Greenpeace Slams Deep Sea Mining Application As A ‘Total Disregard For International Law'
Press Release – Greenpeace
'This unilateral US effort to carve up the Pacific Ocean already faces fierce international opposition. Governments around the world must now step up to defend international rules and cooperation against rogue deep sea mining.'
Greenpeace has slammed an announcement by The Metals Company to submit the first application to commercially mine the seabed.
Greenpeace International Senior campaigner Louisa Casson said: 'The first application to commercially mine the seabed will be remembered as an act of total disregard for international law and scientific consensus.
'This unilateral US effort to carve up the Pacific Ocean already faces fierce international opposition. Governments around the world must now step up to defend international rules and cooperation against rogue deep sea mining.
'Leaders will be meeting at the UN Oceans Conference in Nice in June where they must speak with one voice in support of a moratorium on this reckless industry.'
Greenpeace Aotearoa spokesperson Juressa Lee said: 'The disastrous effects of deep sea mining recognise no international borders in the ocean. This will be another case of short-term profits for a very few, from the Global North, with the Pacific bearing the destructive impacts for generations to come.'
The Metals Company announcement follows President Donald Trump's Executive Order fast-tracking deep sea mining in US and international waters, which Greenpeace says threatens Pacific sovereignty.
Trump's action bypasses the International Seabed Authority (ISA), the regulatory body which protects the deep sea and decides whether deep sea mining can take place in international waters.
Lee adds: 'The Metals Company and Donald Trump are wilfully ignoring the rules-based international order and the science that deep sea mining will wreak havoc on the oceans.
'Pacific Peoples have deep cultural ties to the ocean, and we regard 'home' as more ocean than land. Our ancestors were wayfarers and ocean custodians who have traversed the Pacific and protected our livelihoods for future generations. This is the Indigenous knowledge we should be led by, to safeguard our planet and our environment. Deep sea mining is not the answer to the green transition away from carbon-based fossil fuels – it's another false solution.'
Donald Trump's order follows negotiations in March at the ISA, at which governments refused to give wannabe miners The Metals Company a clear pathway to an approved mining application via the ISA.
32 countries around the world publicly support a moratorium on deep sea mining. Millions of people have spoken out against this dangerous emerging industry.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
10 hours ago
- RNZ News
US Supreme Court to review death row inmate's intellectual disability ruling
By John Kruzel , Reuters Photo: 123RF The US Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear an appeal by Alabama officials of a judicial decision that a man convicted of a 1997 murder is intellectually disabled - a finding that spared him from the death penalty - as they press ahead with the Republican-governed state's bid to execute him. A lower court ruled that Joseph Clifton Smith is intellectually disabled based on its analysis of his IQ test scores and expert testimony. Under a 2002 Supreme Court precedent, executing an intellectually disabled person violates the US Constitution's Eighth Amendment bar on cruel and unusual punishment. The justices are due to hear the case in their next term, which starts in October. Smith, now 54, was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1997 murder of a man named Durk Van Dam in Alabama's Mobile County. Smith fatally beat the man with a hammer and saw in order to steal his boots, some tools and $140, according to evidence in the case. The victim's body was found in his mud-bound Ford Ranger truck in an isolated, wooded area. The Supreme Court's 2002 precedent in a case called Atkins vs Virginia barred executing intellectually disabled people. US President Donald Trump's administration backed Alabama's appeal in the case. At issue in Smith's case is whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple intelligence quotient (IQ) scores in assessing a death row inmate's intellectual disability. Like many states, conservative-leaning Alabama considers evidence of IQ test scores of 70 or below as part of the standard for determining intellectual disability. Supreme Court rulings in 2014 and 2017 allowed courts to consider IQ score ranges that are close to 70 along with other evidence of intellectual disability, such as testimony of "adaptive deficits." Smith had five IQ test scores, the lowest of which was 72. A federal judge noted that Smith's score could be as low as 69, given the standard of error of plus or minus three points. The judge then found that Smith had significant deficits from an early age in social and interpersonal skills, independent living and academics. The Atlanta-based 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the judge's conclusions in 2023, setting aside Smith's death sentence. This prompted Alabama officials to file their first of two appeals to the Supreme Court in the case. In November, the justices threw out the 11th Circuit's decision, saying that the lower court's evaluation of Smith's IQ scores can be read two ways, and requires clarification. Ten days later, the 11th Circuit issued an opinion clarifying that its evaluation was based on "a holistic approach to multiple IQ scores" that also considered additional relevant evidence, including expert testimony. This prompted a second appeal by Alabama officials to the Supreme Court. Alabama in its filing to the Supreme Court argued that the lower courts in the case applied the wrong legal standard in establishing Smith's intellectual disability and urged the justices to take up the appeal to provide clarity on the issue. Friday's action by the court was unexpected. The court had planned to release it on Monday along with its other regularly scheduled orders, but a software glitch on Friday prematurely sent email notifications concerning the court's decision in the case. "As a result, the court is issuing that order list now," said court spokesperson Patricia McCabe. It is not the first time the court has inadvertently disclosed action in sensitive cases. Last year, an apparent draft of a ruling in a case involving emergency abortion access in Idaho was briefly uploaded to the court's website before being taken down. That disclosure represented an embarrassment for the top US judicial body, coming two years after the draft of a blockbuster ruling rolling back abortion rights was leaked. - Reuters
RNZ News
11 hours ago
- RNZ News
Why the Musk and Trump relationship is breaking down
By Geoff Beattie* of Elon Musk and US President Donald Trump. Photo: Brendan Smialowski / AFP It is not a good break-up. These were always two big beasts used to getting their own way. Two alpha males, if you like the evolutionary metaphor, trying to get along. And now the Donald Trump and Elon Musk relationship is in meltdown. Who could forget that iconic image from just a few short weeks back? Elon Musk standing behind the seated US president, Donald Trump, in the Oval Office, towering over him. Trump, his hands clasped, having to turn awkwardly to look up at him. That silent language of the body. Musk accompanied by his four-year-old, a charming and informal image, or that great evolutionary signal of mating potential and dominance, depending on your point of view. These were also clearly two massive narcissistic egos out in their gleaming open-top speedster. Musk was appointed special advisor to Trump, heading the Department of Government Efficiency, cutting excess and waste. The backseat driver for a while. There were a lot of bureaucratic casualties already, road kill at the side of the highway as the sports car roared on with frightening speed. But things were always going to be difficult if they hit a bump in the road. And they did. Perhaps, more quickly than many had imagined. There were differing views on what caused the crash. Many pointed to the dramatic fall in Tesla's sales - a 71 percent fall in profits in one quarter - and the inevitable impact on Musk's reputation. Since the break-up, Tesla's share price has also dropped sharply], as investors have panicked. The attacks on Tesla showrooms couldn't have helped either. Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate. Others pointed to Trump's proposed removal of the tax credit for owners of electric vehicles, or the political backlash in Washington over Space X's potential involvement in Trump's proposed "golden dome" anti-missile defence system. However, according to former White House strategist Steve Bannon, what really caused the crash was when the president refused to show Musk the Pentagon's attack plans for any possible war with China. There's only so far being the president's best buddy can get you. Bannon is reported as saying: "You could feel it. Everything changed." That, according to Bannon, was the beginning of the end. So now we watch Trump and Musk stumbling away from the crash scene. One minute Trump is putting on a show for the cameras. He's beaming away and introducing the "big, beautiful bill", a budget reconciliation bill that rolls together hundreds of controversial proposals. Next, he is accusing Musk of "going crazy" and talking about withdrawing government contracts from the Musk empire. Musk is unhappy too. "I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination," he wrote on X. "Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong." He says he's disgusted by the bill . Disgust is one of the most primitive of all the emotions. A survival mechanism - you must avoid what disgusts you. He's social signalling here, alerting others, warning them that there's something disgusting in the camp. Musk is highly attuned to public perception, perhaps even more so than Trump (which is saying something). With his acquisition of X (formerly Twitter), Musk was able to direct (and add to) online discourse, shaping public conversations. Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle? Psychologically, Musk's rejection of Trump is an attempt to simultaneously elevate himself and diminish the man behind the bill. He can call out the president's action like nobody else. He is positioning himself anew as that free thinker, that risk taker, innovative, courageous, unfettered by any ties. That is his personality, his brand - and he's reasserting it. But it's also a vengeful act. And it's perhaps reminiscent of another political insider (and geek), former Downing Street adviser Dominic Cummings, who was sacked by the then UK prime minister, Boris Johnson, in 2020. Cummings was accused of masterminding leaks about the social gatherings in Downing Street. He went on to criticise Johnson as lacking the necessary discipline and focus for a prime minister as well as questioning his competence and decision-making abilities. The revenge of a self-proclaimed genius. And revenge is sweet. In a 2004 study, researchers scanned participants' brains using positron emission tomography (PET) - a medical imaging technique that is used to study brain function (among other things) - while the participants played an economic game based on trust. When trust was violated, participants wanted revenge, and this was reflected in increased activity in the reward-related regions of the brain, the dorsal striatum. Revenge, in other words, is primarily about making yourself feel better rather than righting any wrongs. Your act may make you appear moral but it may be more selfish. But revenge for what here? That's where these big narcissistic egos come into play. Psychologically, narcissists are highly sensitive to perceived slights - real or imagined. Musk may have felt Trump was attempting to diminish his achievements for political gain, violating this pact of mutual respect. This kind of sensitivity can quickly transmogrify admiration into contempt. Contempt, coincidentally, is the single best predictor of a breakdown in very close relationships. Disgust and contempt are powerful emotions, evolving to protect us - disgust from physical contamination (spoiled food, disease), and contempt from social or moral contamination (betrayal, incompetence). Both involve rejection - disgust rejects something physically; contempt rejects something socially or morally. Musk may be giving it to Trump with both barrels here. Break-ups are always hard, they get much harder when emotions like these get intertwined with the process. But how will the most powerful man in the world respond to this sort of rejection from the richest man in the world? And where will it end? * Geoff Beattie is a Professor of Psychology at Edge Hill University in the United Kingdom. - This story first appeared in The Conversation
Scoop
11 hours ago
- Scoop
Te Pāti Māori Co-Leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer On The Longest Suspension In Parliament
She says the Privileges Committee process is not equipped to deal with the haka issue. Saturday Morning This week, Parliament took the unprecedented step of suspending both Te Pāti Māori leaders – Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi – for 21 days. Te Pāti Māori MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke was suspended for seven days – but had also been punished with a 24-hour suspension on the day over a haka all three had performed in Parliament, against the Treaty Principles Bill, in November. It is against the rules of the House for members to leave their seats during a debate – which all three did. Ngarewa-Packer told Saturday Morning that the 21-day suspension, which was seven times harsher than any previous sanction an MP has faced, was not proportionate. 'I think the backlash from the public, nationally and internationally, validates that,' she said. Previously, the longest suspension for an MP had been three days, given to the former prime minister Robert Muldoon for criticising the speaker in the 1980s. While New Zealand First leader Winston Peters said the duration of the suspension would have been lessened if the Te Pāti Māori MPs had apologised, Ngarewa-Packer said that was never requested by the Privileges Committee. 'What we have here is a situation where, and some are calling it Trumpism, we've been a lot more specific – we have an Atlas agenda that has not only crept in, it's stormed in on the shores of Aotearoa and some may not understand what that means, but this is just the extension of the attack on the treaty, on the attack on Indigenous voices. 'We made the point the whole way through when we started to see that they weren't going to be able to meet us halfway on anything, even a quarter of the way, on any of the requests for tikanga experts, for legal experts when we knew the bias of the committee.' Ngarewa-Packer added that the Privileges Committee process was not equipped to deal with the issue. 'We hit a nerve and we can call it a colonial nerve, we can call it institutional nerve… 'I think that this will be looked back on at some stage and say how ridiculous we looked back in 2025.' Ngarewa-Packer also added that the language from Peters during the debate on Thursday was 'all very deliberate' – 'and that's what we're contending with in Aotearoa'. 'Everyone should have a view but don't use the might of legislation and the power to be able to assert your racism and assert your anti-Māori, anti-Treaty agenda.' Peters had taken aim at Waititi on Thursday as 'the one in the cowboy hat' and 'scribbles on his face' in reference to his mataora moko. He said countless haka have taken place in Parliament but only after first consulting the Speaker. 'They told the media they were going to do it, but they didn't tell the Speaker did they?' Peters added that Te Pāti Māori were 'a bunch of extremists' and that 'New Zealand has had enough of them'. 'They don't want democracy, they want anarchy,' he said. 'They don't want one country, they don't want one law, they don't want one people.'
