A critical paradox is emerging in the global push for clean energy: the very minerals essential for a sustainable future are increasingly being diverted to military stockpiles.New research indicates the U.S. Department of Defense is actively securing resources-including cobalt, vital for battery production-not for electric vehicles or renewable energy storage, but for advanced weaponry and defense systems. This trend, experts warn, threatens to exacerbate geopolitical tensions and undermine efforts to combat climate change by prioritizing military applications over civilian needs.
The global transition to clean energy is facing a critical challenge as essential minerals are increasingly diverted to military applications, raising concerns about a new arms race and hindering efforts to combat climate change. This trend, experts say, represents a significant paradox in a world striving for sustainability.
Two recent studies – The Growing Military Mineral Stockpile from the Transition Security Project, and Mining for War: Assessing the Pentagon’s Mineral Stockpile by researcher Lorah Steichen – reveal a concerted effort by the U.S. Department of Defense to secure resources crucial for a clean energy future and repurpose them for military technologies.
According to The Growing Military Mineral Stockpile, the Pentagon plans to accumulate 7,500 tons of cobalt through the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). This quantity is sufficient to produce 80.2 GWh of battery storage capacity – more than double the current energy storage capacity of the United States. The same amount of cobalt and graphite could also be used to manufacture 100,000 electric buses. Instead, these minerals are being stockpiled and directed towards technologies like autonomous systems, precision weaponry, and advanced military platforms powered by artificial intelligence.
The studies indicate that at least 38 minerals essential for the green transition are now included on the military’s list of strategic materials. This means resources intended to accelerate the shift away from fossil fuels are now fueling a renewed arms buildup.
Lorah Steichen’s Mining for War briefing further details the Pentagon’s involvement, revealing direct intervention in the market through acquisitions of mining companies, long-term contracts, and influence over global supply chains. This intervention, Steichen warns, “diverts critical minerals from civilian needs, distorts public priorities, and undermines any industrial policy focused on sustainability.”
The militarization of these minerals carries significant environmental and social costs. Mining operations associated with these resources cause ecosystem destruction, soil and water contamination, and human rights violations in local communities. Growing demand is also accelerating deep-sea mining projects – a largely unregulated frontier with potentially devastating ecological consequences.
The impact of this trend extends beyond resource allocation. Minerals are already bolstering the military infrastructure of countries involved in conflicts, which are also major, often uncounted, sources of carbon emissions. For example, a study published in the British newspaper “The Guardian” found that “the war in Gaza produces more carbon dioxide emissions than 100 countries.” The Pentagon itself is the largest institutional emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, responsible for approximately 80% of the U.S. government’s emissions, according to the same source.
Steichen proposes four key measures to reverse this course: reducing excessive demand, particularly in the military sector; integrating strict social and environmental justice standards into public contracts; democratizing resource governance through transparency and equitable access; and strengthening global cooperation, including with China, to manage tensions and improve the handling of critical minerals.
The studies collectively paint a concerning picture: as the world attempts to address the climate crisis, the minerals needed for a clean energy future are being transformed into instruments of war. This reversal threatens to profoundly compromise the possibility of a just, sustainable, and globally coordinated energy transition.
