Catherine Barbour

Online MSc Carbon Management 2015-2016

The presence of minerals on the deep seabed was first discovered by the HMS Challenger expedition in 1873. Polymetallic nodules and other seabed resources (polymetallic sulphides and crusts) offer abundant supplies of valuable minerals, including manganese, cobalt, copper, gold, silver and several so-called rare earth elements.

Despite our knowledge of this (literal) goldmine at the bottom of the oceans, it was not possible to exploit these riches for almost 100 years due to their inaccessibility. Yet, the profits to be gained from mineral mining on the ocean floor have meant that millions of dollars have been invested in developing the technology to conduct deep seabed mining on a commercial scale. In the last few years, mining companies have announced technological breakthroughs and it is widely anticipated that deep seabed mining will become a reality within the next decade.

This development has a number of potential benefits. Firstly, it addresses concerns about the growing scarcity of many valuable minerals required for manufacturing items that are in increasing demand in modern society, particularly communications and computing equipment, as well as renewable energy technologies (components of wind turbines, solar panels and energy-saving light bulbs). There are also potential broader benefits of deep seabed mining. The legal regime for the regulation of deep seabed mining beyond national jurisdiction, contained in the 1982 United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea, declares that the mineral resources of the deep seabed are the “common heritage of mankind”. Thus, the profits to be obtained from seabed mining are to be equitably distributed amongst the international community, taking into particular consideration the interests and needs of developing countries.

Yet, not everyone is thrilled at the prospect of deep seabed mining. Critics point out that we know very little about the marine environment on the ocean floor and therefore we should proceed with caution before authorizing commercial activities. It has been suggested that deep seabed mining poses unacceptable risks, including direct damage to vulnerable deep seabed ecosystems, as well as noise, light and other forms of pollution from mining activities. As a result, groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have called for a moratorium on deep seabed mining. They argue that a precautionary approach[1] is required and this activity should not be permitted to commence until independently verified research has been conducted in order to demonstrate that ecosystems will not suffer long-term negative impacts.

Even the International Seabed Authority, which is responsible for overseeing the deep seabed mining regime beyond national jurisdiction, has admitted that seabed mining will cause “inevitable environmental damage.” Yet, a precautionary approach to deep seabed mining does not necessarily entail a full-scale moratorium until there is evidence that no harm will be caused. The international regime for deep seabed mining beyond national jurisdiction already requires mining companies to conduct environmental impact assessment and continuous monitoring of mining operations. Moreover, the International Seabed Authority is empowered to oversee the activities of commercial mining companies and to step in if serious damage is caused to the marine environment. The International Seabed Authority has also provisionally established nine protected areas in the central Pacific where no mining will be allowed to take place and it can require mining companies to establish additional “preservation references zones” within their mining areas. Supporters of the commercial seabed mining argue that these measures are sufficient to prevent the type of long-term negative impacts that worry environmental campaigners. Furthermore, such an approach is arguably in accordance with the concept of sustainable development, which requires a balance between economic development and environmental protection, ensuring that resources can be exploited for the benefit of both present and future generations.[2]

Discussion Questions

• Is sustainable development a useful concept for managing seabed resources?
• In what circumstances should environmental protection take priority over economic development?
• What is meant by the precautionary approach in the context of seabed mining? Who should bear the burden of demonstrating that the environmental risks of an activity are acceptable or not?
• Who should be responsible for monitoring the effects of seabed mining on the environment?
• How much of the seabed should be designated as a protected area and who should decide?

Indicative Readings:

• International Seabed Authority, Environmental Management Needs for Exploration and Exploitation of Deep Sea Minerals, ISA Technical Study No. 10 (2012) 29-33, available at:

http://www.isa.org.jm/files/documents/EN/Pubs/TS10/TS10-Final.pdf

• Greenpeace International, Deep Seabed Mining: An Urgent Wake-up Call to Protect our Oceans (July 2013) 3-16, available at:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/publications/oceans/2013/Deep-Seabed-Mining.pdf

Dr James Harrison is Lecturer in International Law in the School of Law at the University of Edinburgh and he has research interests in International Law of the Sea and International Environmental Law. He has written widely on these subjects, including Making the Law of the Sea: A Case Study in the Development of International Law (Cambridge University Pr

[1] Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development on the precautionary approach says that “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”

[2] The Brundtland Commission defined sustainable development as “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”; The World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future (Oxford University Press, 1987) 43.

Energy is like blood; we can’t do without it but we don’t want to see it. When it comes to the energy debate, much of the focus is about what we don’t want. There are backbenchers who don’t want wind farms in one’s pleasant green, and parties who proclaim they don’t like nuclear. Where there was once a political reluctance to depend on domestic coal, these days our dependency on oil or gas from parts of Asia does not sit comfortably either. Collectively we sound almost like a protest party; blaming the government du jour or politicians in general, distrustful of those foreign ‘Big Six’, we want power returned to us, without too much of a plan as to how that’s done. .  Some of us have dreams, for sure;  fracking revolution, 100% renewables, nuclear renaissance, take your pick.  And then we are rudely woken up by another IPCC report about climbing emissions and pathetic little mitigation and adaptation to date.

Given the threats of climate change, our creaking energy infrastructure, the ongoing depletion of easily accessible resources and the growing issue of fuel poverty it is very clear that significant changes and investments are needed in our energy system. It’s not a shortage of good science that’s standing in the way. It’s a dearth of imagination, of ourselves as citizens and of the governments we elect.  We don’t even have to be original in order to be imaginative, there is plenty of inspiration out there, for us to bring home.  How much renewable energy would we have if we had been as imaginative as the Danes or the Germans?  How much safer and cleaner would your city be if it had reversed the urban pecking order between bikes and cars, like the Dutch have done, or had introduced congestion charges like London has?  How much wind power would we have if we lined up all our motorways (already noisy and lacking in aesthetic appeal) with wind turbines?  How much heat is being dumped into the atmosphere by our electricity-only power plants, and how many people in neighboring communities could be lifted out of fuel poverty is this heat was offered to them through district heating at a competitive price?

These are just some ideas that have been widely adopted by our neighbours.  It is not something futuristic or utopian, it is ‘normal’ next door. We should not waste much time with alternative history (if only we had done x in the past), but devote more effort to imagine a counterfactual geography; comparing ourselves with the best and keeping up with the Joneses in terms of more sustainable energy practices.  Maybe even beat them to it one day, and then watch in glee as they run to catch up with us.  ‘green’ with envy, if you like.

The above questions are not just rhetorical. Get a pen, calculator, back-of-an-envelope and google; every geeky citizen could do this.  I had a go at the first question. Turns out that we would have to quadruple our current on-shore windfarms before we can match the Germans on a MW/km² basis, and increase them by 6.5 times before we match the Danes on a MW/capita basis.  That is a lot of energy we allow to blow right past us, wasted. The Danes and Germans are not radical people. They are trying to be responsible citizens, taking their little steps towards the goals set out in the IPCC reports. We don’t have to follow them slavishly. Filling the land with wind turbines is not the only way forwards. But if you want to forego one particular solution, then you have to be extra imaginative with the remaining options.  Go get your pen and recycled paper. And share your imaginative solutions, also with your MP.

Dr Dave Reay

I like gas. Each morning it is the source of instant heat for making my coffee. Each winter’s evening it is the roar in the boiler that spreads warmth through the house. At work too, this energy-packed gas is a daily focus of our climate change research, but it’s there that its darker side often comes to the fore. Natural gas consists almost entirely of ‘methane’ and, as methane is a greenhouse gas 25 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, it presents both problems and opportunities in the fight to limit anthropogenic climate change.

With a fossil-fuel heavy global energy system, methane looked like a 20^th century success story in terms of tackling climate change. In the UK, the ‘Dash for Gas’ helped to nudge out carbon-intensive coal-burning power stations for more efficient, lower-emitting gas-fired versions. Per unit of electricity produced, gas power stations were emitting less than half the carbon dioxide of their coal-powered predecessors.

Since those heady days of North Sea exploitation that poured oil, gas and money into the UK, getting enough methane to keep the powerstations, cookers and boilers going has become increasingly difficult. National and global demand for gas has rocketed and easily-exploited supplies have dwindled. Imports of gas from Russia have risen, and with them the volatility of price and supply.

Now, the global expansion of a new extraction technology called ‘fracking’ heralds a new ‘Dash for Gas’ that could serve to provide energy security and carbon emission cuts which dwarf those of the last gas boom.  Unfortunately, this new process, and the vast reserves of gas it makes available, pose a major threat to avoiding dangerous climate change.

Fracking is a process whereby water, chemicals and sand are injected at high pressure into methane-bearing rock and shale deposits. The high pressure water opens up fissures in the rock and the sand particles (called proppants) then keep them open to allow the methane to flow. Once’ fracked’ the methane in the rocks can then be drawn out and used. The process is already used widely in the US, with huge extractions from the methane-rich Marcellus shale in the east of the country underway.

The huge volumes of ‘fracked’ methane have allowed the US to radically reduce its domestic use of coal and to close in on full energy security. So far, so good. However, coal production in the US has continued unabated, with the bargain-price coal now being shipped overseas (much of it to Europe) and burnt for energy generation there. In effect, methane fracking in the US has meant a reduction in US carbon dioxide emissions, but an increase globally. Add to that the great uncertainty over the amount of methane that is leaked from fracking sites and this new ‘Dash for Gas’ begins to look like a major problem for climate change mitigation.

To our atmosphere, exactly where greenhouse gases come from does not matter, it is the amount emitted globally that counts. ‘Dangerous’ climate change is commonly cited as being a post-industrial increase in the global average temperature of 2^oC. We have already seen warming of 0.75^oC and, on our current course, we are likely to well exceed the 2^oC level during this century. Global expansion of methane fracking helps to lock us into this high emissions trajectory. It means a new generation of gas-fired power plants that will go on emitting CO₂ for decades to come, while renewable generation struggles to compete with the low-cost, short-term gas bonanza.

For the jobs and growth agenda of most governments though, methane fracking is inevitably seen as a boon. In the UK it could help buffer energy prices and create new income streams as North Sea wells run dry. Globally it can help power economic development and temporarily bridge gaps between supply and demand.  Methane fracking exemplifies the kind of tradeoffs that have to be made between energy security and climate security, but there is little evidence that such tradeoffs have been properly assessed by the governments backing the fracking boom.

They like gas and so do I, but methane is a fossil fuel. As such our reliance on it has to wane rather than wax in the face of accelerating anthropogenic climate change. It is time that policies on fracking and similarly Janus-faced pillars of ‘sustainable growth’ began to encompass the time-span of human lives instead of parliaments.

Prof. Dave Reay is Chair in Carbon Management & Education at the University of Edinburgh’s School of Geosciences. Dave is Assistant Principal Environment & Society and the Director of the Global Environment and Society Academy, he is the designer and editor of the climate change science website Greenhouse Gas Online and of the Southern Ocean: Antarctic Seas and Wildlife website and has authored a number of books on climate change, including children’s book, ‘ Your Planet Needs You! A Kid’s Guide to Going Green’.  For more information about Dave and his work visit the GESA website