasingly tight. Currently, China has a chokehold on a huge number of critical mineral supply chains, and reusing batteries helps avoid tariffs and geopolitical complications. Plus, reclaiming critical minerals instead of purchasing new supplies avoids negative environmental impacts associated with mining and refining those minerals.

Third, battery storage provides a safety net for EV battery makers at a time when the market is cooling down in the face of major and unprecedented political pressures. BloombergNEF has lowered both its near- and long-term outlooks for EV sales in the United States for the first time ever as the Trump administration walks back Biden-era policies designed to boost electric vehicle adoption. The new numbers paint a grim picture for battery makers, but energy storage projects could provide a game-saving strategy. 

Already, major automotive companies are taking notice and beginning to pivot. Last month, GM signed a “non-binding memorandum of understanding” with Redwood Energy to begin a used-battery powered storage venture intended to serve as an external power bank for data centers. 

Related: China’s Oil Imports Jumped in July From a Year Earlier

“The market for grid-scale batteries and backup power isn’t just expanding, it’s becoming essential infrastructure,” said Kurt Kelty, General Motors’ vice president of batteries, propulsion, and sustainability, in a recent statement. “Electricity demand is climbing, and it’s only going to accelerate. To meet that challenge, the U.S. needs energy storage solutions that can be deployed quickly, economically, and made right here at home. GM batteries can play an integral role. We’re not just making better cars — we’re shaping the future of energy resilience.” 

The use of batteries as power banks for data centers could also prove to be a critical solution to another major energy issue of the moment. As artificial intelligence places unprecedented strain on power grids and raises the United States’ energy demands after decades of stasis, alternative energy solutions are critical for energy security as well as decarbonization efforts. 

“Electricity demand is accelerating at an unprecedented pace, driven by AI and the rapid electrification of everything from transportation to industry,” said Redwood founder and CEO JB Straubel. “Both GM’s second-life EV batteries and new batteries can be deployed in Redwood’s energy storage systems, delivering fast, flexible power solutions and strengthening America’s energy and manufacturing independence.” 

As a result, energy storage centers powered by EV batteries are popping up across the nation, and particularly in the Lone Star State. While the sector is relatively small now, it’s going to grow at a breakneck pace. And the timing could not be better, as first-generation EVs begin to proffer a steady stream of retired batteries. 

By Haley Zaremba for Oilprice.com

 

Lithium prices and stocks jump after CATL halts major China mine

Bloomberg News | August 10, 2025 | 

Image: Tianqi Lithium

Lithium prices and stocks surged after Contemporary Amperex Technology Co. Ltd. suspended activity at a major mine, spurring hopes of wider output curbs as Beijing cracks down on overcapacity across the economy.

Tianqi Lithium Corp. spiked as much as 19% in Hong Kong, while Ganfeng Lithium Group Co. jumped 14% after CATL — the world’s biggest battery producer — confirmed it had shut a major lithium mine in China. Prices of the metal on the Guangzhou Futures Exchange surged by their daily limit at Monday’s open.

The lithium industry has been struggling with a global supply glut and slower-than-expected electric-vehicle demand growth, and the potential halt of CATL’s mine was seen as important for reining in output. Lithium prices hit a record high in 2022 but have collapsed nearly 90% since then, forcing companies worldwide to rein in spending and delay expansions.

CATL has suspended production at its Jianxiawo mine in China’s Jiangxi province for at least three months, people familiar with the matter said at the weekend, after its mining license expired on Aug. 9.

The EV battery giant confirmed on Monday that it had halted operations, but didn’t give any timeline for the restart. It said it was applying to renew its mining license, after which production would resume “as soon as possible,” and the stoppage would have little impact on CATL’s overall operations. Its shares rose as much as 2.8% in Hong Kong.

The most-active lithium carbonate futures contract on the Guangzhou Futures Exchange jumped by the daily limit of 8% at the open on Monday, according to traders who have access to live pricing. They asked not to be named as they aren’t authorized to speak publicly. The contract due in November traded at 81,000 yuan a ton, up from a settlement of 75,000 yuan on Friday, they said.

Shares of Australian lithium producers also spiked. PLS Ltd., formerly Pilbara Minerals Ltd., jumped as much as 19% in Sydney, while Liontown Resources Ltd. surged as much as 25%. Mineral Resources Ltd. was up as much as 14%.

Traders and industry executives are now watching for other mining curbs around China’s Yichun city, which has emerged as a battery-metals hub. A local government department has asked eight miners to submit reserves reports by the end of September, according to notes from brokers and analysts, following an audit that found non-compliance in the registration and approvals process.

“Prices may deviate from reasonable levels in the short term, but CATL’s situation does not change the oversupply structure in the market,” said Zhang Weixin, an analyst at China Futures Co. “However, if production disruption is expanded to other mines in Yichun after Sept. 30, the lithium price level could go even higher.”

Citigroup Inc. analysts said in a note that they also did not expect the suspension of production at the mine to result in a firm deficit, but it would “bolster sentiment in the short term.”

(By Paul-Alain Hunt and Annie Lee)

 

CATL suspends output at China lithium mine for three months

Bloomberg News | August 10, 2025 

Jiangxi, China. Stock image.

Battery giant Contemporary Amperex Technology Co. Ltd. has suspended production at a major lithium mine in China’s Jiangxi province for at least three months, according to people familiar with the matter.

CATL, the world’s largest manufacturer of electric-vehicle batteries, has announced internally that the Jianxiawo mine would be temporarily halting operations, they said. One of the people said the suspension came after the company failed to extend a key mining permit which expired on Aug. 9.

CATL didn’t immediately respond to questions from Bloomberg outside business hours.

The lithium industry has been buffeted in recent weeks by extreme volatility in the spot, futures and equity markets, and the Jianxiawo operation has been in particular focus, given questions over its permit renewal. Last week traders flew drones over the mine, forecast to account for about 3% of the world’s mined production, in the hope of gauging the current state of output.

A second person briefed on the matter said affiliated refineries in nearby Yichun had been informed of the closure. The first person added the company was still in talks with government agencies to secure a renewal but was preparing for the halt to last months. The people asked not to be named as they are not authorized to speak publicly.

CATL’s permit trouble and suspension come as Beijing cracks down on overcapacity across a host of industries and increases scrutiny of mining operations. For an industry that has been plagued by a glut for more than two years, however, the pause in output from a significant link in the supply chain will be a boon.

CATL saw revenue from its battery mineral resources business plummet 29% in 2024, a drop that underscores challenges facing the Chinese company’s upstream investments including a precipitous decline in lithium prices. These were originally intended as a way of securing supply and managing costs, and CATL had aggressively pursued mining stakes, even overseas.

The most-active lithium carbonate futures contract touched more than 80,000 yuan ($11,128) in July on the Guangzhou Futures Exchange, which moved to rein in speculative trades afterward. The material surged around 9% last week to change hands at 75,000 yuan on Friday.

(By Annie Lee and Alfred Cang)