PASTCF President’s Column August 2023
Recently, two activities involving the oceans caught my attention: on the surface, the distribution of invasive species, and at the bottom, deep-ocean mining.
Legally speaking, human activities on land are reasonably well regulated — we know who has jurisdiction where, what can and what cannot be done legally, and what the consequences are when the rules are broken. Admittedly, there will always be gray areas and enforcement does often not live up to the promises of the laws and regulations. Oh, and the regulations are woefully deficient in keeping up with technology; but still… However, as soon as we leave dry land we end up in a bit of a wild west environment. That is true for space (above a certain altitude), as well as for water outside the territorial boundaries. It’s not that people aren’t trying. It’s just so darn hard to get them to agree with each other. And let’s face it, nobody really cares – until there are economic or military interests at stake.
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) was agreed upon in 1994 and has been ratified by 168 countries. If you are wondering: no, the US did not ratify it. Nearly everybody across the political and business spectrum urged ratification, but after 18 years of trying, Jim Inhofe convinced 33 other senators to pledge to vote against, for political reasons, and that finally killed the chances. Since then efforts to ratify have run up to the same obstacle. A subdivision of UNCLOS is the International Seabed Authority (ISA) which is charged with regulating the seabed. 168 countries can have their say and vote; the US can have its say, but not vote, since it is not an UNCLOS member. ISA has not made much progress, aside from declaring a handful of regions off limits. But recently its hand has been forced. It now has two years to consider its stance and is supposed to make a decision on deep-ocean mining in 2025. Many countries oppose the mining, but a significant number is in favor.
What brought on the sudden interest and urgency? And what is at stake?
The items of interest are the manganese nodules, 1 to 4 inch lumps rich in manganese, iron, copper, nickel, cobalt. The nodules grow around small nuclei on the ocean floor. Mining them would be a multi-trillion-dollar business, since the metal concentrations are significantly higher than in ores mined on dry land. The most promising area is Clarion Clipperton Zone (CCZ), in the eastern Pacific Ocean between Mexico and Hawaii. ISA’s rules say that it should review its procedures every five years and that, as long as there is no agreed-upon convention, each member country may make its own rules for granting mining permits, two years after a request for such a permit has been submitted. Well, The Metal Company (TMC) submitted a request for mining to the island state of Nauri, a UNCLOS member, in 2021 and this was approved this summer. So, Germany forced ISA to start a procedural review while mining is paused for two years. The opposition to mining is clearly based on ecological concerns: we don’t know much about what lives and grows on the bottom of the ocean. Mining operations would destroy whatever lives on the seabed in the area being mined, but in addition there would be concern about a cloud of disturbed sediment.
So, should there be a ban on deep-ocean mining? It is not so clear. Science journalist Pieter van Dooren points out that the alternative, mining on land, is actually far more destructive. Research done during the last few years seems to indicate that the damage done at sea may be less extensive than feared. And he quotes a study published in The Economist that estimates the cost in loss of biomass per 1000 kg of mined nickel at 13 kg for deep-ocean mining, versus 450 kg for mining it in Indonesian rainforest. In addition, Van Dooren comments that since the rules still need to be written, they could be made very strict. This may well be viable, considering that there are quite a few major countries that oppose mining altogether. And one would hope that deep-ocean mining would be conducted without child labor.
In the meantime, there is great irony in the fact that many Republican senators who are quite concerned about China’s increased global influence, facilitate China’s positioning itself favorably in the metals mining gambit by continuing to oppose ratification of UNCLOS: China has a vote in ISA, while the US is on the sidelines.
Another development plays out on the seas’ surface: spreading of invasive species. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Issued a new report on invasive species this summer. The count stands at 37,000 and 200 are added each year. 10% of them constitute a threat to public health and the food supply. Having linked this to sea surface distribution is not quite fair, nor correct anymore, though. Originally, invasive species were transported over land between Europe and Asia, and to a lesser extent Africa. But since the 15th century ships have greatly increased the number of species exchanges and started to cover all continents. These days, air travel contributes significantly; aside from cargo, not only through what passengers choose to bring along as souvenirs, but especially what they bring unwittingly — viral and bacterial specimens.
The dangers of invasive species distribution are globally underestimated and require united action. As far as plants and animals are concerned, the US is doing much better than most of the rest of the world and should be able to support developing meaningful, strict policies and regulations. But the area of pathogens requires a different approach. There are invaluable lessons to be learned from the Covid pandemic. It is imperative that those lessons are taken to heart and that the required protection strategies receive adequate funding. Like all cases of invasive species, early detection and action are the cheapest and most effective ways to guard against disaster.
A postscript.
I would urge any of you who have not yet seen the movie Oppenheimer to go see it. An insightful part of the movie is its vividly depicting the clashing of scientists, politicians, and the military. It also shows that when it comes to moral behavior, the ones we see as high moral examples are still flawed, while the villains still behave with moral rectitude on occasion. People are complicated. The movie highlights some dark pages in US history. I am reading Martin Harwit’s An Exhibit Denied – Lobbying the History of the Enola Gay. In 1995 the nation still had not come to terms with what happened, and I doubt we are any further along 30 years later. Martin identifies as a Christian and as a scientist. See also his talk:
