Since U.S. President Donald Trump’s inauguration in January, we have witnessed an upsurge of interest and intrigue surrounding the critical minerals necessary for the renewable energy transition and next-generation technology. The race for access to resources like nickel, cobalt, lithium, manganese, copper, rare earth elements and other metals has fueled the Trump administration’s push for security deals in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Ukraine and saber-rattling over Greenland. And as of last month, it now involves efforts to mine critical resources from the depths of our oceans.
On April 24, Trump signed an executive order that, though lacking in specifics, underscored his administration’s desire to explore and extract critical resources through offshore and deep-sea mining, both by expanding operations in U.S.-controlled waters and creating interstate partnerships to pursue projects in international waters. The decisive factor in this initiative is clear: China’s current dominance over the mining and refinement of critical minerals. The executive order effectively proclaims that, while China now controls critical resources on land, the U.S. will seek to dominate the sector at sea.
If the 20th century was defined by who produced and controlled the extraction and refining of petroleum, this century will be defined by who produces and controls the extraction and refining of critical minerals. Today, China controls anywhere from 60 percent to 95 percent of the mining and refining capacity for various critical minerals, with the U.S. only becoming a distant second due to efforts to expand access to land-based sources under former President Joe Biden.
Trump’s executive order on deep-sea mining represents a new but also potentially hazardous frontier in that competition. Despite technological innovations, we still know very little about the world’s oceans, having only explored 5 percent of them. What we do know is that lying in the depths of international waters are critical resources. But accessing them will come with environmental costs and uncertainty.
Critical Resources for What?
Globally, meeting the climate action targets under the Paris Agreement will mean achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. The renewable energy transition required to do so will create a twofold to eightfold increase in demand for critical minerals like nickel, lithium and copper. Emerging technologies, data centers and artificial intelligence will also elevate demand for critical minerals in ways not entirely understood.
The currently known land-based supplies of these critical minerals do not meet the projected demand to transition toward renewable energy, let alone for technology and AI. Take nickel, for instance, of which 3.6 million tons was mined globally in 2023. But demand is anticipated to quadruple by mid-century. While there is an estimated 130 million tons of known terrestrial reserves of nickel, it’s estimated there could be more than double that—up to 270 million tons—in deep-sea areas of the Pacific Ocean.
For this and other resources, the race to access critical resources at all costs now seems to be pointing inexorably to seabed mining. But which sectors will benefit from that race and how it will affect our environment are still up for debate.
The Trump administration’s push to secure access to critical minerals coincides with its efforts to abandon carbon emissions targets and sabotage clean energy projects at home. As a result, it’s likely that whatever critical resources the administration’s terrestrial and sea-based initiatives manage to extract will be diverted away from the renewable energy transition and toward data centers, technological innovation and AI, all of which happen to be heavily energy- and water-intensive. They could also go toward military needs.
Governing International Waters
Trump’s plan for deep-sea mining will run into obstacles, however. The International Seabed Authority, or ISA, has the power to enforce, govern and regulate how fisheries and resources are exploited in international waters. The ISA was established by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS, which the U.S. played a central role in negotiating and ultimately signed but has not ratified. Besides governing international waters and helping to resolve disputes over maritime territorial claims, UNCLOS grants signatories control over the 200-mile exclusive economic zone, or EEZ, extending from their respective continental shelves.
The ISA has met several times specifically to address the potential and pitfalls of, as well as policies for, extracting critical resources from international waters. Some meetings have included discussions of a “polluter pays” precautionary principle, meaning that whoever creates any damage must pay for it. A “polluter pays” principle exists in different forms when it comes to environmental protection and corporate activities, but ultimately in the U.S. and elsewhere, governments end up paying for damages alongside companies. Since international waters are by definition beyond the control of individual states, it is logical that mining companies and other interested parties operating in them should be subjected to a firmer “polluter pays” approach than what they have grown accustomed to in conventional mining.
Considering the high financial costs and environmental stakes of deep-sea mining, a more viable approach would be to instead push for more efficient use of land-based critical resources.
To date, however, the ISA has not agreed to any wide-reaching terms for deep-sea mining. Nonetheless, there are currently 17 contracts underway to test out the mining of critical resources in the Clarion-Clipperton Fracture Zone in the Pacific Ocean, as well as several others in waters ranging from the Indian to the Atlantic Oceans. Entities that are currently test-mining and conducting research under ISA contracts include companies and national research projects from India, China, Japan, Korea and Russia, among others. Companies wishing to explore and extract critical resources in international waters can apply for exploratory research contracts with the ISA directly on a case-by-case basis; for areas within national EEZs, they must apply with individual governments, whose laws and regulations then apply.
Trump’s executive order on deep-sea mining could nudge the ISA to finally formulate binding criteria for mining in international waters. But given his administration’s hostility to multilateralism and embrace of national sovereignty, it is also possible the U.S. initiative could lead to a more unilateral and competitive approach, with regulation and oversight lagging behind.
The Risks of Deepsea Mining
Roughly two-thirds of seabeds are considered deep seabeds, defined as being located at a depth of 200 meters or more, although deep-sea mining for critical resources typically occurs at depths in excess of 400 meters and as deep as 5,000 meters. These areas represent 95 percent of the world’s oceans by volume and are the largest habitat for life on Earth. For obvious reasons, mining in them runs very serious risks, for the seabeds themselves but also for the planet.
Reaching these depths to mine for these resources is expensive, costing up to 25 times more than conventional terrestrial mining. Doing so requires the use of remote subsea collector vehicles to harvest and collect nodules and crusts from plumes. The subsea collector vehicle funnels the mined resources back through a pipeline to a barge or mining support vessel floating above.
This activity kicks up sand and dust that disturbs the seafloor, while also dumping back to the ocean floor a slurry of discarded materials. This has implications for climate change, as sediment on the seafloor also acts as a large carbon sink. Disturbing it also creates clouds of debris, harming photosynthesis and wreaking havoc on aquatic life, thereby interfering with how the planet recycles.
For these reasons, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, or IUCN, and Greenpeace have stated that deep-sea mining should be delayed until there is effective regulation, criteria for environmental assessments and a better understanding of the vulnerable ecosystems it would destroy. Beyond that, these activities risk tripping potential climate change tipping points, causing irrevocable damage for the planet. As a result, 32 nations have called for either a temporary or permanent ban on deep-sea mining, including Greece, France, Panama and Palau. In addition, companies like Volvo, Samsung and Google have also committed to avoid critical minerals extracted from the depths of the oceans.
Considering the high financial costs and environmental stakes, a more viable approach would be to instead push for more efficient use of land-based critical resources through increasing recycling capacity and energy efficiency, while funding research into the technologies that might help bridge the gap between known conventional mining reserves and increasing demand.
In contrast, Trump’s lack of concern for the environment and climate speak loudly. His rush to embrace deep-sea mining will likely show similar, counterproductive results. Embracing deep-sea mining as a panacea misses the steep environmental and societal costs, meaning that the “keep it in the ground” mantra for fossil fuels will now need to include “keep it in the oceans” for critical minerals.
Fonte: World Politics Review.
Martha Molfetas is a visiting assistant professor at Pratt Institute’s Graduate Center for Planning and the Environment, where she teaches environmental economics. She is a senior climate and energy policy consultant, writer and strategist with over 15 years of experience helping NGOs, think tanks and businesses unpack climate, environmental justice, resource conflict, sustainable development and global policy issues. She was recently a senior fellow at New America. Her work has been published in World Politics Review, The Global Policy Journal, .Mic, Common Dreams and others. You can find her personal website here.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário