| Cheers, I'll check back tomorrow as I needed to get back to work. Glad you found the commentary interesting, if perhaps not overly useful. I've got a thesis paper coming up and this might have given me some research as well. I'm glad the discussion is beneficial rather than just another internet forum argument. After another re-read some additional concepts popped up: 1) If Indonesian suppliers are presumably lower on the cost curve, deep sea mining will tend to displace (or prevent scale) from terrestrial suppliers outside Indonesia. Another poster ironically called this out: "why not do both [deep sea and deforestation damage]" -- this is almost precisely what would be expected to occur. The ecological footprint of an underground nickel mine is vanishingly small compared to the Indonesian method. 2) The word "may" is used in the title, but it's not present in the sub-title. The article boldly claims 30x life destruction as fact, but I remain curious if this is more than an invented ratio of convenience/novelty. To attempt a direct comparison, protect species legislation does not factor in the mass of the animals being protected. I concede in advance that humanity is historically terrible at caring about damage to life that does not directly inconvenience us, but our understanding of linked systems and the relevance of panarchy is slowly shifting that. 3) Dr. Glover is asked about the diversity of life on the ocean floor, but not about what they and their peers thought about the benefits / risks of deep sea mining. This feels convenient, particularly given Dr. Glover's research found that numerous organisms live on the nodules themselves. The article talks about dust plumes, but neglects to mention the more direct destruction of habitat. Likewise, no mention is made of the potential use of the zone as a feeding ground for whales being researched by Dr. Glover's peers. Unfortunately I can't share my own details as mining is a very small industry -- I'm probably identifiable from even what I've shared. Having said that, I might reach out in a professional context down the line! |
bear in mind that my view in face of relative enviro and emissions footprints is that car companies and countries should be supporting CCZ nickel and calling for moratoria on Indo nickel, though I don't expect this to happen any time soon
2) 30X is the absolute minimum, as it only accounts for plant biomass in Indo rainforest. the real number is probably closer to 150x. here are my sources for the calculation so you can rerun it yourself
- 2g/m^2 biomass in CCZ see "Community Dynamics and Diversity" heading https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2018.0000...
- 30kg/m^2 of just plant life in Sulawesi. in the abstract. 303Mg/hectare https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03781...
- NORI-D nickel per hectare from this SEC filing - https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1798562/000121390021...
- Sulawesi nickel per hectare from this investigative reporting https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/illegal-nickel-laundering (note: this leads to an estimate that is much too high. There is research going though peer review which shows there is much less nickel per hectare, which makes the biomass destruction numbers far worse for Indo nickel
3) I did ask him what he and his peers thought about DSM. I didn't quote him on it due to aforementioned space constraints. I would describe his position as broadly open, contingent on strict controls. He described deep sea mining as having been amazing for science, creating the incentive to do science in the CCZ that would never have happened otherwise.
And as for the idea that the piece doesn't mention direct destruction of habitat...that is the central idea of the piece
No mention is made of the potential use of the CCZ for whale feeding as it is incredibly speculative. see the original paper https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.180286. it explains why feeding is unlikely: there is almost no food down there