Hi folks. Some of you eagle eyed viewers have informed me that the footage at around 9:00 is NOT the Cook Islands, but is actually Cape Town! This was a genuine error on my part. My apologies.
just a shame that the oil companies are now funding green movements, they fund just stop oil, they fund wind farm, they fund green politicians, why? Because they want to keep polluting despite the consequences? No, they want climate change to happen. The public started believing in climate change and almost immediately they pull funding out of denial and go whole hog green and offer nothing but solutions that don't work and actually make it worse. I feel like such an idiot recycling, I could bury this carbon or I could ship it all over the planet to be melted again and again before its incinerated, how is that supposed to reduce emissions? I say buy chickens, grow veg and buy a house on a hill, that's what I did after studying science!
No Worries, but I have one for you, How much has human mining and relocation of the Earth's resources(ie, The City Concentrations) have an effect on planetary stability in Orbit????
@@MausMasher54 The amount of material we move around is absolutely negligible compared to the size of the planet. Even if all the cities we ever built moved to the same continent, the effect on the orbit would be zero.
We can't stop the destruction to the environment from industries on land where the people can see the damage they are doing, how are we suppose to know what damage these companies are doing to the ocean environment when we can't see what they are actually doing !!!!!!!!!!! Thanks for the information. Always so informative !!!
Sometimes I'm certain we are determined to destroy everything. We are, indeed, an apex parasite. I recently viewed a short video featuring an ROV filming the bottom of the Mariana Trench, and unsurprisingly came across a single use plastic bag and an empty steel tin can. Determined, we are.
First, please give us the link for the video. Second, and far more important, try not to use 'we' when you (might) mean something like "a significant number of members of our species". There are some of us (some members of our species) who are prepared to fight against those who "are determined to destroy" any part of ESSENTIAL life support systems.
God i cant stand this anti-human sentiment growing these days. We are not an apex parasite, corporations are. Every single time its ‘humans suck, insert other derogation ‘ not ‘greed driven corporations suck’
@@LoyalFriend62 I got it in one search, don't understand why you needed proof out of them. Also bear with me here, he is right in his usage of "we". Any human being partaking in society as it is right now leaves a footprint of their consumption. This may not be something they chose, but this is something they've come into, pretending they're above this through the acts they've done expecting to stand out just makes all they did a charade. It's noble of them to stand against the corporations who are hell bent on printing enough paper to live like lords, consequences be damned. But whatever their stance speaks of them, it does not mean they are above their nature. For they too, have to partake in society.
@@LoyalFriend62 It's not a significant number of people, it's a miniscule number of people destroying this planet, the rich. They are determined to tear apart our planet for their profit, because every year they need to make more money, stagnation isn't possible for these businessmen and they constantly need more. They cut away at our planet to meet a quota.
@@jimbrogan9835 "Now why would we want to do a thing like that!🤣" If the material don't come from the deep sea theyb have to come from somewhere else. And inland mining is an ecological nightmare and extremely dangerous. Choose your poison
@@jamesbonn2394 "the alternative being not using deep sea mining. yeah thats eco friendly." then metal get mined from Africa/China with likely far worst ecological impact
Just the Prospect turns my stomach. A friend of mine's father that used to take advantage of people financially said to his son there's no Morality In Business. I think it's translated: you can't get ahead in business unless you check your morality at the door.
Sounds like a good idea 💡? New technologies are needed.... At level that deep in the ocean environment companies may not know what sea life they're are killing + damaged. I believe sea mining can be done environmental friendly. Regulations + law's will be needed to sea mine safely. Humanity doesn't know what sea life maybe damaged.
Always one step forward, and 2 steps back. I think these big businesses and license distributors know it's now too late, because there would have been a lot more international outcry from concerned governments over something like this. But now governments are allowing so much large scale plundering to go right ahead tells me that they know we have crossed a line and are after making as much money as they can, to line their nests as quickly and generously as possible. I'm only glad I managed to live 57 years and saw the best of times. Just wish I hadn't been around to see the worst of them too. It must really hurt people like Sir David Attenborough who has seen the natural world that he loved so much go into such desperate decline, and all seemingly with the blessing of so many governments and businesses.
Ya, I also thought that the seabed assoc has failed to see the signs. if they had been on their game, they should have issued a blanket license for anyone and anything with a 10% kickback before the world woke up to environmentalism. haha. good for us pesky, unprofitable humans!
Or they know it's all bull. A wise man once said "if the sea rises, banks would never give you a loan on a beach house. Insurance companies wouldn't touch it with a bargepole." They seem to think it's safe to invest on seafront property 😂
Dave, one more thing please: there's an absolutely brilliant book titled 'A Blue New Deal - why we need a new politics for the ocean', and its author is Chris Armstrong. It covers the world's EEZ's, Manganese nodules at 5+KM depth, Freedom of the Sea, The ISA and much more. It is comprehensive and the go to for current information from a legal and scientific perspective. Thanks for this great video, it's worthy of wide viewing at schools and publicly with state broadcasters
In light of your last week's video, I sincerely hope we will not go forward with ruining another ecosystem just for easy profit. But considering the history of mankind, I have some doubts...
It already has been more or less proven that even "soft" seaground mining - mechanical collection of surface nodules - would basically kill the seafloor. Most living things at the seabed need the hard "stones" miners want, to have ahard place to grow on. And the test mines mobilized so much sediment ubward with the payload, that it rained down and smothered all of the oceanfloor ecosystems. Yet still licenses are handed out like candy by most inustry-interested nations.
@@Riorozen I'm not talking about the oil itself I'm talking about the miles and miles and miles and miles of pipeline "researchgate" "figure/Map-of-offshore-oil-and-gas-pipelines-in-the-United-States-section-of-the-Gulf-of-Mexico"
@@Withnail1969 Nothing safe about pipelines, according to their own sources, 2010 - 2021 :1,222 incidents and :273 explosions. Those are only the ones where people were directly hurt/injured or killed, how many more did damage and weren't directly affecting a human so didn't {need} to even be logged....
Ahh Dave, your sarcasm is right on point! Corporations of proven time and time again, they put profits ahead of human health, ecology and common sense.
Don't just blame corporations, they only profit as long as "we, the society" need their products and are just going for the cheapest alternative every time.
@@hotdognl70 ... Hence the need for Regulation by Governments. " We the Consumer " don't need EVERY new toy we can think of ... we need a world we can all continue to live in. Not EVERY idea has to be Max Profit - not when our whole environment is at risk. AND the last I heard, it was Business that led the charge against formal Regulation.
Thank you. You can count on me (as long as I am alive) for joining any fight against extractive industries proposing or implementing policies that cannot comply with precautionary principles. That said, I hope it is clear to some people that the majority of humankind appears (for the time being) to be either supportive of expansionism of this kind, or to be generally indifferent to it. If we continue to condone human population growth (which goes hand in hand with deforestation, pollution, erosion, desertification, extinction of _other_ species, etc.) and senseless urbanization, can we realistically hope to prevent such adventurism? I urge us to consider global, SUPRANATIONAL efforts to aim at REDUCING OUR POPULATION, INCLUDING THROUGH COERCIVE MEASURES. Of course, such efforts can and should be combined with efforts at the cessation of armed conflicts; disarmament; de-escalation in many forms of human conflict; de-growth in many industries and economic activities, including monoculture; and reduction of overall human consumption and human-caused pollution. Far too many self-described 'progressives' appear to be determined to treat human procreation as a matter that should be left to private 'decisions' (and accidents). I submit to you that we are destined to fight pointless and costly battles (even if we win a few) as long as many states incentivize human procreation, and COERCE nonprocreators to pay extra taxes, work harder, etc., to subsidize the adventurism of procreators, and as long as many other states remain passive in the face of social and ecological problems caused or exacerbated by human procreation, urbanization, etc. Rightly or wrongly, states in general regard human population growth (or 'stability') to be in keeping with 'national interests' --especially if the population of their perceived enemies are increasing. For this and many other reasons, I believe that we should form SUPRANATIONAL organizations that can supersede national policies. (I wrote tens of thousands of words in relation to global issues. I am prepared to expand...)
When I was younger, say 20 years ago, after a day out on the bike, my helmet visor would be covered in the remains of insects. These days I can ride all day with barely a mark. Our insect population has taken a massive hit. I do wonder what kind of a world we are leaving the next generation.
1:41 polymetallic nodules on sea bed... 7:21 opaque International Seabed Authority based in Kingston Jamaica 8:08 Environmental Justice Foundation 9:50 765 scientists, policy experts signed petition for 10-year moratorium 10:07 automotive, tech companies oppose dsm 12:21 DFE design for the environment, right to repair, circular economy 👍
Personally I think we need more than a ten year moratorium, I think we need more than ten years to accurately determine the impacts of deep ocean mining. There is simply so much we have to find out, so much we do not know that making any kind of prediction right now is basically done on the basis of three or four pieces of a ten thousand piece jigsaw puzzle. We are going to need a LOT more pieces of that puzzle before we can begin piecing together the final picture....
"polymetallic nodules on sea bed" aka what the US government told us so we don't question why they build the ships used for Project Azorian. I remember being taught these nodule stories in school only for it to be revealed to be a government psy op for that Project... It's a cool project but still I'm not going to believe the whole nodule story anymore...
The unfortunate part is that the moratorium can only prevent licenses for international waters and the resources outside of any country's economic zone. This almost certainly means that, regardless of international caution or condemnation, they aren't going to be able to stop any economically desperate enough country from doing it the moment the technology is available. They can say all they want about refusing to buy cobalt that was deep sea mined because they said the same thing about 'artisanal' mined cobalt from Congo (provided by warlords and forced labor, often including child labor) over a decade ago yet it still sells fast enough they work people to death and fight over territory just to get more to sell.
It's said there's no humans left on the planet without forever chemicals in their blood. The breast milk of indigenous peoples of the artic circle has dioxin present, we've poisoned the whole planet! Our county had to stop accepting recycling as the cost was higher than the disposal of regular trash & no one wanted it. We need better recycling procedures! Leave our deep sea ecosystems alone! Corporations should be made to improve products to discourage waste & planned obsolescence ended IMO
@@MikAnimal That "collection of people" or corporation, have the same rights as a human being under US law. the "corpse" or corporation, takes the financial or legal hit/ but the people behind it aren't held accountable. Its very specifically designed that way. money in politics is a bad combo.
@@pearl_kill_Gaming I will repeat it is a collection of people , people can be addressed. There is no shield protecting them. U are in a daze and are not seeing what I’m saying. If people use that as a shield too much eventually they gonna feel a French Revolution event. Also for the legal structure, that needs adjusting… corporations as such need life purpose and cycle (limit). As does any large organizational structure. Humans become captives and extensions of the very ideas they think they choose. I suppose accountability needs to be reincorporated and these veils and abstractions that have been weaponized in suppressing that accountability need to be cleansed (altered). It’s a tall order but the alternatives are more painful… prolly just a matter of human’s intelligence and smh 🤦🏽♂️
As a longtime watcher now, I hope I'm not the only one to take notice of the (still thoroughly professional, yet) stark difference in tone between this and numerous other of your videos. Your conviction absolutely comes through. Less charitably or politely perhaps, your anger comes through, and in my opinion rightfully so. I'm with you on deep sea mining (and many other topics besides).
@@dustman96 Yeah. Just as much as we've got to focus on closing many of the doors they've forced open, we can't let them open yet another in the chain.
@@FlyingDwarfman I've given up to some degree. It's going to take another disaster to wake people up at this point. To be honest I don't feel too bad about the people who are sealing their own fate, I feel more for the billions, no, trillions of other lives on the planet that have to suffer and die because of our ignorance. For profit. It's so ludicrous and so clear, sometimes I have trouble believing what's happening.
Mining companies might be right that this might actually be necessary, but the institution responsible for doing this feels totally inadequate and unfit for purpose.
Thanks for bringing this topics out in front. I heard about it few weeks ago and I was really angry at this company. They just dont care about sea life. All they care is profit.
Einstein says it so well... "There are two infinite things, the Universe, and the human stupidity. But I am not sure about first...!" Back to the cave, useless generations...anyway, you all will be erased from history by the new populations really preparing to put your skins to dry in the Sun... And you know what? The new populations are giving a shit about "deep problems"...
All any company ever cares about is profit. They have to. In fact the humans running companies? Are not allowed to go for responsibility instead of profit. At least when they are not sole owners. A CEO has the legal DUTY to make maximum profit for his investors. And can be held legally responsible if he refuses to realize even hundreths of a percent of profit. Thus is the system of economy we built. Its not irresponsible humans as such. Its a system built on nothing but irresponsibly multiplying power coupons, i.e. money.
@@FischerNilsA You are right. But also not right. You are right that CEO has the legal duty to make profit for investors and that often push them to make harmfull decisions(for the environment). You are not right that this makes the system bad in itself. I think its about short therm or long therm thinking. You can focus on short term gain and be immoral and use environment/people for that, but in the long term loose customers if they found out. On the other hand you can be transparent, invest in environmentally friendly solutions and innovations and make profit in the long term. Making your company customer and enviromnent friendly is I think the only long term solution - and I think it will be the most profitable in the end.
Thanks for an excellent video, as usual. It's like humanity simply won't recognize that this planet is not made for us alone. Sooner or later we will find out, what the impact of deep sea mining will have on the ocean. The sad part of this experiment is, that when we do find out, what important functions these polymetallic nodules actually had for the global environment - well, then it's too late
I think the earth has suffered enough of our “little bit of collateral damage” at this point. I am sure we will figure out another way to get or substitute these type of minerals.
@@ssu7653 true, but I would not conflate the two examples as equals. There is a sliding scale of harm/impact that we have on the world with everything that we do, and some are very clearly more damaging than others.
@@JSx145 Flooding a valley dont completly destoy the ecosystem there? Covering large areas of land with solarpanels dont significantly change the ecosystem? Windmills dont have significant impact on the environment? We know all these things have HUGE impact on the local environment wher ever they are built. We just ignore it since its the only "renewable" resources we have. Had we spent the same money on changing from coal/oil to gas / nuclear we would have less impact on the environtment from pwoer production and way greener energy in total. Its just that "nuclear is bad" and gas still pollute. Its like we live in a completly digital world, either its 0 emission (nothing truly is) or there is no will to change.
@@ssu7653 totally agree. Nothing is a slam dunk, but we have options today that can put us in a better spot. Sadly, we are where we are because of uninformed people, uninformed or financially influenced governments, and whole industries that have a financial stake in maintaining the status quo. Ironically, the technology actually seems like the easiest piece to solve in the current situation.
@@ssu7653 You are missing the forest for the trees. Yes, practically all forms of power generating infrastructure cause damage to the environment. But the difference between for example wind mills and coal power plants: one is fueled by wind, the other needs a constant supply of coal. That's the key point when it comes to renewable energy => the fuel itself isn't the issue. Of course you have a point regardless of that, most forms of renewables aren't as clean as people believe.
Perhaps there is a compromise here. Machines are already being developed to pick various crops on land. This could be applied to the polymetallic nodules on the sea floor. Perhaps a robotic picker could put nodules into a basket which could then be lifted to the surface. No messy separation of nodules from sea sediment. This would be a good job for non-sentient AI.
@@Riorozen??? this is just bringing up the dumbest solution to keep the destructive status quo (aka late capitalism) the ira and these mining corporations do not give a damn about stopping cliate change in it's tracks. Otherwise they would let every country, scientists all over and the people on the ground collaborate. Do that to find a solution that is the least destructive, the least infringing upon the lives of the most people etc. (and with that I do not mean executives). That's how we reversed the ozon layer hole within very short amount of time.
@@Riorozenwhat an absolutely pathetic, cop out ideology you’ve got. Individual responsibility is not a component of policy for protecting the commons. It never has been and never will be. It’s not even a component in most laws in the first place. Individual responsibility in laws to protect society is paradoxical, if the expectation was we can just individual responsibility our way through civilisation we wouldn’t need laws. We don’t individual responsibility murder away. We make laws. We can’t expect every individual person on the planet to individually be responsible for discerning where every material component of every product they buy came from. It’s not even possible for one person. The unrealistic expectation that every person trace their impact individually is how the plastic lobby escaped recycling standards in the US. We didn’t cut sulphur dioxide emissions by expecting every household to research all their power providers and choose a low sulphur one. If we did, there’d be hardly any to choose from, and no one would choose them. Most people agree with the principle of - don’t s**t where we eat. To make that about fringe communism is a cop out. If it’s true, then communists have a lot more personal decency than you and any cowardly interest group that would love everyone to think like you. If someone at Venice Beach says this place needs better waste policy and you say - bUt LoOk At AlL tHe LiTtEr ArOuNd Us - congratulations, you just pointed out how individual responsibility is not a solution. You’re talking like a finance bro. You’re not making the point you think.
We still need to have species growth and expansion, not growing is not an option in this competitive universe, but space faring is the way forward, not destroying Earth, so we should just do that. Mars needs global warming btw.
@@Sammysapphira Redistribute wealth. Have scientists and governments all over the world, including in South America, Africa work together to find solutions. Don't let the market and profit margins decide. Because markets are terrible at this.
vacuuming the sea floor and claiming it won’t affect the life is like vacuuming my carpet while claiming only the dirt gets sucked up leaving all the dust mites behind.
Yeah you don't want to mess with scavengers/decomposers, they kinda keep ecosystems running by letting nutrients be available again. Without them...just imagine if spent money was erased and money couldn't be created
All 3 of those metals are magnetic/para-magnetic. Would using a magnetic collector avoid a lot of the disruption? Then funnel them to the vacuum. Buoyancy can also be played with so the machine itself barely pressures the seabed.
I think deep sea mining is a great idea because I can't see the damage on the bottom of the ocean from up here. The same logic factory between my ears indicates that smoking isn't harmful to me because I can't see my lungs. Y'know, I think my intelligence increased by orders of magnitude after I paid Mensa a lot of money to officially verify that I'm a genius.
Nice video Dave. I've looked at this myself recently since Tesla did their recent shareholder presentation on long term future sustainability [available on YT], where they suggested that the quicker the world transitions to clean energy the greater the savings in human terms and for the planet. In particular it would require LESS mining of new minerals. Drastically so after the recycling industry becomes huge in scale. Pretty much everything I have read subsequently supports this outlook. So, nobody has to invent a new technology, although improvements are always welcome. We already have the means and capability. We just have to have an attitude to sustainability if we want to save ourselves and the ecosystems across the globe. NO to deep sea mining..!
I was hoping they wouldn’t allow this. “Yeah we’re just gonna scrape and dig the bottom of the sea. How could that possible hurt the ecosystem?” Imagine going to a forest and literally scrapping up everything in your path. The hubris of man never ceases to amaze.
I only learnt about them after a recent 60 mins interview. As you said, they of course painted themselves as an ally to green energy. The 60 Mins reporter did question the environmental impact but they seem to be hiding behind this idea that the impact will be minimal because it's near impossible to quantify...basically ignorance is bliss.
@leeroychang agree with you. Distressing is that the Belgian rep on the ISA has been a corporation employee. The ISA exists to approve exploitation by corporations and the unseemly wealthy.
@@brianwheeldon4643 it seems though that they're set up from their own authority? We could set up a similar organisation for the moon when we start mining that. Charge big dollar for licences too. It's so strange how these entities come into being.
I would rather they get into asteroid mining sooner than later. Process it out there too. NIMBY works well here. Edited for the naysayers: we are going to need alot of materials actually IN space so yeah makes sense.
@@makinawake9178 Oh sure, but we just don't have the technology of scale to do genuinely competitive asteroid mining yet. Not even close for that matter. And then there's the issue of getting materials down to earth without incinerating the atmosphere. To transport about 2 million tonnes of steel (what we globally produce at the moment), from space to the ground would release a huge amount of heat, due to the potential energy released by dropping it down into the gravity well.
For a long time I was a recreational diver, if you've ever seen the damage done by scallop dredging versus diver hand collected you'd be shaking your head it is like a bomb has gone off.
In the 1977 movie, Demon Seed, the artificial intelligence that was directed to create a plan for mining those same nodules from the ocean floor, refused, because it was environmentally unsound. (Sci-fi horror film based on Dean Koontz novel.)
Good for you. Excellent reporting. I first heard of this 'resource' back in the late sixties or early seventies in either Popular Science or Scientific American (magazines I read in high school). I thought it was a great idea back then but as I matured, I became philosophically against attempting to mine nodules for all the biological reasons you mentioned. I will be sharing this. Please keep ringing that warning bell.
Thanks for yet another interesting THINK video. This sounds as though it will be as disruptive as fracking! I well remember a full page concept drawing of deep sea mining of nodules on the ocean floor in my childrens encyclopedia back in the mid 50's. (Amusing to me now because they showed video cameras the size of suitcases - like early studio cameras!)
We have no data that mining sea floor will lead to any damage, therefore we are going to mine sea floor. 10 years later, so mining sea floor is causing massive damage but sense metals are in high demand we have no choice but to continue mining sea floor. 50 years later, we have destroyed sea by mining sea floor, sense its imposible to repair or recover the damage we wont bother spending any of our fat profits made from mining and just leave it as is. This is how I imagine it will go.
As a layman, it's hard for me to believe that the many challenges in mining fractions upon fractions of useful resources out of rock should be easier then to extract them from our waste.
@@xShadowChrisx What about the possibility? What are the barriers? Does it require more research? Laws of physics in the way, or just something mundane like lack of established logistics to make it profitable, or something political related, lack of regulation to ensure recycling perhaps, maybe lobbying? Or are you telling me that lithium physically can't be extracted from dead batteries? Or harder than mining from the bottom of the fucking ocean? What if the video was about something more extreme, like asteroid mining? Is asteroid mining easier and cheaper? No wait, lets go even further, let's use alchemy to create our lithium, transmutate the shit out of something, or better yet, let's create an artificial supernova, nature's process of creating elements! Heck why stop there, lets create our own big.fucking.bang. Imagine how lucrative that would be!
I really enjoyed this vid because I don't believe that we need to be tearing up the ocean before we have figured out what we have down there and this vid proves the point. Keep them coming and Thanks again!
This is very worrying indeed Dave. Instead of inflicting more untold damage to a poorly understood ecology we should be mining landfills such as Fishkill NY, for useful elements and minerals such as copper and cobalt from electronic waste?
Excellent idea! I also don't understand why we don't build solar arrays over the acres of parking lots already cleared & contributing to the heating of our planet? We've been terrible stewards of our beautiful planet 😢
That’s what I was thinking. We’ve gathered all of our solid waste into piles which likely has loads of metals in it. Literally turning trash into treasure sounds way better than turning an undersea ecosystem into a wasteland.
Where did all of the minerals we've already pulled out of the ground go? I thought energy can neither be created or destroyed so where is it all? If anything we need to cut back on all the technological bs in our everyday lives. I was a fisherman in the gulf coast and I know first hand how companies lie about their impact on the ecosystem.
Well said Dave. I highly recommend the book 'The Brilliant Abyss' by Helen Scales. She goes into fabulous details on the deep environment, including the planet's reliance upon it, and dedicates a chapter to the cataclysmic outcomes from deep sea mining. Sadly, all of our outrage is unlikely to stop this short sighted profit-driven calamity. This video is the closest thing I've seen to hope.
@@codysergeant1486 Fear Uncertainty and Doubt versus Fear Of Missing Out. FUD usually refers to unjustified Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt but here I think it's justified because there is so much we don't know.
Good gravy!… no shame in that mate!…you are one of the most informed people I know!… I enjoy your hard work and so do thousands of people across the globe!
Hello Dave. I just finished reading the Sept. 13th 2022 book 'Volt Rush: The Winners and Losers in the Race to Go Green" by Henry Sanderson It touches on many of the past, present and potentially future discussions about our requirements about mineral needs. It dramatically documents the various dubious discussions and decisions made to get us to where we are today. A very sobering read indeed. It might be interesting to have a chat with Mr. Sanderson and get him to also give us more info to be able to Just Have a Think!! Keep up the good work. I appreciate it.
I guess what's most troubling is the clunky, crude methods employed by the mining industry in general. Demand side shifts towards common elements is excellent, lessened demand by shifting towards renewables, as is more efficient use of those elements including recycling but in the end there is still some demand and need for mining. So either they come from hard rock mining on land or undersea mining or nodule retrieval. In getting at those metallic minerals, better ways of extraction or gathering should be developed that minimizes the environmental impact. Earlier in your video Dave you showed a robotic explorer picking up nodules rather gently from the ocean floor, which seems like a much more benign way of retrieving these objects, and after careful study, might be the best way to proceed. Or else we'll have to make use of land deposits like the ones up in Sudbury Canada, and do a better job of getting out the nickel with minimal disruption, possibly by directional boring and backfilling with CO2 capturing mafic gabbro and binder. Less is best, but some demand will still exist for new metallic minerals, so we do need to find a way forward. 🌄
I love how "environmental activist" busying themselves gluing their hands to asphalts in airports, blocking roads during rush hour, and deluding themselves that living without using any of Earth's resources would be better (and I'm not talking about extraterrestrial mining). They should be against this and finding better compromises that's not as damaging as current resource extraction industry.
I remember learning about how the working class and poor used to unalive rich people for being greedy and harming the lives of everyone in a community. Huh.
I am so glad that you have taken the initiative as this I personally believe is on the same par as "Deforestation" with the exception that no member of the public will be able to witness, nor will we be able to know the true level of destruction to not just the ecosystems but also bear in mind those who have died over the centuries as the seas have taken them. I have no time or respect for the I.S.A. who feel that while they maybe given the power to authorize these licenses to these companies, there clearly has been no public consideration to see how the rest of us feel about this move. The damage that will be done to the "Seabed" is going to be made good how exactly from these profiteering companies. Are they going to clean up their mess, how will that work in harmony with nature in protecting the other eco systems down there that are outside of the boundary they will be work in? The other factor is the impact to the given area could trigger off events that no one could have possibly imagined and who is going to be the voice for those "Eco Systems" who haven't got lawyers or deep pockets to fight their battles. There is only one winner here and we know who. The "Seabed" will be raped and pillaged of all its treasures and anyone who cannot see that is blind. The same that happened to the Amazon Rainforest will be taking place on a major level. The vote should be given to all of us who live on this planet, before they just bulldoze their way into putting this in place.
The most recent chart I managed to find a year or two back on Cobalt usage [c.2018] was about 8% of global production was consumed by catalysts in petrol/gas refining. High performance steels, pigments for ceramics were other uses and about half for batteries but the latter use has probably been growing.
Couldn’t harvesting in a checkerboard pattern help in keeping diversity? They do this on harvesting forest. The untouched areas can then reseed and repopulate the harvested areas. Like you said in just the clarion area it’s the size of France. It should be easy to harvest this way.
Mining in the deep ocean, what could possibly go wrong? With the mining industry's famous concern for the environment, where they resist cleaning up even disasters easily discovered, SURELY they'll be vigilant and aggressive in reporting and cleaning up disasters that happen in the deep ocean. Would it even be POSSIBLE to clean up such disasters, considering the depths and pressures and darkness? Can we also put the criminals in charge of the jails, while we're at it?
One thing that may also be a problem with mining them large scale may be they act as a seed to pull those minerals from the water and removing to many could slow down this natural process. When growing crystals, a seed is often used to get it to start and grow.
This one seems pretty simple. There's no reason to start mining an ecosystem we don't understand for minerals we may not even need. It seems pretty clear to me these companies want to benefit from the current price of the ores, hence their desire to get started right away. It has nothing to do with future expected demand because of the green transition. But there's no need to rush. They should pause any exploration permits and do a lot more study of the effects first. Unfortunately this has all the hallmarks of a situation that won't be controlled. Most importantly there's no aggrieved human party that stands in the way of mining. Like you said in the video, it's possible the deep sea ecosystems may interact with the closer-to-the-surface ecosystems that we depend on for fish. Whales and sharks certainly dive down deep on a regular basis, and organisms from lower down (though not from the sea bottom) come up to the top to breed and are a major source of food for surface sea creatures. It's not a crazy idea to think there might be some long term cycle going on where nutrients fall to the sea bed then get recycled to the surface again over long timescales. Mining could throw a wrench in that and we might not see the result for centuries.
Thanks for a balanced, informative look into an important subject... it's just too distressing to think that we might be about to destroy an ecosystem that we haven't even begun to properly explore.
Wow, so interesting to watch this video! A week ago I read an article about this topic in the economist, where they concluded that deep see mining is necessary for a green transition. And I thought, yes makes sense.. But now this video gave me a lot more information👍🏼
So, Perry the Platypus... (Bites off a hot wing) I bet you're wondering why I'm sitting down here at the bottom of a lake. Well, the answer is simple. Mmm-mmm! This is really good, man. You want some? (Takes a box with the red wings) Here, here. (Perry takes a hot wing) Take the blue cheese. (Perry takes the blue cheese and pours it on the red wing) Do you know, I-- I prefer the ranch. Take the blue cheese. (Perry bite the red wing, and Doof holds up a napkin) Here's a napkin. (Perry takes the napkin) Anyway, the answer why I'm here is simple. Zinc. Lake Nose has a ton of zinc, and this machine goes around and filters all the zinc from the water.
I've been trying to bring attention to what a horrible toxic idea this is for awhile now, and it's been crickets or hand waves from nearly everyone in social media land. Some even delusionally extol what a wonderful - "environmental" -idea it is.... To say the least, it's amongst one of many things that's made me absolutely cynical about the Popular Environmental movement (aka: all about the merch). It's right up there with Microsoft heating the ocean to cool their servers for free - while claiming "Environmentalism" and silly people claiming the Ocean has unlimited lithium for us humans to use without worry, so we should plow through by putting another billions EV cars on the road and call it "environmental progress".
I remember studying this in school about 40 years ago now. It was obviously a bad idea back then, and with our better understanding of these benthic eco-systems in the passing years, it's even a worse idea today.
@@dexulescu For many people, and in many places they are most definitly a good idea. Can argue over the total environment impact, but its a very clear fact that they dont do nearly as much local pollution. So when cities struggle with local pollution, and EV range is more than enough to cover several days driving then they are a good choice for that
@@ssu7653 The total environmental impact is what I meant. The damage from mining lithium ( especially Chinese lithium ), nevermind the fact there isn't enough lithium on Earth to switch from IC to EV, and even if we did, the entire electrical grid would have to be overhauled to account for that, and that the batteries more often than not end up in the ocean. EVs are nothing more than a toy for the rich to virtue signal.
I’d love to see videos on e-waste processing and recycling, asteroid mining, and especially the overall circular economy to complement and continue this one
Another thought provoking video. However, it left me a bit undecided on the topic after recently reading an Economist article entitled "The world needs more battery metals. Time to mine the seabed" which concluded that "Getting nickel from the deep causes much less damage than getting it on land". It would seem that wherever we mine materials we do harm. On land we currently do a lot of harm despite knowing about it, and it being really visible. I think we can easily conclude what will happen with underwater mining where the damage is hidden. This still leaves the problem of where best to get essential minerals for electrification...
Dave, thank you again for your hard work and informative videos. Like me, you must at times be frustrated at lack of green progress and greed and obstruction by big business but keep going. You're doing a great job.
it's been about 40 years since these manganese nodules were discovered. IMO it is stupid that the powers that be still can't figure if mining them is good/bad and laws passed concerning the mining. Especially since the nodules only exist in limited areas...meaning small enough areas for research. the nodules are worth mining...that is not disputed. so figure out whether the damage is worth the reclamation.
Do you realize how difficult it is to do research at the bottom of the ocean? It's easier to go into space than to go down deep. Especially if you're trying to get research grants that might not be profitable for a corporate sponsor.
I believe that this latest Titanic disaster has made people painfully aware of the problems that diving so deep into the ocean cause. It takes a lot of energy to lift a ton of weight fifteen thousand feet up from the ocean floor. The costs could add up to where deep sea nodules may not be cost competitive with land minerals. I wonder what kind of transport system will be able to bring up nodules in an efficient manner.
Not the Hubris of it all? Not the painful hypocrisy of attention given to the submarine incident and the migrant crisis disasters in the Mediterranean? The dehumanisation that's normalised in our world knows no bounds
I could think of a few ways. Mostly thinking robot drones. Have them pick up the bigger nodules with some sort of mechanical manipulator. While replacing the ore with a ballast rock for the sea life. Then hand-deliver them to a central pump. At the pump station, the little robots charge, pick up a load of replacement rocks, and go back out to do it again. It would be slow. But if you got it automated enough, a continuous sustainable process.
One thing to keep in mind is that these nodules are (from what i understand) very high percentage or almost pure nickel/manganese/etc. Whereas most land based deposits are mixed in with lots of other carbon and whatnot so need more processing to get the minerals in question. So that would be an advantage that might offset any increased costs for retreiving them.
Thank you for alerting us to this threat and for all the deep research into the alternatives. I've long known that many of the problems that we are dealing with today originated from people and institutions that were absolutely convinced that they were creating a better world for future generations.
Have seen this on one of my investment news letters. My son also knows one studying these things at University! One thing to keep in mind is how capitalistic companies need to compete usually leading to the cheapest harvesting methods which we know how their efforts will go! Considering how little we know of the oceans … on the other hand cobalt mining mostly starts with clear cutting forests in the (I believe) Congo, child labor, environmental mess with a lack of regulations! Now with new batteries maybe we should leave the last places in the world untouched by man since we do know the man never just touches anything!
This is an actual area of industry where we need a moratorium to research and put in guardrails and regulation (probably will need to ban it all together), not the fear of AI m*rderbots 😅
I don't think there's much harm in picking up 'rocks' sitting loose on the ocean floor. The real problems start, when deep seabed mining operations, similar to what you see on land become wide spread. it's deep digging, into the ocean floor that has me concerned.
I've located a huge underwater mining operation in the middle of the Atlantic. A huge machine is seen scraping the ocean floor having a tall debris cloud along with a long scraped trail. 2 metallic objects are seen behind it on the same path.
Its so easy to "cover up" the problems you're creating when under so much water. In the exact same way you keep it from the general population, You could just turn off your camera feed and hide it from yourself.
Your nuance and skepticism are greatly appreciated....our desire to push for objective "Progress" quite often has so many unforeseen consequences exacerbated by our commitment to money before actual research and understanding of the ecosystems and their importance to the greater planetary health is recognized...
The destruction of the world is tragic and has been hard to watch for many years. One of the worst things about it, regular people have no say at all. Nothing that I do has any effect on anything that matters at all. It is a powerless and hopeless place to live.
I think the solution with biggest impact for climate would be setting a worldwide population cap to 1-2 kids per couple for certain amount of time. Population will slowly drop in numbers over time and then it would be possible to revise this again some years later and either adjust or lift the limit altogheter for another period of time. It would go well together with spread of AI and automation of many jobs, which would ease the impact on pension funds for example.
@@craigfoulkesAfter Dave's explanation of how much life down there depends on the nodules. If anything, we really should not fuck up the oceans more than we have.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Hi folks. Some of you eagle eyed viewers have informed me that the footage at around 9:00 is NOT the Cook Islands, but is actually Cape Town! This was a genuine error on my part. My apologies.
I did wonder about the substantial stadium on the image of the Cook Islands. 😋
just a shame that the oil companies are now funding green movements, they fund just stop oil, they fund wind farm, they fund green politicians, why? Because they want to keep polluting despite the consequences? No, they want climate change to happen. The public started believing in climate change and almost immediately they pull funding out of denial and go whole hog green and offer nothing but solutions that don't work and actually make it worse. I feel like such an idiot recycling, I could bury this carbon or I could ship it all over the planet to be melted again and again before its incinerated, how is that supposed to reduce emissions? I say buy chickens, grow veg and buy a house on a hill, that's what I did after studying science!
No Worries, but I have one for you, How much has human mining and relocation of the Earth's resources(ie, The City Concentrations) have an effect on planetary stability in Orbit????
@@MausMasher54 The amount of material we move around is absolutely negligible compared to the size of the planet. Even if all the cities we ever built moved to the same continent, the effect on the orbit would be zero.
@@MausMasher54 lay down the bong friend.
We can't stop the destruction to the environment from industries on land where the people can see the damage they are doing, how are we suppose to know what damage these companies are doing to the ocean environment when we can't see what they are actually doing !!!!!!!!!!! Thanks for the information. Always so informative !!!
That's part of the plan.
@@dustman96 capitalism has no "plan", it's just human greed which needs to be regulated
You have way better eyes than me, most of the damage is being done overseas from my country. Out of sight...out of mind....
@@geoffhaylock6848 they use binoculars called the internet and international information.
@@dustman96 There is no plan. Your conspiracy theories only create additional problems and distractions from the real problems.
Sometimes I'm certain we are determined to destroy everything. We are, indeed, an apex parasite. I recently viewed a short video featuring an ROV filming the bottom of the Mariana Trench, and unsurprisingly came across a single use plastic bag and an empty steel tin can. Determined, we are.
Yes humans are making a plastic planet. We will have to adapt to eating the stuff as it is already in the food chain.
First, please give us the link for the video. Second, and far more important, try not to use 'we' when you (might) mean something like "a significant number of members of our species". There are some of us (some members of our species) who are prepared to fight against those who "are determined to destroy" any part of ESSENTIAL life support systems.
God i cant stand this anti-human sentiment growing these days. We are not an apex parasite, corporations are. Every single time its ‘humans suck, insert other derogation ‘ not ‘greed driven corporations suck’
@@LoyalFriend62 I got it in one search, don't understand why you needed proof out of them. Also bear with me here, he is right in his usage of "we". Any human being partaking in society as it is right now leaves a footprint of their consumption. This may not be something they chose, but this is something they've come into, pretending they're above this through the acts they've done expecting to stand out just makes all they did a charade. It's noble of them to stand against the corporations who are hell bent on printing enough paper to live like lords, consequences be damned. But whatever their stance speaks of them, it does not mean they are above their nature. For they too, have to partake in society.
@@LoyalFriend62 It's not a significant number of people, it's a miniscule number of people destroying this planet, the rich. They are determined to tear apart our planet for their profit, because every year they need to make more money, stagnation isn't possible for these businessmen and they constantly need more. They cut away at our planet to meet a quota.
If we chose to save the oceans we might just inadvertently save ourselves in the process.
Thanks Dave.
it is not like the alternative is eco friendly...
Now why would we want to do a thing like that!🤣
@@jimbrogan9835 "Now why would we want to do a thing like that!🤣"
If the material don't come from the deep sea theyb have to come from somewhere else.
And inland mining is an ecological nightmare and extremely dangerous.
Choose your poison
@@anteeko the alternative being not using deep sea mining. yeah thats eco friendly.
@@jamesbonn2394 "the alternative being not using deep sea mining. yeah thats eco friendly." then metal get mined from Africa/China with likely far worst ecological impact
Just the Prospect turns my stomach.
A friend of mine's father that used to take advantage of people financially said to his son there's no Morality In Business.
I think it's translated: you can't get ahead in business unless you check your morality at the door.
The mining company owner: "Society needs deep sea mining so that my wallet can get fatter."
If we don't have these metals everyones way of life collapses.
@@Withnail1969 cool beans, sept land based mining isnt even close to exhausted. And if we thrash the environment any harder, life itself may collapse.
Sounds like a good idea 💡? New technologies are needed.... At level that deep in the ocean environment companies may not know what sea life they're are killing + damaged. I believe sea mining can be done environmental friendly. Regulations + law's will be needed to sea mine safely. Humanity doesn't know what sea life maybe damaged.
Always one step forward, and 2 steps back.
I think these big businesses and license distributors know it's now too late, because there would have been a lot more international outcry from concerned governments over something like this. But now governments are allowing so much large scale plundering to go right ahead tells me that they know we have crossed a line and are after making as much money as they can, to line their nests as quickly and generously as possible.
I'm only glad I managed to live 57 years and saw the best of times. Just wish I hadn't been around to see the worst of them too.
It must really hurt people like Sir David Attenborough who has seen the natural world that he loved so much go into such desperate decline, and all seemingly with the blessing of so many governments and businesses.
Ya, I also thought that the seabed assoc has failed to see the signs. if they had been on their game, they should have issued a blanket license for anyone and anything with a 10% kickback before the world woke up to environmentalism.
haha. good for us pesky, unprofitable humans!
If you’re 57, you certainly MISSED the worst of times. . .
Or they know it's all bull. A wise man once said "if the sea rises, banks would never give you a loan on a beach house. Insurance companies wouldn't touch it with a bargepole." They seem to think it's safe to invest on seafront property 😂
@@swaggadash9017Shhh, they don't like that kind of talk around here😂
@@alihenderson5910 It's not an exact quote but it's George Carlin for anyone that wants to know.
Dave, one more thing please: there's an absolutely brilliant book titled 'A Blue New Deal - why we need a new politics for the ocean', and its author is Chris Armstrong. It covers the world's EEZ's, Manganese nodules at 5+KM depth, Freedom of the Sea, The ISA and much more. It is comprehensive and the go to for current information from a legal and scientific perspective. Thanks for this great video, it's worthy of wide viewing at schools and publicly with state broadcasters
Thanks Brian. I will definitely check out the book.
In light of your last week's video, I sincerely hope we will not go forward with ruining another ecosystem just for easy profit. But considering the history of mankind, I have some doubts...
It already has been more or less proven that even "soft" seaground mining - mechanical collection of surface nodules - would basically kill the seafloor.
Most living things at the seabed need the hard "stones" miners want, to have ahard place to grow on.
And the test mines mobilized so much sediment ubward with the payload, that it rained down and smothered all of the oceanfloor ecosystems.
Yet still licenses are handed out like candy by most inustry-interested nations.
Id rather see rainforests not cut down 😅
@@jakeryker546You have no idea what disasters deep sea mining might have for life on earth. Everything is connected.
Only change brought about by government legislation will change things. Seat belts for example. That's what responsible, mature governments are for.
@@lklpalkawhere are these mature, responsible governments you speak of??? #abolishgovernment
Look at what the oil company's have done to the seabed in the Gulf of Mexico and you start to get an idea of how bad it can be.
@@Riorozen I'm not talking about the oil itself I'm talking about the miles and miles and miles and miles of pipeline "researchgate" "figure/Map-of-offshore-oil-and-gas-pipelines-in-the-United-States-section-of-the-Gulf-of-Mexico"
While you are there, do a check on incidence of recent spills and see if you think it matches {Natural leaks}.
@@brianstevens3858 How else are they going to safely transport oil and gas other than in pipelines?
@@Withnail1969 Nothing safe about pipelines, according to their own sources, 2010 - 2021 :1,222 incidents and :273 explosions. Those are only the ones where people were directly hurt/injured or killed, how many more did damage and weren't directly affecting a human so didn't {need} to even be logged....
@@Riorozen
In quantities of millions of barrels at a time? Disingenuous, you’re a shill for sure
Ahh Dave, your sarcasm is right on point! Corporations of proven time and time again, they put profits ahead of human health, ecology and common sense.
Don't just blame corporations, they only profit as long as "we, the society" need their products and are just going for the cheapest alternative every time.
@@hotdognl70 Yup.
@@hotdognl70 And the governments too allowing it to happen, so in the end its just humanity being humanity.
@@hotdognl70 ... Hence the need for Regulation by Governments. " We the Consumer " don't need EVERY new toy we can think of ... we need a world we can all continue to live in. Not EVERY idea has to be Max Profit - not when our whole environment is at risk.
AND the last I heard, it was Business that led the charge against formal Regulation.
Common sense dictates some will take the easy money without regard for anything else.
Thank you. You can count on me (as long as I am alive) for joining any fight against extractive industries proposing or implementing policies that cannot comply with precautionary principles. That said, I hope it is clear to some people that the majority of humankind appears (for the time being) to be either supportive of expansionism of this kind, or to be generally indifferent to it. If we continue to condone human population growth (which goes hand in hand with deforestation, pollution, erosion, desertification, extinction of _other_ species, etc.) and senseless urbanization, can we realistically hope to prevent such adventurism? I urge us to consider global, SUPRANATIONAL efforts to aim at REDUCING OUR POPULATION, INCLUDING THROUGH COERCIVE MEASURES. Of course, such efforts can and should be combined with efforts at the cessation of armed conflicts; disarmament; de-escalation in many forms of human conflict; de-growth in many industries and economic activities, including monoculture; and reduction of overall human consumption and human-caused pollution. Far too many self-described 'progressives' appear to be determined to treat human procreation as a matter that should be left to private 'decisions' (and accidents). I submit to you that we are destined to fight pointless and costly battles (even if we win a few) as long as many states incentivize human procreation, and COERCE nonprocreators to pay extra taxes, work harder, etc., to subsidize the adventurism of procreators, and as long as many other states remain passive in the face of social and ecological problems caused or exacerbated by human procreation, urbanization, etc. Rightly or wrongly, states in general regard human population growth (or 'stability') to be in keeping with 'national interests' --especially if the population of their perceived enemies are increasing. For this and many other reasons, I believe that we should form SUPRANATIONAL organizations that can supersede national policies. (I wrote tens of thousands of words in relation to global issues. I am prepared to expand...)
What a brilliant idea! Find the absolute bottom of all food chains and destroy it completely! What could possibly go wrong!
Reminds me of the lose of our insects.
If that life was so important then why is it at the *bottom* of the food chain?
Checkmate liberals.
-Corporate propaganda response
When I was younger, say 20 years ago, after a day out on the bike, my helmet visor would be covered in the remains of insects. These days I can ride all day with barely a mark. Our insect population has taken a massive hit. I do wonder what kind of a world we are leaving the next generation.
@@geoffhaylock6848 A dead world obviously
What a succinct and apposite comment. Totally agree with the sentiment
1:41 polymetallic nodules on sea bed... 7:21 opaque International Seabed Authority based in Kingston Jamaica 8:08 Environmental Justice Foundation 9:50 765 scientists, policy experts signed petition for 10-year moratorium 10:07 automotive, tech companies oppose dsm 12:21 DFE design for the environment, right to repair, circular economy 👍
Personally I think we need more than a ten year moratorium, I think we need more than ten years to accurately determine the impacts of deep ocean mining. There is simply so much we have to find out, so much we do not know that making any kind of prediction right now is basically done on the basis of three or four pieces of a ten thousand piece jigsaw puzzle. We are going to need a LOT more pieces of that puzzle before we can begin piecing together the final picture....
"polymetallic nodules on sea bed" aka what the US government told us so we don't question why they build the ships used for Project Azorian.
I remember being taught these nodule stories in school only for it to be revealed to be a government psy op for that Project...
It's a cool project but still I'm not going to believe the whole nodule story anymore...
The unfortunate part is that the moratorium can only prevent licenses for international waters and the resources outside of any country's economic zone. This almost certainly means that, regardless of international caution or condemnation, they aren't going to be able to stop any economically desperate enough country from doing it the moment the technology is available. They can say all they want about refusing to buy cobalt that was deep sea mined because they said the same thing about 'artisanal' mined cobalt from Congo (provided by warlords and forced labor, often including child labor) over a decade ago yet it still sells fast enough they work people to death and fight over territory just to get more to sell.
"we wont harm a thing" every corporation that harms things.
Every human harms things.
It’s not a corporation it’s a collection of people and those people can be addressed
It's said there's no humans left on the planet without forever chemicals in their blood. The breast milk of indigenous peoples of the artic circle has dioxin present, we've poisoned the whole planet!
Our county had to stop accepting recycling as the cost was higher than the disposal of regular trash & no one wanted it. We need better recycling procedures! Leave our deep sea ecosystems alone! Corporations should be made to improve products to discourage waste & planned obsolescence ended IMO
@@MikAnimal That "collection of people" or corporation, have the same rights as a human being under US law. the "corpse" or corporation, takes the financial or legal hit/ but the people behind it aren't held accountable. Its very specifically designed that way. money in politics is a bad combo.
@@pearl_kill_Gaming I will repeat it is a collection of people , people can be addressed. There is no shield protecting them. U are in a daze and are not seeing what I’m saying. If people use that as a shield too much eventually they gonna feel a French Revolution event.
Also for the legal structure, that needs adjusting… corporations as such need life purpose and cycle (limit). As does any large organizational structure. Humans become captives and extensions of the very ideas they think they choose.
I suppose accountability needs to be reincorporated and these veils and abstractions that have been weaponized in suppressing that accountability need to be cleansed (altered).
It’s a tall order but the alternatives are more painful… prolly just a matter of human’s intelligence and smh 🤦🏽♂️
As a longtime watcher now, I hope I'm not the only one to take notice of the (still thoroughly professional, yet) stark difference in tone between this and numerous other of your videos. Your conviction absolutely comes through.
Less charitably or politely perhaps, your anger comes through, and in my opinion rightfully so. I'm with you on deep sea mining (and many other topics besides).
Their damage to our precious environment will not cease once this begins.
Yes, let's not open that dooor.
😢
@@dustman96 Yeah. Just as much as we've got to focus on closing many of the doors they've forced open, we can't let them open yet another in the chain.
@@FlyingDwarfman I've given up to some degree. It's going to take another disaster to wake people up at this point. To be honest I don't feel too bad about the people who are sealing their own fate, I feel more for the billions, no, trillions of other lives on the planet that have to suffer and die because of our ignorance. For profit. It's so ludicrous and so clear, sometimes I have trouble believing what's happening.
Mining companies might be right that this might actually be necessary, but the institution responsible for doing this feels totally inadequate and unfit for purpose.
Thanks for bringing this topics out in front. I heard about it few weeks ago and I was really angry at this company. They just dont care about sea life. All they care is profit.
Einstein says it so well... "There are two infinite things, the Universe, and the human stupidity. But I am not sure about first...!" Back to the cave, useless generations...anyway, you all will be erased from history by the new populations really preparing to put your skins to dry in the Sun... And you know what? The new populations are giving a shit about "deep problems"...
yeah, I first heard about these things in the 70s
All any company ever cares about is profit. They have to.
In fact the humans running companies?
Are not allowed to go for responsibility instead of profit. At least when they are not sole owners.
A CEO has the legal DUTY to make maximum profit for his investors.
And can be held legally responsible if he refuses to realize even hundreths of a percent of profit.
Thus is the system of economy we built.
Its not irresponsible humans as such.
Its a system built on nothing but irresponsibly multiplying power coupons, i.e. money.
@@FischerNilsA You are right. But also not right.
You are right that CEO has the legal duty to make profit for investors and that often push them to make harmfull decisions(for the environment).
You are not right that this makes the system bad in itself.
I think its about short therm or long therm thinking.
You can focus on short term gain and be immoral and use environment/people for that, but in the long term loose customers if they found out.
On the other hand you can be transparent, invest in environmentally friendly solutions and innovations and make profit in the long term.
Making your company customer and enviromnent friendly is I think the only long term solution - and I think it will be the most profitable in the end.
So this corporation is just like literally every other corporation
Thanks for an excellent video, as usual. It's like humanity simply won't recognize that this planet is not made for us alone. Sooner or later we will find out, what the impact of deep sea mining will have on the ocean. The sad part of this experiment is, that when we do find out, what important functions these polymetallic nodules actually had for the global environment - well, then it's too late
I think the earth has suffered enough of our “little bit of collateral damage” at this point. I am sure we will figure out another way to get or substitute these type of minerals.
Its good enough to have "little bit of colleteral damage" when its called green. Windmills, solar farms and hydro power all have colleteral damage
@@ssu7653 true, but I would not conflate the two examples as equals. There is a sliding scale of harm/impact that we have on the world with everything that we do, and some are very clearly more damaging than others.
@@JSx145 Flooding a valley dont completly destoy the ecosystem there?
Covering large areas of land with solarpanels dont significantly change the ecosystem?
Windmills dont have significant impact on the environment?
We know all these things have HUGE impact on the local environment wher ever they are built. We just ignore it since its the only "renewable" resources we have.
Had we spent the same money on changing from coal/oil to gas / nuclear we would have less impact on the environtment from pwoer production and way greener energy in total. Its just that "nuclear is bad" and gas still pollute.
Its like we live in a completly digital world, either its 0 emission (nothing truly is) or there is no will to change.
@@ssu7653 totally agree. Nothing is a slam dunk, but we have options today that can put us in a better spot.
Sadly, we are where we are because of uninformed people, uninformed or financially influenced governments, and whole industries that have a financial stake in maintaining the status quo. Ironically, the technology actually seems like the easiest piece to solve in the current situation.
@@ssu7653 You are missing the forest for the trees.
Yes, practically all forms of power generating infrastructure cause damage to the environment.
But the difference between for example wind mills and coal power plants: one is fueled by wind, the other needs a constant supply of coal.
That's the key point when it comes to renewable energy => the fuel itself isn't the issue.
Of course you have a point regardless of that, most forms of renewables aren't as clean as people believe.
Perhaps there is a compromise here. Machines are already being developed to pick various crops on land. This could be applied to the polymetallic nodules on the sea floor. Perhaps a robotic picker could put nodules into a basket which could then be lifted to the surface. No messy separation of nodules from sea sediment. This would be a good job for non-sentient AI.
We really need to start thinking about sobriety and changing our behaviours instead of screwing another ecosystem for the good of "Humanity"!
@@Riorozen???
this is just bringing up the dumbest solution to keep the destructive status quo (aka late capitalism) the ira and these mining corporations do not give a damn about stopping cliate change in it's tracks. Otherwise they would let every country, scientists all over and the people on the ground collaborate. Do that to find a solution that is the least destructive, the least infringing upon the lives of the most people etc. (and with that I do not mean executives). That's how we reversed the ozon layer hole within very short amount of time.
@@Riorozenwhat an absolutely pathetic, cop out ideology you’ve got. Individual responsibility is not a component of policy for protecting the commons. It never has been and never will be. It’s not even a component in most laws in the first place. Individual responsibility in laws to protect society is paradoxical, if the expectation was we can just individual responsibility our way through civilisation we wouldn’t need laws. We don’t individual responsibility murder away. We make laws. We can’t expect every individual person on the planet to individually be responsible for discerning where every material component of every product they buy came from. It’s not even possible for one person. The unrealistic expectation that every person trace their impact individually is how the plastic lobby escaped recycling standards in the US. We didn’t cut sulphur dioxide emissions by expecting every household to research all their power providers and choose a low sulphur one. If we did, there’d be hardly any to choose from, and no one would choose them.
Most people agree with the principle of - don’t s**t where we eat. To make that about fringe communism is a cop out. If it’s true, then communists have a lot more personal decency than you and any cowardly interest group that would love everyone to think like you.
If someone at Venice Beach says this place needs better waste policy and you say - bUt LoOk At AlL tHe LiTtEr ArOuNd Us - congratulations, you just pointed out how individual responsibility is not a solution. You’re talking like a finance bro. You’re not making the point you think.
We still need to have species growth and expansion, not growing is not an option in this competitive universe, but space faring is the way forward, not destroying Earth, so we should just do that. Mars needs global warming btw.
May I ask if you have a proposition to sustain the development of green technologies without new sources of minerals?
@@Sammysapphira Redistribute wealth. Have scientists and governments all over the world, including in South America, Africa work together to find solutions. Don't let the market and profit margins decide. Because markets are terrible at this.
vacuuming the sea floor and claiming it won’t affect the life is like vacuuming my carpet while claiming only the dirt gets sucked up leaving all the dust mites behind.
Yeah you don't want to mess with scavengers/decomposers, they kinda keep ecosystems running by letting nutrients be available again. Without them...just imagine if spent money was erased and money couldn't be created
All 3 of those metals are magnetic/para-magnetic. Would using a magnetic collector avoid a lot of the disruption? Then funnel them to the vacuum. Buoyancy can also be played with so the machine itself barely pressures the seabed.
Sadly it is likely to be ‘out of sight, out of mind’ and the new uncontrolled gold rush
I think deep sea mining is a great idea because I can't see the damage on the bottom of the ocean from up here.
The same logic factory between my ears indicates that smoking isn't harmful to me because I can't see my lungs.
Y'know, I think my intelligence increased by orders of magnitude after I paid Mensa a lot of money to officially verify that I'm a genius.
Nice video Dave. I've looked at this myself recently since Tesla did their recent shareholder presentation on long term future sustainability [available on YT], where they suggested that the quicker the world transitions to clean energy the greater the savings in human terms and for the planet. In particular it would require LESS mining of new minerals. Drastically so after the recycling industry becomes huge in scale. Pretty much everything I have read subsequently supports this outlook. So, nobody has to invent a new technology, although improvements are always welcome. We already have the means and capability. We just have to have an attitude to sustainability if we want to save ourselves and the ecosystems across the globe. NO to deep sea mining..!
Thanks Andy. I agree 100%
I was hoping they wouldn’t allow this. “Yeah we’re just gonna scrape and dig the bottom of the sea. How could that possible hurt the ecosystem?” Imagine going to a forest and literally scrapping up everything in your path. The hubris of man never ceases to amaze.
Yes, let's take the blokes that will make billions at their word. I mean, why would they lie?
I think they can make their money...but they have to go down there and hand pick every nodule themselves. Like pearl divers.
@@mk1stI mean they almost reached the sea floor with their sh*itty sub (rip the kid though)
I only learnt about them after a recent 60 mins interview. As you said, they of course painted themselves as an ally to green energy. The 60 Mins reporter did question the environmental impact but they seem to be hiding behind this idea that the impact will be minimal because it's near impossible to quantify...basically ignorance is bliss.
We really are plumbing the depths with this one.
I find the existence of the ISA upsetting. Who/whom has the ability to override such an organisation? It's just crims all the way up.
@leeroychang agree with you. Distressing is that the Belgian rep on the ISA has been a corporation employee. The ISA exists to approve exploitation by corporations and the unseemly wealthy.
@@brianwheeldon4643 it seems though that they're set up from their own authority?
We could set up a similar organisation for the moon when we start mining that. Charge big dollar for licences too. It's so strange how these entities come into being.
I'd rather they focus on terrestrial mining until we can do asteroid mining.
I would rather they get into asteroid mining sooner than later. Process it out there too.
NIMBY works well here.
Edited for the naysayers: we are going to need alot of materials actually IN space so yeah makes sense.
@@makinawake9178 Oh sure, but we just don't have the technology of scale to do genuinely competitive asteroid mining yet. Not even close for that matter. And then there's the issue of getting materials down to earth without incinerating the atmosphere.
To transport about 2 million tonnes of steel (what we globally produce at the moment), from space to the ground would release a huge amount of heat, due to the potential energy released by dropping it down into the gravity well.
@@op4000exe time to get better at it then.
Time to ask chatGPT.
@@makinawake9178no, don't do that; it will confidently give you wrong answers that end your operations in disaster
@@lemontv7883 you reply mirrors an AI terrible reply fyi
For a long time I was a recreational diver, if you've ever seen the damage done by scallop dredging versus diver hand collected you'd be shaking your head it is like a bomb has gone off.
Thanks for informing me of another bad idea that I can do absolutely nothing about!
In the 1977 movie, Demon Seed, the artificial intelligence that was directed to create a plan for mining those same nodules from the ocean floor, refused, because it was environmentally unsound. (Sci-fi horror film based on Dean Koontz novel.)
Good for you. Excellent reporting. I first heard of this 'resource' back in the late sixties or early seventies in either Popular Science or Scientific American (magazines I read in high school). I thought it was a great idea back then but as I matured, I became philosophically against attempting to mine nodules for all the biological reasons you mentioned. I will be sharing this. Please keep ringing that warning bell.
Thank you. I will do :-)
Thanks for the reminder there is hope and many countries recognize we need a sustainable economy.
Thanks for yet another interesting THINK video. This sounds as though it will be as disruptive as fracking!
I well remember a full page concept drawing of deep sea mining of nodules on the ocean floor in my childrens encyclopedia back in the mid 50's. (Amusing to me now because they showed video cameras the size of suitcases - like early studio cameras!)
We have no data that mining sea floor will lead to any damage, therefore we are going to mine sea floor.
10 years later, so mining sea floor is causing massive damage but sense metals are in high demand we have no choice but to continue mining sea floor.
50 years later, we have destroyed sea by mining sea floor, sense its imposible to repair or recover the damage we wont bother spending any of our fat profits made from mining and just leave it as is.
This is how I imagine it will go.
worst of all:
those profits will only benefit the rich oligarchs who caused all that destruction... we are doomed.
This was a the plot of a Clive Cussler novel, evil billionaire mining the seabed for cobalt doing huge amounts of environmental damage.
As a layman, it's hard for me to believe that the many challenges in mining fractions upon fractions of useful resources out of rock should be easier then to extract them from our waste.
that's why you're a layman lol. If it was easier and cheaper, it'd be done
@@xShadowChrisx What about the possibility? What are the barriers? Does it require more research? Laws of physics in the way, or just something mundane like lack of established logistics to make it profitable, or something political related, lack of regulation to ensure recycling perhaps, maybe lobbying?
Or are you telling me that lithium physically can't be extracted from dead batteries? Or harder than mining from the bottom of the fucking ocean? What if the video was about something more extreme, like asteroid mining? Is asteroid mining easier and cheaper? No wait, lets go even further, let's use alchemy to create our lithium, transmutate the shit out of something, or better yet, let's create an artificial supernova, nature's process of creating elements! Heck why stop there, lets create our own big.fucking.bang. Imagine how lucrative that would be!
Life always finds a Way. The question is what if life decides to erase Humanity ??
We have to stop this before it gets out of hand!
Reality is truly a dystopian hellscape
I really enjoyed this vid because I don't believe that we need to be tearing up the ocean before we have figured out what we have down there and this vid proves the point. Keep them coming and Thanks again!
This is very worrying indeed Dave. Instead of inflicting more untold damage to a poorly understood ecology we should be mining landfills such as Fishkill NY, for useful elements and minerals such as copper and cobalt from electronic waste?
Excellent idea! I also don't understand why we don't build solar arrays over the acres of parking lots already cleared & contributing to the heating of our planet? We've been terrible stewards of our beautiful planet 😢
That’s what I was thinking. We’ve gathered all of our solid waste into piles which likely has loads of metals in it. Literally turning trash into treasure sounds way better than turning an undersea ecosystem into a wasteland.
Where did all of the minerals we've already pulled out of the ground go? I thought energy can neither be created or destroyed so where is it all? If anything we need to cut back on all the technological bs in our everyday lives.
I was a fisherman in the gulf coast and I know first hand how companies lie about their impact on the ecosystem.
The image used at exactly 9:00 is not the Cook Islands, it's Cape Town in South Africa. I know, because I live here.
Yes noticed that too. Only thing missing is the cloud on table to mountain. Beautiful city and province. Will have to visit again soon
@@badvlad1 But that will involve flying.
Thanks for letting me know. That's a genuine error on my part. I thought the footage was the Cook Islands. Apologies for the error
Well said Dave. I highly recommend the book 'The Brilliant Abyss' by Helen Scales. She goes into fabulous details on the deep environment, including the planet's reliance upon it, and dedicates a chapter to the cataclysmic outcomes from deep sea mining. Sadly, all of our outrage is unlikely to stop this short sighted profit-driven calamity. This video is the closest thing I've seen to hope.
I'd call this FUD vs FOMO. A ten year moratorium sounds like a good start.
What is FUD. Fear under D?
@@codysergeant1486 Fear Uncertainty and Doubt versus Fear Of Missing Out. FUD usually refers to unjustified Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt but here I think it's justified because there is so much we don't know.
@@jmr Thanks man, very kind of you explaining the abbreviations!
Good gravy!… no shame in that mate!…you are one of the most informed people I know!… I enjoy your hard work and so do thousands of people across the globe!
Hello Dave. I just finished reading the Sept. 13th 2022 book
'Volt Rush: The Winners and Losers in the Race to Go Green" by Henry Sanderson
It touches on many of the past, present and potentially future discussions about our requirements about mineral needs. It dramatically documents the various dubious discussions and decisions made to get us to where we are today.
A very sobering read indeed. It might be interesting to have a chat with Mr. Sanderson and get him to also give us more info to be able to Just Have a Think!!
Keep up the good work. I appreciate it.
Funnily enough, I just finished reading that book yesterday :-)
I guess what's most troubling is the clunky, crude methods employed by the mining industry in general. Demand side shifts towards common elements is excellent, lessened demand by shifting towards renewables, as is more efficient use of those elements including recycling but in the end there is still some demand and need for mining. So either they come from hard rock mining on land or undersea mining or nodule retrieval. In getting at those metallic minerals, better ways of extraction or gathering should be developed that minimizes the environmental impact. Earlier in your video Dave you showed a robotic explorer picking up nodules rather gently from the ocean floor, which seems like a much more benign way of retrieving these objects, and after careful study, might be the best way to proceed. Or else we'll have to make use of land deposits like the ones up in Sudbury Canada, and do a better job of getting out the nickel with minimal disruption, possibly by directional boring and backfilling with CO2 capturing mafic gabbro and binder. Less is best, but some demand will still exist for new metallic minerals, so we do need to find a way forward. 🌄
Another brilliant take on our conundrums Dave! Always await, in anticipation, your excellent weekly contributions to the knowledge of our future. 🙏
I love how "environmental activist" busying themselves gluing their hands to asphalts in airports, blocking roads during rush hour, and deluding themselves that living without using any of Earth's resources would be better (and I'm not talking about extraterrestrial mining). They should be against this and finding better compromises that's not as damaging as current resource extraction industry.
I remember learning about how the working class and poor used to unalive rich people for being greedy and harming the lives of everyone in a community. Huh.
It's accepted if it happens to a different community somewhere else far away.
I am so glad that you have taken the initiative as this I personally believe is on the same par as "Deforestation" with the exception that no member of the public will be able to witness, nor will we be able to know the true level of destruction to not just the ecosystems but also bear in mind those who have died over the centuries as the seas have taken them.
I have no time or respect for the I.S.A. who feel that while they maybe given the power to authorize these licenses to these companies, there clearly has been no public consideration to see how the rest of us feel about this move.
The damage that will be done to the "Seabed" is going to be made good how exactly from these profiteering companies. Are they going to clean up their mess, how will that work in harmony with nature in protecting the other eco systems down there that are outside of the boundary they will be work in?
The other factor is the impact to the given area could trigger off events that no one could have possibly imagined and who is going to be the voice for those "Eco Systems" who haven't got lawyers or deep pockets to fight their battles. There is only one winner here and we know who.
The "Seabed" will be raped and pillaged of all its treasures and anyone who cannot see that is blind. The same that happened to the Amazon Rainforest will be taking place on a major level. The vote should be given to all of us who live on this planet, before they just bulldoze their way into putting this in place.
Great video, Dave! So, we shouldn't trust a bunch of amoral money grubbers?
As you say Dave, this subject definitely requires a deep dive...
Thanks, good show - particularly interesting that these minerals are actually critical to fuel production, I had no idea of the extent of that.
The most recent chart I managed to find a year or two back on Cobalt usage [c.2018] was about 8% of global production was consumed by catalysts in petrol/gas refining. High performance steels, pigments for ceramics were other uses and about half for batteries but the latter use has probably been growing.
Couldn’t harvesting in a checkerboard pattern help in keeping diversity? They do this on harvesting forest. The untouched areas can then reseed and repopulate the harvested areas. Like you said in just the clarion area it’s the size of France. It should be easy to harvest this way.
"If we find we're doing harm, we'll think of a better option." If there's a better option, why not just think of that?
Money 😮
@@katiekane5247 Yeah my point is that they won't think of a better option because if they could have then they would have.
Mining in the deep ocean, what could possibly go wrong? With the mining industry's famous concern for the environment, where they resist cleaning up even disasters easily discovered, SURELY they'll be vigilant and aggressive in reporting and cleaning up disasters that happen in the deep ocean. Would it even be POSSIBLE to clean up such disasters, considering the depths and pressures and darkness? Can we also put the criminals in charge of the jails, while we're at it?
One thing that may also be a problem with mining them large scale may be they act as a seed to pull those minerals from the water and removing to many could slow down this natural process. When growing crystals, a seed is often used to get it to start and grow.
This one seems pretty simple. There's no reason to start mining an ecosystem we don't understand for minerals we may not even need. It seems pretty clear to me these companies want to benefit from the current price of the ores, hence their desire to get started right away. It has nothing to do with future expected demand because of the green transition. But there's no need to rush. They should pause any exploration permits and do a lot more study of the effects first.
Unfortunately this has all the hallmarks of a situation that won't be controlled. Most importantly there's no aggrieved human party that stands in the way of mining. Like you said in the video, it's possible the deep sea ecosystems may interact with the closer-to-the-surface ecosystems that we depend on for fish. Whales and sharks certainly dive down deep on a regular basis, and organisms from lower down (though not from the sea bottom) come up to the top to breed and are a major source of food for surface sea creatures. It's not a crazy idea to think there might be some long term cycle going on where nutrients fall to the sea bed then get recycled to the surface again over long timescales. Mining could throw a wrench in that and we might not see the result for centuries.
Thank you for warning against Vultures of our Planet. How low can they go?
Thanks for a balanced, informative look into an important subject... it's just too distressing to think that we might be about to destroy an ecosystem that we haven't even begun to properly explore.
Deep sea mining would give people financial motives to finally explore.
how was it balanced at all?
Wow, so interesting to watch this video!
A week ago I read an article about this topic in the economist, where they concluded that deep see mining is necessary for a green transition. And I thought, yes makes sense..
But now this video gave me a lot more information👍🏼
So, Perry the Platypus... (Bites off a hot wing) I bet you're wondering why I'm sitting down here at the bottom of a lake. Well, the answer is simple. Mmm-mmm! This is really good, man. You want some? (Takes a box with the red wings) Here, here. (Perry takes a hot wing) Take the blue cheese. (Perry takes the blue cheese and pours it on the red wing) Do you know, I-- I prefer the ranch. Take the blue cheese. (Perry bite the red wing, and Doof holds up a napkin) Here's a napkin. (Perry takes the napkin) Anyway, the answer why I'm here is simple. Zinc. Lake Nose has a ton of zinc, and this machine goes around and filters all the zinc from the water.
I've been trying to bring attention to what a horrible toxic idea this is for awhile now, and it's been crickets or hand waves from nearly everyone in social media land. Some even delusionally extol what a wonderful - "environmental" -idea it is.... To say the least, it's amongst one of many things that's made me absolutely cynical about the Popular Environmental movement (aka: all about the merch). It's right up there with Microsoft heating the ocean to cool their servers for free - while claiming "Environmentalism" and silly people claiming the Ocean has unlimited lithium for us humans to use without worry, so we should plow through by putting another billions EV cars on the road and call it "environmental progress".
All companies and countries deserve an applause for opposing the sucking and scrubbing ocean and sea floors for minerals !!!
GJ Dave for shining a light on this important topic, keep up the good work. 👍
Thanks, will do!
I remember studying this in school about 40 years ago now. It was obviously a bad idea back then, and with our better understanding of these benthic eco-systems in the passing years, it's even a worse idea today.
Electric cars were a very bad idea 40 years ago, things change as technology evolves...
If trawling is illegal in most countries, this deep sea mining method is just trawling but you're catching rocks instead of fishes.
@@ssu7653 Electric cars are still an awfully stupid idea today
@@dexulescu For many people, and in many places they are most definitly a good idea.
Can argue over the total environment impact, but its a very clear fact that they dont do nearly as much local pollution.
So when cities struggle with local pollution, and EV range is more than enough to cover several days driving then they are a good choice for that
@@ssu7653 The total environmental impact is what I meant. The damage from mining lithium ( especially Chinese lithium ), nevermind the fact there isn't enough lithium on Earth to switch from IC to EV, and even if we did, the entire electrical grid would have to be overhauled to account for that, and that the batteries more often than not end up in the ocean.
EVs are nothing more than a toy for the rich to virtue signal.
I’d love to see videos on e-waste processing and recycling, asteroid mining, and especially the overall circular economy to complement and continue this one
Another thought provoking video. However, it left me a bit undecided on the topic after recently reading an Economist article entitled "The world needs more battery metals. Time to mine the seabed" which concluded that "Getting nickel from the deep causes much less damage than getting it on land".
It would seem that wherever we mine materials we do harm. On land we currently do a lot of harm despite knowing about it, and it being really visible. I think we can easily conclude what will happen with underwater mining where the damage is hidden. This still leaves the problem of where best to get essential minerals for electrification...
Dave, thank you again for your hard work and informative videos. Like me, you must at times be frustrated at lack of green progress and greed and obstruction by big business but keep going. You're doing a great job.
As for the commitment of companies to "not purchase", I think that won't last long. When the price is right, they'll cave.
I have always thought that this is a very bad idea! Ever since the nodules were discovered I have feared this.
it's been about 40 years since these manganese nodules were discovered. IMO it is stupid that the powers that be still can't figure if mining them is good/bad and laws passed concerning the
mining. Especially since the nodules only exist in limited areas...meaning small enough areas for research. the nodules are worth mining...that is not disputed. so figure out whether the damage
is worth the reclamation.
Do you realize how difficult it is to do research at the bottom of the ocean? It's easier to go into space than to go down deep. Especially if you're trying to get research grants that might not be profitable for a corporate sponsor.
I believe that this latest Titanic disaster has made people painfully aware of the problems that diving so deep into the ocean cause. It takes a lot of energy to lift a ton of weight fifteen thousand feet up from the ocean floor. The costs could add up to where deep sea nodules may not be cost competitive with land minerals. I wonder what kind of transport system will be able to bring up nodules in an efficient manner.
Not the Hubris of it all?
Not the painful hypocrisy of attention given to the submarine incident and the migrant crisis disasters in the Mediterranean? The dehumanisation that's normalised in our world knows no bounds
I could think of a few ways.
Mostly thinking robot drones.
Have them pick up the bigger nodules with some sort of mechanical manipulator. While replacing the ore with a ballast rock for the sea life. Then hand-deliver them to a central pump.
At the pump station, the little robots charge, pick up a load of replacement rocks, and go back out to do it again.
It would be slow. But if you got it automated enough, a continuous sustainable process.
They were grave robbing the Titanic on the backs of thier tourist rides.
The pressures are practically meaningless because they will be balanced and it's easier to lift small chunks then a sub.
One thing to keep in mind is that these nodules are (from what i understand) very high percentage or almost pure nickel/manganese/etc. Whereas most land based deposits are mixed in with lots of other carbon and whatnot so need more processing to get the minerals in question. So that would be an advantage that might offset any increased costs for retreiving them.
At least you wouldn't see children mining down there.
Thank you for alerting us to this threat and for all the deep research into the alternatives. I've long known that many of the problems that we are dealing with today originated from people and institutions that were absolutely convinced that they were creating a better world for future generations.
Some information should never. Ever. Be shared with the world
The existance of these items was one of them. They have a tremendous importance.
Have seen this on one of my investment news letters. My son also knows one studying these things at University! One thing to keep in mind is how capitalistic companies need to compete usually leading to the cheapest harvesting methods which we know how their efforts will go! Considering how little we know of the oceans … on the other hand cobalt mining mostly starts with clear cutting forests in the (I believe) Congo, child labor, environmental mess with a lack of regulations! Now with new batteries maybe we should leave the last places in the world untouched by man since we do know the man never just touches anything!
The earth is ripe for harvesting, that was said in the movie Jupiter Ascending.
This is an actual area of industry where we need a moratorium to research and put in guardrails and regulation (probably will need to ban it all together), not the fear of AI m*rderbots 😅
I'm noticing a correlation between submarine sinkings and an interest in mining the ocean floor...
I don't think there's much harm in picking up 'rocks' sitting loose on the ocean floor. The real problems start, when deep seabed mining operations, similar to what you see on land become wide spread. it's deep digging, into the ocean floor that has me concerned.
Could there be a slippery slope that we are inadvertently jumping straight on?
I've located a huge underwater mining operation in the middle of the Atlantic. A huge machine is seen scraping the ocean floor having a tall debris cloud along with a long scraped trail. 2 metallic objects are seen behind it on the same path.
Its so easy to "cover up" the problems you're creating when under so much water. In the exact same way you keep it from the general population, You could just turn off your camera feed and hide it from yourself.
Your nuance and skepticism are greatly appreciated....our desire to push for objective "Progress" quite often has so many unforeseen consequences exacerbated by our commitment to money before actual research and understanding of the ecosystems and their importance to the greater planetary health is recognized...
Why not just go to Planet Hoxxes
Deep Rock seriously needs to invest in some better equipment!
The destruction of the world is tragic and has been hard to watch for many years. One of the worst things about it, regular people have no say at all. Nothing that I do has any effect on anything that matters at all. It is a powerless and hopeless place to live.
Nightmare
I think the solution with biggest impact for climate would be setting a worldwide population cap to 1-2 kids per couple for certain amount of time. Population will slowly drop in numbers over time and then it would be possible to revise this again some years later and either adjust or lift the limit altogheter for another period of time. It would go well together with spread of AI and automation of many jobs, which would ease the impact on pension funds for example.
I'd rather see responseble deep sea mining then the catastrophic scenario playing out in Kongo.
I wrote too soon. I take that back. All the way. No deep sea mining please.
It's the mode of ownership that needs questioning.
The economic planning and political nature of it all
@@artisariumhi, what did you see in particular that changed your view point?
@@craigfoulkesAfter Dave's explanation of how much life down there depends on the nodules. If anything, we really should not fuck up the oceans more than we have.
It would be some "War of the worlds" like scraping of their land.
Maybe what's needed is a different type of robot that just picks up the nodules without damaging the surrounding ecosystem?