In a recent government meeting, discussions centered around HR 8446, the Critical Mineral Consistency Act, which has drawn sharp criticism for allegedly favoring the copper mining industry. Critics argue that the bill seeks to amend the definition of critical minerals in the Energy Act of 2020, effectively allowing copper to be included on the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) critical minerals list despite its classification as \"near critical\" by the Department of Energy (DOE).

Opponents of the bill contend that copper does not belong on the USGS list, as there is no immediate supply risk associated with it. The USGS's assessment indicates that the copper supply chain is stable, with the majority of imports coming from reliable trading partners such as Chile, Canada, and Mexico. Furthermore, the U.S. is a leading producer and recycler of copper, with domestic recycling accounting for about one-third of the supply in 2022.

Concerns were also raised about the environmental and social impacts of copper mining, particularly in relation to water use, pollution, and effects on nearby communities, including tribal lands. With 89% of U.S. copper resources located within 35 miles of tribal land, the potential for adverse effects is significant. Critics highlighted that many copper mining operations are foreign-owned and do not contribute to the domestic clean energy economy, benefiting instead from outdated mining laws that allow them to extract federally owned minerals without paying royalties.

The bill's implications extend beyond domestic concerns, with accusations that it could also serve the interests of the Chinese Communist Party, particularly through the proposed Resolution Copper project in Arizona, which threatens the sacred site of Oak Flat. This project is backed by multinational companies BHP and Rio Tinto, raising further questions about the motivations behind HR 8446 and its potential consequences for both the environment and local communities.