Can we protect the deep sea?
Knowing what we know now, what would you give to go back in time and stop fossil fuel extraction?
If you had the chance to reverse it all and go straight into a just system of renewable energy distribution, is there anything you wouldn’t do?
Dwelling on the road not taken is no doubt unproductive; stirring up climate apathy and an encroaching sense of doom. For that reason, it can be best to hold onto the future visions generated by grassroots communities and activists rather than facts of the past. Yet if there’s another lesson to be learned from climate activists, especially those from marginalised backgrounds and Indigenous peoples, it’s that we mustn’t forget our past. Rather, we can take our horrors, our fears, past traumas and mistakes, and channel them into more considered and decisive action.
And now we are faced with the opportunity.
Yesterday, the United Nation’s International Seabed Authority (ISA) met in Kingston, Jamaica, to discuss the potential of deep-sea mining (DSM). The meeting came after the passing of a 9th July deadline for rules and regulations to be set for DSM. Yet July 9th sailed by with no result. This means that companies can now apply for provisional mining licences and, if approved, be given the go ahead to mine in the vacuum of any regulatory framework. Whilst no commercial licenses have been approved so far, 30 exploratory licenses have been given the OK, and experiments are being run to see what the impacts may be, and how mining could occur most ‘sustainably’. Two of these exploratory licenses are sponsored by the UK government, covering an area that is second in size only to China.
Proponents claim that DSM would support a transition to a ‘green economy’ by reaping metals like nickel and manganese, which are vital components of ‘green technologies’.
However, opposition to DSM is ramping up. To show this, here are 5 reasons why the UK should take a stance against DSM.
- DSM is not proven to be safe – The deep sea remains one of the few places on Earth largely free of human fingerprints. Grab a marine textbook and it’s clear to see that we know so little of what is down there. What we do know is the deep sea is home to many organisms, from sharks to snails, that continue to defy the norm, with numerous new species being discovered each year. If DSM goes ahead, we could lose biodiversity before it is even discovered – gone without recognition. And the impacts are likely to be long-lasting, according to several peer-reviewed scientific studies. Experiments are yet to show that the technology is safe, whilst plumes of sediment have been generated by mining. These could contaminate sea water and damage fishes’ gills and filter-feeding apparatus. Additionally, noise will likely interfere with the feeding and reproductive behaviour of marine life, such as tuna.
- DSM may exacerbate climate change – The ocean has absorbed 20-30% of human-made CO2 emissions so far. Yet as mining pummels into the sea floor, it could disrupt carbon sequestration, where excess emissions get absorbed by the oceans and locked up in the sea bed. This could impact one of the few ways in which Mother Nature helps to mitigate climate change.
- Opposition to DSM is huge – Businesses, governments and scientists are all calling out; BMW, Volvo, Google and Samsung have committed to abstain from the use of ocean-mined minerals. 700 scientists across 44 nations are demanding a pause on DSM. Meanwhile, France, Canada, Chile, Germany, Spain, New Zealand and several Pacific Island nations are all calling for either a ban or, at the very least, a moratorium until the risks and proposed regulations can be better understood. Either way, the UK government is increasingly becoming an outlier in its endorsement of DSM.
- DSM will not solve the problems of land mining – Issues of terrestrial mining for rare metals are well documented. Yet, they are hardly considered among the most wealthy populations who drive around, play games and type on the electricals they provide. From Chile to Myanmar to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, human rights abuses are vast, while many workers survive on precarious lifestyles which, if not for direct injury, cause long term harm through growing rates of cancer and asthma, to name a few. DSM will likely cause much less direct harm to humans, simply because less man-power is involved. But marine biologist and scientific advisor, Diva Amon, states that DSM is unlikely to replace mining on land. Rather, if DSM is approved, “both will proceed, and we’ll see double destruction in two different parts of the planet” (Amon, 2023, cited in Gilbert, 2023).
- We do not need these mineral reserves – Currently, the same metals are being extracted from land mines all over the world and are already being used in our tablets, grids and solar panels. This means that if we re-use, recycle and repurpose the metals already in circulation, we could vastly reduce the need for further extraction. Yet we could reduce the pressure even further by consuming less. Rather than buying the latest wristwatch and newfangled ‘green tech’, why not repair our existing technologies and make them more long-lasting. Do you really need that second speaker or a brand new SUV? If we reduce, re-use and recycle, our demand is more likely to be met by existing supplies.
What this requires is a system-wide shift away from consumer culture – and this is no easy feat. But what we can do is start small – we are social creatures, are we not? By buying less and setting an example, we can inspire others to do the same. No matter what the advertisements make you think, we do not need new minerals.
I hear the devil’s advocate creeping in here; what if existing supplies are not enough? What if a just energy transition and the provision of community-owned energy grids to historically marginalised communities simply demands more metals than can be met with current supplies? Granted, this could be true. When considering the vast number of people who have historically been unconnected to reliable energy supplies, I am unsure whether our current stock of resources could meet demand.
However, according to the World Wildlife Fund (2023), the demand for critical raw metals can be reduced by 58% simply through improved behaviours and technologies around reducing, re-using and recycling. Most if not all of the remaining demand could be met with our existing land mines, diminishing the ‘need’ for DSM. And then, once all other means are used up, if we really do need to undertake DSM, maybe, just maybe it could be done in tiny zones under strict regulations with highly efficient technologies with all the risks known. But we are nowhere near this stage yet. We must pursue all other means first as if the deep sea is out of bounds. Because it is.
As the World Wildlife Fund (WWF, 2023) states, the “climate and biodiversity crises are two sides of the same coin”. They are rooted in the same systems of overexploitation that cannot be solved by mere technological changes. These are the same systems that perpetuate racism, inequalities and colonial ties. In order to live sustainably, we need transformative shifts.
Do not be fooled; we cannot solve climate change at the peril of biodiversity.
What we urgently need is to “press pause and rethink our relationship to nature” (WWF, 2023).
This is how we can do it.
A petition has been launched to ask the UK government to commit to a ban on DSM. If you are a UK citizen, you can sign the petition here in just a few minutes. At the time of writing, over 10,000 signatures have been gathered, meaning that the government will have to respond. Yet we must urgently reach 100,000 signatures so that the petition will be considered for debate in Parliament. It is a simple act, but a crucial one for environmental justice.
If only we could go back and stop climate change before we started extracting fossil fuels. It’s too late to stop some climate change, but it is not too late to protect the deep sea.
For the oceans, for the people, for the Earth; let’s stop DSM in its tracks.
H_M
Bibliography:
Gilbert, N. 2023. Windfall tax to end if energy prices drop. Nature. [Online]. 14 July. [Accessed 14 July 2023]. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02290-5
Greenpeace, 2023. Deep sea mining. [Online]. [Accessed 10 June 2023]. Available from: https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/challenges/deep-sea-mining/
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2023. AR6 Synthesis Report Climate Change 2023. [Online]. [Accessed 10 June 2023]. Available from: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle/
McVeigh, K. 2023. Row erupts over deep-sea mining as world races to finalise vital regulations. The Guardian. [Online]. 21 March. [Accessed 14 July 2023]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/21/row-erupts-over-deep-sea-mining-as-world-races-to-finalise-vital-regulations
McVeigh, K. 2023. Seafood industry joins chorus of groups calling for halt to deep-sea mining plans. The Guardian. [Online]. 11 July. [Accessed 14 July 2023]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/11/seafood-industry-joins-chorus-of-groups-calling-for-a-halt-to-deep-sea-mining-plans
Pörtner, H. 2022. Acidification and Marine Ecosystems. In: Thunberg, G. ed. The Climate Book. Dublin: Penguin Random House Ireland, pp.84-85.
Shingler, S. 2023. Stop deep-sea mining. [Online]. [Accessed 10 June 2023]. Available from: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/636545
Comments
Post a Comment