By Alina Voss

An untapped energy savior might just be sitting on the ocean floor. From AI to defense to clean energy, critical minerals remain pivotal to securing the United States’ competitive edge. Unfortunately, supply chains remain precariously dependent on foreign control, often from adversarial nations like China, leaving the country vulnerable to price shocks, trade restrictions, and supply disruption. While bipartisan efforts are gathering momentum around ideas to strengthen U.S. mineral security through efforts like reviving domestic mining, strategic alliances, and even recycling programs, land-based deposits alone may not be enough to meet the explosive growth in demand anticipated over the coming decades. We may need to look deeper for solutions, specifically to the ocean floor.

Polymetallic nodules, potato-sized rocks found scattered across the seafloor, particularly in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ), between Hawaii and Mexico. These nodules are rich in four of the same minerals needed to fuel clean energy supply chains: nickel, cobalt, copper, and manganese. Unlike terrestrial sources, which often contain only one or two of these metals and require energy-intensive processing, seafloor nodules contain all four in high purity and are loosely embedded in sediment, meaning they can be collected with minimal crushing or waste rock removal. The CCZ alone is estimated to hold more nickel and cobalt than all known land-based reserves combined. They represent a rare convergence between vast untapped mineral resources and emerging technology in deep sea robotics and AI-powered collection technologies. If harnessed responsibly, it could prove determinative for the future of American clean energy security.

To catalyze the emergence of a domestic seafloor minerals industry, federal support should mirror successful precedents in space and semiconductor policy (like the COTS program or CHIPS act) by leveraging targeted public-private partnerships, milestone-based R&D funding, and interagency coordination. These mechanisms align well with President Trump’s broader industrial strategy, especially his second-term push to reassert American leadership in critical technologies. The development of deep-sea collection systems requires the same precision robotics, long-duration autonomy, and AI-driven sensor fusion technologies now prioritized in Trump’s Executive Orders on domestic energy dominance, which already task agencies like DOE, DARPA, and NSF with advancing advanced manufacturing and next-gen energy. The seafloor minerals sector presents an ideal testbed to apply those mandates, driving innovation while securing access to four of the most strategically important metals for both defense and clean tech. As the administration reforms permitting timelines, retools the Department of Energy’s innovation programs, and expands national security-driven procurement, now is the moment to integrate seafloor minerals into America’s critical mineral toolkit.

Despite the opportunities for seafloor minerals to bolster American environmental impacts through advancing clean energy, a wave of critique has arisen, largely arguing that using seafloor minerals will have negative environmental impacts. Claims that seafloor nodule collection could impede the ocean’s ability to store carbon dioxide continue to circulate, despite little evidence. Not to mention, experts say that this alarmism neglects the counterfactual that the amount of carbon dioxide released by seafloor mineral collection is “negligibly tiny” when compared with emissions of on-land mining activities.

Letting geopolitical rivals lead on nodule development or critical minerals more broadly is a strategic mistake both for U.S. supply chain and environmental policy. The short window of opportunity, particularly for the Trump administration, to shape the critical mineral industry for the better is a make-or-break moment in gaining the technological edge for the coming decades of American industry. The U.S. should take swift, targeted action by forging strategic alliances with allies like Japan and Australia to coordinate exploration, recognizing nodules as “domestic content” when first landed in the U.S., unlocking manufacturing incentives, and finally by expanding federal R&D and streamlining permitting.

The United States has a rare opportunity to secure not only the security of its supply chains but also the future of its clean energy industry by responsibly advancing seafloor mineral development. With strategic investment, smart regulation, and proactive utilization of the resources available to us, America can shape the rules of the game while securing access to the critical materials that power 21st-century technologies. 

Alina Voss is a fellow with ConservAmerica.

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

Charles Rotter

This analysis draws on the recent survey research conducted and published by Roger Pielke Jr. and Ruy Teixeira in their report, The Science vs. the Narrative vs. the Voters: Clarifying the Public Debate Around Energy and Climate, released through the American Enterprise Institute. Pielke and Teixeira—well known for their commitment to empirical rigor over popular narrative—commissioned the AEI 2024 Energy/Climate Survey to cut through the confusion surrounding American attitudes on climate and energy. Their work, summarized and discussed here, sheds light on the true state of public opinion—grounding the debate in data, not dogma. For further details and direct commentary from the authors, see Roger Pielke Jr.’s discussion on his Substack: What Americans Really Think About Energy and Climate.

This survey is a much-needed injection of empirical reality into a debate that has veered off into the land of magical thinking, group hysteria, and, frankly, wishful technocratic authoritarianism. The survey cuts through the fog of talking points and exposes the gaping chasm between what actual voters think, what the science technically claims, and the overwrought narrative hawked daily by politicians, media, and green activists.

Let’s begin by examining the survey’s core findings. Over 3,000 registered voters were asked about their views on extreme weather, climate projections, energy priorities, willingness to bear the costs of fighting climate change, and their own consumer behavior. The findings are, to put it charitably, an embarrassment for central planners who fancy themselves philosopher-kings of the energy transition.

First, the American public does not support a “rapid elimination of fossil fuels.” In fact, the majority backs an “all-of-the-above” energy policy—one that includes not just solar and wind, but also natural gas, oil, and even nuclear energy. This is not some fluke. It is the consistent preference of nearly every demographic group. According to the survey, “a majority of each group prefers an energy strategy characterized as ‘all of the above’ versus a ‘rapid green transition’ or opposition to ‘green energy projects’”. Even among Democrats, the appetite for ditching fossil fuels entirely is, at best, lukewarm.

The “narrative,” as the authors describe it, is the high-octane stuff peddled by politicians, NGOs, and a media industry that has made a business model out of catastrophe. It is the belief that, unless we immediately decarbonize everything, humanity will plunge off a “climate tipping point” into apocalypse. The problem, as the survey finds, is that this is not only unsupported by the scientific consensus (yes, even the IPCC steers clear of doomsday language), but it’s also not shared by the voters whom these activists and bureaucrats claim to represent.

Consider the disconnect: “When asked, ‘Does the IPCC think there is a tipping point beyond which temperature rise from the current day will produce catastrophic results for human civilization?,’ most respondents answered yes. This finding clearly indicates that most people believe there is a point beyond which the IPCC has identified catastrophic outcomes for humanity (Figure 3)”. In reality, the IPCC—ever careful in its language—explicitly does not link warming to existential catastrophe or define such a tipping point. The catastrophe narrative, it turns out, is mostly a work of fiction—a Hollywood production in search of facts.

The blame for this state of confusion, the authors argue, lies with decades of hyperbolic activism and media repetition. Since Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth in 2006, the climate movement has pushed worst-case scenarios and ignored nuance. The mainstream media, “pressured by organizations such as Gore’s Climate Reality Project, Greenpeace, and the Sunrise Movement,” has “formally adopted such language and align[ed] their perspective with that of the activists”. At this point, news outlets have been browbeaten into swapping out “climate change” for “climate emergency”—a rhetorical sleight of hand designed to nudge public opinion, not to reflect sober scientific assessment.

Let’s talk energy sources. Despite the fever dreams of the anti-fossil fuel lobby, Americans are far from ready to embrace a quick end to oil and gas. Table 2 of the survey ranks energy preferences: solar and wind do well, but so does natural gas, and nuclear hangs in there too. The only real loser is coal, but the real story is the persistence of support for a mixed portfolio. The report notes, “A significant amount of support for each energy source—except coal—helps to explain why an all-of-the-above approach to overall energy policy finds strong support across groups”. Demonizing natural gas may be trendy among activists, but voters aren’t buying it. In fact, the survey points out that the much-vaunted reduction in U.S. emissions was “driven primarily by substituting natural gas for coal,” with renewables playing second fiddle.

Now, it would be one thing if the general public was simply uneducated on the science. But the survey finds that, even where Americans misunderstand the technical details—like the IPCC’s projections of temperature rise—their instincts are more grounded than the fevered imagination of the political class. While only 10 percent could accurately quote the IPCC’s topline temperature projection, this knowledge gap has little to do with public skepticism. The truth is that voters just don’t view projected temperature increases as particularly salient to their daily lives.

If there is a consensus, it’s around priorities: Americans care about energy cost and reliability, not about satisfying the moral preening of climate activists. Given four choices, “37 percent of voters said the cost of the energy they use was most important to them, and 36 percent said the availability of power when they need it was most important. Just 19 percent thought the effect on climate of their energy consumption was most important”. Among working-class voters, the emphasis on affordability and reliability is even more stark: “41 percent…said the cost of the energy they use was most important, and 35 percent said the availability of power when they need it was most important.” The notion that the U.S. public is ready to sacrifice comfort and prosperity for planetary salvation simply does not withstand scrutiny.

This is reflected in willingness to pay for climate action, which collapses the moment real costs are introduced. A measly $1 monthly surcharge to “fight climate change” garners support from less than half of voters. Raise that to $20 or $40, and support plummets into the teens, with opposition swelling to 70 percent or more. As for expensive household retrofits or electric vehicles? Voters overwhelmingly reject the idea. “Voters by 17 percentage points (52 percent to 35 percent) say they are opposed to phasing out new gasoline cars and trucks by 2035. … Many more voters are upset (48 percent) than excited (21 percent) by the idea of phasing out production of gas-powered cars and trucks”.

For the climate policy establishment, this must feel like heresy. After all, they have spent years attempting to manufacture public support by promoting every hurricane, flood, or heat wave as proof of impending doom. Yet the AEI survey shows that the public isn’t as easily manipulated as the central planners hoped. For most, their day-to-day needs far outweigh the green utopian promises of a carbon-free world.

The fundamental lesson here is a simple one: reality bites. The dream of a rapid “green transition”—net-zero by 2050, complete decarbonization, and the abolition of fossil fuels—remains just that: a dream. The technical, economic, and political hurdles are immense. As energy expert Vaclav Smil (quoted in the report) says, “People toss out these deadlines without any reflection on the scale and the complexity of the problem. … What’s the point of setting goals which cannot be achieved? People call it aspirational. I call it delusional”.

The AEI survey’s conclusion is a harsh but necessary corrective. Americans do not share the catastrophist worldview of the climate priesthood. They are not eager to immolate their standard of living on the altar of planetary salvation. They want abundant, cheap, reliable energy, and they have little patience for schemes that threaten that reality in service to speculative fears. Policymakers ignore this at their peril.

If there is any hope for sensible policy, it lies not in ever more hysterical appeals to “crisis,” but in aligning with the public’s desire for prosperity, freedom, and security. As the authors put it: “Climate policy will be much more effective if it works in the direction of public opinion, rather than against it. Simple. And also true”.

That’s a message the architects of net-zero schemes and top-down green revolutions might want to ponder before issuing their next set of commandments. The voters, after all, have other priorities—and, for once, they are right.