Albanese Government Must Act, CSIRO Research Fuels Calls For Deep Sea Mining Moratorium
Advertisement - scroll to continue reading
The timing of the CSIRO reports appears to align with what was, until recently, TMC's plan to submit an application to the ISA on June 27 – plans the company has now abandoned in favour of a controversial U.S. based pathway via a dormant 1980s law and enabled by the Trump administration.
Pressure is mounting on the Albanese Government to adopt a precautionary stance supporting a moratorium at the ISA in line with many of its major partners, including the UK, Canada, France, Germany and New Zealand. Currently, 37 countries back a deep sea mining moratorium.
TMC continues to apply pressure on international regulators to accelerate approvals for this high-risk untested industry. With a state-funded agency producing research likely to be used to legitimise mining in international waters, ocean advocates are calling on the Albanese Government to direct CSIRO to take no further actions on behalf of TMC.
The CSIRO reports confirm the likely damage to the seafloor and to the marine environment that civil society, Indigenous Pacific communities, and independent scientists have warned about; deep sea mining is too destructive and there is too much uncertainty to proceed.
'These findings echo the concerns we've heard right across the Pacific region – that the deep ocean is a highly complex, precious environment, and that accelerating deep sea mining would be dangerous,' said Phil McCabe, Pacific Regional Coordinator at the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition.
There remains a severe lack of real-world data about deep sea ecosystems – particularly in relation to the long-term environmental impacts and the risk of toxic pollution entering the food chain. Scientists warn that many of these impacts are likely to be irreversible in human timeframes. The CSIRO reports acknowledge the potential for heavy metals to bioaccumulate in marine life, including tuna, swordfish, whales, and dolphins.
'We've seen this before; traffic light systems, digital twin technology, adaptive management systems – all designed to give the illusion of sustainable management,' said Dr. Helen Rosenbaum, Research Coordinator at the Deep Sea Mining Campaign. 'When the science is this uncertain, the only responsible signal is red.'
TMC's recent decision to abandon its application to the ISA and instead issue permits through a dormant U.S. law has been widely condemned by governments and legal experts as a direct challenge to international law and multilateralism. The move undermines the ISA's authority just as states prepare to negotiate key regulations.
'Australia's credibility is on the line,' said Duncan Currie, International Lawyer and advisor to the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition. 'CSIRO's involvement with The Metals Company (TMC) risks implicating Australia in their attempt to sidestep international governance. The Albanese Government must now draw a clear line; support a moratorium at the International Seabed Authority, and ensure CSIRO takes no further action on TMC's behalf.'
'At the ISA, a moratorium or precautionary pause on deep sea mining is the only viable path to protecting the deep sea,' said Shiva Gounden, Head of Pacific at Greenpeace Australia Pacific. 'Delegates at the ISA must listen to the science and the voices of Pacific nations and back a moratorium to stop deep sea mining before it starts.'
The Deep Sea Mining Campaign, Deep Sea Conservation Coalition, Greenpeace Australia Pacific, and Surfrider Australia call on the Albanese Government to announce its support for a Moratorium at the upcoming ISA meeting in Jamaica; and direct CSIRO to take no further actions on behalf of TMC.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
3 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Opinion: NZ is looking for a deal over Trump's new tariffs – that could come with a high political price
Labour's trade spokesperson has declared the lack of a deal for lower tariffs – along similar lines to ones struck by the European Union and United Kingdom – a 'major fail'. But politicians should be careful what they wish for. Bigger countries have already caved in to Trump's demands, signing vague deals at a high political and economic price with no real guarantees. Trump's economic rationale Trump has a long-expressed love for tariffs as leverage over countries that depend on US markets. Essentially, these are taxes the US charges on imported goods. It's not New Zealand exporters who 'pay' these taxes, it is US importers, and likely their customers. Similarly, New Zealand exporters don't 'save' millions from tariff cuts. Trump hopes making imports more expensive will spur domestic production, support local business and create jobs, and the trade imbalance with the US would decline. As a bonus, in June alone, tariffs earned the United States US$26 billion in revenue, partly compensating for massive tax cuts contained in Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill'. By imposing tariffs unilaterally, Trump breaches the US tariff limits at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and its 'most-favoured-nation' rule of treating all countries equally. But the US has already paralysed the WTO's dispute system. US tariff limits and other trade rules in US free trade agreements are also being ignored. Domestically, Trump has used the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to justify bypassing Congress to impose tariffs, on the basis that threats to the US economy constitute a 'national emergency'. This was ruled unlawful by the Court of International Trade and is currently under appeal at the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Meanwhile, the tariffs continue. The Trump-friendly Supreme Court would likely endorse them. US economist Paul Krugman predicts this approach will not be rolled back by future administrations and will become 'the new normal'. Exaggerated claims, few guarantees The various bilateral 'deals' other countries have sought to mitigate Trump's tariffs look vague and precarious. The talks and the outcomes remain secret. The vaguely worded 'frameworks' – not signed agreements – lack detail and allow Trump to make exaggerated claims at odds with the other country's statements. Krugman describes these 'understandings' as, for the most part, 'vapourware'. Take the European Union's promise to buy goods worth US$250 billion a year for three years, mainly in fossil fuels such as liquefied natural gas. One commentator described this as 'delusional' and 'totally unrealistic', given EU imports of energy in 2024 were only worth about $65 billion. The EU also admits it lacks the power to deliver on a promise to invest $600b in the US economy, because that would come entirely from private sector investment over which Brussels has no authority. Nor is there any guarantee Trump will uphold his part of the deal or not demand more. The EU said its landmark regulations on Big Tech survived unscathed; Trump says they remain on the table as further 'non-tariff barriers' – trade-speak for anti-business regulations. To take another example, Japan has said its 15% tariff deal operates from August 1, while the US gives no start date. The White House said 'Japan will invest $550 billion directed by the United States to rebuild and expand core American industries' to be spent at 'President Trump's direction'. The investment will be in a list of industries, including energy, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, critical minerals and shipbuilding, with the US retaining 90% of the profits. Bloomberg reports Japan expects only 1-2% of that $550 billion to be actual investment, with the rest made up of loans, and makes no reference to Trump having control. Trump's political agenda Trump's demands are not just about trade. His strong-arm tactics – which Brazil, China and France have termed economic blackmail – aim to punish political foes and damage competing powers, notably China and Russia. They are also a form of retaliation over other countries' foreign policy decisions (such as Canada's intention to recognise Palestinian statehood), a way to exploit foreign natural resources (such as Pakistan's oil), and to remove obstacles to corporate donors (such as Canada's digital services taxes). What will Trump demand, and get, from New Zealand in these secret negotiations? Governments face high political costs as they navigate their own domestic processes to 'secure' such deals. At the very least, New Zealand's negotiations need to be transparent and consulted on before commitments are made. More broadly, the country will need to rethink its trade strategy in the light of the new international realities.
NZ Herald
4 hours ago
- NZ Herald
US visa applicants may face $25,000 bond to curb overstays
The US State Department says some visa applicants will soon be required to pay bonds of up to US$15,000 ($25,000) to discourage visa overstays as part of the Trump administration's crackdown on migration. Starting later this month, the pilot programme will require applicants from certain countries to pay a sum
NZ Herald
4 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Russia warns against threats after Trump repositions nuclear submarines
'There can be no winner in a nuclear war,' Peskov added. 'This is probably the key premise we rely on. We do not think there is talk of any escalation.' Since ordering the 2022 invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Putin has often intimated that Moscow could deploy nuclear weapons, while other officials, including Medvedev, and commentators close to the Kremlin have issued hyperbolic threats referencing Russia's nuclear arsenal, which is the world's largest. Peskov's effort to play down the confrontation comes before a likely visit to Russia this week by Trump envoy Steve Witkoff, who has met Putin four times in a so-far-unsuccessful bid to halt Russia's war. Trump told reporters on Sunday that the submarines are 'in the region'. Last week, responding to Medvedev on social media, Trump denounced the Russian's 'highly provocative statements', which he said led him to dispatch the submarines 'just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that'. 'Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences,' Trump continued, capping an intensifying exchange. 'I hope this will not be one of those instances.' Medvedev, whose relevance in Russia has waned since he left the Prime Minister's office in 2020, now often plays the role of social media provocateur. Russia's nuclear arsenal is central to Putin's effort to posture the country as a global power, and to reinforce his conviction, shared by many Russian citizens, that Russia can never be defeated in war. On Sunday, Trump said he may send Witkoff to Russia on Wednesday or Thursday at Moscow's request, before imposing new sanctions. Trump has cautioned that the new sanctions would probably not deter Russia's war effort. After Trump last week shortened the deadline for agreement on a ceasefire to August 8, Medvedev warned on social media that every Trump ultimatum was a step closer to war between the United States and Russia. Trump admonished Medvedev to 'watch his words', then Medvedev responded on Thursday with an emoji of laughter through tears and the nuclear threat – warning Trump of the dangers of the 'Dead Hand'. On Friday afternoon, Trump announced he would reposition two nuclear submarines. 'A threat was made… so we just have to be very careful,' he said, referring to Medvedev, adding: 'We're going to protect our people.' Peskov distanced himself on Monday from Medvedev's rhetoric, saying that people should look to Putin instead. 'In our country, foreign policy is formulated by the head of state, President Putin,' Peskov said. He declined to comment on whether the Kremlin would tell Medvedev to tone down his rhetoric. Russia has sharpened its tone toward Trump in recent weeks after US officials indicated he is running out of patience with Putin's reluctance to compromise on his maximalist conditions to end the war, despite key concessions suggested by the United States, including keeping Ukraine out of Nato and allowing Moscow to keep the territory it has annexed illegally in Ukraine. In his meetings with Putin and other Russians, Witkoff has at times appeared to misread the Kremlin's demands, commenting that he saw Russia's retention of the territories it occupies as key to the war's resolution. Putin, however, consistently insists on a broader subjugation of Ukraine, including slashing the size of its military, effectively undercutting Ukrainian sovereignty. On Friday, Putin said in a comment that appeared directed at Trump that Russia's conditions to end the war had not changed and declared that any disappointment about the peace process was due to 'excessive expectations'. Putin said Russia's massive losses in Ukraine – likely, by this summer, to exceed 1 million soldiers killed and wounded, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies – were not in vain. 'We do not have a single loss in vain,' he told journalists on Valaam Island in northwestern Russia after visiting a monastery. Since the 2022 invasion, Moscow has calibrated its nuclear threat to deter Western support for Ukraine, in particular deliveries of Western missiles capable of striking deep into Russian territory. Denied those, Ukraine has used drone strikes on distant targets. These threats have, at times, been delivered directly by Putin, but also, at other times, by senior Russian officials who offer a level of deniability, including Medvedev. Pro-Kremlin analyst Sergei Markov on Sunday wrote that Witkoff's likely visit was the 'last chance' to reach an agreement between Moscow and Washington before Trump's deadline on a ceasefire expires August 8. He wrote on Telegram that Putin may offer a partial ceasefire, ending missile and drone attacks. Robyn Dixon is a foreign correspondent on her third stint in Russia, after almost a decade reporting there beginning in the early 1990s.
