0 0

In the changing Arctic, local communities are the key resource owners and decision-makers.¹⁾ They are the people who bear the consequences of extractivism decisions and whose livelihoods depend on such decisions. They are not merely stakeholders. These have been recurring messages in recent fora in the Arctic, such as the Arctic Frontiers conference in Norway or the Arctic Circle Assembly in Iceland. Local communities depend on politicians, industry, and scientists to take these messages seriously. This perspective will focus on scientists as a community and their role in shaping decision-making on deep-sea mining (DSM) and, in turn, Arctic future(s).

One important change in normalizing and internalizing the rightful owners and decision-makers in the Arctic is the multitude of documents focused on changing research ethics. One common pattern is that locals are no longer subjects or objects of research – they are shapers and makers. Part of this change is a growing debate about who benefits from the multitude of research projects and topics in the Arctic.²⁾ The emphasis is on, first and foremost, meaningful benefits for the Arctic communities. So, it is useful to reflect on what scientists contribute when it comes to Arctic community responses to Arctic extractivism. One of the examples that I will introduce later is deep-sea mining in Norway. It is important to emphasize that while the recent Norwegian decision to explore the Arctic for minerals is in the Arctic Mid-Ocean Ridge, the Arctic and subarctic communities that will have to live and depend on such decisions are not only those living in Norway. While there is a substantial amount of work regarding the role of science in society and the importance of self-reflection among scientists (e.g., Responsible Research and Innovation studies or the Norwegian research ethics guidelines), I will not explore those. The goal here is to put the idea of reflection into practice. A key question is: how does scientific rhetoric could hinder community responses regarding the emerging industry idea of deep-sea mining?

Precarious unintentional promotion and unintentional effects

Internationally, these are some of the phrases used to evoke an economic image of deep-sea minerals at conferences, seminars, think tank reports, media and academic articles: treasures and the new gold,³⁾ geologic treasures and seafloor riches⁴⁾ and major mineral reserves.⁵⁾ The descriptive quantities vary from large⁶⁾ to trillions.⁷⁾ Such word choices inadvertently promote the industry and its imagined profits. I say imagined as no country or start-up working in the international seabed has mineral reserve estimates – the resource reporting stage, which shows economic viability. Moreover, experts who use these phrases often see themselves as neutral or not in favor of deep-sea mining.⁸⁾ Yet, they promote deep-sea mining unintentionally. How?

Words can lead to unintended consequences. George Lakoff⁹⁾ suggests that message frames (e.g., riches) activate existing perceptions about particular topics in our minds. Think of the aforementioned phrases as prompts for the reader or listener to reason with themselves. Reading and listening are interpretive tasks. Such tasks often depend less on the clarity of the content and more on the existing information in the audience’s mind. For example, treasures might activate perceptions of economic opportunities – tantalizing investments and opportunities of growth. By contrast, the experts might merely use such phrases to create a vivid image for engaging the reader. What happens when attention-grabbing phrases appear in quality content? Emotional framing might lead to the audience paying less attention to factual content.¹⁰⁾ Communicating unproven economic viability through the aforementioned phrases and words might lead to unintentionally promoting deep-sea mining.

Precarious intentional promotion

Not all deep-sea mining promotions are unintentional. For example, in Norway, since before the opening of the Norwegian Continental Shelf for deep-sea mining exploration and exploitation, some academic voices have amplified the potential monetary value of this new industry idea. Compared to international examples of riches promoted by those who caution about DSM, the riches in Norway were promoted by some academic voices who are in favor of deep-sea mining. One of the recent topics in the national debate was the estimate of up to 1000 billion kroner promoted as a figure waiting in the deep. This figure was speedily spread by news outlets.¹¹⁾ So, how would one produce such a figure?

To show economic viability, the mining industry has reporting standards such as the Committee for Mineral Reserves International Reporting Standards (CRIRSCO).¹²⁾ Before moving on, it is important to note that economic viability is not static and economically viable “reserves can be downgraded to resources or even be considered to no longer have reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction”; this could happen because of “(…) changing economics (e.g., decreasing metal prices, difficulties with production, poor recovery), the discovery of new information (e.g., lower grades than expected, a lack of geologic continuity despite having the geoscientific confidence to formally report resources), or a variety of other reasons (…)”.¹³⁾ The recommendations from the International Seabed Authority, in charge of governing DSM in international waters, use terrestrial mining standards.¹⁴⁾ In Norway, such standards were described and presumably adhered to in the Impact Assessment¹⁵⁾ and the Resource Assessment,¹⁶⁾ both issued as part of the opening process for deep-sea mining. The Impact Assessment and the Resource Assessment seem to be reporting undiscovered resources, something that comes before discovered resources.¹⁷⁾ The Resource Assessment,¹⁸⁾ however, was criticized by different expert groups, including the Norwegian Geological Survey, for not meeting the international mineral reporting standards.¹⁹⁾ Additionally, researchers from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) questioned the resource assessment and called the current resources speculative or hypothetical – the accepted terminology for undiscovered resource classification.²⁰⁾ So, how realistic are the billions of Norwegian kroner of undiscovered resources to be waiting in the deep sea? The answer is quite different for a geologist, a biologist, a politician, or a citizen. Yet, they all depend on the clarity of such information.

For many geologists, the current uncertainty regarding minerals on the Norwegian Continental Shelf is clear. For example, Ellefmo and colleagues²¹⁾ write the following when describing the gross value “of yet-to-find metal resources along the Knipovich and Mohns Ridges”:

Clearly, these numbers are associated with a high degree of uncertainty, given both the uncertainty in commodity prices, the deposit density, the deposit tonnage and the deposit grades.

It is their work that inspired the 1000 billion kroner debate in the media. Ellefmo and colleagues²²⁾ describe the mathematical side of “quantifying the unknown.” For example, they outline the assumptions made when defining parameters of where inactive vents (the current habitats of mining interests) could be found during the exploration phase and explain choices made when calculating the metal content of yet to be found hydrothermal vents. To no surprise Ellefmo and colleagues²³⁾ warn about the uncertainty when it comes to the monetary value calculation. The final number of kroner is an in-situ value estimation, which does not include the costs of mining and processing, among others. It also does not consider the volatility of prices in the minerals market. More importantly, the geological assessments overall do not consider associated future monetary costs or losses such as environmental lawsuits or societal costs of unintended impacts such as impacts of extreme weather events. Put differently, mineral resource assessments do not fully reflect future reality, not physical (the deep sea) and not social as well as political. While these unknowns are often clear for geologists, they do not and often cannot control how this number is projected in the media and, in turn, has potential effects on non-specialists, including politicians and local communities. Such potential effects could be explained by psychologists.

One of the relevant works is that of Daniel Kahneman, who is most celebrated for his work in the psychology of decision-making. In one of his famous books “Thinking, Fast and Slow,”²⁴⁾ he reviews some of the concepts in psychology that indicate how irrationally humans can perceive numbers and how to be aware of it. One such concept is anchoring. In short, anchoring is a relatively well empirically supported theory about how any arbitrary number can become a solid and salient piece of information (a reference point) that impacts decisions and choices . For example, Dan Ariely and colleagues²⁵⁾ showed how digits in personal social security numbers, used to condition experiment participants, can become reference points for willingness to pay less or more for the same goods (e.g., higher social security numbers lead to willingness to pay more). So, a 1000 billion kroner can become a well anchored value tag, which could play a role in securing support for deep-sea mining. That is not to say that an estimate of a gross value of minerals is an arbitrary number, but there is a risk for it to become arbitrary when it is taken out of its context of various uncertainties.

By contrast, for biologists, 1000 billion kroner might mean something entirely different. For example, a habitat that supports blue carbon²⁶⁾ cannot be substituted with money. One of the famous marine scientists, Sylvia Earle,²⁷⁾ described the Ocean value as follows: 

Kelp forests and coral reefs sequester carbon; dead or damaged systems release carbon. Fish and other forms of ocean life are carbon-based units that represent an enormous living store-house for carbon – as long as it remains in the sea.

A healthy marine habitat has a monetary and non-monetary value – something that is deeply known to many biologists. Calculations of the value of the deep sea and its ecosystem services have not been made in Norway yet. The 1000 billion kroner means little to many biologists as they know this number does not reflect the associated deep-sea role in Ocean and human wellbeing. They know this number does not reflect potential losses, which cannot be substituted with money. Put differently, for biologists, the monetary value of minerals might signal unaccounted monetary losses with associated negative impacts to nature and human wellbeing. So, the monetary value of minerals in the deep sea has potentially a very different meaning for a geologist, a psychologist, or a biologist. Yet, all these meanings should inform Arctic communities. It matters how they are told to see numbers.

Taking responsibility for communication

Moving between international and national level debates, one thing is clear – some scientists can intentionally and unintentionally promote contested industry ideas such as deep-sea mining. Such promotion hinders Arctic community responses in various ways, for example, by making it complicated to challenge the need for a new, emerging industry because its economic salience is already well established in the public and political debate. Yet, no matter which side of the deep-sea mining debate you are on, part of that debate should be a clear communication about economic viability, beyond the salient descriptions of riches. As Jowitt and McNulty warn, “overlooking the massive future cost of an inaccurate resource and reserve estimation” means someone will need to foot the bill.²⁸⁾ Such costs are often paid by the taxpayers.

One such cost is exploration. In Norway, public funding is used to support the exploration phase. The exploration phase is, in part, a public good, where new basic science discoveries can broaden our appreciation of the Ocean’s role in supporting life on Earth, among other things. Yet, the exploration for resources and the potential mineral extraction, if economic viability is eventually proven, can be a public loss for questionable benefits. One example of a potential loss is indicated in the recent study led by Dr. Souster from The Arctic University of Norway and her colleagues.²⁹⁾ The researchers show that marine life in the Barents Sea captures and stores more carbon than previously thought, warning about possible detrimental effects on climate from seabed disturbances. What does it mean for the Arctic livelihoods? Among some Greenlanders, the “experience of climate change’s effects greatly exceeds awareness of its primary human cause.”³⁰⁾ The pressing and currently irreversible stressors in the Arctic span from the Atlantification of the Arctic Ocean³¹⁾ to Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS, known as “the forever chemicals”) in the Arctic ice³²⁾ and coastal darkening,³³⁾ among many others. These and other stressors have largely unknown impacts for the food webs, biodiversity, and local livelihoods. What does it mean to food sovereignty or knowledge sovereignty? What other stressors should or could be anticipated in the context of deep-sea mining before selling it to the public?

Conclusion

What do these international and national examples bring to the Arctic communities? A message for all of us who work on the deep-sea mining topic: no matter if you are in favor of or question the need for DSM, as scientists, we all should be transparent and aware of the limits and potential impacts of intended as well as unintended messages that we spread. Precarious promotion of the emerging industry is a disservice to the public, especially if one reflects on who benefits from the deep-sea mining research.³⁴⁾ What role such research might play in the Arctic future(s)? While some scientists feel compelled to explore the potential of mineral mining in the deep sea, are the implications of such interests considered in the national and international context? What is the responsibility and accountability beyond a scientific endeavor? Do we have the luxury to ignore unanticipated negative impacts like it happened with the science of petroleum? When thinking about the limits of space and time of a single scientific project, does the scientific community have the luxury not to anticipate what happens next? Finally, resource extraction in the Arctic is a question for the Arctic communities – the owners and decision-makers in the Arctic. To make well-informed decisions, Arctic communities need understandable and clear information as opposed to the potential unintended effects of the repetition of riches in the public debate.

In this short communication, I reviewed some of the scientific rhetoric that intentionally and unintentionally promotes deep-sea mining and its unsupported economic potential. I reviewed some of the examples of how different expert and non-expert groups might perceive numbers such as the potential monetary value of deep-sea minerals. What questions scientists might ask to reflect on their responsibility today and in the future when it comes to deep-sea mining?

I did not, however, question the definition of the idea of riches. For any sustainable and meaningful future, it is important to rethink how wealth is defined. Could we see a better future without being sidetracked by the definitions of riches from yesterday? Could some experts and governments unlearn to value the world through the glasses of economics?³⁵⁾ In sum, communicators and audiences have different associations with what words mean. Scientists have a responsibility towards society. For some, responsibility translates to neutrality, for others – to critical appraisal of future industry ideas or to promotion of techno-fixes. Overall, however, it should also translate into awareness of how communication works and into reflections on personal accountability that goes beyond the walls of academia.

Aistė Klimašauskaitė is a SEAS postdoctoral fellow at the University of Bergen, where she works at the Centre for the Study of the Sciences and the Humanities. Aistė‘s work has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 101034309.

References[−]

About Post Author

Editor

editor@arcticwatch.info

Happy

0 0 %

Sad

0 0 %

Excited

0 0 %

Sleepy

0 0 %

Angry

0 0 %

Surprise

0 0 %