2 ms·
> Since the ISA's inception in 1994, the Authority has approved over two dozen ocean floor mining exploration contracts in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Ocea
by itishappy 3y ago
> Since the ISA's inception in 1994, the Authority has approved over two dozen ocean floor mining exploration contracts in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans, with the majority of contracts for exploration in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone between Hawaii and Mexico, where polymetallic nodules contain copper, cobalt and other minerals used to power electric batteries. To date, the Authority has not authorized any commercial mining contracts as it deliberates over regulations amid global calls for a moratorium on deep sea mining.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Seabed_Authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Seabed_Authority
- refulgentis 3y agoIs there some additional context that got cut out? I'm not sure this adds anything to the observation that there's a distinction between this and British empire colonialism.
- itishappy 3y agoWhat drove colonialism? It wasn't a desire to meet new and interesting cultures. It was land for development and resources for extraction. What's driving our current exploration binge? Land for development and resources for extraction. Regardless of intent, they share many of the same incentive structures. That being said, I'm quite surprised by the partner list from the project website. I may be discounting conservation from my analysis. https://seabed2030.org/our-partners/ https://seabed2030.org/our-partners/
- refulgentis 3y ago+1 on partners. Riffing on that: my priors entering are "oh I've been reading an article in the Economist, every 2 months, for 2 years about how scaling green energy requires deep sea bed mining, and it's incredibly non-invasive because they just sit in coalesced lumps down there" From that perspective, comparing it to subjugating human populations seems like a non-sequitur, though one I respect.
- itishappy 3y agoFair point. Colonial empires have some emotional baggage that I completely glossed over... The good news is that the impact of sea bed mining on the human population of the deep ocean appears negligible! The bad news is that the environmental impact is still quite uncertain, and the lack of resident humans could make advocacy more challenging. From the Wikipedia article I linked about the ISA: > The ISA is funded by UNCLOS members and mining contractors and led by Secretary-General Michael Lodge, a British barrister who oversees a 47-member administrative body and has come under criticism for close ties to the mining industry and support for deep sea robotic exploration to develop renewable energy. Also, I feel compelled to respond to to the comment that it's "incredibly non-invasive," as I'm not sure that's how it actually works out. In theory, we can simply pluck the nodules from the seabed. In practice this requires sending a multi-ton robot vacuum cleaner down to suck up and sift through the top layer of the seafloor, pump the chunks back to the surface for processing, and spit the silt back overboard. Here's a video of how we currently mine shallow-water deposits by hand. (Deep sea nodules are a bit different, they sit on the surface, so less disruption to the seabed is required. Less isn't none though, and surface is where life concentrates.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYAw26nSzBA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYAw26nSzBA In this light I'm actually quite enheartened by the partner list of the Seabed2030 project.