Your action is needed by September 5, 2025
||| FROM ELISABETH ROBSON |||
The justification is predictable: new technology makes mining safer. But better mapping tools and autonomous vehicles don’t change the outcome. Mining the seafloor would still mean churning up millennia-old ecosystems, creating plumes of sediment that spread toxins across the ocean, and destroying species we haven’t even named yet. NOAA’s own scientists have acknowledged that such damage would likely be irreversible.
The administration frames seabed mining as necessary for the “green economy”—a way to secure cobalt, nickel, and other minerals used in batteries. But this is a false choice. We don’t need to strip-mine the last untouched wilderness to power our future. What we need is less demand, and that means rethinking the myth of endless consumption. A future that depends on bulldozing the ocean floor is no future at all.
The deep sea is not a resource bank waiting to be tapped. It is a living system that stabilizes our climate, cycles nutrients, and supports life across the planet. Disturbing it risks far more than any materials for our human consumption are worth.
This is a moment for public pressure. NOAA is accepting comments on the proposed rule, and ordinary citizens can speak up. If enough people oppose these changes, let’s hope the agency cannot ignore our voices.
The oceans are already under siege from warming, acidification, overfishing, shoreline development, pollution, and more. Do we really want to add deep seabed mining to the list? We can choose another path—one of restraint, care, and demand reduction—before corporations carve scars into a place most of us will never see but all of us depend upon.
How to Take Action
NOAA is accepting public comments on the proposed deep seabed mining rule until September 5, 2025. You can make your voice heard by submitting a comment here: https://www.
Tell NOAA that seabed mining would cause irreversible harm to the Earth’s oceans, that we need to reduce demand for new minerals instead of destroying fragile ecosystems, and that fast-tracking permits is unacceptable.
Every comment counts. This is our chance to keep the deep sea safe from exploitation.
Sample Public Comment
I strongly oppose NOAA’s proposed revisions to the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act. Fast-tracking commercial seabed mining permits would cause irreversible harm to fragile ocean ecosystems, undermine international cooperation, and place short-term corporate profit over the long-term health of the planet.
The deep sea is one of the least understood ecosystems on Earth. Mining would destroy habitats that took millennia to form, create toxic sediment plumes that travel for miles, and wipe out species before they are even discovered. NOAA’s own scientists have acknowledged these harms are irreversible.
The claim that new technologies make mining safer does not change the fundamental reality: seabed mining is inherently destructive. Instead of expanding extraction, the U.S. should focus on reducing demand for new minerals.
I urge NOAA to withdraw this proposal and protect the oceans we all depend upon.
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
I generally agree Elizabeth, given the proven recklessness and unhinged policies of this administration across the boards. It is an appalling time in America. However, the idea that important minerals lying below the surface of oceans, coastal America or otherwise, should be off-limits to reasonable extraction as the Great Emergency unfolds, is an unrealistic policy. Given population and ecological overshoot that so many of us have decried with very little success for many decades we must recognize the realities of the social upheaval and desperation in the future. Part of this extremist approach to undersea resources is of course aimed at the vast arctic region. I can only wish it were otherwise.
“The oceans are already under siege from warming, acidification, overfishing, shoreline development, pollution, and more. Do we really want to add deep seabed mining to the list?”
No, we don’t. There is no such thing as “reasonable extraction.”
They should find another resource rich planet from which to extract minerals from.
Thank-you, Elizabeth!
I commented and added this suggestion to my comment about the use of Artificial Intelligence and robots to recover valuable minerals from used electronic devices:
(This was AI-generated)
AI expands electronic waste (e-waste) recycling through AI-powered robotic sorting systems and machine learning-based vision systems that enable rapid, accurate identification and separation of materials, increasing efficiency and reducing costs and contamination. AI also facilitates the reuse of components and can manage the entire lifecycle of electronic equipment, from data destruction to responsible disposal via automated systems. Some AI tools even help consumers identify and recycle electronics through consumer-facing apps.
How AI Expands E-Waste Recycling
Automated Sorting and Identification:
AI-powered robots: Researchers are developing robots capable of adapting to varied tasks, such as removing batteries or other components from devices, thereby expanding robotics into new recycling applications.
Machine learning and vision systems: Advanced systems use cameras and machine learning algorithms to identify and categorize various e-waste materials with high precision.
Robot-assisted disassembly: Robots can be programmed to disassemble devices, like Apple’s Daisy robot for iPhones, to separate components for recycling.
Increased Efficiency:
Faster processing: AI systems can process e-waste at speeds far exceeding manual methods, handling larger volumes of material.
Reduced costs: Automation and increased efficiency lead to reduced operational costs for recycling facilities.
Improved Accuracy:
Enhanced material recovery: Greater accuracy in identification and sorting minimizes misclassification, allowing for the effective recovery of valuable materials like metals and rare earth elements.
Reduced contamination: Better material separation reduces contamination, a significant hurdle in current e-waste recycling processes.
Extended Product Lifecycle and Reuse:
Data-driven reuse: AI can help assess the condition of electronic components, enabling their redeployment into lower-intensity applications or for refurbishment, which reduces the amount of waste generated.
Circular economy integration: By converting e-waste into valuable resources, AI supports a circular economy where materials are continually reused.
Improved Safety and Labor Management:
Handling hazardous materials: Robots can handle toxic materials found in e-waste, improving worker safety in recycling facilities.
Reduced worker injuries: Automation decreases worker injuries by taking over dangerous and repetitive tasks, helping to address labor shortages in the recycling industry.
Consumer-Focused Tools:
Mobile apps for identification: AI-powered apps, like GreenScanr, allow consumers to identify and learn how to recycle specific electronic items by scanning barcodes or taking pictures.
Janet – while there are certainly ways we can improve our consumption and use of materials, I think suggesting AI as any kind of “solution” is misguided at best. AI has an absolutely massive materials and energy footprint.
Your list of suggestions is “AI generated” and provides zero references. I’m highly skeptical much if any of it is true. As we all know by now, AI regularly hallucinates (i.e. makes sh*t up).
Given how little of what we use is now recycled, adding a massive materials footprint to the mix seems likely to only make the situation far worse.
Perhaps what you wrote is a joke! In which case, obviously I didn’t get it.
I’d recommend the following exercise for all school students, and perhaps for all adults too, since knowledge about materials is very limited in the general public: Pick one of the materials used to make AI chips. For instance, you could pick silicon, gallium, germanium, cobalt, tantalum, copper or plastic, among others. Trace its supply chain.
1. In what countries is it mined?
2. Who owns the mines?
3. Exactly what work do miners do? How much do they earn? Do any children mine this ore? Slaves? How does mining it impact miners’ health?
4. How much water does rinsing the ore require? How does mining it impact the region’s waterways, wildlife and farms? Where does the waste rock go?
5. How many smelters does this ore require to become usable in a chip? By what means (air, ship, truck, train) does it travel to refineries?
6. How much electricity does each smelter consume? What fuel(s) power the smelter? What toxins and emissions does it generate? What other materials are required to smelt the ore?
7. How/does smelting this ore impact the region’s power grid?
8. Do any regulations protect miners, refinery workers, wildlife and public health near the mines and refineries?
9. In what year did mining this ore begin?
10. When will it be depleted?
11. Can this substance be recycled? How much energy, water and toxins are involved in recycling it?
This exercise can perhaps help people understand why AI is part of the problem.