Deep-sea mining 'must responsibly respect ecosystems'

[xchrom]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25638838

Scientists have made an impassioned plea for humanity to pause and think before making a headlong rush to exploit the deep sea.

The researchers said the oceans' lowest reaches had untold riches that could benefit mankind enormously, but not if the harvesting were done destructively.

The scientists called for a "new stewardship" of the deep sea.

This would require effective ecosystem management and sustainable methods of exploitation.

[GliderGuider]

1. Good luck with that. nt

[hatrack]

2. I'm sure the Halliburtons and Barricks of the world are listening attentively

.

[NickB79]

4. I've been told to have faith in our benevolent multi-nationals

Didn't you get the memo?

[hatrack]

6. Besides, we know the great job done by fishing fleets in maintaining the oceans . . .

Since undersea mining would be even more invisible than industrial fishing, I'm sure we have nothing to worry about here.

I hear that very serious, responsible people are in charge - people with an eye always fixed on the long-term consequences of our collective actions.

[quadrature]

3. so it is OK for Indonesia to extract gold using mercury, ...

but it is bad when US ships pick up
manganese nodules on the ocean floor,
because the US is bad.

it is OK when African diamond-mine operators
chop people's arms off.
but when the US tries to open a copper mine in
Alaska, it is an international crisis.

the world's oceans are being overfished,
reefs are being strip mined, cyanide fishing, who cares,
...but when the US tries to open a rare-earth-mineral mine,
the Chinese complain that 1 microgram of thorium
will be let loose in the ground water.

why is that?

[NickB79]

5. None of it is ok

And environmental groups have been protesting ALL of those examples for decades.

What you posted wasn't a critique of US bad/rest of the world good, but rather who benefits the most economically from said resource extraction.