0:00

This BBC podcast is supported

0:02

by ads outside the UK.

0:04

This is your moment. Your your

0:08

moment, your time to shine, your

0:10

comeback. You're ready for the next

0:13

step in your career and you

0:15

want an education employer's respect. So

0:17

you're not just going back to

0:20

school, you're coming back with Purdue

0:22

Global. Backed by Purdue University, one

0:24

of the nation's most respected public

0:27

universities, Purdue Global is built for

0:29

people who bring their life experience

0:31

into the online classroom. Produce Online

0:34

University for Working Adults. Start your

0:36

comeback today at Purdue. So

0:39

you want So you want to start

0:41

a business. You might think you need

0:44

a team of people and fancy tech

0:46

skills, but listen to me when I

0:48

say you don't. You just need Go Daddy

0:50

Arrow. I'm Walton Goggins, an actor. And

0:52

I like the sound of starting my

0:55

own business, Walton Goggins,

0:57

a actor. And But I couldn't do this on I like the sound

0:59

of starting my own business. Walton

0:59

my own. GoDaddy Arrow uses AI to

1:01

create everything you need to grow a business.

1:01

Goggins, Gogglasses. But I couldn't

1:04

do this It'll make you a unique logo. It'll create a

1:06

custom website. on my own. Go Daddy Arrow uses you up with a

1:08

social media calendar. How cool. It'll write social posts for you and even set you up with a

1:10

social media calendar. How cool is that? time

1:13

you can get arrow all access for just a

1:15

dollar a dollar a week for 12 weeks.

1:17

We're talking all the AI power

1:19

of GoDaddy Arrow plus a

1:22

domain, e-commerce store, payments,

1:25

professional email, a unified

1:27

inbox, all for less

1:29

money than I spend on

1:31

deep tanning lotion while

1:34

sunbathing off the almofi

1:36

coast. You know what that

1:38

sounds like? VBC Sounds.

1:41

Music, radio, podcasts. Hello

1:43

and welcome to a brand

1:45

new series of more or less. Did

1:47

you miss us? Did anything happen

1:49

while we were away? This week, the

1:51

Prime Minister Kier Starmer has announced

1:54

an increase in defence spending with

1:56

more to come. Where might the

1:58

money come from? And are there

2:01

hard choices coming? It's lent, with

2:03

many people choosing to give up

2:05

luxuries for 40 days. luxuries

2:07

for 40 days. Or is

2:09

it really 40? The US

2:11

has demanded $500 billion of

2:13

Ukraine's rare earth minerals. Does

2:15

that number make sense? And

2:17

I'm told that there are

2:20

100,000 mussels in an elephant's

2:22

trunk. Or 20,000. Or 17.

2:24

Or 9. We'll get to

2:26

grips with that at some

2:28

stage, I hope. But first,

2:30

last week, Ukrainian President Vladimir

2:32

Zelenski traveled to the White

2:34

House to meet the American

2:36

President Donald Trump. It was

2:38

an ill-fated trip, which ended

2:40

in a bitter shouting match,

2:42

as Zelenski was repeatedly told

2:44

to say thank you for

2:46

the support given to Ukraine

2:48

by the US. You got

2:50

to be more thankful. Because

2:53

let me tell you, you

2:55

don't have the cards. With

2:57

us, you have the cards.

2:59

But without us, you don't

3:01

have any cards. The US

3:03

had given Ukraine huge amounts

3:05

of support, Donald Trump argued.

3:07

How much? And we are

3:09

thankful. I said thanks in

3:11

this cabinet. We gave you

3:13

through the stupid president 350

3:15

billion dollars. We gave you

3:17

military equipment. And if you

3:19

didn't have our military equipment,

3:21

this war would have been

3:24

over... in two weeks. It

3:26

was of course an extraordinary

3:28

meeting which generated many huge

3:30

headlines. But we shouldn't overlook

3:32

the extraordinary statistic mentioned by

3:34

Donald Trump that the US

3:36

has given Ukraine $350 billion.

3:38

It wasn't the first time

3:40

he's made that claim recently.

3:42

It's become part of a

3:44

familiar complaint. The United States

3:46

has given $350 billion. And

3:48

as you know, we're in

3:50

for... probably $350 billion. Europe

3:52

is in for $100 billion.

3:55

And that's a big difference.

3:57

So we're in for probably

3:59

three times as much. So

4:01

is this $350 billion figure

4:03

true? And has the US

4:05

given many times more than

4:07

Europe? We spoke to Taro

4:09

Nishkawa. He leads the Ukraine's

4:11

support tracker at the Kiel

4:13

Institute for the World Economy,

4:15

which is a respected German

4:17

economic think tank. And they've

4:19

been keeping track of the

4:21

billions of dollars of aid

4:23

pledged to Ukraine since the

4:25

start of the war. Let's

4:28

start with that $350 billion.

4:30

Based on our data, the

4:32

350 billion dollars figure mentioned

4:34

by President Trump does not

4:36

align with the number of

4:38

each track. So our data

4:40

set calculate total USA to

4:42

Ukraine primarily based on the

4:44

amount appropriated under the Ukraine

4:46

Supplemental Appropriations Act since 2002,

4:48

and the total is significantly

4:50

lower than the 350 billion

4:52

dollars President Trump mentioned. Even

4:54

when checking figures from official

4:56

US sources, the number remains

4:59

much lower than his claim.

5:01

So it's not $350 billion.

5:03

The true figure? Well, when

5:05

you look at aid that

5:07

has either already been delivered

5:09

or has been specified for

5:11

delivery rather than vaguely promised,

5:13

the true number is $122

5:15

billion. What about the figure

5:17

for Europe? So according to

5:19

our data set Europe has

5:21

contributed over $142 billion to

5:23

Ukraine. $142 billion, slightly more

5:25

than the US, on $122

5:27

billion. These are all figures

5:29

for the total value of

5:32

the aid given to Ukraine,

5:34

and those figures can be

5:36

broken into three categories. Financial

5:38

aid, humanitarian aid, and military

5:40

aid, such as weapons. When

5:42

you do break it down,

5:44

Europe gives, Europe gives... substantially

5:46

more humanitarian and financial aid

5:48

than the US. America does

5:50

give more military aid than

5:52

Europe, although only just. But

5:54

Donald Trump has been making

5:56

another claim about aid to

5:58

Ukraine. But here's worse. Europe

6:00

gave it in the form

6:03

of a loan. They get

6:05

their money back. We gave

6:07

it in the form of

6:09

nothing, so I want them

6:11

to give us something for

6:13

all of the money that

6:15

we put up. So what's

6:17

the true picture? Is all

6:19

of Europe's aid alone and

6:21

all of the US's a

6:23

free gift? Europe provided more

6:25

aid in the form of

6:27

loans compared to the US.

6:29

So by the end of

6:31

2024, Europe has provided $47

6:33

billion in financial aid as

6:36

loans while the US provided

6:38

approximately $20 billion as a

6:40

loan. For Europe, that loan

6:42

component makes up... approximately 33%

6:44

of its total aid, whereas

6:46

for the US, it represents

6:48

approximately 16% of its total

6:50

aid. So about 33% of

6:52

Europe's total aid to Ukraine

6:54

is in the form of

6:56

loans. The US has also

6:58

provided some loans, about 16%

7:00

of its total aid. These

7:02

European loans tend to have

7:04

very long repayment terms. typically

7:07

around 35 years, and given

7:09

that they've loaned it to

7:11

someone currently fighting a terrible

7:13

war, there is no guarantee

7:15

they'll get it back at

7:17

all. Our thanks to Taro

7:19

Nishkawa from the Kiel Institute

7:21

for the World Economy. If

7:23

you want to follow all

7:25

the twists and turns of

7:27

the Ukraine story, you might

7:29

want to listen to Ukraine

7:31

cast on BBC Sounds. You're

7:33

listening to More or Less.

7:35

No, I'm not talking about

7:37

the past participle of lend.

7:40

I mean lent, old English

7:42

for lengthen, and the current

7:44

Christian period of fasting and

7:46

reflection before Easter. But how

7:48

long is lent? If you

7:50

Google what lent is, which

7:52

I totally did, have to

7:54

do, your results will say

7:56

Lent is a 40-day period

7:58

that begins on Ash Wednesday

8:00

and finishes on Holy Saturday,

8:02

aka Easter Eve. This year

8:04

that runs from the 5th

8:06

of March to the 19th

8:08

of April. Now, not to

8:11

be a pedantic penitent, but

8:13

the 5th of March to

8:15

the 19th of April does

8:17

not 40 days of fasting

8:19

make. It makes 46. Back

8:21

to Google. This time it

8:23

says that for some Christians

8:25

Lent actually goes from Ash

8:27

Wednesday again, this year the

8:29

5th of March, until Holy

8:31

Thursday, which this year is

8:33

the 17th of April. But

8:35

again, that's not 40 days,

8:37

it's 44 days. So what

8:39

is going on? According to

8:41

One source, Catholic News, which

8:44

is the official newspaper of

8:46

the Archdiocese of Singapore, we

8:48

shouldn't count Sundays Sundays. According

8:50

to Catholic news, Sundays are

8:52

a mini Easter, which is,

8:54

I assume, why Cadbury's mini

8:56

eggs exist. This all seems

8:58

a bit odd, and the

9:00

maths, well they still aren't

9:02

really mathing. The true answer

9:04

is probably that, well, 40

9:06

days is actually just an

9:08

arbitrary number. Here is a

9:10

list of things that the

9:12

Bible says lasted 40 days.

9:15

The great flood, Moses chilling

9:17

on Mount Sinai. Israelites spying

9:19

on Canaan, Goliath taunting Saul,

9:21

Elijah travelling, Jesus fasting in

9:23

the desert, and the time

9:25

between Jesus' resurrection and ascension.

9:27

It has been suggested by

9:29

Bible scholars that 40 just

9:31

means quite a few. In

9:33

fact, it's used in Jewish,

9:35

Christian, Middle Eastern and Islamic

9:37

scriptures to mean loads, or

9:39

perhaps umpteen. Although, if that's

9:41

how we translated it, the

9:43

Bible might sound a bit

9:45

like an Alan Bennet play.

9:48

He fasted for umptine days

9:50

and nights and after... was

9:52

hungry. So we had a

9:54

cup of tea and a

9:56

slice of Battenberg cake. So

9:58

if you find yourself relapsing

10:00

in penance or fasting, just

10:02

say you're taking one of

10:04

your six lent cheat days

10:06

and we don't really know

10:08

how many days they meant

10:10

anyway. The seismic geopolitical events

10:12

of the last few weeks

10:14

have prompted deep unease in

10:16

Europe. as politicians worry that

10:19

the United States might end

10:21

decades of security backing on

10:23

the continent. In response, the

10:25

Prime Minister, Sir Kier Starmer,

10:27

announced plans to raise spending

10:29

on defence from 2.3% of

10:31

gross domestic product, GDP, to

10:33

2.5% by 2027, paid for

10:35

by cutting the aid budget.

10:37

Perhaps more significant was what

10:39

he called his ambition to

10:41

raise it to 3% in

10:43

the next Parliament. Economists promptly

10:45

started muttering about the end

10:47

of the peace dividend. This

10:49

might have been news to

10:52

people who haven't even heard

10:54

of the peace dividend, let

10:56

alone realised that they've been

10:58

spending it. To explain, I

11:00

spoke to Ben Ziranko, an

11:02

economist at the Institute for

11:04

Fiscal Studies who never mutters.

11:06

The peace dividend is the

11:08

decline in public spending on

11:10

defence that occurred over the

11:12

second half of the 20th

11:14

century in the early 21st,

11:16

which allowed governments everywhere to,

11:18

by cutting spending on defence,

11:20

they were able to increase

11:23

spending on nice things like

11:25

health and Social Security and

11:27

education without having to necessarily

11:29

raise taxes because the savings

11:31

from... Defence in a more

11:33

peaceful world enabled them to

11:35

do those things without having

11:37

to really confront too many

11:39

tough choices. Right. And I

11:41

can well imagine that defense

11:43

spending was reduced, say, between

11:45

1945 and 1946, but give

11:47

us the longer perspective. Well,

11:49

clearly there was a fall

11:51

off after the end of

11:54

the Second World War. But

11:56

if we start in the

11:58

mid-50s, say, when the UK

12:00

still had lots of international

12:02

commitments, famous East of Suez,

12:04

we talk about the ruling

12:06

the British Empire and so

12:08

on, Britain was spending about

12:10

7.5% of its GDP on

12:12

defence each year in 1955.

12:14

So that's quite a big

12:16

chunk, and at that point

12:18

it was more than one

12:20

fifth. of what a government

12:22

did. So one pound every

12:24

five was going on defense

12:27

at that point. So it

12:29

was quite a warfare-oriented state. That

12:31

fell over time to more like 5%

12:33

in the mid-60s to more like 4%

12:35

in the mid-1980s to more like 2%

12:38

in the 2000s and 2010s. So that's

12:40

quite a big saving over time. More

12:42

than 5% of GDP we no longer

12:44

had to spend on defense, freed up

12:47

to spend on other things. And so

12:49

then what... Is the government spending money

12:51

on instead or is it all

12:53

just tax cuts? The government spending

12:55

much more on what we think

12:57

of as the welfare state, so

12:59

in particular the healthcare system is

13:02

a good example of that, but

13:04

also just social security and the

13:06

social safety net more generally. So

13:08

one way to think about that

13:10

is that in the 1950s, spending

13:12

on defence was about the same

13:15

as the combined spend on health

13:17

and social security. A health plus

13:19

social security together. the same as

13:21

defense? Exactly. Wow. By 1980 we

13:23

spent three times as much on

13:25

health and Social Security, by

13:27

1990, four times as much as

13:30

on defense, by the 2000s, six

13:32

times as much, by 2010, eight

13:35

times as much, and now nine

13:37

times as much. So we've really

13:39

just ramped up spending

13:41

on the warfare state. Kirstarmer

13:44

announced that defence spending will increase

13:46

from 2.3% to 2.5% of GDP

13:48

by 2027, and this would be

13:51

paid for by reducing the foreign

13:53

aid budget by the same amount.

13:55

But what about the ambition

13:57

to reach 3% by the next Parliament?

13:59

How might that be paid for?

14:02

Barring any unexpected windfalls, it

14:04

would be tax rises or

14:06

spending cuts elsewhere. Let's start

14:08

by analysing the potential cuts.

14:10

So let's assume that defence spending

14:12

does increase from 2.3% to GDP

14:14

to 3% over the next few

14:17

years. Let's also assume that healthcare

14:19

spending isn't cut, because it's

14:21

never cut. And let's assume that

14:23

taxes don't rise any further because they're

14:25

already quite high and they've been raised

14:27

quite a bit. given those constraints, what

14:30

else is going to be cut? What

14:32

would that look like? Well, the NHS

14:34

is the single biggest public service in

14:36

terms of its budget and defence is

14:39

the third biggest. So if you're increasing

14:41

those two things at once, within quite

14:43

a tight overall spending envelope or spending

14:45

pot, you are going to be making

14:47

cuts elsewhere. Precisely how big will depend

14:50

what you give the NHS, it will

14:52

depend on what form the defence increase

14:54

takes and so on. But as a sort

14:56

of... back of the envelope before coming on,

14:58

I had a look at this, and I

15:01

think you'd be looking at cutting everything

15:03

else by around 2% per year in

15:05

real terms for the rest of the

15:07

Parliament. So over the next four years,

15:10

ballpark 8% cuts to those budgets,

15:12

that includes things like the

15:14

police, it includes things like

15:16

local government, it includes prisons,

15:18

it includes further education, it

15:20

includes HMRC, all those things

15:22

would be on the chopping

15:24

block. But say the government wanted to

15:27

avoid any spending cuts and decided to

15:29

pay for extra defence by raising taxes.

15:31

What would that look like? Just to

15:34

give a sense of scale, if you put

15:36

two pence on all rates of income

15:38

tax, that would get you about 20

15:40

billion. So that would pay for this

15:42

extra defence spending kiosk here, Stamis, as

15:44

he wants. Or if you put three

15:46

p on the main rates of national

15:48

insurance contributions, that would also do the

15:50

job that would raise about 17 billion.

15:52

And bearing a man that Jeremy Hunt,

15:54

Jeremy Hunt. knocked four p off the

15:56

main rate of national insurance in his

15:58

last year as Chancellor. We undid three

16:00

quarters of Jeremy Hunt, we could probably

16:03

pay for this extra defense spending. That's

16:05

a delicious image. Well, we'll maybe leave

16:07

that with listeners. I'm doing three quarters

16:09

of Jeremy Hunt, I'm not even sure

16:11

what that means. And what if even

16:13

three percent isn't enough? What if we

16:15

need to go back to four percent,

16:17

which is by no means historically unprecedented?

16:19

Four percent of GDP would take

16:21

us back to what we had

16:24

under Margaret Thatcher. That would just

16:26

require, I think, a reexamination of...

16:28

are promises on taxes and what

16:30

we expect to pay in terms

16:32

of tax to the state, but

16:34

also our expectations of what the state

16:36

can provide for us and whether

16:39

some of the things the state

16:41

currently does, we might have to

16:43

stop doing in order to prioritise

16:45

defence if that's really what matters

16:47

and of what is most important

16:50

for the country. Our thanks to

16:52

Ben Zoranco from the Institute

16:54

for Fiscal Studies. You might So

16:56

you want to start a business. You

16:58

might think you need a team of

17:01

people and fancy tech skills, but listen

17:03

to me when I say you don't. You just

17:05

need Go Daddy Arrow. I'm Walton Goggins,

17:08

an actor. And I like the sound

17:10

of starting my own business, Walton

17:13

Goggins, a actor. And I like

17:15

the sound of starting my own

17:17

business. Walton Goggins, Gogglasses. But

17:19

I couldn't do this on my

17:21

own. Go Daddy Arrow uses you

17:23

up with a social media calendar.

17:25

How cool. We'll listen to this. For a limited

17:27

time you can get arrow all

17:29

access for just a dollar a

17:31

week for 12 weeks. We're talking

17:34

all the AI power of

17:36

GoDaddy Arrow plus a domain,

17:38

e-commerce store, payments, professional email,

17:40

a unified inbox, all for

17:43

less money than I spend on

17:45

deep tanning lotion A plan. while sunbathing

17:46

Get started at off the almafi

17:48

coast. You go daddy.com. Terms apply. know what that Let's be sounds

17:51

like? honest. Most A plan. Get started

17:53

at godaddy.com. Terms apply. of us have a love-hate relationship with wired bras. We love

17:55

the lift, but hate the digging.

17:57

We love the support, but hate

18:00

feeling trapped. Well, Nix just changed

18:02

everything with free flex. A

18:04

wired bra actually designed to

18:06

work with your body, not

18:08

against it. Free flex features a

18:11

revolutionary flexible wire that moves

18:13

when you move, bends when

18:15

you bend, and keeps everything

18:18

exactly where you want it.

18:20

No poking, no stabbing, no

18:22

constant readjust... freedom to move.

18:25

It also has a demi-cup

18:27

shape for a natural lift

18:30

with a lower neckline that

18:32

flatters in everything from v-nex

18:34

to dresses. And because it's

18:37

from Knicks, it's available in

18:39

sizes for every body. Experience

18:42

the first wired bra you'll

18:44

actually want to wear all

18:46

day. Visit nix.com for 15%

18:49

off your order with free flex

18:51

15. Sometimes

18:54

a question comes along. A

18:56

question so important that it

18:58

could change the fabric of

19:01

human understanding. One such question

19:03

came into our inbox

19:05

from long-term loyal listener

19:08

Beatrice Dixon. Watching a

19:10

documentary about elephants, I was

19:12

surprised to be informed that

19:15

an elephant's trunk has over

19:17

100,000 muscles. Funny, previously I'd

19:19

been told 40,000. Then... over

19:21

20,000. So I looked at

19:24

a dedicated elephant website which

19:26

said this is all nonsense

19:28

and an elephant has just

19:30

17 muscles in its trunk.

19:33

We love numbers. Please can

19:35

you find the definitive answer? Hmm.

19:37

Well it's quite a jump

19:39

from 17 to 100,000. So

19:41

what is going on? With

19:44

me is our translator of

19:46

trunk terminology Lizzy McNeil. Hello Lizzy.

19:48

I went straight down to the zoo

19:50

to figure this out for myself, but

19:52

now the zoo says I'm banned. Like

19:54

what? Anyway, then I rang Andrew Schultz,

19:57

a postdoctoral researcher at the Max Planck

19:59

Institute for Intelligence. systems in Stuttgart Germany.

20:01

He's been involved in studying elephant

20:03

trunks to see how we can

20:05

replicate their range of movements in

20:07

the world of robotics. But we

20:09

started off with a simpler question.

20:12

What is a trunk? So it's

20:14

actually, it's an extended upper lip

20:16

of an elephant. And unlike us

20:19

British, these upper lips are actually

20:21

very much not stiff. And it's...

20:23

composed primarily of muscles. This muscle

20:25

can be thought of as almost

20:28

like water. And so they're able

20:30

to move this structure in a

20:32

very very similar way to the

20:35

way we understand fluids. These structures

20:37

primarily can do four different things

20:39

using that fluidic type of movement

20:42

so they can extend, they can

20:44

shorten, they can twist, and they

20:46

can wrap. For these movements you

20:48

need a lot of flexibility. Primarily

20:51

what we're thinking of with muscles

20:53

is we have a bone and

20:55

then we have a muscle tendon

20:58

unit that is connected to that

21:00

bone. Now the muscles in an

21:02

elephant's trunk are not connected to

21:04

bone. Instead they're made up of

21:07

muscles and skin and this makes

21:09

them way more flexible. Well that's

21:11

all very interesting but what about

21:14

the numbers and why is there

21:16

such a huge disparity? How do

21:18

we get from 17 to 100,000?

21:20

Well, these numbers are talking about

21:23

different things, so the largest number

21:25

is actually referring to muscle fascicles,

21:27

which are bundles of muscle fibre,

21:30

which then combine to make muscles.

21:32

It's estimated that they have around

21:34

90,000 muscle fascicles, and then they

21:37

have around 40,000 muscles that these

21:39

fascicles are organised into. Think of

21:41

it as kind of like a

21:43

cheese string. So the muscle or

21:46

cheese stick is made up of

21:48

thousands of muscle fibres or cheese

21:50

fibres, which then grouped together to

21:53

make the muscle and or stick.

21:55

Uh, Lizzie, doesn't it make more

21:57

sense to think about a rope?

21:59

Made up of smaller strands or

22:02

braided together? Think of it kind

22:04

of like a cheese string. Okay,

22:06

so elephant trunks have... of tens

22:09

of thousands of small muscles in

22:11

them and those in turn are

22:13

made up of even more muscle

22:15

fibres. Yeah. So where does the

22:18

number 17 come from? Well, so

22:20

each of these small muscles then

22:22

cluster together to form big groups

22:25

of muscles like obeliques, transversal muscles,

22:27

etc. These are large masses of

22:29

muscle that are made up of

22:32

lots of tiny muscles. So sort

22:34

of like a bag of popcorn.

22:36

You have one bag of popcorn,

22:38

but the bag contains lots of

22:41

little pieces of corn. I am

22:43

getting the impression you're hungry. Talking

22:45

about that an elephant has 9

22:48

to 17 muscles would be incorrect

22:50

because you have these 90,000 fascicles

22:52

that are likely making up somewhere

22:54

on the magnitude of 40,000 muscles

22:57

that are broken up into 9

22:59

to 17 different muscle groups. So

23:01

to answer your question Beatrice. Elephants

23:04

have around 9 to 17 muscle

23:06

groups that are comprised of around

23:08

40,000 individual muscles, which are then

23:10

made up of around 90,000 strands

23:13

of muscle fibre. Now the reason

23:15

these numbers matter to Andrew is

23:17

that it will help him create

23:20

robots that can move the same

23:22

way an elephant's trunk can. They're

23:24

controlling of these 90,000 fascicles, right?

23:27

And can you simplify it down?

23:29

to a point where you're able

23:31

to successfully control like a robotic

23:33

manipulator that could help with something

23:36

like disaster recovery. So getting through

23:38

very, very tight spaces while having

23:40

a really, really rigid structure. Oh

23:43

wow, I was being sarcastic in

23:45

my introduction. This really could change

23:47

the fabric of human understanding, at

23:49

least in how we approach robotics.

23:52

You were joking. Well, that's irrelevant

23:54

now. Oh God. Thank you, Lizzie,

23:56

and thanks to Andrew Schultz. As

23:59

part of the fast-moving argument over

24:01

US military support to Ukraine, the

24:03

US demanded $500 billion worth of

24:05

access to what was variously reported

24:08

as Ukraine's rare earths or rare

24:10

metals or rare minerals. That might

24:12

all sound like the same thing,

24:15

but in fact the rare earths

24:17

are a very specific group of

24:19

elements. That was geeky songstress Helen

24:22

Arnie listing all 17 rare earths

24:24

with apologies So those are the

24:26

17 rare earths, and they're used

24:28

a lot within traditional industries, such

24:31

as glass making and ceramics, or

24:33

for making catalysts. They're also used

24:35

to make very powerful magnets, which

24:38

go into electric vehicles and into

24:40

offshore wind turbines. But what about

24:42

the $500 billion? I spoke to

24:44

Ellie Sacklett-Vala, head of non-ferrous metal

24:47

pricing at Argus Media, a global

24:49

commodity price reporting agency. I started

24:51

by asking her... are rare earths

24:54

rare? They are famously not rare.

24:56

Well, the rare earths, those 17

24:58

elements that we refer to, they

25:00

are not technically rare. They are

25:03

quite abundant in the Earth's crust.

25:05

I love the fact that you

25:07

say they're famously not rare. I

25:10

mean, for Argus, maybe it's famous

25:12

that they're not rare. I'm not

25:14

sure most of us realise they're

25:17

not rare. Okay, so go on.

25:19

That's fair. I'd say within the

25:21

metals world, it's a bit of

25:23

an in-joke that rare earths are

25:26

not really rare. So you can

25:28

find rare earth deposits in various

25:30

parts of the world across various

25:33

different continents. They become rare when

25:35

we actually think about access to

25:37

have... any type of mineral in

25:39

the ground, it's quite another to

25:42

be able to extract it, utilise

25:44

it, process it, etc. So rare

25:46

earths, those 17 elements, are amongst

25:49

the hardest mineral. rules to extract

25:51

and process and plug into a

25:53

meaningful supply chain. You've got huge

25:55

variation in terms of the mineralogy.

25:58

You've often got radioactive elements sitting

26:00

in there in the mix, like

26:02

uranium and thorium. Very difficult to

26:05

separate rare earth elements from the

26:07

other materials that surround them in

26:09

these deposits. So it's a very

26:12

difficult set of minerals to extract,

26:14

therefore very difficult actually to develop

26:16

new supply chains. Hence we're still

26:18

hugely reliant on China to access

26:21

supply. And because China now has

26:23

such dominance over both supply and

26:25

consumption, that also means China has

26:28

huge influence over rare earth prices.

26:30

So if you're a project developer

26:32

outside China, you run the risk

26:34

of spending well over a billion

26:37

dollars, probably more than a decade,

26:39

just to get a new rare

26:41

earth project up and running. and

26:44

then you probably have very little

26:46

control over the price at which

26:48

you can sell your product. So

26:50

that becomes a huge red flag

26:53

to investors and has definitely contributed

26:55

to the lack of progress diversifying

26:57

that supply chain. So it does

27:00

make sense that the US would

27:02

be concerned to secure access to

27:04

rare earths from somewhere other than

27:07

China? Yes, absolutely. These are undoubtedly

27:09

critical materials for all sorts of

27:11

industries as we've mentioned and the

27:13

US supply chain for them. is

27:16

extremely vulnerable, partly because of the

27:18

geopolitical angles here, tensions between the

27:20

US and China, but also just

27:23

in simple logistical terms, to really

27:25

only have one major source for

27:27

so many critical materials. As we

27:29

saw, for example, during COVID, it

27:32

carries enormous logistical risk. So the

27:34

US is absolutely right to zoom

27:36

in on rare earths as a

27:39

vulnerable area and try to take

27:41

steps to strengthen the supply options.

27:43

So I wanted to get to

27:45

this claim. that the US wanted

27:48

$500 billion worth of... Ukraine's rare

27:50

earths, or at least they did

27:52

a few days ago, I mean,

27:55

it's a fast-moving story, let's just

27:57

say, it's a fast-moving story, but

27:59

the rare earths themselves are not

28:02

fast-moving. So this figure that there's

28:04

$500 billion worth of rare earths

28:06

in Ukraine, does that number make

28:08

any sense? From my perspective, not

28:11

very much. I mean, let's start

28:13

with the true rare earths that

28:15

are potentially in Ukraine. There has

28:18

been some mapping in the past,

28:20

which suggests Ukraine may have some

28:22

of those 17 elements that I

28:24

mention. However, we would need any

28:27

of that mapping to be done

28:29

fresh with the most up-to-date standards.

28:31

We need to understand the exact

28:34

nature of any deposits, how deep

28:36

are the oars, what's the mineralogy

28:38

like. We need all of that

28:40

sort of detail in order to

28:43

put any sort of valuation on

28:45

what it might be worse. You

28:47

talked about this old mapping, how

28:50

old are we talking about? Well,

28:52

it depends on who you speak

28:54

to, but I've spoken to people

28:57

who believe. some of that mapping

28:59

dates back to Soviet era. So

29:01

1980s, 1970s. Potentially something like this.

29:03

I mean it's certainly not being

29:06

done with the update processes and

29:08

systems that we would expect nowadays.

29:10

So we need a lot more

29:13

detail on what exactly is sitting

29:15

within those deposits. Only then I

29:17

think could you draw some sensible

29:19

valuations on what it could be

29:22

worse once you've put in the

29:24

substantial amounts of money to pull

29:26

it out. And then if we

29:29

think about the wider context in

29:31

terms of, you know, what is

29:33

the value, for example, of the

29:35

global rare earths market right now,

29:38

well, it's very difficult to put

29:40

true accurate valuations on these things,

29:42

but in 2024, if you look

29:45

at the different estimates that are

29:47

out there, I mean, the highest

29:49

estimates that I've seen, a stop

29:52

some like maybe 12.4 billion dollars

29:54

global value of the rare earths

29:56

market last year. So to imagine

29:58

we're going to get $500 billion

30:01

worth out of Ukraine all of

30:03

a sudden, to me that is

30:05

just pie in the sky. That

30:08

would be the value of the

30:10

entire global market for decades. Yes,

30:12

it would be an extraordinary amount

30:14

if we're talking about true rare

30:17

earth elements. Might there be other

30:19

elements that are not strictly speaking

30:21

rare earths but are nevertheless valuable

30:24

mineral resources and maybe they... could

30:26

be responsible for the balance of

30:28

the $500 billion? Yes, I think

30:30

that is most likely what's happening.

30:33

I think the term rare earths

30:35

is being used in quite a

30:37

loose sense to really refer to

30:40

this wide array of minerals that

30:42

we know that Ukraine has. Thanks

30:44

to Ellie Sackla of Argus Media,

30:47

and of course, thanks also to

30:49

Tom Lara. a proper mathematician, I'll

30:51

have you know, and to Helen

30:53

Arne. Her geeky songs are available

30:56

at helenanne.com. That is all we

30:58

have time for this week, but

31:00

please keep your questions and comments

31:03

coming in to more or less

31:05

at BBC.co. UK. We'll be back

31:07

again next week, and until then,

31:09

goodbye. More or less was presented

31:12

by me, Tim Harford. The producer

31:14

was Charlotte McDonald, with Nathan Gower.

31:16

Josh McMinn and Lizzy McNeil. The

31:19

producer, the production coordinator was Brenda

31:21

Brown. The program was recorded and

31:23

mixed by James Beard and our

31:25

editor is Richard Varden. This

31:30

is Danny Robbins here, host

31:32

of Uncanny, with some exciting

31:34

news to share. The Uncannyverse

31:36

is getting even bigger with

31:38

a brand new Uncanny TV

31:40

series on BBC2 and Eye

31:42

Player, featuring some frankly terrifying

31:44

cases that will make your

31:46

hair stand on end. But

31:48

then we will be taking

31:50

an even deeper dive into

31:53

these stories with Uncanny post-mortem,

31:55

a new visualised podcast straight

31:57

afterwards on BBC2 Eye Player,

31:59

and right here as audio

32:01

on BBC Sounds. Expect. Spine

32:03

tingling new twists and some

32:05

chilling revelations. That is uncanny

32:07

postmorton. Join me if you dare.

32:09

For some of us, personal

32:12

finances aren't For

32:14

some of us, personal finances aren't

32:16

just personal. They include a lot

32:18

more people than ourselves. Loved ones,

32:20

neighbors, the communities we call home,

32:23

and the causes we hold in

32:25

our hearts. At Thrivent, we help

32:27

plan your financial picture with a

32:29

bigger picture in mind. Because even

32:32

though our business is helping guide

32:34

your finances, our ambition is to

32:36

make it mean so much more.

32:38

Thrivent, where money means more. Connect

32:41

with us at Thrivent. thrivent.com.

32:43

So you want to start a business.

32:46

You might think you need a team

32:48

of people and fancy tech skills, but

32:50

listen to me when I say you don't.

32:52

You just need Go Daddy Arrow. I'm

32:54

Walton Goggins, an actor. And I like

32:57

the sound of starting my own business,

32:59

Walton Goggins, a actor. And

33:01

I like the sound of starting

33:03

my own business. Walton Goggins,

33:06

Gogglasses. But I couldn't do

33:08

this on my own. Go Daddy Arrow

33:10

uses you up with a social

33:12

media calendar. How cool. How cool

33:14

is that? Well listen to this. For a

33:16

limited time you can get arrow all access

33:18

for just a dollar a week for 12

33:20

weeks. We're talking all the AI

33:22

power of GoDaddy Arrow plus a

33:25

domain, e-commerce store, payments, professional email,

33:27

a unified inbox, all for less

33:30

money than I spend on deep

33:32

tanning lotion while sunbathing

33:34

off the Amalfi Coast. You know what

33:36

that sounds like? A plan. Get started

33:39

at godaddy.com. Terms apply.