Deep Sea Mining: The Next Climate Disaster No One’s Talking About | Vasser Seydel | TEDxBoston
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 чер 2024
- Industrial deep-seabed mining in international waters could begin as soon as July 2023. If permitted, deep-sea mining could irreversibly impact the oceans' role in climate stability, biodiversity and economies.
The ocean is largely the reason we don't have runaway climate change today. It sequesters massive amounts of atmospheric carbon and absorbs the majority of the planet's rising heat, and as a result, we're already seeing symptoms of the ocean’s health decline: increased acidification, ocean deoxygenation and mass biodiversity loss. Despite international scientists, governments and civil society sounding the alarm, there's a new destructive industry on the horizon, deep seabed mining.
The deep sea is the largest habitat on the planet, yet so we know so little about it. Over 99% of the seabed is unexplored, and we have better maps of the Moon and Mars than the seafloor. What we do know is life exists and hides secrets to our origins, medicines & innovations. Deep-sea mining would permanently destroy these fragile ecosystems before we even get a chance to fully understand them.
We need a healthy ocean to survive. The ocean is home to the majority of life on the planet. It also produces more oxygen and stores more carbon than any other place on Earth. Rushing to mine the deep sea and gambling with our life support system, is unnecessary and far too big of a risk.
Interest in mining the deep-seabed is under the guise of fueling the green energy revolution. Deep-seabed mining as a climate solution is an oxymoron. The deep sea creates the climate we enjoy and rely on for survival, by ocean currents propelled by upwelling from the deep sea. It is also critical for the ocean food web, which coastal communities also rely on for food sovereignty, culture & economies. In 1990, 50% of total global population lived within 200 km of a coastline at the time of analysis, with over two-thirds of the population within 400 km of a coastline; and by 2025 70% would live within 200 km of the coastline and over 3 billion people worldwide rely on food from the ocean as a significant source of animal protein. The deep-sea is one of the largest carbon sinks and is important longterm carbon sequestration. Further, deep-sea mining will simply be an extension of already harmful mining practices into new out of sight and out of mind depths. The good news is, we don’t need deep-sea mining. We need less minerals than we think: we can reduce demand by 58% from now to 2050 with new technology, adopting circular economy models and recycling.
While the momentum for a moratorium is shifting, the window to act is closing. Join us to #DefendTheDeep so the ocean, the planet, and humanity can thrive for generations to come.
Vasser Seydel graduated with cum laude honors from the University of Georgia, earning a Bachelor of Arts degree in Communications. During her time in Athens, Vasser worked for UGA’S Office of Sustainability as the Grants and Engagement Director, represented the university as the UGA Student Sustainability Ambassador, and pursued an education outside the classroom as an intern at the United Nations Foundation and TEDWomen. After graduation, she began consulting with non-profit, business, and individual clients, specializing in communications, digital media, and strategic development, to enhance brands that create positive impacts on society. Vasser continues to promote and support her family’s legacy and commitment to environmental responsibility through her family’s foundation, the Turner Foundation, as a board member and the first Chairperson of the Turner 3rd Generation board. Additionally, she serves on the board of directors for the National Center of Family Philanthropy, Dr. Sylvia Earle’s Mission Blue and is on the advisory board for One Earth. Vasser is a Global Ambassador for Julian Lennon's, White Feather Foundation, an Arctic Angel for Global Choices and represents the International Union for the Conservation of Nature as an IUCN Environmental Youth Ambassador. At The Oxygen Project, Vasser took on the Deep Seabed Mining issue first as the Campaign Manager, then as the Director of Impact. Now, as President, she leads the organization on a mission to ignite a community of climate champions and accelerate collective action through digital storytelling, activist trainings, and impact campaigns to build a more climate-resilient tomorrow. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at www.ted.com/tedx
The other option is the regular mining, that we know if far worse to the enviroment than just colect rocks from seabed.
Also, if we want to transition to clean energy anytime in this century, we need these metals. Where do you think car batteries will come from!?
We need those cheap metals for the transition to renewable energy and electric cars. The transition needs to be affordable for many people. Otherwise, nothing will change, and we'll get fried by climate change. We might miss an opportunity to facilitate abandoning fossil fuels. Deep sea mining is far less harmful than mining on land and should be used as an alternative.
1. If deep sea mining is allowed, we could reduce mining on land, which is much more harmful in terms of killing ecosystems and species. If we get enough of these metals from the seabed, there will be less incentive/profit to take them from land. You can't just say this isn't true without explanation. If we can forbid seabed mining, we should also be able to politically limit mining on land and replace it with minerals from the ocean floor.
2. I also have sympathy when I see pictures of those animals on the ocean floor, but in reality, the seabed is a rather vast desert with almost no life. You have to search for quite some time to find any. To me, that sounds more acceptable than demolishing rainforests, which are habitats for many animals and humans.
3. One argument is that we can learn from organisms on the seabed to invent medical products. However, the area considered to be mined is tiny compared to the entire ocean. We will never run out of bacteria from the ocean bed, as long as there is human life on this planet.
Did you not watch the whole video? She addressed how there is a false dichotomy of land vs sea mining. Instead of either or we should reduce our need of metals in general by using what we already waste. Recycling and innovating away from the use of these metals.
@@Inktron Did you read my comment? I addressed it there.
@@Inktron She's wrong. This comment is right.
Regarding the metals for the energy transition, it's worth noting that if we built nuclear reactors in as many places in the Free World as possible, as cheaply and quickly as the Canadan province of Ontario did in the 80s, we wouldn't be facing this dilemma as much. Nuclear power requires a third as much mining as wind or solar (including 40 years of uranium minging) - one-sixth as much if you include the materials required for battery storage. It could also be used for district heating, removing the need for natural gas furnaces or even heat pumps. We couldve had this, but many people who considered themselves environmentalists stood in the way.
On another note, electric passenger rail is much more material-efficient than battery-powered cars. Imagine how things would be different if the US had different public transit.
My point is not that you're wrong (I'm slightly inclined to believe your right) I just wanted to point out that there are ways to have the energy transition which would be involve less mining that trying to power all electricity with renewables and also trying to electrify almost everything at the same time.
@@jeffbenton6183 too late. We can built them now but we will see breakthroughs before they are done or quickly after. Fusion and room temperature superconductors aren't thst far away.
Makes me think of the movie "Don't Look Up" but the name of this real-world movie is "Don't Look Down"
Gracias! Muy importante!!!
Nothing on the Earth will be left pristine.
Thank you, Vasser, for your work and knowledge on this topic.
Her knowledge on this subject is really poor. Its not informed with the actual data theyve generated from pilot studies.
1) the plumes with the current tech being used go up 2 meters and settle within 48 hours.
2) the density of organsisms per hectare is less than 1% vs land/shallow waters.
3) not all the land is actually mineable, the idea is to make the most of the useful regions and then leave it alone.
4) the prices of minerals is what incentives land mining. Companies want to mine the floor BECAUSE its valuable. If this severely less damaging way of resource harvesting (compared to land based operations, if you don't know how damaging and inefficient those are you should honestly ahut the **** up about this topic). If you make land based operations comparatively leas profitable THEY STOP HAPPENING.
1) you ignore the slurry that needs to be dumped back into the ocean and the sound and light pollution
2) 1% is a lot when you’re talking about deep sea organisms. Obviously there will be less because the floor is pretty bare, but taking away the only structure in the area will kill everything that lives there.
3) “leaving it alone?” you mean taking everything, irreversibly destroying the environment until it is no longer of use?
4) all forms of mining are criticized here, she addressed this point.
Irreversibly destroying? How exactly? You people keep saying this like picking up nodules is disturbing the oceans everywhere. I don’t see any science behind this opinion but if so see science from MIT et al that say dep seabed harvesting of nodules is safe.
💙
22:28 dont think she said that right:))
She's right. According to the encyclopedia, Woolly mammoths were largely extinct by about 10,000 years ago.
I support deep sea mining
Who asked?
There are A LOT of unqualified statements in this presentation. Also it's important to understand that there are only a few areas on the sea floor throughout the world that have these polymetalic nodules. The entire ocean floor is not being targeted.
You're right, to some extent. The CCZ for example, is the prime target because it has the largest concentration of nodules. So yes, not the whole ocean is being targeted. But, nodules are indeed found throughout most of the abyssal plains, and those plains do constitute half the surface of the Earth.
The main issue is that marine ecosystems are much more fluid and connected and so damaging one part of the ocean can have lasting effects on other parts, thousands of kilometres away, including processes that occur on the surface.
MIT studied it and it’s safe.
@betweenthelightsdowntown8086 IT'S focus is engineering, not biology or oceanography. I'll look into the study at some point - I won't dismiss it out of hand, but it's not necessarily low-impact just because MIT said so - that's an argument from authority, and it's not entirely clear that MIT is an authority on this particular matter (though, to be fair, I expect them to be academically rigorous at the very least).
I don't have a strong opinion either way on this subject, but there is something I want to clear up:
If mining is intended to be concentrated, wouldn't that be worse for ecosystems? By that, I mean most of the burden would be born by one specific area with modules, destroying that whole ecosystem. If it were spread out more, only a few modules would be plucked from any specific area.
That said, I think I get where you're coming from. I think you mean to say that it's not as if the root of the whole ocean's ecosystems are targeted for destruction here (much less the oceanic component of the Earth's carbon cycle). That specific argument seems correct to me.
Your beautiful 😍 lady