Troxes of critical minerals on demand are deeply intact at the bottom of the ocean: nickel, cobalt and copper, to name only a few. With a pen in April, President Donald Trump signed an executive decree to catalyze an “gold rush” in the pursuit of these deposits. The value of these minerals could total during thousands of tickets, and the Trump administration wants American companies to access it in order to strengthen the economy. The decline for this decision has largely focused on the potential for ecological damage and highlighting international rules by order. There is also a good case to do so that economic and financial mathematics do not add up. On the one hand, the perspective of different critical minerals is evolving. The projections of the Cobalt request, for example, fell below expectations as new emerging battery chemicals depend less on this metallic element.
And then there are the costs associated with missed opportunities and unknown side effects. The depths of the ocean where the exploitation of the elder in depth would have been affected for millennia. In these waters, flora and fauna that could unlock medical breakthroughs remain intact and ocean dynamics mediate global climatic conditions. “If we are starting to make fun of our seabed background in search of wealth and short -term growth,” said Hawaii governor Josh Green, a vocal opponent of the exploitation of seabed, “God knows what long -term damage will be.”
Find out more: Fishermen’s communities in the Philippines are fighting for their future as waters increase
The most important problem is that human society – police, companies and financial institutions – did not understand how to enhance everything that the oceans do for us. Depriving oneself with a complete evaluation of the economic value of the oceans would mean a wholesale rethink of the way in which we interact with the world in the depths of the seven seas.
The use of the economy to assess nature is not new. For decades, scientists and economists have criticized the figures on the contribution of what is known as ecosystem services. These “services” include everything, from coastal protection provided by coral reefs to the value of peaches to local communities that count on them for subsistence. Listing services is one thing; The total of their value is another difficult task. Researchers say that the total economic value of the oceans must include the direct use of oceans such as fishing and tourism as well as indirect functions such as carbon storage and biodiversity protection that keeps the planet in equilibrium.
The calculation is not easy. How can you put a price, for example, the role that the oceans play the regulation of the global climate? However, researchers regularly find figures that reach tens of billions of dollars in annual value. Whatever the specific number, a larger problem is that government and business leaders do not use it. “A wide range of ecosystem assessment methods and techniques exist, but are only implemented sometimes in political decisions,” said a 2019 article in the European Marine Commission, a reflection group on ocean policy. No country has fully explained the economic value of the oceans in its policy. A survey of leaders in developing countries has revealed that, even if many of these nations depend on marine resources, protecting marine life classified among the United Nations sustainable development objectives.
To take into account the value From the oceans in decision -making, researchers push countries to adopt what has become known as natural capital accounts. This would involve incorporating data into the ecological and economic value of the oceans in accounting systems at the country level. Such recommendations are not the work of radical activists or marginal academics. The World Bank, for example, advises that low -income countries use natural capital accounts to assess and protect their natural resources.
In the absence of such a formal decision, leaders concerned about economic stability would be wise to move their thoughts. In some cases, this can mean moving away from the consideration of the ocean as an easily exploited source of resources. In others, this can mean going from the consideration of the conservation of the oceans as an altruistic act of an act of economic self-service.
Find out more about Time’s Ocean Issue
“ Ignorance ” is the most urgent problem with the conservation of the oceans, explains Sylvia Earle
Meet the marine biologist working to protect our oceans from the exploitation of the deep sea
Geopolitical tensions shape the future of our oceans
