Two weeks ago European soldiers landed in Greenland to show their solidarity with the 30,000 residents that it is indeed an independent country, one that can’t just be eaten up by its big southern neighbor. Funnily, some of the soldiers were wearing bright red MAGA-style caps, but with a different message than usual: Nu det NUUK! (which roughly means “now it’s enough”). But the best part: on the side of the hat was Make America Go Away, an excellent reinterpretation of MAGA.
As you probably know, this confrontation boiled to a head at Davos, but then seemed to fizzle out with Trump declaring he won and saying a “framework for a future deal” had been reached with NATO allies (even if no details have yet to be released). However, as this excellent New York Times article pointed out weeks ago, the U.S. pretty much had a carte blanche on security in Greenland, as a 1951 agreement allows the U.S. to build and maintain military bases across Greenland. So once again, Trump converted a convention into a conflict, but as many others have noted, perhaps this was intentional to keep the world off kilter, and distracted from other issues (yes, Epstein files included).1
More importantly, last week while the world was distracted with the Greenland brouhaha, two major developments occurred that you might have missed, which will both have significant effects on the long-term health of the world’s oceans.
A Big Week for the Deep Seas
First, the UN High Seas Treaty entered into force (on January 17th). This creates a mechanism to protect oceans beyond national waters (which make up two-thirds of the ocean’s surface and 90% of Earth’s habitat by volume!!). The treaty will require environmental impact assessments of activities in these waters and also allow for creating area-based management tools, like marine protected areas. A business coalition, the Ocean Stewardship Initiative, even proactively announced it will work to establish a marine protected zone and regulated krill fishery off Antarctica so things are moving already. It’s exciting, especially as 83 countries have ratified the treaty so far—meaning they’re bound by it—and this includes major economic players like China, the European Union, and Japan.
But just a few days later the Trump Administration issued a final rule on deep seabed mining, making it simpler to get a permit both to explore and mine at the same time, and even undergo a simplified environmental review. The wild thing is this is for mining beyond national borders—exactly what the global treaty is designed to protect against—but as the U.S. notes directly in the rule, the country is “not a party of the Law of the Sea Convention” (a UN treaty that sets international legal standards for the ocean and since going into effect in 1994 has been ratified by 170 states,) so therefore can do what it wants. And it has. Before the rule was even finalized, the U.S. opened the process to apply for permits, and The Metals Company filed for two (both on December 23rd).
For those unfamiliar, The Metals Company (TMC) has been pushing for deep sea mining for a while now, even if economically speaking, this endeavor may actually cost more than a company can extract in wealth (even without factoring in the essentially-permanent-in-human-time-scales environmental damage that it’ll cause).
Perhaps the most obnoxious twist to this is that according to the rule, “NOAA [the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] may issue licenses and permits to U.S. citizens in areas beyond national jurisdiction.” The Metals Company is actually registered as a Canadian company, but of course, TMC created a wholly owned US subsidiary called TMC USA, incorporating it in North Carolina. Weirdly, the application notes: “TMC USA warrants that they are a United States Citizen.” I still find it outrageous that a corporation can not only be recognized as having personhood, but citizenship too! The good news is that the public comment period remains open until February 23rd. And there are two virtual public hearings on January 27th and 28th (Register here). I just registered for the one on Wednesday and will write a public comment based on my testimony. The bad news (after reviewing the final rule) is that public comments seem to be just a way to register disagreement, not change anything. In the final rule, NOAA listed the number of comments received (p. 8). There were 24,441 written and oral comments. 24,156 of those were in opposition! And yet, the rule went forward.
I’ve said it before, the deep sea is like Gaia’s appendix, a reserve of biodiversity that if humans mess up the surface beyond repair, may serve to reseed the Earth with new life that can, over millions of years, adapt to and thrive in the new conditions. Moreover, the deep ocean is a source of CO2 absorption, oxygen generation (the metal nodes actually), and food and habitat for untold species. It is unacceptable to let these pristine wild lands be destroyed to try and satiate the humanity’s insatiable consumption frenzy.
So, it’s time we Make America Go Away from the Deep Ocean. Yes, the MAGADO movement. I encourage you to write a public comment and register to speak. And if you have the energy, do more than that:
- Buy shares in TMC and file a shareholder resolution.2
- Submit letters or social media posts to a few of the 60+ corporations that have called for a moratorium on deep-sea mining and thank them for their leadership
- Ask other companies, particularly large users of metals and financiers (especially TMC funders), to join this call.
- If you are from beyond the U.S. ask your country’s government to ratify the High Seas Treaty and support the moratorium on deep sea mining.
I’m not sure what will stop the exploitation of the deep ocean, but I certainly do not want to stand by silently and let it happen.
Endnotes
1) Then again, it could be just the combination of Trump’s narcissism, low-intelligence, and dementia, coupled with malicious advisors working intentionally to destabilize the world order. Only time will tell.
2) The Trump Administration is working to defang the shareholder resolution process but becoming a shareholder and making noise can’t be any less ineffective as filing public comments. Certainly worth a shot!
Erik Assadourian
I thought I’d share the public comment I left for NOAA here. It was hard to right, knowing that they would be ignored, but at least for the record, and perhaps to inspire others, and maybe even mobilize a NOAA official to act with the future, rather than the present, in mind, I felt compelled to write it.
Public Comment:
My name is Erik Assadourian. I am a real living U.S. citizen (not a corporation pretending to be) and I am the director of the environmental organization, the Gaian Way, which serves to heal the relationship between humans and the living Earth we depend on and are part of.
I am taking my time writing this comment, even though my words will most likely fall on closed minds that have already made their decision. Otherwise, we wouldn’t even be considering this application, as during the proposed deep sea bed mining rule comment period, of the 24,441 written and oral comments, 24,156 were in opposition to deep sea bed mining or to regulation changes. That’s 98.8% against. That to me seems pretty clear that the public of the United States does not want deep sea mining.
I have no doubt that the vast majority of comments regarding TMC’s applications will also be in opposition. Most Americans undoubtedly do not want a Canadian company—one that has registered a U.S. subsidiary so that it can claim that it is a U.S. Citizen and have the right to apply for a deep seabed mining permit—to get that permit approved. Especially just a few weeks after the international High Seas Treaty, which has been ratified by 83 countries already, has entered into force.
The United States has no right to unilaterally mine the seabed beyond its territorial waters. We risk further alienating the global community (and we’ve done a lot of that in the past year) and far worse, we risk doing irreparable harm to countless species and minimally explored habitat.
We risk causing permanent damage to Earth’s ability to regulate the carbon cycle, sustain ocean fisheries, and so much more. All for metals that are plentiful in land-based mines, and could be harvested readily from old batteries and electronics if circular economic and design practices were implemented.
But this all assumes rational governance that values the wellbeing of the people and planet. In truth, that is too much to assume, considering the blatant denial of climate change and fevered attitude celebrating the exploitation of oil and the conversion of nature into resources. So instead of trying to persuade the reader of this position, I will say again that the U.S. is in the wrong for allowing unilateral access to the deep seas. And one day our country may be held to account for this crime against nature, and those at NOAA—the administration tasked with protecting the oceans—who facilitate this barbarity may find themselves one day at a tribunal facing charges of ecocide. Please, NOAA, do your duty and protect the oceans this country, all countries, and all life depend on.