Introduction
Deep-sea mining involves extracting polymetallic nodules from ocean floors deeper than 4,000 meters, targeting metals like cobalt and nickel essential for batteries and tech. Proponents argue it’s necessary to reduce reliance on land-based mining dominated by countries like China. However, critics, led by Greenpeace, warn of profound environmental harm. Recent developments in 2025, including U.S. executive orders bypassing UN oversight, have accelerated the push, drawing sharp opposition. Drawing from Greenpeace reports and scientific studies, this piece examines the facts, integrating public sentiment from social media and expert analyses to provide a balanced view of the controversy.
Greenpeace’s Global Campaigns and Protests
Greenpeace has been at the forefront of opposing deep-sea mining through direct actions and advocacy. In June 2025, activists at the UN Ocean Conference in Nice unfurled a banner representing 3 million petition signers against seabed mining, urging a moratorium amid slow political progress (Source: Greenpeace France, 2025) [1]. This figure underscores massive public resistance.
On July 4, 2025, Greenpeace Canada staged a mural protest at The Metals Company (TMC) headquarters in Vancouver, protesting the Trump administration’s push for U.S. mining permits in the Pacific (Source: Greenpeace Canada, 2025) [2]. Similarly, Greenpeace Africa called on African nations at UNOC 2025 to ratify the High Seas Treaty and act against mining, amplifying voices from coastal communities in Senegal, Gambia, and Mauritania (Source: Greenpeace Africa, 2025) [3].
Expert analysis from our research highlights these as part of a “diplomatie verte,” where NGOs influence investors and policies. The social Posts reflect sentiment, with Greenpeace International sharing videos of activists disrupting mining tests in the Pacific, emphasizing irreversible ecosystem damage (based on X posts from 2023-2024).
Ecological Risks and Scientific Warnings
The environmental stakes are high. The Clarion-Clipperton Zone, spanning 25,200 km², is rich in nodules but hosts fragile biodiversity (Source: Greenpeace Canada, 2025) [2]. Mining disrupts habitats, creates sediment plumes, and risks releasing stored carbon, exacerbating climate change (Source: Greenpeace Canada, 2023) [6].
Greenpeace reports argue mining lacks ecological and economic justification, with alternatives like recycling sufficient for green tech (Source: GoodPlanet, 2023) [5]. A 2025 scientific review warns of “long-lasting and irreversible impacts” on species like blue whales (Source: Frontiers, April 2025).
Balanced views include industry claims that mining supports clean energy, but experts like those in Nature Reviews (2025) stress improved monitoring is essential, noting current tech causes devastating damage without safeguards. Greenpeace’s Norway expeditions documented fauna disruptions, reinforcing these concerns (Source: Greenpeace Canada, 2023) [7].
Geopolitical Tensions and Economic Debates
Geopolitically, the U.S. April 2025 executive order accelerating mining without ISA oversight drew Greenpeace criticism for undermining global governance (Source: Greenpeace Africa, 2025) [4]. Thirty-eight countries call for a moratorium, per NPR (2025), while companies pivot sales pitches from climate solutions to national security (Source: Greenpeace USA, July 2025).
This insights note a “new Far West” dynamic, with trends toward coalitions against mining. On X, discussions highlight financial non-viability, citing Planet Tracker reports (2024). However, proponents like TMC argue it’s vital to counter China’s mineral dominance (Source: BISI, May 2025).
Constructive Perspectives and Solutions
Amid opposition, solutions emerge. Greenpeace advocates ratifying the 2023 High Seas Treaty and enforcing moratoria, pushing for 30% ocean protection by 2030. Alternatives include enhanced recycling and terrestrial mining reforms, reducing deep-sea needs (Source: GoodPlanet, 2023) [8].
Experts suggest ISA-led monitoring frameworks (Source: Nature Reviews, 2025) and sustainable tech innovations. Original insight: NGO pressure could render projects unviable by scaring investors, fostering a shift to circular economies.
1. KEY FIGURES:
- 3 million people have signed Greenpeace’s petition opposing deep-sea mining, demonstrating significant public resistance to the industry (Source: Greenpeace France, 2025){1}.
- The Clarion-Clipperton Zone in the Pacific targeted for mining covers 25,200 km², rich in polymetallic nodules essential for modern technology but ecologically fragile (Source: Greenpeace Canada, 2025){2}.
2. RECENT NEWS:
- In June 2025, Greenpeace France activists protested at the UN Ocean Conference (UNOC) in Nice with a banner representing the 3 million people opposing seabed mining, highlighting the slow political progress toward a moratorium (Source: Greenpeace France, June 2025){1}.
- On July 4, 2025, Greenpeace Canada organized a mural protest at The Metals Company (TMC) headquarters in Vancouver, coinciding with U.S. Independence Day, opposing the accelerated push by the Trump administration for the first U.S. deep-sea mining permit in the Pacific (Source: Greenpeace Canada, July 2025){2}.
- Greenpeace Africa participated actively at UNOC 2025, urging African countries to ratify the High Seas Treaty and calling for concrete actions against deep-sea mining, including voices from coastal communities in Senegal, Gambia, and Mauritania (Source: Greenpeace Africa, 2025){3}.
- The U.S. government’s April 2025 executive order supporting deep-sea mining projects without UN oversight drew sharp criticism from Greenpeace USA for undermining multilateral governance and increasing global opposition (Source: Greenpeace Africa, 2025){4}.
3. STUDIES AND REPORTS:
- Greenpeace has published analyses warning that deep-sea mining presents irreversible ecological risks to ocean biodiversity, particularly in the Pacific, and that existing treaties are insufficiently ambitious to protect marine environments (Source: Greenpeace Canada, 2023; Greenpeace France, 2025){1}{2}{5}.
- Scientific expeditions organized by Greenpeace, e.g., in Norway, have documented the negative impacts of mining exploration on marine fauna, highlighting the disruption of habitats and species vulnerability (Source: Greenpeace Canada, 2023){2}.
- Greenpeace reports emphasize that deep-sea mining lacks both ecological and economic justification, arguing that the transition to green technologies does not require these destructive practices and that alternative sources exist (Source: GoodPlanet, 2023){3}.
4. TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS:
- While Greenpeace does not promote specific mining technologies, their campaigns stress that current exploration and extraction technologies cause devastating seabed damage, stirring sediment plumes and destroying fragile ecosystems (Sources: Greenpeace France, 2025; Greenpeace Belgium){1}{5}.
- The push by companies like The Metals Company to commercialize mining is accelerating with technological readiness for extraction in areas like the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, but Greenpeace highlights the lack of sufficient environmental safeguards in these technologies (Source: Greenpeace Canada, 2025){2}.
5. MAIN SOURCES:
- https://www.greenpeace.fr/espace-presse/a-lunoc-greenpeace-proteste-contre-lexploitation-miniere-en-eaux-profondes/ – Greenpeace France protest at UN Ocean Conference, June 2025.
- https://www.greenpeace.org/canada/fr/communique-de-presse/71322/greenpeace-canada-organise-une-murale-collective-pour-soutenir-le-moratoire-contre-lexploitation-miniere-des-fonds-marins/ – Greenpeace Canada mural protest and campaign, July 2025.
- https://www.greenpeace.org/africa/fr/communique-de-presse/57824/unoc-2025-oceans-pour-greenpeace-lheure-nest-plus-aux-promesses-mais-aux-actes-pour-sauver-les-oceans/ – Greenpeace Africa participation at UNOC 2025.
- https://www.greenpeace.org/africa/fr/communiques-de-presse/57500/le-gouvernement-americain-confirme-son-soutien-a-des-projets-dexploitation-miniere-en-eaux-profondes-en-contournant-les-nations-unies-greenpeace-reagit/ – Greenpeace response to U.S. government support for deep-sea mining, 2025.
- https://www.greenpeace.fr/exploitation-miniere-des-fonds-marins-stop-ou-encore/ – Overview of mining impacts and Greenpeace opposition.
- https://www.greenpeace.org/canada/fr/story/58223/lexploitation-miniere-en-eaux-profondes-une-menace-pour-locean-pacifique-malgre-ladoption-recente-dun-traite-mondial-sur-les-oceans/ – Analysis of ecological risks and Greenpeace actions.
- https://www.greenpeace.org/canada/fr/histoire/67250/greenpeace-prend-la-mer-pour-mettre-un-frein-a-lexploitation-miniere-en-eaux-profondes/ – Greenpeace scientific expedition on mining impacts in Norway.
- https://www.goodplanet.info/2023/03/16/greenpeace-estime-que-lextraction-miniere-sous-marine-au-nom-de-la-transition-energetique-ne-se-justifie-pas/ – Greenpeace report on lack of justification for deep-sea mining.
Propaganda Risk Analysis
Score: 6/10 (Confidence: medium)
Key Findings
Corporate Interests Identified
The article primarily criticizes companies like The Metals Company, portraying them as threats to the environment through mining activities. It benefits environmental NGOs like Greenpeace by amplifying their protests, petitions (e.g., mentions of ‘million petition signers’), and reports. Industry claims of supporting clean energy are noted but framed skeptically, suggesting possible greenwashing by mining firms. No direct evidence of corporate funding for the article itself, but web searches show Greenpeace as a key source of anti-mining content, which could indicate NGO influence over the narrative.
Missing Perspectives
The article includes some ‘balanced views’ by mentioning industry claims that deep-sea mining supports clean energy transitions (e.g., for batteries and renewables). However, it excludes detailed perspectives from pro-mining experts, scientists supporting regulated mining, or economic analysts highlighting potential benefits for mineral supply chains. Voices from governments or companies like The Metals Company are underrepresented, with no quotes or counterarguments beyond superficial mentions. Independent oceanographers or economists who argue for mining under strict regulations are notably absent.
Claims Requiring Verification
The key quote on ‘long-lasting and irreversible impacts’ is presented without specific sourcing or scientific citations in the article excerpt. Mentions of ‘million petition signers’ lack verification (e.g., no link to petition data or independent audits). Industry claims of clean energy support are noted but not substantiated with data, and alternatives like ‘enhanced recycling and terrestrial mining’ are suggested without comparative environmental impact studies or feasibility statistics. Web and news searches confirm similar claims in Greenpeace reports, but they often rely on NGO-funded studies rather than peer-reviewed, independent research.
Social Media Analysis
Searches on X/Twitter for terms related to deep-sea mining, Greenpeace opposition, environmental impacts, The Metals Company, and the High Seas Treaty yielded posts primarily from Greenpeace accounts. These posts consistently promote anti-mining messages, warn of irreversible ecosystem damage, highlight protests and activism, and critique industry claims about clean energy. They date back several years and include calls to action like petitions, with high engagement (views in the tens of thousands). No evidence of coordinated astroturfing from pro-mining sides was found in the results, but the uniformity of Greenpeace’s messaging suggests a deliberate campaign strategy. Broader sentiment on the platform shows environmental activists amplifying these themes, with limited counter-messaging from industry supporters.
Warning Signs
- Language echoes activist rhetoric (e.g., ‘irreversible impacts,’ ‘act against mining’), sounding more like campaign material than neutral journalism.
- Excessive focus on Greenpeace actions (e.g., videos of activists disrupting mining, mural protests) without equivalent space for industry responses or scientific debates.
- Unverified statistics, such as petition signer numbers, presented without sources, potentially inflating opposition scale.
- Potential greenwashing counter-narrative: Industry ‘clean energy’ claims are dismissed without deep analysis, while alternatives are praised uncritically.
- Absence of independent expert opinions, relying heavily on Greenpeace-sourced views.
Reader Guidance
Other references :
greenpeace.fr – À l’UNOC, Greenpeace proteste contre l’exploitation …
greenpeace.org – Greenpeace Canada organise une murale collective pour …
greenpeace.org – UNOC 2025 – Océans : Pour Greenpeace, l’heure n’est plus …
greenpeace.org – Le gouvernement américain confirme son soutien à des …
goodplanet.info – Greenpeace estime que l’extraction minière sous-marine …
greenpeace.fr – Source
greenpeace.fr – Source
greenpeace.fr – Source
france24.com – Source
greenpeace.org – Source
greenpeace.fr – Source
laliberte.ch – Source
ici.radio-canada.ca – Source
greenpeace.fr – Source
evenement.ch – Source
greenpeace.org – Source
greenpeace.org – Source
boursorama.com – Source
