19 June 2023. Sea | Climate
Mining the deep sea bed // How to report on climate change
Welcome to Just Two Things, which I try to publish three days a week. Some links may also appear on my blog from time to time. Links to the main articles are in cross-heads as well as the story. A reminder that if you don’t see Just Two Things in your inbox, it might have been routed to your spam filter. Comments are open.
1: Mining the deep sea bed
Now that we’re running out of bits of earth to despoil, our attention is turning to the seabed. Well, of course it is. This area is regulated by a United Nations body, the International Seabed Authority (ISA), and it is considering whether to approve an initial deep sea mining project. An interview in Yale Environment 360 with the marine ecologist Lisa Levin suggests that deep sea mining isn’t a good idea. The interview is by Richard Schiffman.
The background: The island nation of Nauru, which is working with a Canadian partner, has notified the International Seabed Authority that it intends to seek a permit to mine in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, a 1.7- million-square-mile region of the Pacific. The seabed is believed to have polymetatallic nodules on it that have high concentrations of cobalt and other valuable minerals.
(Potential mining exploration areas, in red, in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone. Map (c) Horizon, via Yale Environment 360.)
The ocean is deep there, and the technology may not be there yet to do more than tests. But the mining companies claim that it’s only by mining the deep sea that we’ll get enough of the resources we need to ensure a green transition. This may not be true, of course. But it’s such a familiar story from the mining sector, everywhere it goes, that it seems that it is only a matter of time before we’re faced with a decision on whether we approve this at all.
In practice, says Levin, we know very little about the impact of deep-sea mining:
We’ve probably mapped 20 to 25 percent of the ocean floor, but we’ve only studied the ecology of a small fraction of that. We need to know what’s there in terms of species, and we need to know what we’ll lose if we destroy these areas by mining. We also need to know what genetic resources are there, what fisheries services will be lost, how much carbon is sequestered. But we simply don’t have that knowledge yet.
She points out in the interview that the area that was damaged by the Deepwater Horizon blow out was so deep that we had no knowledge of the ecosystem at the bottom of the sea area that was affected.
The second issue is that all mining is destructive. Even though mining companies talk about “sustainable mining”, this is a complete oxymoron. It seems that deep sea mining is likely far more destructive than surface mining simply because the companies are looking for material in the top crust of the ocean bed, so they would have to dig up much larger areas to get anything:
The largest coal mine in Germany is less than half the size of the area that would be mined for polymetallic nodules in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone in one year by one contractor. The nodules are concentrated in a thin layer at the top of the seabed — only 4 inches (10cm) deep. So you are talking about stripping the sea bottom of many, many thousands of square miles potentially. The same with the seamounts (undersea mountains), which are also targeted. Their ferro-manganese crusts are only a few centimeters thick, so they have to tear up (large areas to mine) this superficial feature.
Of course, it’s not just the digging up. Mining the bottom of the sea also stirs up the sediment there. Again, this is both unpredictable (we don’t know what the effects will be on creatures that live down there) and predictable (we know that there will be effects and it seems vanishingly unlikely that they will be good effects):
Sediment plumes will be released that may impact large areas of the ocean. These particles in what is normally quite clear water can clog the feeding apparatus (of deepwater organisms); it can be mistaken for food; it can release contaminants, radioactive and metal contaminants, as well as carbon. A lot of animals use bioluminescence to communicate, find mates, locate prey. These particles could change light transmission in the water and interfere with their ability to function.
It’s also not clear what happens to all of the materials that are dug up that don’t have useful minerals in them. They are likely to go back overboard, contaminants and all.
(Lisa Levin. (Image courtesy of Lisa Levin))
Schiffman—playing devil’s advocate, given that this is Yale 360 Environment—asks why we should care about what happens in the deep sea environment, which very few people ever see:
Levin: We always have a very anthropocentric answer to that question. There is an existence value to knowing that this biodiversity is out there even if we are not using it. Why should people care? We should care because it is there. And it is relatively pristine compared to other ecosystems that we have on land. There are also all the reasons having to do with global cycles, nutrient regeneration that allows the productivity for fisheries, all the carbon cycling that keeps the planet healthy... We still haven’t destroyed most of the (ocean ecosystem). I think we can make good decisions going forward and keep a lot of it pristine and functional for the planet.
Even if the mining permit is a first, there are already ISA permits out there for hydrothermal vents, in the Atlantic, the Indian Ocean, and the Pacific. The vents are fissures on the seabed from which geothermally heated water discharges. The vents may contain silver, gold, or other minerals. But here, the specific biodiversity risks are greater:
The species that live there are highly adapted just to the vent ecosystems, and many are endemic and only live at a handful of vents, so there is concern that they run the risk of extinction.
At the moment, in terms of deep ocean mining, a small number of countries—15 to 20, according to Levin—have proposed a moratorium on it. But the ISA has 167 members.
And this is only one part of the problem. The bigger problem, at least in terms of the way that the United Nations works, is that although there are conventions which cover different aspects of the issue, they tend all to be specific to particular parts of the problem. But biodiversity is all joined up:
There are (international) conventions on biodiversity, and conventions that address climate, and conventions that address whales and whale conservation, and conventions that address endangered species, and some that do fishing — they are all separate. And yet, they shouldn’t be managed separately, because every single thing I mentioned is affected by every other thing I mentioned. It is all interconnected, and yet we don’t manage it in any kind of interconnected way. That highly sectoral feature of the U.N. is really problematic for the ocean.
Given how little we know about any of this, it seems like an obvious example of a case where we should apply the prudential principle. But here comes modernity, insisting, as it has done since the 17th century that it is must always expand. If not the stars, then the sea.
2: Reporting on climate change
Jeremy Williams’ Earthbound Report blog pointed me towards the organisation Covering Climate Now, a journalists’ organisation that pools resources that help other journalists tell the story of climate change. (I started my career in broadcast journalism, so this stuff is usually intriguing to me).
One of its recent stories was about the French public service channels France 2 and France 3, that has made a formal decision to ensure that climate information is embedded in its weather reporting. This extends to the onscreen caption during the weather forecast:
Viewers of these meteo climat journals still see plenty of maps dotted with temperature numbers and snazzy graphics depicting storm systems blowing in from the Atlantic. The on-air presenter, Anaïs Baydemir, still talks about how hot or cold it will be in Paris, Marseille, and other parts of the country, and how likely it is to rain. But the weather is now presented in the context of climate change; viewers hear about how the weather they are experiencing may be affected by the overheating of the planet.
(France 2’s meteo/climat coverage. Image via Climate Change Now)
The decision has come from the top of the organisation. The editor in chief, Alexandre Kara, told the French news agency APF,
it is no longer “acceptable to be happy that it is 25 degrees (77 degrees F) in Biarritz in February without explaining why.”
Another story on the site notes that the best early coverage of the New York smog, caused by Canadian wildfires,
The best initial coverage of the smoke afflicting New York — and Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., and other major US cities — noted that the connection between climate change and wildfires is scientifically well established. “Human-caused climate change has exacerbated the hot and dry conditions that allow wildfires to ignite and grow,” CNN reported. NBC News quoted a Canadian fire scientist saying, “Climate change is definitely doing its work.”
Rummaging further into the site, I found a helpful 13-point guide to reporting climate change, which it is worth taking a few pointers from. The site has written the guide because, as it says, climate journalism is “a relatively new beat”—one of the problems of the climate emergency wrapped up in four words.
Obviously I’m not going to include all 13 here, but when you read them they seem to break into clusters of several different types of editorial issues, which maybe is worth noticing.
The first group is about audiences and coverage: Know your audience, which is hard because knowledge varies widely; in reporting, make it human and make it local; make the climate connection if it is part of the story; and, related, that all ‘beats’ are climate beats these days (‘beat’ is American journalist language for a journalist’s specialist area).
Climate change is the defining story of our time. Rising global temperatures affect everything — and in turn are affected by everything from government elections, corporate decisions, and other social forces... No matter what your specialty is — politics, business, health, housing, education, food, national security, entertainment, sports, you name it — there are strong climate connections to highlight.
The second group is about how to cover the different voices in the climate story. One of these is about the importance of making climate justice relevant, since marginalised groups are most likely to be affected by climate change. Another element here is about treating activists as legitimate voices in the story—there’s always a suspicion in newsrooms that covering the work of an activist group is not news:
Covering a protest, voter registration drive, or similar action does not make a journalist an activist any more than covering a football game makes them an athlete. Journalists should treat activists as newsmakers, holding them accountable and covering them with accuracy and fairness, just as we do with government and corporate officials.
In contrast, however, climate denialism shouldn’t get a voice in the news:
Platforming climate deniers in an effort to “balance” our coverage not only misleads the public, it is inaccurate. In the year 2023, there is simply no good-faith argument against climate science.
The third group is about dealing with corporate voices and government officials: “Don’t get spun” and “Beware of greenwashing”:
To avoid getting played, do your homework: Research their previous public statements, ask independent experts where the truth lies, and then don’t be afraid to push back.
This last sounds like basic good journalism to me, although in an era of 24-hour multi-platform news and threadbare newsrooms, it is harder and harder to do.
And the final group is about the actual coverage: talking like a human being, while making sure you’re not misrepresenting the science (‘instead of a word like “biodiversity,” try “wildlife” or “nature.”’). And making sure that the imagery you use tells the story properly:
Stories about extreme heat, for example, are better illustrated by images of frazzled people at a cooling center than by “fun in the sun” photos of beachgoers splashing in the waves.
The last point in the list is about looking after yourself. Covering climate change can be traumatic: “When you need a break, take it, and when you need help, get it.”
Other writing: Daniel Ellsberg
(‘The Post’: Meryl Streep as Washington Post publisher Katharine Graham)
Talking of journalism, I wrote a piece on my Around The Edges blog prompted by the death of Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon papers, on the film The Post and the link between the Pentagon Papers and Watergate. Here’s an extract:
It’s also possible that without Daniel Ellsberg and the battle to publish the Pentagon Papers, that there would have been no Watergate story. There’s two reasons for this. The first is that the litanies of Administration lies over Vietnam, going back over almost two decades, meant that when Watergate broke, people were a little less likely to believe the government.
j2t#468
If you are enjoying Just Two Things, please do send it on to a friend or colleague.