The golf ball analogy is just one of the many ridiculous statements made by DeepGreen and its leading competitor Global Sea Mineral Resources (GSR) to try to justify their destructive activities on the deep ocean floor. We have coined a term for these: \u201cMinesplaining\u201d<\/em> \u2013 analogous to \u201cmansplainin<\/em>g\u201d, is a blend of the words \u201cmine\u201d<\/em> and \u201cexplaining\u201d<\/em> and describes the industry\u2019s habit of delivering their greenwashing arguments to the public in a patronizing, often inaccurate or oversimplified manner.<\/p>\n\n DeepGreen: \u201cAt this point, ocean science is the core business of our humble startup\u201d<\/p>\n\n GSR: “[\u2026] all parties have agreed that more research is needed before commercial exploitation of the deep sea can be considered.”<\/p>\n\n These statements are part of a deliberate smokescreen creating confusion about the type of scientific research that is being conducted in support of plans for deep sea mining. Let\u2019s be clear: scientific work to fundamentally understand and help protect deep sea ecosystems is very different from the commercially-motivated research activities carried out by deep sea mining companies to develop a destructive new industry. Scientists themselves have expressed these concerns.<\/p>\n\n So, the question is: Is it really possible for deep sea mining companies to ensure that their interests won’t influence the scientific research being done? After all, it is being conducted largely at the instigation of the mining companies, during their own expeditions and in the areas which they want to mine.<\/p>\n\n DeepGreen:<\/strong> \u201cNo extraction of ocean nodules can take place until rigorous, multi-year environmental impact studies are conducted, vetted, reviewed and approved. If this peer-reviewed science, which is a major contributor to society\u2019s knowledge of the deep sea, shows that the risks outweigh the benefits, the global community through the International Seabed Authority \u2014 not WWF \u2014 can decide that extraction will not occur.\u201d<\/p>\n\n GSR<\/strong>: \u201cIn effect, (NGO) campaigners are simply, and rightly, asking for the current regulatory processes to be followed and requirements applied.\u201d<\/p>\n\n \u201cGSR vows not to produce ocean-mined minerals before the environmental risks are comprehensively understood.\u201d<\/p>\n\n Peer reviewed scientific evidence showing that deep sea mining carries a virtual certainty of causing long lasting damage to deep sea ecosystems already exists.<\/p>\n\n This means that the Precautionary Principle \u2013 a core principle of international environmental protection, and associated legal protections \u2013 should be strictly applied, and that deep sea mining should not happen.<\/p>\n\n Unfortunately, the body that is in charge of managing the international seabed, the ISA, is effectively facilitating mining. It is dominated by countries with mining aspirations and corporate interests, has clearly prioritized economic development over responsible environmental management, and is plagued by a lack of transparency and oversight.<\/p>\n\n \u201cDeepGreen<\/strong> shares the goal of BMW, Volvo, Google, WWF and others for achieving a net-zero-emissions future while protecting the oceans and other ecosystems from climate change.”<\/p>\n\n GSR:<\/strong> \u201cOur ultimate goal is the same \u2013 to make the best decisions for the planet as we strive for a sustainable future\u201d.<\/p>\n\n Will anyone be fooled by DeepGreen and GSR pretending their motive for investing tens of millions in mining the seabed is to save the climate?. It is to distract attention away from what is really at stake: the health of the deep sea ecosystem, our oceans, and the natural world as a whole.<\/p>\n\n In reality, our science-based, environmental worldview is very different from the industry\u2019s: We don\u2019t agree with building a fossil-free, zero-carbon future on the back of the destruction of natural systems. Even car companies and tech giants like BMW, Volvo, Google and Samsung have publicly denounced deep sea mining. It\u2019s clear that we do not need this destructive method to get us to a clean energy future.<\/p>\n\n We must instead work towards better resource efficiency and a circular economy: to reuse, reduce and recycle. The real solutions should be reducing our need for minerals by putting fewer cars on the road, generating innovative battery technology and designing ways to achieve a circular economy.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n DeepGreen:<\/strong> \u201cConsumer brands that refuse to consider alternative mineral supplies will be complicit in increased deforestation, toxic tailings, child labour (in the case of cobalt), and destruction of terrestrial habitats and carbon sinks. Polymetallic nodules, on the other hand, can deliver key battery metals with up to 90% less carbon emissions equivalent, with no child labour. In order to achieve electrification of the vehicle fleet without destroying terrestrial ecosystems, we need to explore creative solutions for the mineral supply chain including the responsible use of seabed minerals.\u201d<\/p>\n\n \u201cGSR<\/strong> will only apply for a mining contract if the science shows that, from an environmental and social perspective, deep seabed minerals have advantages over the alternative \u2013 which is to rely solely on new and current mines on land.\u201d<\/p>\n\n Presenting deep sea mining and land-based mining as alternative options is to present a false dichotomy. The exploitation of the deep sea will do nothing to stop current or future harmful impacts of land-based mining. On the contrary, it will just add to the long list of places where humankind\u2019s destructive quest for exploitable resources has left the planet and communities around the world deeply wounded.<\/p>\n\n Nowhere in international law are there principles or regulations implying that in order to save forests and other critical ecosystems on land, harming the oceans is a legitimate strategy instead.<\/p>\n\n The good news? Deep sea mining has not started yet, so there\u2019s still time to stop it in its tracks. Here\u2019s how.<\/p>\n\nMinesplaining 1:
We are just doing science.<\/h4>\n\n![\"Bearing](\"https:\/\/www.greenpeace.org\/static\/planet4-international-stateless\/2021\/05\/544f2c41-gp0stutby-1024x701.jpg\" "\\"Bearing")
Minesplaining 2:
We follow the rules based on approved processes by the International Seabed Authority (ISA).<\/h4>\n\n![\"Bearing](\"https:\/\/www.greenpeace.org\/static\/planet4-international-stateless\/2021\/05\/449e1800-gp0stutfm-1024x656.jpg\" "\\"Bearing")
Minesplaining 3:
We share the same goal: a clean energy future!<\/h4>\n\n![\"Bearing](\"https:\/\/www.greenpeace.org\/static\/planet4-international-stateless\/2021\/05\/3e77a6cd-gp1sv509-1024x650.jpg\" "\\"Bearing")
Minesplaining 4:
Deep sea mining is a potential\/great alternative to land-based mining.<\/h4>\n\nSo where now?<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n
![\"Protest](\"https:\/\/www.greenpeace.org\/static\/planet4-international-stateless\/2021\/04\/267917a2-gp1sv0p2_medium_res-1024x700.jpg\" "\\"Protest")