Professors Kate Neville and Jessica F. Green published The false promise of deep-sea mining in npj Ocean Sustainability.
Introduction
In March 2025, the US announced it would unilaterally explore commercial mining of the international seabed in partnership with The Metals Company (TMC), ignoring ongoing multilateral processes and subverting the authority of the International Seabed Authority (ISA). This is an extreme example of a wider trend among countries and firms to team up to mine the deep sea. Viewed by some policymakers and academics as an important pathway for energy transitions and the fight against climate change, commercial mining of deep seabeds could occur in the next few years in marine areas under national jurisdiction. However, the future of mining of the international seabed is less clear, in part because of contested authority over its governance1. Governments are currently developing an international regulatory code to govern the deep-sea mining of metals and minerals such as zinc, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, and—potentially—rare earth elements.
There are fierce divides among scholars, states, and practitioners about the path forward, ranging from vocal support2 to growing concern, especially over the ecological damage that would be caused by deep-sea mining3. We join others calling to reverse course on deep-sea mining, though for a different reason: deep-sea mining is a multi-billion-dollar solution to problems that do not exist. At best, these “problems” reflect a misunderstanding of global mineral supply chains that vastly overstates the scarcity of metals and minerals. At worst, they have been manufactured by pro-extraction interests as a way to commodify a global commons that has been legally recognized as “the common heritage of [hu]mankind”4.
Our political economy analysis illustrates that arguments in support of deep-sea mining in the international seabed are based on false claims and false hopes. They hinge on misrepresentations of the current state of the mining industry and mineral supply chains. Government investments in deep-sea mining are an expensive distraction from effective, long-term policy planning to address climate change, and to promote metals recycling and ecologically oriented circular economy initiatives to reduce the demand for deep seabed resources.
We show that three arguments often made by proponents of deep-sea mining are unsubstantiated. First, contrary to scarcity arguments, we already have sufficient terrestrial deposits of the metals and minerals required for energy transitions. We do not “need” to augment supplies through deep-sea mining. Second, proponents argue that deep-sea mining will avoid the negative social effects of terrestrial mining, as it would not displace communities and would create safer working conditions. We maintain that this logic only holds if deep-sea mining replaces terrestrial mining, which is neither economically nor politically plausible. And third, we rebut the economic claim that deep-sea mining will financially benefit local economies and countries of the global South; to date, the record indicates that deep-sea mining is a risky and unprofitable investment. Without these arguments, there is little justification to mine the international seabed, but strong reasons to recommit to better governance of supply chains across mineral lifecycles5.