The International Seabed Authority (ISA) sits perched above the concrete boardwalk of Jamaica’s Kingston Harbor, across the bay from the spot where “Calico Jack” Rackham was once gibbeted as a warning to other 18th-century pirates. Today, this small UN agency rules the high seas — or, more precisely, the seafloor about 4.8km below — and yet it is largely unknown to the general public.
However, if China decides to retaliate against US import tariffs by restricting its exports of rare earth elements, that could change fast. Seventy-one percent of the Earth’s surface is underwater and the seafloor (or seabed) is rich in rare earth elements and other sought-after minerals — especially in deep international waters. The ISA manages the mineral rights of more than 50 percent of the world’s deep ocean floor and its 168 member states have the right to vie for access to the resources there.
However, given the risk of catastrophic environmental consequences, all countries could lose out if this contest proceeds without due care.
Undersea minerals tend to be clustered in potato-shaped chunks of rock nestled on abyssal plains, vented in boiling-hot water from fissures in the seafloor, and crusted along the flanks of extinct underwater volcanoes called seamounts. Generally, the concentrations of minerals in these formations are much higher than in ores on dry land.
Yet even with all that wealth, the only active seafloor mining project in the world right now is off the coast of Papua New Guinea and it is stalled because of financial problems. That reflects how difficult and expensive it still is to operate in the dark, freezing and high-pressure deep-sea environment, more than 80 percent of which remains unmapped and unexplored.
Nonetheless, commercial organizations and ocean scientists think that new technologies will make deep-ocean mining all but inevitable within the next decade. A range of innovations, such as better satellite imaging of the ocean floor and robot submersibles, is improving seabed access. Moreover, digital-age technologies and the global clean-energy transition are driving a sharp increase in demand for materials that are abundant in the deep ocean. In addition to rare earth elements, these include cobalt, manganese and tellurium, which are used in a growing number of applications, including batteries, magnetic resonance equipment, solar panels and guidance systems for munitions.
Competition for these increasingly useful materials was heating up even before the recent escalation of US-China trade tensions. China has a comparative advantage in critical minerals, owing to its significant domestic resources and extensive processing facilities. It also has longstanding investments in other major producing countries such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), which accounts for about 65 percent of global cobalt production and half of total reserves.
The US, by contrast, must import many high-tech minerals. Accordingly, the US government recently deemed 35 minerals critical to the country’s economic and national security, and announced a new strategy calling for increased domestic mining, among other measures.
In terms of seabed resources, there is no contest between these two geopolitical rivals. China is expected to fare well next year when the ISA issues a new mining code and begins its first-ever permit process for mineral exploitation in international waters.
However, the US will not even be at the table, because it is not a party to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and thus is not officially represented at the ISA. A small clique of US senators has long blocked accession to the treaty for obscure ideological reasons, an idiosyncrasy that America might soon decide it can ill afford.
With or without US companies in the mix, economic progress is not a free ride. Recovering and refining the raw materials needed for digital technologies and clean energy inevitably has environmental consequences. All mining — including the noxious process of extracting minerals from rocks — is destructive and it is too soon to tell if deep-ocean mining is more or less destructive than mining on land.
What looks at first like a barren and forbidding wasteland is actually the largest biome on the planet, populated by fantastical creatures such as the anglerfish, vampire squid, and ancient corals that have been around since the Bronze Age. A recent University of Hawaii-led exploration of the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, a vast international underwater territory stretching from Hawaii to Mexico, documented a plethora of deep-seabed flora and fauna, more than half of which were entirely new to science.
Researchers have also recently discovered that microbial organisms in the deep ocean might play an important part in regulating the Earth’s climate. Some of these formations and organisms have taken millions of years to accrue; disturbing them, or even covering them in the sediment that mining would kick up, could permanently destroy them. Little is known about the role these species and deep-ocean microbes play in fisheries, the global climate and other ecosystem processes that support marine and terrestrial life.
The international community should aim to secure the best, least destructive supply of the minerals it needs, whether from the DRC or the deep ocean — or likely both. We should at least identify and understand the tradeoffs before crucial decisions are made, so as to weigh the possible consequences before they become irrevocable.
Clearly, China and the US — if it can be persuaded to step off the sidelines — must play a leading role in this effort.
When the industrial revolution began, no one could have known that climate change would be one of its end results, but in the digital age, the world must be much more environmentally aware when tapping the deep-ocean mineral riches.
Sharon Burke, former US assistant secretary of defense for operational energy, directs the New America’s Resource Security Program.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations