PDF Summary:Material World, by Ed Conway

Modern civilization depends on six essential materials: quartz, salt, iron, copper, oil, and lithium. These resources power our devices, construct our buildings, and enable the technologies we use daily. However, our growing demand for these materials creates vulnerabilities that could reshape the global economy and international relations.

In Material World, Ed Conway examines how these six substances form the foundation of contemporary life and explores the challenges of securing them for the future. He discusses the environmental costs of extraction and production, the geopolitical tensions arising from resource scarcity, and the obstacles facing the transition to renewable energy. Conway reveals how supply chain disruptions can trigger widespread economic consequences and explains why nations are competing to control access to critical minerals.

(continued)...

Did the Modern Material World Really Reduce Human Labor?

Some scholars challenge the idea that the modern material world has mostly freed people from the toil and labor our predecessors faced. In More Work for Mother, historian of technology Ruth Schwartz Cowan argues that the introduction of modern household technologies did not so much lessen the total amount of domestic labor as reorganize it, shifting many tasks from paid servants, men, and children onto unpaid adult women and, by raising standards of cleanliness, childrearing, and household management, often increasing the overall volume and intensity of work performed in the home. Cowan’s analysis of twentieth-century American households suggests that technological intensification does not automatically reduce overall human work, but can instead reconfigure and sometimes expand it.

In the sections ahead, we’ll cover the factors driving resource-related geopolitics and the strategic responses nations are adopting.

Drivers of Resource-Related Geopolitics

Conway argues that the shift to using gas is reshaping global energy dynamics. Of all fossil fuels, natural gas is the cleanest and most efficient, converting fuel to energy more effectively than coal or oil. If China switched its coal-burning power plants to natural gas, the world would instantly be set to achieve its climate objectives. However, the transition to natural gas has taken time because it is trickier to move than oil. It requires extensive distribution systems that take years to construct.

(Shortform note: The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) disagrees with Conway’s assertion that switching to natural gas would put the world on track to meet its climate goals. The UCS argues that natural gas is not a viable climate solution because methane leaks throughout the natural gas system and long-lived gas infrastructure can lock in heat-trapping emissions for decades, undermining efforts to meet climate goals. They emphasize that expanding reliance on natural gas, rather than rapidly transitioning to renewable energy and efficiency, poses significant risks to the climate.)

Today, pipelines cross North America, China, the Caucasus, and the Mideast. Some pipelines link Europe's gas supply to Siberian fields in Russia, but certain ones are no longer active. Additionally, more and more terminals are converting natural gas into an extremely cold liquid that can be transported in specialized vessels. The largest natural gas field globally is the North Field, located underwater near Qatar. It is Earth's most significant energy source, providing around 4% of global energy. The world's nations are now determined to move into a fifth phase of energy development, aiming for net-zero carbon emissions by switching almost entirely from fossil fuels to renewable energy like hydroelectricity, solar, wind, and nuclear.

Long-Run Energy Transitions

The concept of a “fifth phase of energy development” and the discussion of global gas infrastructure align with academic research on long-run energy transitions. Scholars in energy studies analyze how societies shift from one dominant energy source to another over decades or centuries. In Energy Transitions, Vaclav Smil argues that long-run shifts in the ways societies supply and use power are not instantaneous substitutions of one dominant source for another but slow, path-dependent restructurings of infrastructures, technologies, and institutions that unfold over many decades, so that historically no country has completed a major transition in its primary sources of power in less than several generations.

Geopolitical Consequences & Strategic Responses

According to Conway, nations are racing to obtain essential minerals, with China leading the way. China has already reached agreements with nations across South America and sub-Saharan Africa in exchange for financing and investment. The EU and US have implemented strategies regarding essential minerals to ensure their availability. In America, former storage facilities are being tidied and revamped to compete in the 21st-century minerals race.

Extractivism and Sacrifice Zones

Some Latin American thinkers challenge the idea that South America and sub-Saharan Africa should prioritize supplying essential minerals to China, the EU, and the US. In Extractivisms, Eduardo Gudynas argues that contemporary extractivism in Latin America is not a path to emancipation but a renewed form of colonial dependency. He explains that states and corporations authorize the intensive appropriation of ores, hydrocarbons, and biomass, concentrate the profits in a few enclaves, and externalize the social and ecological costs onto peripheral territories that become true “sacrifice zones.”

Conway adds that the US is trying to reduce its dependency on Chinese battery materials. In 2022, President Biden utilized the Defense Production Act to support domestic mining and supply of battery materials. He also introduced legislation to enhance U.S. manufacturing of batteries, semiconductors, and various other products for sustainable energy. However, it’s unclear how easy this will be, given the US's reliance on Chinese battery manufacturing and material processing.

(Shortform note: In Mission Economy, Mariana Mazzucato argues that the US should adopt a mission-oriented industrial policy to address major challenges like climate change. This approach involves setting bold, concrete goals and using public investment to shape markets, crowd in private investment, and coordinate innovation, finance, and regulation. Mazzucato argues that this approach can create long-term commitments from firms, workers, and regions, making it harder for future administrations to reverse course.)

Six Foundational Substances and Their Challenges

Conway argues that this material is foundational and has significantly advanced human civilization. It's an affordable, strong, and reliable metal that's been utilized for millennia to assist humans in advancing and gaining wealth. Steel serves as a versatile technology, valuable for the things we can construct with it and what it makes it possible to build, such as industrial plants, equipment, and generators. These structures enable everything else, like producing electricity, conducting reactions under high pressure, and constructing infrastructure like transportation networks.

(Shortform note: Steel is a foundational material in many places, but not everywhere. For example, in some places, engineered timber or bamboo is used for most structural elements, so steel is no longer the foundational material. This is especially true in places where steel is expensive or hard to get. In these cases, wood or bamboo can be a better choice because they are easier to find and work with.)

Steel implements have greatly reduced the time needed to gather food. In 1800, slightly more than seven minutes of labor were required to produce a kilogram of grain. In 1850, using cast iron implements, it took slightly under three minutes. By 1900, the time required was reduced to under 30 seconds per kilogram because of steel tools. Producing steel accounts for about 7-8% of global greenhouse gas emissions. If everyone on the planet could use the same steel resources as those in developed nations, the worldwide quantity of steel would need to rise to 144 billion tons, which is almost quadruple the total amount humanity has produced throughout history.

Steel, Crop Production, and the Limits to Growth

The connection between steel, crop production, and the need to reach rich-country levels of steel use would break down if societies deliberately chose to pursue a low-throughput, sufficiency-oriented development path. In Less Is More, Jason Hickel argues that high levels of human well-being do not require ever-increasing material throughput and energy use. He explains that societies can achieve long life expectancy, good health, and strong education outcomes while using only a fraction of the resources consumed in the richest economies. Hickel advocates for a shift toward economies organized around universal public services, reduced excess consumption, and infrastructure designed to be simple, durable, and repairable rather than maximizing throughput. He further argues that agroecological farming systems—rooted in biodiversity, local knowledge, and more human labor and care—can maintain robust yields, regenerate soils and ecosystems, and provide secure livelihoods, enabling high levels of food security and decent living standards without requiring ever-greater volumes of material and energy use.

In the following sections, we'll cover the properties and applications of Li-ion batteries, as well as the systemic risks associated with resource constraints.

Material Properties & Applications

Conway explains that lithium-ion batteries are essential for powering modern devices. Rechargeable lithium-ion batteries store and release energy using lithium ions. They are crucial for devices like mobile phones, notebook computers, and electric vehicles because they are lightweight, can store a large amount of energy, and can be recharged many times without losing much capacity.

(Shortform note: Lithium-ion batteries became central to modern devices because the rise of mobile phones and notebook computers in the 1990s created a huge, predictable demand for them. This demand justified building massive factories dedicated to producing lithium-ion batteries, which in turn made it worthwhile to develop global supply chains for the raw materials needed to make them.)

The basic design of lithium-ion cells has stayed consistent for over a century, but the materials used have evolved. The cathode typically consists of lithium cobalt dioxide, and the anode is constructed from graphite, often produced from needle coke, a substance derived from petroleum. The battery consists of thin sheets made from these materials, separated by a membrane, and rolled within a metal canister. When the battery is charged, lithium ions travel from the cathode to the anode, storing energy. When the battery is active, the ions move back to the cathode, releasing energy.

(Shortform note: The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences notes that the first commercially viable lithium-ion cells were introduced by Sony in 1991, so the basic design is only a few decades old, not “over a century.” The Academy also notes that the first lithium-ion batteries used lithium cobalt oxide for the cathode and graphite for the anode, as Conway describes.)

Conway adds that refineries process petroleum into various products, including battery components. They separate petroleum into different compounds, subsequently making products like gasoline, diesel, kerosene, waxes, lubricating oils, asphalt, and petrochemicals. These petrochemicals help create polymers, medications, fertilizers, and additional products. Graphite for batteries is derived from petroleum.

(Shortform note: Wikipedia articles explain that petroleum-based graphite is made by heating petroleum coke to extremely high temperatures, causing the carbon atoms to rearrange into graphite’s layered structure. This process transforms the amorphous carbon in petroleum coke into the crystalline structure of graphite, making it suitable for use in battery anodes.)

Resource Constraints & Systemic Risks

Conway highlights that the global availability of high-purity quartz is concentrated in a single location, posing a systemic risk. This quartz is needed to produce the crucibles that hold molten silicon during the Czochralski process. Spruce Pine, North Carolina, is the sole supplier of extremely pure quartz. If something happened to the mines in Spruce Pine, the world would cease producing semiconductors and solar panels in half a year.

(Shortform note: Thompson’s reporting on the quartz trade supports Conway’s claim that the world’s supply of high-purity quartz is concentrated in a single location. He notes that the crucibles used to hold molten silicon must be made from quartz with impurity levels measured in parts per billion. While other regions have attempted to produce quartz of this quality, only the Appalachian deposit has consistently met the stringent requirements of the semiconductor industry.)

The upcoming sections will cover the environmental and geopolitical impacts of material extraction, processing, and production.

Material Extraction & Processing

Conway explains that steel manufacturing is a major source of emissions, accounting for 7-8% of global emissions. This is because transforming iron ore into steel is energy-intensive and produces a lot of carbon dioxide. The traditional method of making steel involves heating iron ore with coal using a blast furnace. The coal not only provides the heat needed to liquefy the iron ore, but it also reacts with the oxygen in the ore to produce carbon dioxide.

(Shortform note: In addition to the carbon dioxide produced by burning coal, the process of making steel also releases carbon dioxide when limestone is added to the blast furnace. The limestone is used to remove impurities from the iron ore, but it also breaks down into lime and carbon dioxide. This means that even if the energy used to heat the furnace came from renewable sources, the process would still produce carbon dioxide.)

However, there are alternative ways to produce steel that release less carbon dioxide. One method is to use reclaimed steel instead of unprocessed iron. Recycled steel can be liquefied and reused without the need for a traditional furnace. Another method is to use hydrogen instead of using coal to reduce the iron ore. This process produces water instead of CO2 as a byproduct. However, producing hydrogen without using fossil fuel combustion is expensive, and the iron ore required for this process must be of a higher grade than what's typical for blast furnaces.

Carbon Capture in Steelmaking

A third way to reduce the carbon emissions of steel production is to retrofit existing blast furnaces with carbon-capture systems. These systems strip the carbon dioxide from the exhaust gases and store it permanently underground. This approach doesn’t change the chemistry of ironmaking, but it can reduce emissions by up to 90%. The [Iron and Steel Technology Roadmap](https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/iron-and-steel-technology-roadmap3dcc2a1b-en.html)_ by the International Energy Agency identifies carbon capture as a key technology for decarbonizing the steel industry, especially since it can be applied to existing plants.

Environmental, Geopolitical & Economic Impacts

Conway highlights that salt has been pivotal in geopolitics and governance throughout history. It was weaponized during conflict. In the Revolutionary War, the British blockaded U.S. harbors and assaulted saltworks along the Atlantic shore. During the American Civil War, the Union army intercepted shipments of food and salt to the south; it sought out saltworks and destroyed them, breaking brine pumps so that even if they were recaptured, they would be useless. As they engaged with the Confederacy, they also deprived them of sustenance. Salt was also employed as a means of control and oppression.

(Shortform note: Historians have long recognized salt’s pivotal role in geopolitics and governance, as well as its capacity to be weaponized during conflict and used for control and oppression. They argue that salt’s unique ability to preserve food before refrigeration made it a strategic resource, as access to salt was directly linked to the long-term survival of armies and entire populations. Mark Kurlansky, in his book Salt: A World History, explores how salt’s role in food preservation made it a strategic resource, with access to salt directly linked to the long-term survival of armies and entire populations.)

Rulers aimed to strengthen their power by controlling, regulating, and taxing salt. China's salt monopoly began in the 7th century BCE. The Chinese government controlled the production and distribution of salt, and in the 200s AD, it made up almost 90% of state revenues. The exclusive control persisted into the 21st century. In India, the British prohibited selling local salt in Bengal, requiring that only British-produced salt could be sold. Smuggling became widespread, prompting the British to take over local production, create a government monopoly, and make salt production or trade illegal.

(Shortform note: The salt monopolies in China and British-ruled Bengal were responses to fiscal and military pressures. In China, the government faced chronic budget deficits and military threats, so it relied on the salt monopoly for a stable revenue stream. In Bengal, the British East India Company faced financial difficulties and needed to fund its military campaigns, so it established a salt monopoly to generate revenue. In both cases, salt was a universally needed commodity that could be tightly regulated, making it an effective tool for generating revenue and exerting political control.)

The British installed customs checkpoints around the state of Bengal and planted a hedgerow of prickly pears, Indian plum trees, and spiky acacias all the way around the border, some 2,400 miles from the foothills of the Himalayas to the saltworks at Odisha. The hedge was watched constantly to maintain the salt industry monopoly. The hedge wasn't permitted to decay until the British took complete control of India's salt production.

(Shortform note: The hedge was removed after the British abolished inland customs duties in the late 19th century. The British replaced these local taxes with excise taxes and income taxes, which were easier to collect and administer. This shift was part of a broader trend in colonial administration, as British officials sought to modernize and centralize their tax systems. The removal of the hedge was a symbolic moment in the history of British colonialism, marking the end of an era of local control and the beginning of a new era of centralized power.)

In 1930, Mahatma Gandhi decided to protest the British colonial regime using salt. He embarked on a journey to the coast spanning 240 miles, attracting a growing group of followers, advocates, and media along the way. Following a 24-day journey, he reached the village of Dandi on the west coast, gathered some seawater, poured it over himself, and collected grains of salt that had crystallized on the beach. By doing this, he violated one of India's most disliked laws. Gandhi's protest centered on salt, marking a crucial milestone in India's journey to independence and sparking a wave of civil disobedience nationwide.

Why Does Gandhi’s Protest Matter?

Gandhi’s protest is a striking story, but why does it matter? Gandhi’s protest shows how a simple act of defiance can transform private resentment into public resistance. By openly breaking a widely disliked law, Gandhi demonstrated that collective action could challenge oppressive systems. This act of civil disobedience not only galvanized support for India’s independence movement but also inspired similar tactics in other struggles for justice. Gandhi’s protest highlights the power of visible, symbolic actions in mobilizing communities and effecting social change.

Conway also points out that China is the leader in the world’s battery production industry. It has a dominant hold over roughly 80% of global battery manufacturing capabilities and produces approximately 80% of the components used in these batteries. Even if Europe and the United States fully implement their plans to manufacture batteries, China will still be producing 70% of the global supply by the early 2030s.

(Shortform note: China’s dominance in battery production is likely to continue for the foreseeable future because of the expertise and trade secrets that Chinese manufacturers have developed. These manufacturers have also built up a network of suppliers that are located close to their factories. According to Sanderson, it would take more than a decade for other countries to develop the same level of expertise and supply chain infrastructure.)