This headline appears to be bullshit. The report does not recommend banning smartphones. This is what it actually says:
"Banning technology from schools can be legitimate if technology integration does not improve learning or if it worsens student well-being. Yet, working with technology in schools, and the accompanying risks, may require something more than banning. First, policies should be clear on what is and is not permitted in schools. Students cannot be punished if there is no clarity or transparency on their required behaviour. Decisions in these areas need conversations supported by sound evidence and involve all those with a stake in students’ learning. Second, there should be clarity on the role these new technologies play in learning and on their responsible use by and within schools. Third, students need to learn the risks and opportunities that come with technology, develop critical skills, and understand to live with and without technology. Shielding students from new and innovative technology can put them at a disadvantage. It is important to look at these issues with an eye on the future and be ready to adjust and adapt as the world changes."
hi, i’m the writer. this article, like all my articles, originated from my own curiosity. at no point was i pitched on this. the only PR pitches i’ve received about the subject over the last few years have been from environmental groups
I read your article this morning before coming across this post. I really enjoy the economist and thought your article was well-written. I think many folks, including myself, have become very cynical about content that isn’t overtly anti-industry.
I appreciate that you’ve come to this post to respond, especially in light of the mixed reviews your article seems to be receiving here. I also appreciate that you linked your sources here upon request.
That’s kind of you to say, thanks. I get the cynicism, and I worry about it. Humans aren’t getting out of climate change without all the tools we have in the box, including “big industry” imo
Hi, I’m the writer. I was, obviously, paid nothing by TMC or any other company. If you’re interested I can link all the peer reviewed publications on which I based the calculations. The Economist's style is not to show our workings on things like this in copy, but I’m happy to do so myself
I don’t mind at all. The honest answer is I don’t really know. Broadly speaking it helps our voice sound authoritative and readable to not be breaking the flow of a piece up with lots of quotes and citations. But I can assure you I spoke to many people, and read many papers, in reporting the article
I see. So you’re positing, essentially, two reasons: 1) stylistically it’s annoying to read broken sentences, and 2) The Economist is, ostensibly, an authoritative source and the reader is assumed to, more or less, just trust that they’re doing their homework - and you are here assuring us that your homework was, in fact, done.
I’m not sure where you’re at, though I suppose it’s not unreasonable to assume the U.K., so this might be my US bias showing … but when I read something and the primary source is missing or there is insufficient citation (especially on a technical topic) I am immediately skeptical of the argument and my null hypothesis becomes that the piece is pushing a narrative. Perhaps that’s just cynical, but I’ve seen this phenomenon so many times where an article says X and doesn’t actually link the law (or court ruling or whatever) and when I go check it on my own it’s almost comically absurd for one to draw the article’s conclusion from the actual primary source.
Of course, I’m not accusing you of doing this at all. Thanks for being a good sport.
yeah you’ve got it. i’m based in London. i am fairly confident that our style can come across as arrogant. i don’t always ageee with it, though i can see its advantages. you’ll see i put a bunch of my sources below for you to check out if you like
I wouldn't say arrogant, really. The Economist definitely has an audience, which is in my view an educated urban professional who works in financial service, or maybe tech or tech-adjacent, or something on the periphery of government. So the tone is spot on, in my estimation. I'm probably just a cynical American and am too used to my news media intentionally lying to me, so don't take it personal if my question and/or explanation came off as rude. I did check out the links, thanks for providing them.
no worries at all, did not take it as such. and yeah, i guess i think just cos something has worked well for us for a long time, doesn’t mean it’s not worth thinking about how well it works today
Just chiming in, I think while your approach may have worked fine in the past, in today's world of half-truths and believable lies it's more important than ever to at least add your sources below like you did now. Because a reputation once lost, even if only by somebody misinterpreting an article, can be a struggle to regain.
I think about this a lot, and I think you may be right, but I am also not sure anyone ever had their mind changed by having sources cited. My main thought is that in an age of cheap machine generated text, we may need to be more transparent about the sourcing we offer, even at cost of style
I think the style could be preserved if the sourcing is done in the style you did here: an aside by the author separate from the main article.
It doesn't have to be paper style in the middle of the article, but it's good if it's present on the page (perhaps behind a button labeled "source disclosure" or similar)
I also think this increases the value I get from pieces like this, in more ways than whether or not my mind was changed. Sourcing might not influence mind changing in particular, but it'll help me if I want to dive deeper in the topic. Just yesterday I had trouble figuring out which paper was referred to by an economist piece by using google scholar queries- if there was a sources section, I'd have known instantly.
Does The Economist still have a statistics page at the back of the print magazine? It's been a while since I picked up the physical edition, but suppose we had a digital version of the magazine and you could footnote primary sources like you did in this thread and stash them at the end, after the stats summary.
it has one page of indicators in the back, yes. it would defo be too many sources to fit in print, but clearly digital makes this possible as a little clickable footnote at the bottom or similar. part of the issue is that one can't help but feel that you are competing with "attention apps", and so there's this deep incentive not to link out. my own view is that you can't succumb to this, and have to trust the reader with their own attention, but it is hard, still to push readers out of the site/app in any way
Well hold on a minute mate, this is an opportunity.
The draw of The Economist is that they are not the attention apps. The Economist could implement the most severe of editorial standards on select issues, wherein you do as I said upthread and bang the citation to a footnote at the bottom (or the last page in the print edition). The only readers who will "link out" are the people like me who you are talking to right now. Everyone else is going to see that the claim is footnoted and think "ah, of course The Economist footnoted this. It's The Economist".
I agree with you, and I hope we will go that way; free range organic high quality etc etc. but the lure of metrics affects our thinking too, in ways one cannot avoid wrestling with
I spoke to Kris van Nijen, Gerard Barron, Nathan Eastwood, Adrian Glover, François Mosnier, Pia Heidak, Peter Tom Jones, Mervyn Stevens, Alex Laugharne
Much appreciated. This goes a long way in alleviating concerns about this being a paid piece by TMC and gives some insightful credence into the claims about deep water sea life and potential impacts.
As I've apparently upset someone else in the comments by asking for citations, I just want to clarify that I didn't intend that as an attack. I'm just a bit incredulous that an organization with as much "prestige" and alleged journalistic integrity as The Economist doesn't - as a rule - cite their sources or byline their authors.
Perhaps it's just a different way of doing things, but that really doesn't sit right with me for a number of reasons, and as a result, I have a hard time taking anything it says without a spoonfull of salt/sources.
I'm aware. Please point to the part where I specified a 1 hour (or any) deadline. They're free to do whatever the damn well please quite frankly, but as they've made multiple assurances that said sources do exists, I was just explicitly stating that we would like those citations. EDIT: And while typing this, they delivered.
Incorrect. They were waiting for someone to explicitly ask. And I Did. See their comment. You're the one that's reading far too into this and need to chill.
The author was clearly making a point to make us ask explicitly even after we expressed concerns about their and their publications sources. Yes, I was annoyed by this. You however grossly misinterpreted as me being upset and demanding sources IMMEDIATELY, which wasn't the case. I made a single request to follow up on what the initial commenter in this thread said to reinforce that there are multiple of us in the comments that are highly skeptical of the claims in the paper, especially in light of a lack of byline or citations by the publisher.
The author then happily obliged in a timely and respectful manner and addressed my concerns. You, however, are the one that took issue with it.
Thanks for getting in touch! While (of course) you're not being directly paid by the company, it remains puzzling how the article comes off so glossy for TMC and seabed mining. This positive tone is present throughout the article and seems to deliberately highlight the case for mining while diminishing the drawbacks and risks. Taken in aggregate, a reader could be left with the impression this is a miracle technology with nearly no problems. A few selections:
"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.
Hi there, my blood is fine! appreciate the cut and thrust, even if no one is watching. I would have preferred if you had started in good faith and critiqued the facts etc rather than jumping to "who is paying you"
I think I said it in another post, but my only inspiration for writing about this is that I have been following DSM for years (I first wrote about it here https://www.economist.com/technology-quarterly/2018/03/19/si...), reading papers and talking to people. Based on what I knew when I started reporting this several weeks ago, I thought it worthwhile to try and compare the impacts of land vs seabed mining. I found a rough comparison was possible, and that's the heart of the piece
Might respond more fully later, but am clocking off for now. The final thing I'd say for now is that all the hype and narrative I see runs in the other direction, against DSM. Those who are against it are chock full of nonsense claims like this will disrupt the global carbon cycle or destroy fisheries, when basic science shows that it won't (or, if you don't like the casual use of certainty, that it is very very unlikley)
and having read through your comment in more detail, I will defo reply later. lots of interesting points. my email is halhodson at economist dot come if you'd like to ping me there just so that we don't loose the thread
Cheers, I'll check back tomorrow as I needed to get back to work. Glad you found the commentary interesting, if perhaps not overly useful. I've got a thesis paper coming up and this might have given me some research as well. I'm glad the discussion is beneficial rather than just another internet forum argument.
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!
1) this underestimates the scale of increase in nickel supply we're gonna see in the next five years. last year 3.3m tonnes. by 2025 it's gonna be 5m tonnes, by 2030 11m. on current trends, the vast majority of that comes from Indonesia (today it does 54% of global up from 17% in 2018). if TMC can't compete on price, there's no alternative. small hard rock mines don't make any difference. it's CCZ vs Indo to first order. TMC says its floor price is $6000, meaning there's significant room to undercut. and that's before things like battery passporting and carbon pricing come into play, which drive up indo costs.
bear in mind that my view in face of relative enviro and emissions footprints is that car companies and countries should be supporting CCZ nickel and calling for moratoria on Indo nickel, though I don't expect this to happen any time soon
2) 30X is the absolute minimum, as it only accounts for plant biomass in Indo rainforest. the real number is probably closer to 150x. here are my sources for the calculation so you can rerun it yourself
- Sulawesi nickel per hectare from this investigative reporting https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/illegal-nickel-laundering (note: this leads to an estimate that is much too high. There is research going though peer review which shows there is much less nickel per hectare, which makes the biomass destruction numbers far worse for Indo nickel
3) I did ask him what he and his peers thought about DSM. I didn't quote him on it due to aforementioned space constraints. I would describe his position as broadly open, contingent on strict controls. He described deep sea mining as having been amazing for science, creating the incentive to do science in the CCZ that would never have happened otherwise.
And as for the idea that the piece doesn't mention direct destruction of habitat...that is the central idea of the piece
No mention is made of the potential use of the CCZ for whale feeding as it is incredibly speculative. see the original paper https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.180286. it explains why feeding is unlikely: there is almost no food down there
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.
>>> I don't make that claim. I say it's 30x less destructive of biomass. and that is a massive underestimate as a) it only counts plants in the rainforest and b) the actual mass of nickel per hectare is lower than the estimate I used from investigative reporting in Indonesia. The real multiple is likely worse than 90x more biomass destruction on land. You say there is unknown after unknown, but this is a fact. here are the papers for you to verify for yourself
>>> it is also not true that it's harder to model impacts in the marine environment. it is far easier to survey, and there is far more EIS data about NORI-D than there has ever been about any Indonesian mine. Here's the NORI-D data https://obis.org/dataset/bb0b9375-c875-4cb6-8889-6f783e1015b.... you find me an equivalent dataset for a prospective nickel mine in Sulawesi. I'll tell you now that it simply does not exist
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).
>>> I don't think we need to mine the CCZ because TMC says so. I think we need to do it because the enviro and carbon impacts are much lower per unit of metal. with battery passports and carbon pricing, CCZ nickel will just become more attractive. i hope that LFP etc goes as fast and deep as possible, obviously, but even if IEA is off by 2x the world still needs 175m tonnes of nickel to be mined by 2040. oh btw TMC says its floor price is $6000 per tonne. current price is about $20000
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.
>>> "What we do know is that once this door is open it's not going to shut" how on earth do you know this? and where in the piece do you see me arguing against regulation. I want ISA to finish the regulations it has been working on for 12 years so that mining can, cautiously, go ahead. I think there's strong evidence to suggest that DSM will have a dramatically lower enviro foot print than land based nickel
-- 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).
>>> I dealt with this in my comment last night. I'd just add that the reason for doing this now was the July 9th peg. but I have been working on it and thinking about it for several years.
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.
>>> i don't believe I have "fallen into the latest hype and narrative that sells". all the hype I see runs the other way, tens of thousands of copypasta tweets on DSM through a Greenpeace campaign; world leaders saying things that are flat our wrong about the CCZ (like nodule collection will disrupt global carbon cycles and fisheries); endless articles on the dangers of deep sea mining and none even attempting to compare the impact to that on land. I have attempted to do that by examining available evidence.
>>> I'd very much welcome you doing the same and providing your own reasoned, evidenced arguments on the following: why is it better to take a tonne of nickel from Sulawesi rainforest than to take it from the CCZ?
"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.
>>>> no, far below most ocean life is accurate. there is certainly life we don't know of below 1500m, but most ocean life, known and unknown, is above that mark. I know you already decried this research as "bought", but try explaining why the plume-destruction-by-turbidity findings do not matter https://news.mit.edu/2021/deep-sea-mining-sediment-plumes-07...
"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?
>>> I do not say this, so know. very little is known about the Chinese firms
"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.
>>> I suggest you actually engage with the data presented and explain what is wrong with it, rather than playing the man as you do here. what is erroneous or inaccurate about the MIT study?
"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.
>>> yes, exactly, Indonesia does not have the same opportunity. shipping 1% nickel ore to renewable energy sources for processing would make the whole thing uneconomic, as I say in the piece. TMC's ore is already on a boat and has to go somewhere anyway. and, yes, you could attempt to make Indo's grid clean, but a) that doesn't help with the 30-90x biomass loss compared to CCZ nickel and b) it's really hard and no one thinks it will happen soon
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?
>>>> unknowability and biodiversity are not the only metrics for environmental friendliness. I don't see what is wrong with quoting Glover on one metric, then pointing out that there are others. And, yes, we don't know much about what is down there. But we know approximately the same amount as we know about the contents of the Indo rainforest. Do you think mass of life per kilo of nickel is not a useful measure?
Thanks for getting in touch! While (of course) you're not being directly paid by the company, it remains puzzling how the article comes off so glossy for TMC and seabed mining. This positive tone is present throughout the article and seems to deliberately highlight the case for mining while diminishing the drawbacks and risks. Taken in aggregate, a reader could be left with the impression this is a miracle technology with nearly no problems. A few selections:
>>>> I would say that it comes off glossy because I have completed the reporting process and believe that the evidence I have collected points clearly to the sensibleness of DSM. again, TE style matters here, we are argumentative and analytical, not inverted pyramid news stories
"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.
>>>> I used the word bureaucratic because that is literally what ISA is and I was tight on space, so had to find a short way to describe what is happening July 9th
"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.
>>>> draft regs which have existed for 12 years. I go into this in the forthcoming opinion article. Again, the reason I didn't go into it here is space. even though the piece went "online first" it still has to fit into its print slot this week
"(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.
>>>> I am familiar with the term. I spoke with Barron for quite some time about why they would like to wait (more legitimacy and buy in from broad church is good for them). but it is clear to me that if regs are not forthcoming they file an application. i felt this was summed up reasonably by "hopes to wait"
"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?
>>> the technical act of collecting the nodules is relatively simple. it is the EIS and the comparison with alternatives that is complex
"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.
Sorry, I ended up reading too much today and left myself with no time to post before boarding a plane. I've bookmarked the page and will revisit it when I'm back home in a few weeks.
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.
lol, hilarious question that betrays utter lack of understanding of how the economist or any serious news org works. of course i own no shares in TMC or any other DSM related company (unless they're somehow in the Vanguard world index). no one is allowed to hold shares in companies they write about. doing so secretly (we have to declare holdings) a firing offence i'd imagine
one of the big issues is conflation of CCZ with other parts of the ocean. we don't do that with land ("you can't log in Siberia cos there are rare creatures in the Amazon") so why do it in the sea? what's safe in the CCZ may be dangerous elsewhere. but the CCZ is singular. the bits marked for mining are amoung the most surveyed patch of deep seabed on planet. you think anything like this https://obis.org/dataset/bb0b9375-c875-4cb6-8889-6f783e1015b... happens in Indo rainforest?
I am curious that you read this piece as arguing for any particular position. I did not write it with a particular argument in mind. My personal bias is the same as yours
we do. all letters sent in by emailed in get the following autoreply:
"The Economist thanks you for your letter, which has been passed to the author of the article. All letters are edited if selected for publication either in print or online.
We will need to know where you are writing from, so please ensure you have supplied the name of the city, town or village and the country if that is not obvious.
If you do not wish your letter to be published send an e-mail promptly to letters@economist.com."
I'm surprised GP didn't expect that the letter would be edited.
One of my letters was published. I fully expected that it would be edited and was pleased with the result. You can see both versions here - https://gist.github.com/nindalf/12a533f6ff64d7f146845f289acd.... I thought the edited version conveys the intent well.
I agree that this is smart editing that preserves the original meaning well. The one decision I question is simplifying your nicely-phrased “Most programmers spend most of their time attaching these disparate blocks together” to just “most programmers spend their time [...]”
I suppose insisting on both “most”s is a bit pedantic, but I also think it’s nice rhetoric -- reminds me of “you can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time.”
Every newspaper that I've ever read does this. There will be a blurb on the letters page saying something like "We reserve the right to edit letters". It's clear to both readers and correspondents.
If you don't like the terms, don't engage.
Edited to add: newspapers in the UK take libel law seriously so you have some confidence they won't grossly misrepresent your views.
It still doesn't make sense to attribute to a reader some words they didn't write.
Also there's a difference between the expectation that the letter can be truncated or just the gist of it extracted for reasons of space, and entire sentences or paragraphs rewritten in full. I would have never expected the latter even with a "right to edit letters reserved" disclaimer.
The problem is that a letter that makes an excellent point might not make it with the required berevity and clarity.
A letter to the editor might read:
> I saw on your article about the size of foodstuffs that food items are not getting smaller - actually people are just getting bigger. Very interesting article, quite funny and relevant as I've been collecting food items since I was a child and can confirm that this isn't always true. I've got a few exapmles where it holds, but I also have a kit kat from when I was 18 (born 1979) that used to be 500g and now they are 250g as standard. I'm a big fan and this is the first time I have spotted a huge glaring error! Please explain that one!
Clearly that would need to be reframed. I'm not particularly good, but I can see why a newspaper might want to shorten it:
> In last week's article The Economist argued that foodstuffs were not getting smaller, however I own a standard kit-kat from the 1997 that is double the size of ones available in shops today. Thoughts?
The above is probably an improvement from a readers perspective, conveys the points of the original message, and they aren't usually attributed to a specific, identifiable person anyway (usually something like John from London) so I don't think there is any huge scandal here.
That's what editors do. Everything you have read in a published book, magazine, or newspaper has been edited and often substantially rewritten by someone whose name is not on the cover or byline. Letters pages aren't comment threads; they're part of the publication and that means they're edited for style and content, just like everything else.
(As someone who writes for a living, I can tell you that it takes a little getting used to, especially when an editor butchers a sentence you're pleased with. But it's part of the process you learn to accept eventually — and they were probably right.)
How I miss the days of reading text that has been edited. Today's websites seem to have completely eliminated the editing stage before release. One of my big pet peeves is when multiple authors are contributing where you're reading the article, and then the next author's section comes in recapping what you've just read like it was meant to be another stand alone article. There is so much redundant information that an editor would have caught easily. It also implies to me that nobody is actually reading the article about to be released from start to end, nor do they read it aloud. That was a proofreading tip from long ago as it makes the mind slow down instead of auto-correcting when reading quietly.
Katha Pollitt in a 1997 panel discussion discussing the difference in writing relatively unedited for (comparatively) small-circ publications such as The Nation and the heavily-edited, mass-market, advertising-friendly world of Glamour.
Yes, and while I generally get given final review on things these days, if I were working on a publication with tight deadlines, I wouldn't expect that. And I mostly don't do a great job with headlines anyway so I'm mostly happy to have editors throw away whatever I put in as a placeholder :-)
I do occasionally revert changes when I'm reviewing--usually because I wrote something poorly and an editor misinterpreted--but I reject relatively few suggestions. I figure that if I wrote something that confused my editor or they just didn't like it, a lot of readers will feel similarly.
Is "everyone does it" a good argument?. Clear to all? Not according to @bambax. Also, libel law? Why are you bringing up libel law. Manipulation of comments and fake reviews isn't libel.
LRB and other publications of that caliber receive enough submissions in their preferred style so as to only require light use of [sic] for errors. LRB letter writers are highly motivated to have their words be selected for publication.
The Economist wishes to publish from a wider set of contributors and its house style is harder for that group to imitate.
The town I grew up in had a local weekly newspaper that published unedited letters. It was fun — basically an analog message board.
One problem is that normal humans don’t write concisely. The other is that the Economist is a global publication... you probably would not be happy with long-form musings of Johnny Random from Papua New Guinea. You’re opting in for highbrow British style.
