Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
2 July 2011 | NewScientist | 3
THE American politician Stewart Udall once wrote that mining “is like a search-and-destroy mission”.
The next frontier of mining – hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor – provides a unique opportunity to change that perception. Metal ores have formed around some of these submarine geysers, and the first mining operations are scheduled to begin off Papua New Guinea before the end of 2013 (see page 6).
The company involved, Nautilus Minerals of Vancouver, Canada, has taken significant steps to minimise its environmental impact. Vents are also naturally disturbed habitats whose residents may have the capacity to bounce back from mining.
Still, it would be a mistake to relax. Vents merit special protection, for one thing because they host remarkable ecosystems.
True, in the current economic climate, few vent fields are likely to contain enough minerals to attract widespread commercial interest. But if the prices of copper and gold soar – and especially if rare earth elements, needed for high-tech manufacturing, are found in quantity – all bets are off.
Now is the time to put in place
legal frameworks to ensure that any rush for minerals will avoid the destructive effects of California’s gold rush in the 19th century. The International Seabed Authority, which regulates mining claims in international waters, must adopt clear guidelines on conserving vent ecosystems. This
could pressure prospectors to concentrate on inactive sites, which have no vent fauna.
Most importantly, the developed world needs to help the poor nations of the western Pacific, whose waters host some of the richest vent deposits, build their expertise in marine environmental regulation. Encouragingly, the European Union has already stepped up with a €7.7-million grant to SOPAC, the geoscience division of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community, for this purpose.
Finally, the scientists who study vents must be above reproach. Unfortunately, research has sometimes damaged populations of vent animals. As well as keeping a watchful eye on prospectors, scientists also need to abide by the highest standards of environmental protection. n
Mine, or ours?
EDITORIAL
Hydrothermal vent mining offers a unique opportunity
ONLY 15 years ago, the future of the best known carnivorous marsupial looked secure. Tasmanian devils then numbered 100,000 and had a large island to call home, so the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classed them as being of “Least Concern”.
In fact the devils were sitting on a genetic time bomb, and in 1996
it went off, in the form of a deadly infectious cancer that has pushed them to the brink of extinction. They cannot fight it, because genetically speaking all the individuals are almost identical (see page 10).
The IUCN had no idea, since it did not demand the sort of genetic testing that would have revealed how vulnerable the devils were.
It still doesn’t. There were good reasons for that back in the 1990s. Genome sequencing was slow, difficult and expensive, and even when the data was in no one knew what it meant.
But times have changed. The cost of genotyping is falling and we now have a better idea of how genes work. Genotyping thousands of species will still be expensive, but it could help to prevent another tragedy like the one unfolding in Tasmania. n
Better the devil you know…
“If gold prices soar, or rare earth elements are found at hydrothermal vents, all bets are off”
LOCATIONSUKLacon House, 84 Theobald’s Road, London WC1X 8NS Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1200 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1250
AUSTrALIATower 2, 475 Victoria Avenue, Chatswood, NSW 2067Tel +61 2 9422 2666 Fax +61 2 9422 2633
USA225 Wyman Street, Waltham, MA 02451Tel +1 781 734 8770 Fax +1 720 356 9217
201 Mission Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105Tel +1 415 908 3348 Fax +1 415 704 3125
TO SUBSCrIBeUK and InternationalTel +44 (0) 8456 731 731 [email protected] The price of a New Scientist annual subscription is UK £143, Europe €228, USA $154, Canada C$182, Rest of World $293. Postmaster: Send address changes to New Scientist, PO Box 3806, Chesterfield, MO 63006-9953, USA.
CONTACTSeditorial Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 [email protected]@[email protected]
Picture desk Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1268
Who’s who newscientist.com/people
Contact us newscientist.com/contact
enquiries Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1202
Display Advertising Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 [email protected]
recruitment Advertising UK Tel +44 (0) 20 8652 [email protected]
Permission for reuse [email protected]
Media enquiriesTel +44 (0) 20 7611 1202
MarketingTel +44 (0) 20 7611 1286
Back Issues & MerchandiseTel +44 (0) 1733 385170
SyndicationTribune Media Services InternationalTel +44 (0) 20 7588 7588
UK Newsagents Tel +44 (0) 20 3148 3333Newstrade distributed by Marketforce UK Ltd, The Blue Fin Building, 110 Southwark St, London SE1 OSU Tel: + 44 (0) 20 8148 3333
© 2011 Reed Business Information Ltd, England
New Scientist is published weekly by Reed Business Information Ltd. ISSN 0262 4079.
Registered at the Post Office as a newspaper and printed in England by Polestar (Colchester)
BACKYARD astronomers have a fine track record when it comes to discovering heavenly bodies. Of the 200 or so new comets found every year, amateurs spot a handful of them first, and name
them accordingly. Comet Hale-Bopp is a famous example. Supernovas and meteors are important targets too.
Now amateurs have a new goal. On page 37, we describe how backyard telescopes can join the hunt for Earth-like planets in the habitable zone of stars. They may even detect the first. This raises a
key question: what to call it? So far, more than 560 confirmed extrasolar planets have been designated a catalogue number based on the relevant survey or mission. Witness Kepler-10 or Corot-14. With potentially thousands of finds by amateurs on the way, the door is open for planet Sean or planet Ellie. n
Now you can find extrasolar worlds
