Interview
President Trump’s recent orders promote permission to commence deep-sea mining to protect the ocean. Ocean Conservancy Jeff Watters says that by moving unilaterally, the US could put vulnerable marine ecosystems at risk and set a troublesome precedent.
Yale Environment 360: How do you see President Trump’s recent executive order on deep sea mining?
Jeff Watters: That’s deeply concerning, especially at the moment when the administration is proposing a massive cut to NOAA. The agency is tasked with not only understanding the ocean and understanding the world around us, but also being the custodian of the marine environment. And there is a kind of irony in the administration that issues executive orders directing NOAA to promote and promote what will become a massive new extraction industry in the high seas.
E360: Here, the US is not the only player. International submarine authorities have been debating for years whether to allow deep sea mining. They have not approved it yet.
Watter: The ISA has a very robust year-long dialogue on whether deep sea mining should be carried out on international waters and global scale. A considerable number of countries are opposed to pursuing [it].
E360: The head of the metals company says international submarine authorities are “stopping” to prevent mining from happening before. Was that the intention?
Watter: It’s in the eyes of those who see it, right? The company is interested in wanting to advance deep-sea mining, but others will provide a perspective that the global community is cautious, careful and preventative in the way it approaches potential new extraction global industries. In our view, the last thing we have to do is conduct live experiments that can ruin many aspects of the environment or cause long-term damage.
“One-sided action to pursue deep sea mining opens the entire box of Pandora’s questions in terms of high seas conflicts, interstate conflicts.”
E360: From the perspective of international law, do the high seas not be separated by states by states, but not all collectively owned by everyone?
Watter: Yes, and I think that is the fundamental challenge of the approach the administration is taking. The decision to unilaterally embark on deep sea mining is contrary to the way we have worked together on the high seas for decades. One-sided action to pursue deep sea mining opens the entire box of Pandora’s questions in terms of high seas conflicts, interstate conflicts, and whether this is the extraction industry we need.
E360: Some mining companies argue that this is necessary to obtain rare earth metals, which are important for the development of green technology. They also say it is less invasive than mining on the land. What do you think of these discussions?
Watter: Our economy needs to operate certain materials. Also, if you’re short on these materials, or if they’re expensive, there are a lot of options. Deep sea mining is just one option. You can also create policies that encourage the recycling of these materials within the economy. You can pursue research and development that reduces their needs or demand. Government people are responsible for looking at a set of options. Individual companies telling you that their solution is the only solution deserve a healthy dose of skepticism.
Scientists say that jellyfish in helmets are thus threatened by plumes of sediment from underwater mining.
Vanessa Stenbirds/Geomer
E360: One concern is that mining areas will be destroyed forever. Do we know that, or can these areas be recovered?
Watter: There is evidence from the area where submarine mining experiments were conducted, meaning the damage can last for more than 50 years. These environments develop and evolve over extremely long timescales. It’s not like cutting down a forest. Forests grow within a few years or decades. We are talking about geological and biological timescales that function at very different sizes than ourselves.
E360: Fishing boats are already trolling the seabed with huge nets, causing significant damage to the seabed. Is this a preview of what in some way is available if you start mining deep seas?
Watter: In trolls, the goal is not to scoop up the physical elements of the seabed itself. You’re about to get a fish. Damage caused to the seabed is incidental damage. On the other hand, deep sea mining literally attempts to extract and systematically intentionally remove mineral resources from the seabed.
“Would you like to try destroying these environments before you know what’s out there?”
E360: People often think of the deep sea as a virtually lifeless desert, but that’s not the case. What kind of creatures live in these areas?
Watter: You are talking about extreme circumstances. This is a life that is not dependent on photosynthesis in some cases. Some of these species look like creatures from horror movies, while others are awfully cute. These animals live under incredible pressure in cold, zero-light environments. They must bear and thrive in a completely different set of conditions that we have experienced up until now. Many of them create their own light, or bioluminescence, to hunt or avoid. It is a testament to the beauty of evolution and the incredible power.
E360: We understand that every time we descend and take samples from deep ocean beds, we come up with species that are unknown to science.
Watter: It brings a sense of adoration. Do we want to become a business experimenting with the destruction of these environments before we know what is there, and before we know the possibility that these organisms must expand our understanding of life and biochemistry?
E360: How do you assess the threat of deep sea mining compared to other threats facing the ocean?
Watter: Three areas of greatest damage at the highest levels are climate change, pollution, and biodiversity. Deep sea mining affects all of this. Depending on the details of the mining activity, there are potential contamination effects. Deep sea mining contributes to the biodiversity crisis in a very realistic way as it carries out activities that destroy habitats and damage the entire ecosystem. What we know much is the potential impact on the role of deep oceans in the carbon cycle, and whether mining disrupts it. But there are also people who are deeply concerned about their potential consequences.
E360: More generally, it is easy to settle for ocean and environmental conditions. Is there a reason for your hope?
Watter: Looking at popular culture, Blue Planetyou will find that people are very intrigued by the mysteries of the ocean and want to know more about it. Today, when much of the world can sit in your palm through your phone and everything appears to be digital, accessible and knowledgeable, people are hungry for something mystical.
Furthermore, there is growing awareness of the problems we face. Removes plastic pollution. There has been a lot of attention recently to this issue, and there is a great appetite and enthusiasm across the global community trying to find solutions. That makes me optimistic.
Reaction to [the Trump administration’s] The executive order to allow deep sea mining shows that many people are appalled and upset by the concept of developing this new global extraction industry. It’s a sign that people know and are engaged and want to prioritize healthy oceans.
