Transnational companies are eyeing the vast resources beneath the ocean. They want to mine the seafloor for valuable minerals like cobalt, nickel, and copper. These minerals are essential for various modern technologies, but the push to extract them raises alarms about environmental damage.
Deep-sea mining finds its treasures in areas known as polymetallic nodules. These small rocks, formed over millions of years, sit on the ocean floor. The Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ) in the Pacific Ocean contains about 21 billion tonnes of these nodules, attracting interest from countries like China, Russia, and Japan. However, efforts to kick-start large mining projects have struggled due to a lack of regulation and significant opposition from global environmental groups.
Currently, individual countries can permit mining in their waters, but the International Seabed Authority (ISA) is supposed to regulate activities in international waters. Yet, it still hasn’t established strong guidelines for commercial mining.
In an attempt to speed things up, former President Donald Trump pushed for new mining policies. In April 2025, he signed an executive order aimed at making it easier for companies to explore and recover seabed minerals. This move raised eyebrows among legal experts, as it appears to sidestep international laws governing deep-sea mining.
Following this directive, a Canadian company called The Metals Company (TMC) quickly applied for permits to start commercial mining in the CCZ. The U.S. Interior Department also announced plans for potential mineral lease sales near American Samoa.
The NOAA, which issues mining permits, has labeled deep-sea mining a “gold rush.” However, many environmentalists fear that hastily permitting mining activities could lead to significant ecological damage. This concern is compounded by reports of the ISA’s cozy relationship with the mining industry, raising questions about its ability to protect ocean health.
A 2022 investigation revealed that the ISA shared valuable mining locations with TMC and allowed them to conduct what many viewed as research disguised as exploration. Critics argue that this close relationship creates a conflict of interest, as each exploration permit comes with hefty fees that the ISA relies on for funding.
Despite scant regulation, the ISA has issued numerous exploration permits. Some of the mining activities, like TMC’s extraction of polymetallic nodules, have been criticized for their ecological consequences, even though they were framed as scientific investigations.
Supporters of deep-sea mining often claim that it is crucial for a renewable energy future since the extracted metals are used in solar panels and batteries. However, many manufacturers are shifting away from using certain metals like cobalt and nickel, suggesting a potential decline in demand. Major car and tech companies have even joined calls for a global moratorium on deep-sea mining.
Mining operations can inflict serious damage on delicate marine ecosystems, which are comparable in biodiversity to rainforests. Right now, it’s estimated that less than 10% of the species in the CCZ have been documented, meaning countless undiscovered species could be at risk. Scientists have found that even minor disruptions from past mining trials have had long-lasting effects, with signs of damage visible over 40 years later.
Techniques used in deep-sea mining can release toxic materials into the water, which can harm marine life and disrupt food chains, ultimately affecting human populations that rely on these ocean resources. Additionally, mining can release greenhouse gases, exacerbating climate change and harming the very systems that mitigate it.
Given these concerns, the “Deep-Sea Mining Science Statement,” endorsed by nearly 1,000 marine scientists, advocates for a hiatus on all deep-sea mining to safeguard marine biodiversity. Environmental groups and several nations are rallying for a pause or complete ban on this controversial industry.
As the push for deep-sea mining accelerates, the debate over its environmental ramifications continues. The balance between technological advancement and ecological preservation hangs in the balance, and it’s up to societies worldwide to navigate this critical choice.