PDA

View Full Version : Should mining or waste dumping be allowed in the deep sea?




BenIsForRon
11-23-2009, 08:19 AM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/earth-environment/article6927449.ece

We know nothing about what is down there. It would be a tragedy if humans wiped out life down there before we got to see any of it.

Annihilia
11-23-2009, 08:37 AM
I say noes, citing negative externalities.

ClayTrainor
11-23-2009, 08:43 AM
I definitely don't want to see something like this happen.

This might be an ignorant question but, I have to ask, What are the alternatives? Where else can we put this waste?

Austin
11-23-2009, 08:48 AM
Privatize the sea.

;)

silverhandorder
11-23-2009, 08:53 AM
Depends... As long as sea is not private no they are not allowed to dump anything.

Ofcourse I would love to explore a potential system for privatization of the sea.

Annihilia
11-23-2009, 09:40 AM
Privatized or not, you would need to worry about currents whisking the waste away. The ocean is not static. Crap dumped in China is going to make its way here eventually, which is why I say "No", especially to chemical waste as it's a lot more difficult to contain.

kaleidoscope eyes
11-23-2009, 09:43 AM
Privatized or not, you would need to worry about currents whisking the waste away. The ocean is not static. Crap dumped in China is going to make its way here eventually, which is why I say "No", especially to chemical waste as it's a lot more difficult to contain.
+1

BenIsForRon
11-23-2009, 10:06 AM
I definitely don't want to see something like this happen.

This might be an ignorant question but, I have to ask, What are the alternatives? Where else can we put this waste?

Right now international agreements are aimed at preventing the dumping of waste in the deep sea. The alternative I see is to decrease consumption of materials that produce toxic waste. If we don't, before too long there will be companies looking into putting it at the bottom of the ocean. And they will be lobbying any politicians in any of the countries who could alter the international laws, in order to promote economic "growth".

Yucca mountain was an alternative directly aimed at nuclear waste, but that turned out to be prohibitively expensive and they abandoned the project.

Working Poor
11-23-2009, 10:16 AM
I think the waste ought to be broken down to it smallest elements and recycled.

Elwar
11-23-2009, 10:38 AM
Privatize the sea.

;)

+1

I wouldn't allow dumping on my property, nor would I allow my "neighbor" to allow waste from his dumping to creep onto my property.

erowe1
11-23-2009, 11:42 AM
I don't understand the question. "Be allowed" by whom?

If any group of people who opposes dumping in the ocean decides to fund an organization with their own voluntary contributions that somehow attempts to make it less profitable for others to dump things in the ocean than it would be to dump those things elsewhere, then I suppose more power to them.

On the mining, though, I'd have a problem with any attempt to prevent mining anywhere. If there are useful resources available to us down there and we're not getting them, that would be bad stewardship of the planet.

fisharmor
11-23-2009, 12:08 PM
+1 on privatization.
In the process, we'd also solve the problem of overfishing.
Unfortunately, privatization of the sea will never happen, because while engaged in the process of completely missing the point of private property ownership, nations would never be able to figure out who your sea taxes will be going to.

brandon
11-23-2009, 12:17 PM
If it's not allowed, who's going to stop it? The only answer would be a powerful world government with police and investigators across the globe.

So the obvious answer is yes, it should be allowed.

NYgs23
11-23-2009, 12:33 PM
If Party A dumps waste into the ocean and it damages the property of Party B, Party B can claim damages from Party A.

BenIsForRon
11-23-2009, 01:30 PM
I don't understand the question. "Be allowed" by whom?

If any group of people who opposes dumping in the ocean decides to fund an organization with their own voluntary contributions that somehow attempts to make it less profitable for others to dump things in the ocean than it would be to dump those things elsewhere, then I suppose more power to them.

On the mining, though, I'd have a problem with any attempt to prevent mining anywhere. If there are useful resources available to us down there and we're not getting them, that would be bad stewardship of the planet.

The "who" would be other people who value the preservation of natural environments. They would either sponsor a non-profit to stop the polluters, or they would petition their governments to do so.

I don't see how you can say mining is good stewardship of the planet. It almost always has destructive consequences to surrounding wildlife. By the way, I voted yes because I believe that the undiscovered wildlife under the sea has inherent value that any amount of minerals and ores can't compare to.

And for all the people calling for privatization, I have no idea how you could privatize anything that is currently international waters. The best route I see is to try to maintain bilateral and multilateral treaties that preserve the integrity of the deep sea habitats.

Elwar
11-23-2009, 01:34 PM
And for all the people calling for privatization, I have no idea how you could privatize anything that is currently international waters. The best route I see is to try to maintain bilateral and multilateral treaties that preserve the integrity of the deep sea habitats.

The United States current leases oil platforms to oil companies in international waters, why would they not be able to sell that same area?

erowe1
11-23-2009, 02:00 PM
The "who" would be other people who value the preservation of natural environments. They would either sponsor a non-profit to stop the polluters, or they would petition their governments to do so.

OK. As long as you're talking about something totally voluntary, and thus not state based, I don't have a problem with it.


I don't see how you can say mining is good stewardship of the planet.

My comment reflects my Christian worldview. Jesus taught that someone who leaves something valuable that God has entrusted him buried in the ground instead of using it to make a profit is being a bad steward.

I suppose that if that wildlife you're talking about has greater utility for us than whatever minerals we might mine down there, and our mining would prevent us from being able to kill or capture those animals, or whatever else it is that we might have to do to make the fullest use of them, then I'd favor doing whatever that is instead of mining. But even then, nobody would have more interest in resolving that decision than whoever owns that ocean property, and thus stands to profit or lose depending on which resource he values more. So I would be in no position to second guess their decision.

BenIsForRon
11-23-2009, 02:09 PM
So you think that passage in the bible merits mountaintop removal for coal? I would call that exploitation for the temporary gain of the current generation... not investing in the future.

Also, you are taking the strict utilitarian viewpoint on the natural world. You think that if an organism can't be used for energy or food, then it is worthless. I would have to disagree, and say that these new species have an inherent value in that they help humanity better understand the universe in which they live. Knowledge > short term monetary gain.

BenIsForRon
11-23-2009, 02:12 PM
The United States current leases oil platforms to oil companies in international waters, why would they not be able to sell that same area?

I guess it is possible, but I'm thinking of very large areas If it was possible for a company to drill for oil, without subsidies, and without damaging the natural environment, then it should be allowed. I think any privatization of international waters should come with a contract with strong stipulations limiting its use in the future.

Annihilia
11-23-2009, 02:37 PM
Even if you own a designated area of the ocean, there is no possible way one can really own the water itself as it's continually flowing. Whatever dumping you do will not stay in one place for long. The ocean does a very good job of finely distributing junk across the entire world.

If you do decide to dump, anybody who is affected has the right to seek compensation (and there will, almost without a doubt, be people affected). It wouldn't be worth it, IMO.

silverhandorder
11-23-2009, 02:49 PM
So you think that passage in the bible merits mountaintop removal for coal? I would call that exploitation for the temporary gain of the current generation... not investing in the future.

Also, you are taking the strict utilitarian viewpoint on the natural world. You think that if an organism can't be used for energy or food, then it is worthless. I would have to disagree, and say that these new species have an inherent value in that they help humanity better understand the universe in which they live. Knowledge > short term monetary gain.

Utilitarian views are dangerous. What if you have a person who comes along and proves beyond shadow of a doubt that an organism is truly worthless to humanity. You would have to support allowing the organism to die out should it come to it. You are spending needed resources on a useless organism. This is why subjective views are so important.

Btw I have not researched this my self but why is mountain top removal a bad thing? I think mountains create a specific environment but why is changing a system a bad thing. As long as it does not bring inconvenience to the people.

Elwar
11-23-2009, 03:02 PM
I think any privatization of international waters should come with a contract with strong stipulations limiting its use in the future.

Any purchase agreement can have stipulations. You could sell your house right now and put a clause in there that the house always be painted purple from here on out.

States are known to have property stipulations, I cannot sell any precious resources from my property due to state statutes that are clearly defined when I purchased my house.

tremendoustie
11-23-2009, 03:05 PM
Privatize the sea.

;)

Bingo. If a person owns their part of the ocean floor, they will be less likely to abuse it. And, the sierra club, greenpeace, etc, can own some too :)

Elwar
11-23-2009, 03:06 PM
Even if you own a designated area of the ocean, there is no possible way one can really own the water itself as it's continually flowing. Whatever dumping you do will not stay in one place for long. The ocean does a very good job of finely distributing junk across the entire world.

If you do decide to dump, anybody who is affected has the right to seek compensation (and there will, almost without a doubt, be people affected). It wouldn't be worth it, IMO.

If it weren't for the government taking over polution control, this would have been addressed decades ago. Just as private environmental investigations were getting going, the US created the EPA which created a blanket protection for polluters in exchange for tax money and fees.

Otherwise the private investigators would be able to trace the source of any polution onto your property and be able to compensate you through litigation.

You currently own the sky above you as well, it would be the same for water property rights. You'd own a piece of the ground with ownership of everything below and above that.

pdavis
11-23-2009, 03:43 PM
Even if you own a designated area of the ocean, there is no possible way one can really own the water itself as it's continually flowing. Whatever dumping you do will not stay in one place for long. The ocean does a very good job of finely distributing junk across the entire world.

If you do decide to dump, anybody who is affected has the right to seek compensation (and there will, almost without a doubt, be people affected). It wouldn't be worth it, IMO.

I agree.


Any purchase agreement can have stipulations. You could sell your house right now and put a clause in there that the house always be painted purple from here on out.

States are known to have property stipulations, I cannot sell any precious resources from my property due to state statutes that are clearly defined when I purchased my house.

How is this enforceable if the seller is no longer in possession of the property? This sounds a lot like feudalism.

Annihilia
11-23-2009, 04:44 PM
If it weren't for the government taking over polution control, this would have been addressed decades ago. Just as private environmental investigations were getting going, the US created the EPA which created a blanket protection for polluters in exchange for tax money and fees.

Otherwise the private investigators would be able to trace the source of any polution onto your property and be able to compensate you through litigation.

You currently own the sky above you as well, it would be the same for water property rights. You'd own a piece of the ground with ownership of everything below and above that.

Can't argue with you there.

erowe1
11-23-2009, 04:51 PM
So you think that passage in the bible merits mountaintop removal for coal? I would call that exploitation for the temporary gain of the current generation... not investing in the future.

Also, you are taking the strict utilitarian viewpoint on the natural world. You think that if an organism can't be used for energy or food, then it is worthless. I would have to disagree, and say that these new species have an inherent value in that they help humanity better understand the universe in which they live. Knowledge > short term monetary gain.

As I said, it's really up to the owner of the property to decide what relative values various uses of his property have. If he can make bigger profits from the knowledge gleaned from the wildlife he finds there than he can from using the minerals for all the good things we get from them, then he would know that better than anyone else. Likewise with the owner of the mountaintop property who has the choice of whether to remove it for coal or to leave it there for sightseers or whatever. And if he decides to remove it and someone else doesn't like that decision, they can always try to make a high enough offer to buy the property from him.