The secret race to buy the ocean floor

[@DWPlanetA]

What do you think - should we start mining our oceans now?

[@electronicbamboo6764]

No way

[@zahra_callista9996]

Nahh~ That would destroy our planet even more :')

[@datscootusee213]

I've always condoned asteroid mining, mass usage of orbital resources. On a more time sensitive note, no; We should not mining oceans. We should instead radically reduce consumption and refocus resources.

[@dubaiin4k53]

BAD idea, sea bed mining is laziness. that is habitat for fish and sea creatures. lets do asteroid mining. lets put factory in moon for cleaning for safe to used and send it to earth if safe for human. c’mon guys don’t be lazy.

[@DWPlanetA]

Hi@@dubaiin4k53, We have actually done a video on asteroid mining before. If you haven't already seen it then here's the link: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eaLLdaiFiN2Hd80

[@philmatthews3537]

'To benefit all of Humankind' means 'For the benefit of a handful of mega wealthy greedy selfish people'. It does not in any way mean to benefit the creatures that live on and depend on the sea floor.

[@eedobee]

Minerals exploration has ushered in an era where even the poorest internet users live better than royalty 200 years ago. We owe it to the future to mine everything now.

[@maartent9697]

@@eedobee It isn't weird with all the technology we have now that the common folk lived better than the royals of 200 years ago, what kind of useless argument is this? Have you ever looked at the places where Unilever, BP or Shell conduct business? Entire area's without clean drinking water without any compensation, sure those people love the increased pay they got!

[@jesseatkins1835]

👍

[@_Painted]

It can benefit humanity overall… As long as we’re careful about which sites can be mined, restricting approval to deep sea wastelands far from shore (almost all sea life is in shallow waters), and we impose reasonable taxes/tariffs on the successful mines (and extra tariffs on tax haven nations if they try to evade taxes) so that profits are shared.

[@febrikriss1781]

That is so true

[@sourceman9967]

This will not only damage marine life, but it will lead to carbon emissions, because there is a lot of dissolved organic matter on the ocean floor, and these mining machinery will transport it to the surface where this organic matter will decompose and release co2.

[@nathanielthompson479]

The sad thing is not only are the risks known, they will go ahead anyway in the name of profit.

[@sirmiles1820]

@@nathanielthompson479 Yup. Sadly its true but due to the name of progress greed and production, this will continue to happen and policy makers arent known to be total environmental protectors.

[@maartent9697]

@@nathanielthompson479 Mostly because they hold all the money and lobbying power of which our politicians are depended upon, meaning they're a weak link in our democracy for profits :)

[@dandantheideasman]

Could not agree more!

[@SaveMoneySavethePlanet]

Gotta love how the companies say “we need to mine in order to switch to EVs.” All while ignoring the fact that pushing for better public transit and bike infrastructure would reduce our emissions even more while using even less resources… …you know, I’m starting to think they might just care about profits! /s

[@electronicbamboo6764]

Wait… they care about profits more than us, WHAT? 😱😱

[@washablejunk281]

Only for people who live in older cities. New cities are not bike friendly.

[@jacksonreiter7237]

@@washablejunk281 that's not true. All cities can have this infrastructure

[@dylanm4339]

At least enough bike only infrastructure so we don't see bikes covered with flowers on the side of the road ever again! We have to give people this option, many people would take a bike if the risks were lower. Bike infrastructure would help pay for itself by keeping people fit, reducing health bills thereby freeing up tax dollars for more infrastructure! ebikes seem to be a great compromise and we dont need to mine the ocean floor to acquire sufficient minerals... we don't need any research to know this is a bad idea. look at the results of bottom trawling and this will be much worse

[@adisage]

Kinda confused here...what do you mean by bike infrastructure? motorbikes, E-bikes, bicycles...or all of them?

[@angeel.18]

This is so shocking. I can't believe the ISA is setting these plans up when it should clearly aim to safeguard our seas' and, therefore, our planet's integrity instead of basically prompting actions that damage it the most. We, as a so-called modern and more conscious society, need to push for these actions to stop as soon as we can. Thanks DW for bringing awareness to this important issue.

[@axel3895]

People will do it anyway illegally, it's better to regulate them

[@nicholas92]

I don't really care about it because i think the only way to actually stop it ( if it even exists ) is by creating a real catastroph and beign on the edge of extinction

[@willempasterkamp862]

and we declare war on those not agreeing with these our values, right ? (exept when they have nukes, or contracted by any nuclear power).

[@luisebritta6139]

Just keep in mind where those metal are currently coming from and how and by whom they are mined there.

[@dandantheideasman]

@Herbert Weinstein The choice would be to actually be sustainable in our approach and create circular economies, where we recycle what we use and waste less. Just as nature teaches us. There is little that goes to waste in ecological systems and for us to survive we must learn from the failures of our forebears and the lost civilizations before ours, thus to create economies that imitate the natural order of things across the universe. Nothing is wasted in natural systems, either on our planet or out among the stars and if we can come close to that example, everyone and everything profits. Those that wish for wealth will have more than they can imagine, those that wish for peace shall have it, those that wish for food and an easy life shall have it, those that wish to learn and grow and teach shall have it and those that wish for abundance shall attain it. It is not utopian to believe this, as every natural system demonstrates the ability for this to be achieved. We just have to take a step back and look at the end goal from a wider angle. The more we create from that we have no more need for, the more we have to use from that we have yet to unearth. An example of the wrong way of doing things is the idea to drop the ISS into our atmosphere to burn and the remaining resources to drop into the ocean. If we place the ISS on the surface of the Moon, however, we can reuse all the materials, man hours and energy, to further develop our exploration of our solar system. All the cables are still intact, the solar panels still work, the pods can still give shelter against the elements of space, the batteries are still serviceable etc. Not a related example, though, probably best that way. 🤔

[@phuacobasurto]

We should totally avoid by any means sea bed mining, here in Peru, foreign companies cause lots of contamination by mining close to small towns, ruining rivers and once fertile land, and despite the illness of so many people due to that, nothing happens, now imagine big corporations destroying the bed of the ocean, where no humans live, for sure it could be even worse. It is hard to get people in the middle of the ocean to constantly supervise the damages done there, it is too risky from my point of view. We should protest so that the ISA does not allow that to happen, as soon as the first mining is allowed, there will be so many more to come... If that happens, we will be one step closer to failing as a species by destroying such a wonderful planet.

[@ChrisBrown-hr6mc]

😍

[@davinbrown3072]

More people need to know about this! Omg they could mess up our whole food chain/ ecosystem

[@Nkanyiso_K]

We have Solar, Wind, Hydro & even nuclear: *Why on Earth would carve up the planet* We have to protect at least 30% of our coastlines to save our fish, *not destroy the sea floors!*

[@Nkanyiso_K]

@@truth.speaker I'm not naive enough to think there's no impact from anything you do with a green label on it, I'm just saying put the onus on Politicians to put pressure on big companies to change

[@bigdaddyof2007]

@@Nkanyiso_K First I would say to have Solar and Wind you need the resources that is provided by "carving up the planet" forget about Hydro or Nuclear they will fight to stop any reliable energy sources as such. Second if it's fish your worried about well the future is in farmed fisheries.

[@adamlytle2615]

I'm glad that this video focused on the lack of transparency and seeming conflicts of interest at play in the ISA. Ultimately, I think seabed mining has the *potential* to be a *relatively* low-impact way to get the minerals we need to build a sustainable future. The nodules are literally just sitting there, ready to be picked up, as compared to some of the extreme measures we have to go to for land-based mining. HOWEVER, as is made clear in this video, profit-driven companies will take the cheapest/quickest path if given the chance, which means harvesting these resources in the least careful, most destructive way possible.

[@hyourinmaru69]

You're not right on this "Ultimately, I think seabed mining has the potential to be a relatively low-impact way to get the minerals we need to build a sustainable future. The nodules are literally just sitting there, ready to be picked up, as compared to some of the extreme measures we have to go to for land-based mining". They stated in the video, and if you research this topic you'll see that there is no scientific consensus and we don't know the full impacts. There have been trials done on the western shore of the USA that show the impact was long lasting and it affected an area a lot larger than the one that was "mined". The nodules might look like their just sitting there, but there is whole ecosystem around them, species that use them as "homes" among other functions. Did you see the plumes of dust being raised when the seabed was trawled? That "dust" will spread around and impact the ecosystem around it in a massive way. The ISA has a clear conflict of interest here. Its paradoxical that those areas are considered to be human-kind shared inheritance but instead of being made into reserves or something else that benefits everyone, they are licensed to a few individuals standing to make a huge profit out of it. We should look into the contracts made with these countries and understand what drove them, what are their and the company's individual/shared responsibilities in this. There has to be absolute transparency to this process, this is a global responsability. The ISA clearly needs to have its regulations and criteria revised. It cannot be an organization that is subject to deadlines. Companies/countries cannot force an organization like this to design regulations so that "companies can start mining" whenever they want. This is the wrong way to go about this. IF mining needs to happen, or will happen eventually, then it has to be done within very carefully designed parameters and regulations to ensure that we're not only seeing the immediate future. We need to have a long-lasting view of the issue, debate it and come up with a solution that ensures the future of the systems we depend on.

[@eddiethinhvuong1607]

Mind you the coral reefs also just stood there before. See what happened to them when humans decided to do jackshit to it

[@DB-ub3wx]

The damage we cause to our planet every day is awful and it seems its only going to get worse :(

[@derpychicken2131]

@Jeffrey Ketcham (comedian) If it was that easy to invent that technology, it would've already happened

[@brentoniverson1020]

​@@derpychicken2131 AI is gonna make it happen like yesterday. 💯

[@ycl7822]

We should not mine the ocean beds. The ISA has to be re-structured. In my opinion, the Oceans' are the Earth's last balancing block for us to survive on it. This has to be considered very deeply. Plus never have a commercial company dictate terms to a Regulator. Totally absurd.

[@hillockfarm8404]

I find it incomprehensable that after all the proof of mining damage on land the position here is that it is possible rather than fact that this will cause damage. Even without the company shifting responsibility to another party, money doesn't fix everything. And often fixing damage either takes decades or just makes more damage when we don't really know how what we try to fix really works.

[@chevychase3103]

It's Putin's fault!

[@tomo1168]

Yes, start mining the ocean floor today, so we can trash the ecosystem as soon as possible. And if possible, please do the processing of the minerals near the ocean or at a river, so we can just pump the chemicals and byproducts like heavy metals without cleaning back in the waters. Only money matters, so the rich can benefit more. And hopefully with the dreadging the ocean floor we can release huge amounts of trapped methane, it would be an added benefit too.

[@ESTHO_WELZ]

why you think that this company need chemicals for sucking tho top layer of stones like a vacuum cleaner? I bet you like those have electric vehicles over gasoline vehicles? where do you think you get the resources for them? and I belive it is better to vacuum clean the ocean than to dig holes?

[@hellothere4342]

The only thing that's transparent with ISA here is the corruption. If mining on land is clearly damaging the environment, what is going to happen out the middle of nowhere with no responsibilities?

[@TheRealAirhead]

This definitely needs to get into more public eye. 99% of us have no idea this is even going on, where is our opinion heard as the people of this earth? Where can I cast my vote to this?

[@bebefoglia]

We should NEVER mine the seabed. We already know what happen when you exploit resources on the environments on the surface: the same thing is going to happen on the seabed.

[@alkasoli4002]

Absolutely.... yeah this is terrifying 😮

[@sakshamagrawal6984]

This needs public awareness and support. Ocean mining is a very dangerous proposition, and should be considered very thoroughly and be very transparent and accountable, otherwise we will loose our oceans.

[@takuan650]

The notion of sharing something for the benefit of all human kind is totally alien to a shareholder, corporation or politician.

[@sacedive]

I was a deep sea diver and I can attest that it kills everything and they don’t come back. Not within the few years I did it.

[@kitten_processing_inc4415]

You were diving at 5000m? Bet you're feeling a little "flat" now.

[@angelmujahid2233]

The pollution that comes from mining in general, coupled with other problems related to things like energy, oil comes to mind. Gives us a very good snapshot of what this type of exploitation will do for the ocean and its ecosystems

[@azmidlyf]

The key word in the license transitioning phases is Exploitation. How fitting...

[@jenniferschmitzkatze1244]

Honestly. The only few that has started to clean the environment, are not the big companies... that suggests you , that you can do nothing but buy their products because if I stop buying them what will the company do ... yes maybe things will be harder but we will have a future

[@yuvrajsingh-pw1st]

Every one is taking responsibility of resources but no one is taking responsibility of our mother 🌎

[@eladlutz]

Leave it to greed to further deteriorate our beautiful planet, there's nothing the love of money holds sacred.

[@capriceranana5733]

Ok, how can we stop this madness?!

[@scaptal]

Personally I see this as a very good starting point for international law for the human race on things like ecosystems. We can not destroy the earth and survive, so we must put good regulatory bodies in place to avoid disaster. The deep sea mining seems like a good first step to try our hand at better power dynamics when it comes to the usage of Earth's natural resources, a way to set up good seperations of power and to try and eliminate corruption on a systematic level as well as possible

[@timshapleyadventures]

We should absolutely slow this down. I’ve been a commercial fisherman for 21 years, longlining for pacific cod. The fact is the ocean ecosystems are sensitive and slow to regenerate. More research and oversight is needed across the board for all maritime activities especially something as invasive as mining.

[@verafleck]

Couldn't we extract those rare minerals in an advanced desalination plant?

[@benmcreynolds8581]

As soon as I discovered that they are literally valuable minerals that are in just mass numbers of nodules, and you don't even have to dig past overburden or topsoil? I knew there was no way you were going to keep mining companies away from that. That's like finding bare gold nuggets just sitting there and someone saying "you can't touch it because it might alter fish mating habitat's" just being honest, a person is going to get that gold nugget. (Plus- the effects of other things are so much worse then other things. Like the effects of gasoline oil drilling, oil refining plants and all the pollution that comes from that, then when the oil is burned and used. Is way worse then most things, besides the really Toxic things that certain factories and companies do...)

[@derpychicken2131]

This is pretty bad. The silt downthere is storing quite literally billions of years worth of carbon. Those nodules are crucial anchoring points for deep sea sessile creatures that provide massive habitats. You are essentially causing upwelling everywhere by disturbing the sediment, which will cause massive algal blooms and interrupt the nutrient cycle by bringing stored nutrients to the surface. Algae bloom die off, organisms reproduce, and yet more carbon is brought out of the deep sea to clog up the enviorment

[@themindless6234]

Not all people would take the gold, only the sickest.

[@gregdance3976]

I'm very disappointed that Nauru, Kiribata & Tonga are in the business of risking that a mining business won't destroy their seabed areas & leave them liable for reparations costs! Those developing island states are already weakened by the rising sea level threat! By allowing a likely ecocide to be committed in their national waters is a desperate measure perhaps, driven by those rising seas. Instead they need to be supported by the international agencies to not face such a high risk gamble and also to not set a dangerous precedent that will be copied in other ocean locations.

[@ravvvvvv]

so you are blaming the little island for being coherced?? what about "the metals" company original source? their invertors sure are from developed countries as usual, greenwashing the market one speech at a time, and getting their usual deals done via shady companies like "the metals"

[@pacjam418]

I know this is an old post but I totally agree with you. I know these islands are small and somewhat poor but for-shame on them. You would think island countries would care more about their backyard.

[@squirrel9936]

This has to stop. this absolutely has to stop. Greed is killing everything. There is a better way to live and be.

[@BasicIslamTV]

99% poor people we should declare war on 1% rich and government that is benefiting them.. but people nowadays are spineless.

[@moesailing6008]

I cannot understand why many humans are hell bent on ruining the gorgeous earth and upsetting such pristine environments. Finding other, sustainable, solutions are so key to our future on earth.

[@caseypittman9950]

If we are still having issues with the terrestrial mining, think of the impacts that abyssal mining would have.

[@thomascameron683]

I am in favor of mining, but under strict control of UN experts and the companies should be responsible for any kind of ecological damage. We must learn to explore deep sea sources without harming environment.

[@indrerutkauskaite9299]

Not only the companies should be responsible but also the people who own them and work for them, maybe personal responsibility would change the understanding of the risks.

[@thomascameron683]

@@indrerutkauskaite9299 Correct! I support.

[@Stef.Cata051]

Don't we want electric cars and renewables to be better for the environment? Because even without ocean floor mining this is questionable. Either way we will continue to destroy our environment for individual profits

[@chriscarbaugh3936]

At least someone get it 👍

[@randylayhee3018]

We have 30 years of mineable phosphorus left on the planet, we can’t grow food without phosphorus, why don’t we worry about that?

[@apollothirteen9236]

Their is no force in the world more powerful than a rich man's greed.

[@chriscarbaugh3936]

Or maybe your need for an EV? That is what is driving this; the energy “transition”.

[@wesleysanders8570]

Yes, I think we should move forward with the mining carefully, on a small scale- and see if it can be done with a minimum of environmental damage

[@kiciacoldspring1621]

When has any major corporation ever truly cared about the environment? They answer to a profit line and their shareholders only. They pay fines they can well afford to pay. Hell no. This is madness.

[@fpxpGetReal]

Just as the damage done by overfishing,followed closely by sewage /refuse,dumping,don’t forget the bombe /torpedoes/nuclear testing then came oil pollution international/accidental . The FACELESS GREEDY CORRUPT INDIVIDUALS AND COMPANIES MUST be STOPPED for all our futures.

[@Ky0l]

When destroying the land and skies wasn't enough...

[@AlxndrHQ]

Thank you for bringing awareness to this topic

[@Calabi-yau11]

This idea is similar to watching horror film. If the companies are too ambitious about mining, space mining is good one to go

[@dandantheideasman]

However, there will be a limit to how much mass we can bring to the planet's surface without affecting our trajectory around our Sun. Mass is intertwined with gravity after-all and it is this mass/gravitational pull that enables our current orbit and that of our closest partner in our universal dance, the moon.

[@PHANTOmIND8]

@@dandantheideasman Do you know how many meteors hit our earth everyday? By your logic we should have changed our trajectory millions of years ago.

[@dandantheideasman]

@@PHANTOmIND8 Sorry to state the obvious. The majority of the mass of these objects is burnt up in the atmosphere before entry and the volume of what is left is equivalent to atomic in its percentage of the our planets overall mass, even if you add them all up, year on year. Same also goes for the amount of mass we have launched into and is subsequently still in space/off world. If those that wish to mine exterior bodies of mass in our solar system to then bring to earth, they will not do this by minuscule amounts at all. What I refer to in my statement is NOT to not mine and bring extra mass to the Earth’s surface, no. It is to consider the consequences of such actions and run models with AI, or on supercomputers, to review the impact - er hugh, excuse the pun - that taking such an action would have. Gravity is solely, by our current understanding of all that is in the universe, governed by and therefore interlinked to mass. Just like, erm 🤔, why don’t we drill all the hydrocarbons out from under our feet and pump it into our atmosphere, whilst at the same time cutting down our only defence to the released carbons, to then, also burn up into our atmosphere? Or, why not simply cut our defences down and grow just one crop on a field using poisonous chemicals to aid the growth until we cannot grow anything on that land anymore and then simply move to a new place and repeat the process all over again. You know, a little foresight wouldn’t go a miss? Like the crack dealer and his/her best business model is to sell his customers a product that eventually kills them, either directly and/or indirectly, so that the only thing he/she has to do is go and find more customers to eventually kill. None of what we do has no consequence and only through our current knowledge and understanding should we take actions and undergo such projects. Because, although there are many great things happening around the world in aid of us cleaning up our mess and that of our forebears, none of it is happening soon enough and to be quite frank, we are looking like the drunk, propping up the bar, sipping on his whiskey and balling that the doctor told him years ago to stop drinking and here I am, still enjo....

[@theemperor-wh40k18]

Also, adding more mass to earth does not change its trajectory. As v = (GM/r)^0.5 with v being orbit speed, G being a gravitational constant, M being the mass of the sun, and r being the distance between the sun and earth.

[@theemperor-wh40k18]

Also mass doesn't "burn up" in the atmosphere. Mass is retained but in smaller molecules.

[@shoking9825]

“sitting undisturbed ON the ocean floor” “scientists have to drill….” am i getting this wrong or what

[@rmutter]

Just another example of social ignorance magnified by the short-term unmitigated greed of opportunistic, unscrupulous for-profit business pirates and their bureaucratic tools.

[@tuikakaraumurua2612]

we as people need to spread this news all across the world and stand together as one and fight the UN to get rid of the ISA leaders and put a complete BAN on DSM

[@bumpty9830]

Capitalists will never regulate themselves and will never suffer meaningful external regulation so long as they remain in power. The *only way to protect ourselves from their greed is to dramatically change the power relationship* between The People and The Money.

[@JamesWilson-ts5xk]

This makes my stomach turn. When will it stop?!? If seabed mining starts it will definitely be the beginning of the end of this beautiful planet. Meanwhile we’re in awe of space travel (me included). I can only imagine that if we all lived in space and stumbled across earth, we would think that we’d hit the jackpot and found paradise for humans. Perspective is everything. Mining the ocean floor should be off limits. I wish companies would be forced to find alternative innovative ways to produce batteries and electronic parts without sending our environment down a road from which it cannot return. This has made me sad for my son’s future. I grew up in Australia and was lucky enough to spend many days every week in the ocean. Please don’t take this away from our future generations. There’s got to be a better way.

[@Rotoflier]

We should never mine oceans. Period.

[@timetodestination9538]

The more I learn, the more depress I am.

[@birgbirg111]

Yes same. Woke up, saw this, feel bad now

[@mos5139]

You can mine it if you try to avoid Damage to Marine life. So it should be away from Coral reefs

[@bloodaid]

"Is it too late to stop it?" I mean, if they haven't started yet....

[@nelsonolivera8059]

We need lots of transparency so we learn fast from our mistakes as we are heading towards creating an impact before we reach any resources.

[@AlejandroCastillo-wf1dt]

The energy transition is going to take a lot of metal. A lot of it. It's going to hurt no matter where it comes from. This could at least empower small island nations, in addition to Anglo American and Glencore.

[@AlejandroCastillo-wf1dt]

Try: "Climate change and sustainability as drivers for the next mining and metals boom: The need for climate-smart mining and recycling" in the Journal of Resources Policy

[@yecto1332]

I knew human greed but never realised how it felt like this story made me feel sick of human greed so human will never stop itself from killing itself right

[@Star-77th]

Corporations & their insatiable greed will be our downfall. No matter how good small groups try to do, these billion-dollar overlords will regress all of that effort.

[@oskarioinonen4167]

Those could be collected without touching the seabed unlike with that rather big device in the video. Then we would have the problem 1) are there more in the sediment, is it better to collect those in one location at the top 2, 5, or 10 meters of the sediment, and should some other rocks be planted to replace what was taken on the surface of the seabed, for the marine life to stay intact, have rather similar brightness diversity as before, today. How many millions of years has it taken for those to crystallize there? How does it affect the minerals in the sea water around the areas after those are removed? Does that affect the sea life? Would organic matter be released to sea water and on surface, causing risk of further emissions? We don't want the oceans become like man made places, look like parking lots, causing all sea life specialized to current conditions to get lost over time. Such an organization should get high enough governmental funding to not feel the need to get funded by granting licenses. If the same amount of minerals is mined on land, what does it cause? What is the alternative volume? Do we accept (has to do with do we expect men be greedy and evil, irresponsible) that "over time this planet will just look different, all that can be stolen or destroyed will get stolen and destroyed" or do we seek to preserve variety, use materials in a way that the surface (of mining areas on land or at seabed) will be left to appear like those were before, or close enough so that the plants will grow back, not a planet covered with abused land areas, dead zones to all life for centuries or possibly tens of thousands of years if nothing is done to restore those after mining ends. Licenses should always include procedures how the site will be restored, and the funding should be stored in closed accounts during the operation for protection (invested maybe, but stored so that there will be funds to do it properly even if the mining business would no more exist to finalize the agreements they have signed to be permitted for mining activities.) When we know for sure that the mining is safe, the species will survive, there have staff that is specialized in understanding the changes for species in charge of the methods used, verifying the operations (at best their salaries paid by external sources, to have no conflict of interest), then there is great potential (for some time, few decades maybe). One of the many problems is that the seabed isn't documented, others don't know much of what was lost, changed, what species got lost or didn't, since it will apparently happen hidden. Restoring anything isn't possible if there is no independent documentation. Taking what is visible on the surface of the seabed is easy, but for the marine life it might be safer to take what is deeper down there, if similar nodules are to be found deeper down there. Would be important to know how to cause least damage, least permanent damage, and maybe we should have laws who may own businesses that operate there (what party would do it responsibly if at all, without getting too greedy?).

[@johnsaccucci6154]

Conquering the ocean floor is huge. On our way to that Type 1 status.

[@samuelmaucaille702]

Lol, so exploiting ocean floor and destroying it is being a Type 1 status.

[@johnsaccucci6154]

@@samuelmaucaille702 putting words in my mouth this early really is confrontational sammy... lol

[@johnsaccucci6154]

@@samuelmaucaille702 evploiting everything this earth has to offer is using the earth to its full potential. You cant make everyone happy though. You're not complaining when that newly updated phone is in your hand from all of that mining are you Sammy boy?! Lol the hypocrisy in these resource debates are astounding. Mining is literally how we make platforms for you to complain on lolol hysterical

[@rodelscreation]

Now I am more convinced that people US (HUMAN BEING) REALLY WHO DESTROYING OUR OWN HABITAT JUST IN THE NAME OF MONEY? WHO EVER BIGGGER PERSON SITTING AND RELAXING IN THE BEACH LIVING THEIR LIVES IN THE FULLEST INTENT FOR THEIR PERSONAL INTERESTS IS SO UNETHICAL AND I FEEL SO BAD FOR THEM.. IT'S TOO MUCH

[@randym7660]

Then how do ordinary citizens of the world like myself get involved and have a say?...petitions we can sign? or ?

[@akashpanda7903]

Thanks DW for such an informative video or else we common people have no idea how organisations like ISA and big corporates are planning to destroy our sea. The sea bed belongs to all countries across the world, so to do any mining permission of all countries should be taken and proper study should be undertaken to assess the long term impact of such mining.

[@jesseatkins1835]

We are still learning about are soil bio organisms. We are not ready to mine the ocean . I'm afraid of what might happen. This should have strict regulations.

[@stevewiles7132]

So in order to save the atmosphere we have to destroy the oceans.................

[@hasnatabdullah813]

Sack and sue the secretary general for colluding with entities his organization is supposed to regulate. If you're in any position to have impact over the whole of humanity, full disclosure of your financial statements need to be mandatory.

[@georgecarr9561]

What do you mean, mining has never caused ecological problems, nor has it ever had poor working conditions or horrible climate effects. Besides, we totally need the lithium and such

[@mrmachiavelli8380]

We are acting as a typical Shakespearean character who orchestrates it's own destruction.

[@AdityaSingh-ze5xl]

I think there is no need to even think of seabed mining, it will harm all the marine organisms . The answer to this question is "NO".

[@Watchingvideoslikeu]

Ironically going towards electric vehicles isn’t really environmentally friendly when you zoom out from the actual car. The plastic in car, ocean floor mining, the materials needed for batteries. Very horizontal

[@AlmightyRecoveredAddict187]

thank you for putting this video together, great work!

[@bryanst.martin7134]

And dear YT gray bar, APGW is a catch phrase for the elite. We have changed the weather 0.025%. The Sun does more than anything, after all it is a Star only 1 AU away. Magnetosphere is weakened, and Solar irradiance and worse Cosmic irradiation is getting through much easier. The Polar shift is beginning, and when it trips, we could freeze where we stand. The Cosmic radiation comes in at an oblique angle and pushes our weather patterns into helical arrays instead of polar currents. When the shift occurs very little will survive, and life will begin again. Plan to survive?

[@wallylafferty1166]

Does "mining" in this context specifically mean digging up the seabed? Or does it also include water desalination and sea recovery of minerals directly from the water column? Would that be considered "mining?"

[@chriscarbaugh3936]

Actually this is not mining at all. Collecting nodules from the seabed.

[@Bluei720]

Well instead of sponsorship, the nearest country to the mining spot should tax the company and can have legal action on them.

[@harishcse100]

This is heart breaking..

[@arikai7474]

Definitely wait to understand the environment impact

[@svetakokareva9455]

They are waiting since 1960.

[@АртемКулик-я3д]

i think we shouldn't mine them at all.

[@ryuijen811]

So after they destroyed the mountains by mining they’re now planning to destroy the ocean?

[@svetakokareva9455]

Then don’t use ev and electronics.

[@danlankford7662]

The video raises serious concerns but fails to recognize that: 1. Access to additional supplies of critical metals is essential to the shift to clean energy and 2. There are alternative, environmentally responsible approaches to sea bed mining such as that being developed by Impossible Mining.

[@alexc8324]

This is by and large an accurate depiction of the current regulatory state of affairs. There are indeed concerns and regulatory gaps, specifically around indemnity and environmental protections. It must also be pointed out that there are some inaccuracies - unlike terrestrial mining, where drilling is often a prerequisite for or method of extraction (in the form of boreholes etc), PMN mining is expected to occur more as dredging. Despite the likely environmental impacts, of which many remain unknown - the world's demand for energy cannot be ignore. Currently battery technology is accepted to be the best hope for migrating from fossil fuels, with cobalt being an important component (although there now exist early cobalt-free batteries). The concerns around present day cobalt supply are grave - with a large proportion (over 65%) coming from the DRC, fraught with environmental, social, and political issues. Deep seabed mining will undoubtedly bring environmental issues of its own, though this video misses out a large proportion of the context.

[@candrei1]

The private companys care for profits only, and in my opinion even if there's no research about how it would impact the ecosystem, it will surely not be good it will be more damaging for the next generation and ours. The few rich will always prevail against the rest of us that's a fact. I hope for the best

[@laurelmancini3596]

suppose we acknowledge that as a species, we will disappear eventually. and, let us realize, that the more of us there are on this planet, and the more we dig and burn and build and re-route, the faster we will go.

[@83ogre]

This affair has all the hallmarks of business as usual: pressing on with extraction using all available loopholes, the ISA costing up to private companies, playing down the long term risks without knowing what they’re actually talking about. An overhaul of the ISA is obviously needed … as with bio-engineering, there is no effective regulation in place, nor the necessary knowledge of long term consequences, not an educated explanation of risks & benefits to the public. Brilliant!

[@masterblaster3397]

only way to know for sure is to start mining, need to make clause in the contract, to halt operations in the event of any environmental damage until the damage can be assessed and and deemed safe to continue by the Isa and the secondary oversight commission. maybe green peace, they don't seem to busy these days.

[@Fischjesicht]

That's terrible. They need to be stopped.

[@Paul-cj1wb]

Have they any idea as to how much the ocean floor has been drilled and exploited by big oil? Do they not remember the BP disaster? The oil disasters of the coast of Brazil, or Mexico? Or ongoing flow of oils spilling into the oceans as we speak, such as the one of the coast of New Orleans? Where is that debate? Mining for minerals will not bring any of those catastrophic disaster when things go wrong. Plus this would help bring at end to those oil disasters sooner rather than later. Does anyone really think that China, or Russia is going to follow any laws? Really?

[@themocona8495]

No, don't mine our oceans, not in USA, not in Europe, not in Asian, not anywhere... Seabed Regulators should be accountable with all their decisions that will destroy our seas.

[@ChawanaMaseka]

Shocking what extremes greed will push people to.

[@davidbronke5484]

Great video, but hearing the phrase "flushed out" instead of "fleshed out" in a reporting piece really makes me want to link to The Oatmeal.

[@dennissalisbury496]

Mining a small area and monitoring it for detrimental effects would seem simple enough. What exactly is the method used for the mining, not clearly stated in the piece?

[@svetakokareva9455]

To vacuum not drilling. Les harmless than land mining . Also the zone for mining is like a desert.

[@venjonybanez]

Humanity's insatiable greed

[@despinoza0391]

Greed is really killing our planet!

[@messiermitchell4901]

I think we should swap batteries and tyres for ultracapacitors and rail

[@eddiethinhvuong1607]

"They worry that the pollution will disrupt the sea-life organism" Like what? It already happened with the coral reefs, it surely will do the same thing to the seabed if nobody stops this

[@DWPlanetA]

Thanks for your comment, Eddie. Have you seen our video about coral reefs before? "How super corals could help save our reefs" kzbin.info/www/bejne/aHTVnJh8ereUkNE - let us know your thoughts in the comment section 🧠🌍

[@BlackringIII]

No one deserves to own the bottom of the sea.

[@richardallen503]

Who gave anybody the rights to sell the seabed , is there no sense in this world, destroying the seabed

[@ramirogarai]

How can possibly this ISA organization have so much power to potentially destroy the substantial parts of the world’s seabed?!

[@dancoroian1]

Man, Frances McDormand is so talented, she was so convincing as that Australian professor!

[@axle.australian.patriot]

"What do you think ..." I think the most significant issue in all of this "whether or not the human species *chooses* to prevail as a species". Obtaining a consensus of choice from 8 billion people is close to an impossible task. Allowing a small group of people the ability to make that choice for the 8 billion is also fraught with dangers. > What are the choices: We believe we have 2 plausible directions, although in reality we only have 1 choice if we wish to prevail". This is further complicated by short and long term goals (Attempting to choose 2 conflicting positions under the justifications of short term and long term... aka kicking the can down the road until it's too late). How long does our planet have left? About 4 billion years before Andromeda crashes through the middle of the Milky Way, and if we survive that we only have about another billion before the Sun makes the planet permanently inhabitable, if not inhabitable already by that point. Looking at geological history, with life existing for about 3.7 b and the dinosaurs getting about 160 million and us so far getting about 1 million it can seam long a long time, but in truth it is not. Considering the frequency of catastrophic stellar events that have wiped out species on the planet in the past, well we may not have all that long.. No one can really predict, but we CAN say with certainty that earth and everything on it will end and no longer exist at some point. We live on a slowly dyeing planet. In the end we can't save it. But if we are smart we can save some parts of it; specifically the human species and the minimum of other life that we require to survive. This requires us to become a space fairing species living entirely and self sustained in space, and that's no easy task. That kind of adaptation and technology will take an exceptional long time even if we start now. We are taking small steps, so it is beginning. But we will need massive amounts of human and mineral resources to pull it off in the end. If we fail, the human and all other species we need to take with us disappear. Our current choice is to reduce energy use to keep a comfortable living environment for the short term. Make no mistake, the only way we can genuinely reduce energy use that propagates into heat in our biosphere is through massive reductions in population and industry across the planet, and even if we do that at this point we may not reach a level that is sustainable for our planet to deal with. The other option is to accept the changes in earths biosphere and ramp up the technology, industry and energy use to create an artificial environment on earth. We were already heading in that direction, who doesn't have an air conditioned home or office? Car with environment controls? Even our prehistoric ancestors made use of the natural cooling of caves to escape the heat and modify there living environment. The side effect of this is that we also inevitably create the artificial environments and eco systems required for becoming a space fairing species. This actually accelerates our progress and chances of survival as a species beyond the end of livable earth; An end we ultimately can't avoid. > Reduce population, energy use, industry so that a small few can live naturally for a while on a dyeing planet, Or go the other direction and ramp up the energy use, technology and resource use and sustain higher populations in a more artificial environment that benefits us in the end. (Note that I am not advocating for wasteful indiscriminate use of energy, or just blatantly destroying the eco systems of our planet) > The choice comes down to a focus on out principle centers for decisions and solutions going forward. 1. Live in a small population on a natural evolving world until we become extinct? 2. Or make sound use of the energy, resources (including human) and accept some environmental damage and discomfort and survive? The above is purposely over simplified in an attempt to make a valid point. The questions are far more complex than I suggest. At current I feel we are going down the road of choice 1. Science and governing bodies need to come clean and tell the people what direction they intend to follow. I am not comfortable being manipulation to follow a hidden choice made by a small few.

[@Samurai-pf4zy]

Make Renewable resources that would require non-renewable resources (that would die at a guaranteed time and that it would eventually require constant mining) to save fossil fuel?

[@axanafoster6227]

We don't need time to figure this out! We already know that disturbing eco systems creates a disbalance on Earth as a whole! Mining is a bad idea!

[@ZakariaMihir]

Right now, We need to go with more study about ocean floor to understand the environmental impact because of its mining. I recommended, ISA should wait for full impact picture before mining star.