I mean, maybe the studies from the test patch saying that sea floor mining could damage the ecosystem for thousands of years might have been an indication that we probably shouldn't do it?
this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2024
37 points (100.0% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5022 readers
460 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I agree!
I think astroid mining carries less risks and is easier. Lets just do that instead (there is also more stuff to get)
Please someone stop Gerard Barron before he kills us all. From reuters:
"What are the alternatives if we don't go to the ocean for these metals? The only alternative is more land mining and more pushing into sensitive ecosystems, including rainforests," said Gerard Barron, CEO of Vancouver-based The Metals Co, the most-vocal deep-sea mining company and one of 31 companies to which the ISA has granted permits to explore for - but not yet commercially produce - deep-sea minerals.
Other companies with exploration permits include Russia's JSC Yuzhmorgeologiya, Blue Minerals Jamaica, China Minmetals, and Kiribati's Marawa Research and Exploration. Their potential future activities are seen as augmenting mining on land.
To give a better answer to his seemingly rhetorical question: The alternative is to ramp up salt-water battery tech, look for other tech and NOT deprive our biosphere of oxygen.
More on the mining stuff from wired and forbes (forbes link paywalls itself after a short while).