503 karma · joined August 30, 2021
This view (https://www.usaspending.gov/explorer/agency) suggests Defense spending is $1.1 trillion in 2023 while Department of Education funding is $208 billion.
I think the question is does Meta have any numbers to this effect? Their quote is literally: "In contrast, we know the people using our platforms don’t come to us for news."
Meta seems to want it both ways as they state elsewhere: "Though news article links make up less than 3% of what Canadians see in Feed, we estimate that we sent Canada News Page Index-registered publishers more than 1.9 billion clicks in the last 12 months ending in April 2022." So it's both a tiny part for Meta, but also a big part of the Canadian news ecosystem.
As for the statement, as a professional I do tend to believe other professionals. Ultimately the statistics don't lie: lithium ion related fires are a minority of current household causes. To your point, that may change over time particularly where larger installations (e-bikes, solar system batteries) are involved. I'll pitch that the regulatory regime is more than capable of catching up and enforcing change if the degree of risk starts to go up. We already see fire departments commenting on it, so it won't be long before we start seeing guidelines and restrictions on battery sizes within homes.
From casual review, it appears that the greatest risk for fire in households remains: cooking equipment, heating equipment, smoking, and inadequate electrical wiring (extensions cords, overdrawn circuits, etc.).
This leaves off other majors like kids with matches, candles, flammable liquids, etc.
Note: This is not to say that LiIon batteries are safe and beyond reproach. The Toronto fire service had 29 battery-related fires in 2022, up from 11 in 2021. This compares vs. 254 "cooking equipment" fires, 158 "open flames / smokers" fires, and 77 "electrical distribution" fires (2019 figures). This suggests lithium ion batteries are a source of domestic fires, but not a major one (~2% of causes).
For my world, there are still some sites that can fill that role:
* Rtings.com for any TV/monitor display
* Consumer reports for large consumer goods
* Outdoorgearlab for any camping or apparel
* DPReview for photography (some uncertainty post-acquisition)
With previous comment gems like "Canada's healthcare is so bad that if you are not immediately dying, you get no healthcare whatsoever" it's clear that you're not intending to be taken seriously.
I'm of the view that it's Google and Meta that are in trouble here. If they don't want to pay for quality news sources their content continues to noticeably degrade and become less attractive for use. They're likely trying to play hard ball with Canada and Australia because the markets are comparatively small. If the EU or the US see merit in this approach the tech companies are really going to struggle.
Finding a status update in your area should take seconds -- if it doesn't it suggests you don't have adequate systems in place which would then in turn would also kneecap an AI assistant.
How bizarre.
Perhaps two weeks until he explains it all away as an "experiment" rather than genuine ignorance.
I think the article misses out on the best part: the stores are a treat to wander around. You can bring your dog in and there's something interesting in nearly every corner. Staff are unfailingly polite and accommodating. I look forward to trips there while those to the larger Home Depot are more function-driven.
Glad to see them getting good coverage and recognition.
A quick one, though:
Ferry is indeed a verb. Oxford Dictionary provides a bit of colour, though, stating "a boat or ship for conveying passengers and goods, especially over a relatively short distance and as a regular service." We have a global shipping industry, not a global ferrying industry.
I'm not saying you're wrong in its use, but I am saying you're selectively styling your narrative in a convenient direction. I suggest you've done the same with "bureaucratic" -- while correct, is this word more commonly associated neutrally or negatively?
I've downloaded a few articles to read on the road, but for some of your queries regarding the case for holding off are reasonably described in the 2021 Economist article (https://www.economist.com/europe/2021/11/27/riches-lie-below...). Admittedly volcanic vents are sexier than boring abyssal plains, but the central theme remains: low understanding, decades to assess, experts are concerned.
Thanks for taking the effort to respond. While my own thumbing through notes hasn't helped my employer at all it's at least been an interesting refresher on the topic.
One last question, although I fully understand if you'd prefer not to answer. Do you own shares of TMC (or related ventures), and if not, why not? I've bought mining stocks on far less positive vibes than what you've described your own interest to be.
Best wishes.
After another re-read some additional concepts popped up:
1) If Indonesian suppliers are presumably lower on the cost curve, deep sea mining will tend to displace (or prevent scale) from terrestrial suppliers outside Indonesia. Another poster ironically called this out: "why not do both [deep sea and deforestation damage]" -- this is almost precisely what would be expected to occur. The ecological footprint of an underground nickel mine is vanishingly small compared to the Indonesian method.
2) The word "may" is used in the title, but it's not present in the sub-title. The article boldly claims 30x life destruction as fact, but I remain curious if this is more than an invented ratio of convenience/novelty. To attempt a direct comparison, protect species legislation does not factor in the mass of the animals being protected. I concede in advance that humanity is historically terrible at caring about damage to life that does not directly inconvenience us, but our understanding of linked systems and the relevance of panarchy is slowly shifting that.
3) Dr. Glover is asked about the diversity of life on the ocean floor, but not about what they and their peers thought about the benefits / risks of deep sea mining. This feels convenient, particularly given Dr. Glover's research found that numerous organisms live on the nodules themselves. The article talks about dust plumes, but neglects to mention the more direct destruction of habitat. Likewise, no mention is made of the potential use of the zone as a feeding ground for whales being researched by Dr. Glover's peers.
Unfortunately I can't share my own details as mining is a very small industry -- I'm probably identifiable from even what I've shared. Having said that, I might reach out in a professional context down the line!
"With the coming expiration, on July 9th, of an international bureaucratic deadline, that prospect looks more likely than ever." -- oh, those pesky bureaucrats! You've decided to present this as a "get going" or "next step" signal, but the reality may be the provisional approval comes with many more provisions that create further delays.
"That date marks two years since the island nation of Nauru..." -- this paragraph omits that there are Draft Regulations that exist and studiously avoids comment on the issues considered and potential ramifications for TMC. It also generously leaves out that Nauru decided to trigger a 2-year timed condition during the pandemic. As a commercially interested party they have a vested interest in weaker regulation. Basic readings from the Journal of Maritime and Coastal Law (fun!) suggest the ISA is concerned about the enterprise.
"(The firm itself says it hopes to wait until rules can be agreed)" -- Are you familiar with the phrase "talk is cheap"? This feels like a thumb on the scales for TMC as it exists with no assessment of TMC's trustworthiness on the topic.
"tmc’s plan is about as straightforward as underwater mining can be." -- translation: "this is simple stuff" but it's actually not. Even the literature you've cited is replete with caution after caution that this is relatively unknown territory and requires more research to understand. Another thumb on TMC's side -- straightforward is good, right? What are these scientists and bureaucrats going on about?
"a second ship which will ferry them back to shore for processing" -- You've picked "ferry" instead of "vessel/ship" which can imply small scale. It appears the destination is not known.
"will be released back into the sea at a depth of around 1,500 metres, far below most ocean life" -- that we know of, and, of course, that pesky life on the bottom is way below 1,500 metres.
"Three Chinese firms—Beijing Pioneer, China Merchants and China Minmetals--are circling too" -- So we're using TMC's numbers, but do we expect these other firms to have the same level of performance?
"It will also kick up plumes of sediment, some of which will drift onto nearby organisms and kill them (though research from mit shows these plumes tend not to rise more than two metres above the seabed)." -- What about the impacts from that sediment release at 1,500 metres? Further, who sponsored that MIT study (hint: quite a few people interested in deep sea mining)? There are multiple studies illustrating the problem of having science focused by sponsors with vested interests. You choose to present the results as-is without tempering them (e.g. "the first study", "an individual study") leaving it to the reader to think about how well developed this knowledge actually is.
"companies like tmc can be encouraged to choose locations where energy comes with low emissions. Indonesian nickel ore, in contrast, is uneconomic unless it is processed near the mines from which it was extracted" -- so TMC heeds this encouragement and is presumed to pick an environmentally responsible outcome at the cost of profits, but Indonesia does not have the same opportunity? A few years back Indonesia's polluting smelters didn't even exist. If this is a concern, could they not also be made clean? The article gives the benefit again to TMC and at this point one of the scales is moving through the table.
Finally, and most amazingly, we get this gem two-thirds of the way in:
"The diversity of life is “very high”, says Dr Glover.
Yet in several respects, mining the seabed is more environmentally friendly than mining in Indonesia." -- what a pivot! Every paper cited repeats the same themes: "there's a lot of life down there", "we don't know enough about how important it is, or how to assess it", "more study is needed to understand this" and the article zooms right past to go: "Don't worry folks, we can go by weight per hectare!" No regulatory body in the world does this. Do you have any scientific backing for this ratio in environmental impact assessments?
-- deep breath --
My central concern is that the article you've written is by itself relatively benign. It uses an interesting ratio (biomass disturbed) and a bit of fluff from TMC's public disclosures and the nickel market in general. Where it can cause damage is that people will read it and draw conclusions:
1. Sea mining is less harmful (30x!!!) than terrestrial mining. This is not true. The simple answer is that we don't know yet. Trying to model environmental impacts in a marine environment is orders of magnitude more difficult than terrestrial activity. On the surface we can see, instrument, and to some poor extent predict. Underwater it's a whole different ball game. We don't know the receptors. We don't know the transport mechanisms. Unknown after unknown.
2. We need sea mining now! Our back is up against the wall climate-wise and sea mining is what will get us the batteries we need. We don't, we really don't. There's a reason Indonesia is now the dominant supplier (and current temporary reserve leader) -- their government is quite happy to strip their country down for metals and sell them. Market dynamics in isolation often mean that if there is contestable supply and a market participant has a clearly lower cost of participation new supply will not come on. The world is moving in the right direction in so many areas: pricing in externalities like carbon and deforestation, changing to alternate materials (iron based batteries, sand/physical batteries), increased recycling. We don't need to go trash a sea bed because some company says it's a great idea (and look at that NPV).
3. I (the reader) am educated, I know there are risks and unknowns, but for a short while the CCZ seems like an ideal solution to our problems. Maybe, we don't know. What we do know is that once this door is open it's not going to shut. It won't be confined to nickel. It won't stay in the CCZ. Mining as an industry has already learned this lesson -- strong regulation based on well developed science is in the public interest to ensure minerals are fairly priced for the long terms costs they incur.
-- other thoughts --
Can you share any insight in how this article was suggested for research? Was it driven by the recent share price run, timing of ISA decisions, or general interest in battery materials? Either way, it looks like it has contributed to some very positive gains for TMC shareholders (~+20% since July 2).
Thanks very much for sharing sources -- I concur with other discussion posters that these are increasingly useful in public consumption of analysis. I hope the policy at the Economist changes in this regard, particularly for online content.
I'm also fully aware that folks from HN probably won't even see this thread as it's well off the front page. If you've read this far your blood might be a bit up as well. Sorry. My original post was hyperbolic in the extreme and was unprofessional. I'm an engineer, economist, and environmental scientist. I care a lot about the role professionals have to play in guiding an increasingly untrusting public and I also know about balancing industrial and environmental outcomes. I'm telling you to suck eggs, but in the future I hope you can have robust conversations with your editor about tonality and neutrality in publishing rather than falling into the latest hype and narrative that sells. The future of this crazy world might just depend upon tens of thousands of small actions like that. All the best.
What a bunch of tools. We shouldn't be listening to management consultant speak when it comes to underwater ecosystems. Not a single scientist quoted in the article. Disclosures from the company taken as truth and "very transparent". To think I used to look to this magazine for journalism.
Again: the whole article is premised on "deforestation bad, destroying marine ecosystems okay or less bad" based on... what? The mining company's assessment? Absolute rubbish. How much was this writer paid by the company?
So we agree then? This feels like a "but the guy in front of me was speeding too" proposition.
> Do you know what glecore has already done and gotten away with?
I do, I used to work for them. The point is not to influence Glencore, a quick look at their majority shareholders is all anyone should need to know where they are on the sustainability responsibility spectrum. The point is to illustrate that Tesla, which advocates that "the future is sustainable" is building that vision on the back of some very unsustainable partners and practices.
I'm going to leave off the fallacy of using revenue as a primary proxy for business scale. See: Air Lease. A better comparator would probably be employee counts (they are similar).
Glencore is 1/10th the size, so it's fair to suggest that action by Tesla would influence Glencore to clean up its act.
Lots of older generations felt that way about housing price increases as well -- are they right too?