Connect with us

Science

‘Dark oxygen’ discovered on the seafloor raises stakes for deep-sea mining negotiations

Published

on


The discovery of “dark oxygen” in the ocean’s abyss is raising the stakes in negotiations over whether to mine the seafloor for battery materials — and how to protect sensitive marine life in the process.

Rules for deep-sea mining have been at the heart of talks during the International Seabed Authority’s (ISA) annual meetings in Kingston, Jamaica, that ended Friday. A mining company has already said that after the meetings end, it would submit the first-ever application to exploit minerals from the deep sea.

The company’s plans have triggered a race to get rules in place before any mining starts. But there’s so little that humans know about the deep sea that a growing chorus of scientists, advocates, and policymakers are sounding the alarm that there could be grave, unforeseen consequences. Evidence of mysterious “dark oxygen” from the abyssal seafloor was published in a prestigious journal in July. It raises new questions about the risks mining might pose to life at the bottom of the ocean that scientists are still trying to understand and is amplifying calls for a moratorium on mining.

“We are at a crossroads.”

“Today, we are at a crossroads. The decisions we make at this Assembly will shape the future health and productivity of our oceans for generations to come,” Palau President Surangel Whipps Jr. said in his opening statement during the ISA Assembly on July 29th. “Whether it is the undiscovered biodiversity that might unlock the cures for cancer, or the recent discovery just last week of ‘dark oxygen’ being produced in the deep ocean, by the nodules on the seafloor, we have so much to learn about the deep seabed and the vital role it plays for our planet.”

What is dark oxygen?

Oxygen is a product of photosynthesis. Plants and plankton use sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide to create sugars and oxygen. That’s what makes the discovery of dark oxygen at the bottom of the abyss, with depths between 9,842 to 21,325 feet (3,000 to 6,500 meters), so incredible — what’s down there that can produce oxygen without sunlight? A paper published in the journal Nature Geoscience last week suggests that there’s a completely different and previously unknown process for producing oxygen on Earth, and it comes from arguably the most unexpected of places.

The findings were so surprising the authors themselves were initially skeptical of their own data. They’d set out to document how much oxygen deep-sea organisms use up at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, in an area between Hawaii and Mexico that companies are eyeing for mining. They’d sent landers down some 13,000 feet (4,000 meters) to take measurements in spaces closed off to outside currents that would typically bring oxygen from the surface of the sea. The method is sort of like placing a can upside down on the bottom of a pool and documenting what happens inside. They expected to see oxygen levels drop over time in the enclosed area, but they documented the opposite. Thinking something must be wrong with their sensors, they swapped out the equipment and yet kept getting similar readings. When they lifted those landers up, oxygen bubbled out.

Polymetallic nodules, collected from the ocean floor, sit in chemist Franz Geiger’s laboratory at Northwestern University. Platinum electrodes measure the nodules’ voltages.
Photo: Camille Bridgewater/Northwestern University

They still don’t know for sure how the oxygen is produced. But they have a hypothesis. Polymetallic nodules rich in nickel, copper, cobalt, iron, and manganese are strewn across the seafloor — exactly what mining companies are interested in exploiting and have even described as “batteries in a rock.” They might just be able to produce enough of an electrical charge to split seawater, releasing oxygen through electrolysis.

There’s a lot more research to be done to test that hypothesis. The authors of the paper were taking oxygen readings and weren’t looking for higher levels of hydrogen — which you’d expect to see if these rock batteries are actually capable of splitting water. They brought some nodules up to land to see if they could replicate the process in a lab. That’s how they were able to rule out other possibilities like microbes producing dark oxygen. Again, the results were surprising.

“The readings were off the chart.”

“I had approached the problem from the perspective of, you know, there’s no way that these things have this high voltage … and the readings were off the chart,” says Franz Geiger, one of the authors of the paper and a professor of physical chemistry at Northwestern University.

The team documented voltage as high as around 950 millivolts — just shy of the 1.3 to 1.5 volts that would be needed to split seawater or at least get an oxygen-producing half-reaction — called an oxygen evolution reaction. Out in the ocean where there are vast networks of nodules, the voltage might get high enough to trigger those reactions, they hypothesize.

The research was funded in part by The Metals Company (TMC), the same company planning to apply for a license to start deep-sea mining. The company says it’s conducting “one of the most comprehensive deep-sea research programs in history,” spending more than $200 million on environmental assessments. But now, they’re disputing the findings of the paper published in Nature Geoscience last month — picking a fight with researchers whose findings might not jive with the company’s claim that mining the ocean’s abyss would be a less harmful alternative to mining on land.

When The Verge reached out to the company, it pointed us to a statement it released saying it was “surprised to see the questionable paper” published. The company says it’s still “preparing a comprehensive rebuttal” but is so far questioning the researchers’ “flawed” methods in part because the data was “collected under conditions not representative” of the seafloor area where it’s interested in mining. It also says that the paper contradicts other studies and was rejected by other journals.

The research team stands by its work. “We were the worst critics of this paper for a long time. For eight years I discarded the data showing oxygen production, thinking my sensors were faulty. Once we realized something may be going on, we tried to disprove it, but in the end we simply couldn’t,” lead author Andrew Sweetman, a professor at the Scottish Association for Marine Science, says in his own statement responding to The Metals Company.

Why there still aren’t rules for deep-sea mining 

Dark oxygen has already made waves in Kingston, observers who attended the ISA meetings with advocacy groups and intergovernmental delegations tell The Verge. Delegations representing several countries have brought the research up in their opening statements, and there’s reportedly also talk of the research in negotiation rooms and at side events. “It has come up quite a lot along the corridors as well,” says Pradeep Singh, an expert on ocean governance and a fellow at the Research Institute for Sustainability at Helmholtz Centre Potsdam.

Unsurprisingly, it’s spurring calls to pump the brakes on mining. “The significance [of this research] can’t be overestimated,” says David Santillo, a marine biologist and senior scientist at the Greenpeace Research Laboratories based at the University of Exeter. Greenpeace is one of the environmental groups opposing deep-sea mining. “Clearly, it’s going to have implications also for the natural systems and the processes on which not just deep sea ecosystems depend, but on which the whole planet depends. We know the value and the importance of oxygen as an element on Earth,” Santillo says.

So far, 32 countries have expressed support for either an all-out ban, moratorium, or “precautionary pause” on deep-sea mining either until there are rules in place to prevent unnecessary harm or until there’s a better understanding of what mining might disturb. That includes five new countries joining the cause during this year’s ISA meeting.

The ISA missed a key deadline last year to craft rules — two years after the island nation of Nauru sent everyone into a tizzy by announcing that it would sponsor The Metals Company’s deep-sea mining aspirations. That’s what enables TMC to apply for a mining license now.

Whether the ISA will give TMC the green light if it applies this year is another story. Though it missed its initial deadline, the ISA set out an aspirational timeline for getting rules in place by 2025. The ISA Council also put out language at last year’s negotiations saying commercial mining shouldn’t move forward until those rules are set in place, although that’s not necessarily a legally binding decision. So there’s still a push to put a more official moratorium in place and also to establish a more general conservation policy under the ISA for protecting marine environments.  

The ISA also voted in a new secretary-general on Friday, replacing one who faced allegations of getting too cozy with mining companies with an oceanographer who will become the first scientist to hold the post. For now, it looks like there are still too many disagreements among delegates on what rules should look like for the ISA to hit its 2025 goal, observers tell The Verge. “They are really far apart on issues of who’s going to pay for damage if it happens? How much liability would the damage incur? Would they simply be required to clean up the mess, if indeed that was even possible?” says Matthew Gianni, who cofounded the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition now calling for a moratorium.

Geiger, the study author, isn’t convinced the world may be able to avoid deep-sea mining forever, especially as electric vehicles and renewable energy drive up demand for battery materials. “The materials are needed, there’s absolutely no question about it. So we may be forced sooner or later to take this step as a society. This work, we hope, informs where and when and how often to do this with the minimized impact on the ecology down there,” he says.

“It’s not like you can wait 100 million years and have these nodules grow back. Once you take them out, they’re gone.”



Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Science

NASA wants SpaceX and Blue Origin to deliver cargo to the moon

Published

on

By


The agency wants Elon Musk’s SpaceX to use its Starship cargo lander to deliver a pressurized rover to the Moon “no earlier” than 2032, while Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin will be tasked with delivering a lunar surface habitat no sooner than 2033. Both launches will support NASA’s Artemis missions, which aim to bring humans back to the Moon for the first time in over 50 years.

Both companies are developing human landing systems for Artemis missions — SpaceX for Artemis III and Blue Origin for Artemis V. NASA later asked both companies to develop cargo-hauling variants of those landers, capable of carrying 26,000 to 33,000 pounds of equipment and other materials to the Moon.

NASA says it will issue proposals to SpaceX and Blue Origin at the beginning of next year.

Conceptual renderings of cargo landers from SpaceX (left) and Blue Origin (right).
Image: NASA

“Having two lunar lander providers with different approaches for crew and cargo landing capability provides mission flexibility while ensuring a regular cadence of Moon landings for continued discovery and scientific opportunity,” Stephen D. Creech, NASA’s assistant deputy associate administrator for the Moon to Mars program, said in the announcement.



Source link

Continue Reading

Science

Brazil leads new international effort against climate lies

Published

on

By


Brazil and the United Nations launched a new international effort to combat disinformation on climate change. They announced the Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change during the G20 Leaders’ Summit taking place in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

It’s a collaboration between governments and international organizations to boost research on misinformation swirling online and around the globe that they fear could slow action on climate change. There isn’t much information available yet, but they say they’ll fund nonprofit efforts to counter that spread of lies.

“Countries cannot tackle this problem individually,” President of Brazil Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said in a press release.

“Countries cannot tackle this problem individually.”

Only Chile, Denmark, France, Morocco, the United Kingdom, and Sweden have joined Brazil in the initiative so far. Countries that make the commitment are expected to contribute to a fund administered by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). The initial goal is to get more countries on board and raise $10 to 15 million over the next three years. The money is then supposed to be distributed to nonprofit organizations as grants to support research and public awareness campaigns on climate disinformation.

They haven’t yet named any specific groups they plan to work with; “calls for partnerships” are forthcoming. Some environmental organizations are already working together to study disinformation and push for measures to stop its spread, like the Climate Action Against Disinformation coalition that publishes reports on misinformation trends and advocates for more stringent content moderation.

A webpage for the new global initiative says environmental disinformation is “increasingly spreading through social media, messaging apps, and generative AI.” That has “serious” consequences, it says: “it undermines scientific consensus, obstructs authorities’ ability to respond effectively to the crisis, and threatens the safety of journalists and environmental defenders working on the frontlines.”

FEMA employees faced violent threats on social media in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene in the US, for example. Accounts spewing misinformation about the storm and FEMA were also tied to content denying climate change, according to an analysis by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) in October. Posts baselessly accused FEMA of seizing private property and confiscating donations — lies that risked deterring storm survivors from applying for assistance, and that raised fears that FEMA staff might face attacks.

United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres also voiced his concerns during remarks today with both the G20 summit and a UN conference on climate change currently underway. “We must also take on climate disinformation,” Guterres said. “Our climate is at a breaking point.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Science

Amazon and SpaceX attack US labor watchdog in court

Published

on

By


Amazon and SpaceX are seeking to hamstring the National Labor Relations Board, asking a court to declare its processes for upholding labor law unconstitutional. But judges on a three-person panel appeared skeptical when the companies presented their arguments Monday.

In two separate cases before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the two companies argued that the NLRB is unlawfully forcing them to participate in administrative law proceedings over alleged anti-labor actions. The Amazon case centers around whether it’s required to bargain with the union at its JFK 8 fulfillment center on Staten Island, while the SpaceX case involves a charge by former employees who claimed they were fired after being critical of CEO Elon Musk.

A ruling in favor of the companies could undermine the NLRB’s power to enforce protections for workers. It comes just as vocal pro-union President Joe Biden is leaving office and deregulation-friendly President-elect Donald Trump takes over. Trump notably counts Musk among his chief allies after his massive fundraising push. The NLRB is an independent agency with five board members appointed by the president to 5-year terms.

During oral arguments, the judges mostly prodded attorneys on the finer points of the companies’ decisions to appeal, and the timeline of their objections. At one point, Judge James Graves Jr., an Obama appointee, expressed doubt that Amazon had even met the conditions for an appeal — suggesting it should have waited on the ruling from the district court first. Two days after Amazon’s notice of appeal, the district court denied Amazon’s request for a temporary restraining order on its NLRB proceedings.

Both companies are seeking to short-circuit the NLRB’s proceedings with a court order

George W. Bush-appointed Judge Priscilla Richman similarly pressed SpaceX’s counsel Michael Kenneally about why the company rushed to an appeal, rather than letting the case progress in a lower court. Kenneally said SpaceX waited as long as it felt it could to bring its challenge and accused the government of leaning on procedural arguments because it couldn’t defend the NLRB’s constitutionality. Graves appeared skeptical. “That sounds to me about like the argument that, ‘well, procedure doesn’t matter if I win on the merits, so just skip right over procedure,’” he said.

Both companies are seeking to short-circuit the NLRB’s proceedings with a court order, which requires demonstrating this would cause them irreparable harm. But in Amazon’s case, NLRB counsel Tyler Wiese called the company’s deadline for the district court “imaginary,” and said, “merely proceeding through an administrative process is not irreparable harm.”

Amazon and SpaceX both argue that the NLRB’s administrative proceedings are tainted because its board members or administrative law judges are unconstitutionally insulated from removal. They point to Article II of the Constitution, which says the president must “take care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” which they say includes removing officials.

Amazon also says the NLRB is violating the Seventh Amendment, which protects the right to a jury trial in certain civil cases. It argues that the NLRB shouldn’t be allowed to decide on financial remedies related to the case because it would deny the company due process. Cox said the board itself “improperly interfered with the [union] election by exercising its prosecutorial authority,” so failing to stop the proceedings would let the NLRB as as judge and prosecutor.

The NLRB says it feels confident in a 1937 Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Act. “It is nothing new for big companies to challenge the authority of the NLRB to enforce workers’ rights so as not to be held accountable for their violations of the National Labor Relations Act,” NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo said in a statement. “While the current challenges require the NLRB to expend scarce resources defending against them, we’ve seen that the results of these kinds of challenges is ultimately a delay in justice, but that ultimately justice does prevail.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2017 Zox News Theme. Theme by MVP Themes, powered by WordPress.