China Plans To Mine the Yellow Sea Floor 223
eldavojohn writes "Details are limited but state media is reporting on $75 million being put into a new research facility
in Qingdao, Shandong Province that will conduct research into mining the sea floor. From the article: 'Scientists believe sea beds at a depth of 4,000 to 6,000 meters hold abundant deposits of rare metals and methane hydrate, a solidified form of natural gas bound into ice that can serve as a new energy source.' The research center's first goal is to do surveying and exploration with a new submersible named 'Jiaolong' (a mythical aquatic Chinese dragon). Hopefully these quests yield energy resources to meet growing demand for resources like liquefied coal in China."
What could possibly go wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Releasing even more of one of the most effective greenhouse gasses (methane)..
Unfortunately, this is what we do (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who is serious understands we can't keep gobbling up resources the way the West has been since WWII. Yet no one stops to think that moving to the suburbs and having kids is a huge contributor to the demand for resources.
The only good thing is that things will start getting more and more expensive as oil gets harder and harder to get, and therefore anything that depends on cheap energy (everything) starts getting not so cheap.
The next 50 years will be interesting, to say the least.
Re:What could possibly go wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
In the series "what could possibly go wrong", long before greenhouse gases, I'll worry about the people behind these operations. China sending people into the deep of the ocean for mining operations; considering how "stable" and "safe" surface mining operations are in China, I can only ask myself this question: "what could possibly go wrong"? And the answers comes naturally: Possibly a lot...
Re:Unfortunately, this is what we do (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone who is serious understands we can't keep gobbling up resources the way the West has been since WWII. Yet no one stops to think that moving to the suburbs and having kids is a huge contributor to the demand for resources.
You did think about this. But the vast majority of population growth is not in the developed world. Reality doesn't fit the narrative.
The only good thing is that things will start getting more and more expensive as oil gets harder and harder to get, and therefore anything that depends on cheap energy (everything) starts getting not so cheap. The next 50 years will be interesting, to say the least.
Eh, that's a really mean Calvinist strike you have there. I'm a bit more optimistic. Maybe things won't be quite as easy as they are with cheap fossil fuels, but we still do have a lot of free power hitting the Earth every day in the form of sunlight. I think we'll figure a workable substitute for fossil fuels in transportation and coal in electricity generation.
Re:Unfortunately, this is what we do (Score:5, Insightful)
- Stop having more than one kid : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy [wikipedia.org]
- Use high-speed rail for long distance : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China [wikipedia.org]
- Switch unequivocally to nuclear power : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China [wikipedia.org]
- Build cheap electrical cars : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BYD_Auto [wikipedia.org]
Funny. "Western elites" seem to know what is needed to be done but it looks like in Asia, they prefer to do than to talk.
Re:Paying the Cost to Be the Boss (Score:5, Insightful)
Except pollution isn't created per capita. Most Chinese people don't produce more pollution than their ancestors did a century or a millennium ago, because they're not part of the global economy - they're stuck in the feudal economies of their areas, outside the cities, factories and mines that really pollute. Even without consuming much more than they did before indoor plumbing and the quality of life that they're stuck in. The US, meanwhile, counts nearly every resident in the global economy.
The actual measure is pollution per output. China consumes more energy than the US now, produces much more Greenhouse pollution, and vastly more pollution that isn't Greenhouse emissions. Yet China produces only 1/3 the output of the US. China therefore pollutes a lot more than 6x the amount the US pollutes per output.
Other countries also look better than they really are. China and the US together produce about 1/3 the total global output, much more than other countries do per capita. That output is consumed around the world. Those other people are outsourcing their pollution to the US and China, just as the US has outsourced much of its worst pollution to China.
All of which shows that markets have done nothing but shuffle pollution around to the lowest bidder. Which is why the people create governments to protect ourselves from getting dumped on when it's free.
Re:Paying the Cost to Be the Boss (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not about better or worse. The government requiring corporations (and people, by extension) to pay compensation for damage done to the environment doesn't interfere with the market any more than enforcing property rights does.
Glomar Explorer (Score:2, Insightful)
Pretty much the same cover story.
They were going to collect metal right off the top of the ocean floor.
In a way, they did.
Re:Just don't lose control! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Paying the Cost to Be the Boss (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Unfortunately, this is what we do (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess we have to start do things like China does then
- Exempt ourselves from the Kyoto accords
- Beat union organizers to death for organizing and striking
- Increase coal consumption rapidly
- Institutionalize dissidents and kill protesters
- Create a permanent traffic jam of coal trucks
- Build hundreds of light water reactors
- Recreate the 1930's North American dust bowl
- Use growth hormones to give female infants big breasts
"Western elites" don't prefer to "do" these things. They grew out of it.
Fuel for chinese naval border disputes (Score:5, Insightful)
While this research takes place in largely uncontested [wikipedia.org] Yellow sea, any success could very well bolster the Chinese government's hawkish stand on naval borders.
The disputes with Japan and Taiwan are well known [wikipedia.org]. It recently claimed sovereignty of regions of the South China Sea that are well beyond common UN agreements on sovereignty [bbc.co.uk] and openly challenged by ASEAN neighbors [economist.com].
Even the Yellow Sea is not without conflict, in which even the US is directly involved [economist.com]. At the heart of the matter is what the article calls ``one element in what appears to be an attempt to turn the seas near it into a Chinese lake''.
Re:Paying the Cost to Be the Boss (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Paying the Cost to Be the Boss (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Paying the Cost to Be the Boss (Score:4, Insightful)
The "Contract" you gave is just propaganda.
No it is not. That is exactly what the Tea Party movement is about. To say anything else, you will need to provide some evidence.
The point of the Tea Party (it's not a party)
Of course it is not. It's a reference to the Boston Tea Party. It's nothing to do with political "party".
is for Republicans to call yourselves something else
Not at all. Republicans tend to be closer to the ideals of the Tea Partiers, but by no means automatically. Did you even see what happened in the primaries this year. A whole crap load of established Republicans got voted out by the Tea Party preferred candidates because they did not stand for those ideals.
You never call for cutting the military/intelligence budget down from the $TRILLION+ to something actually justifiable like $200B.
And how did you pull that number out of your ass? A strong military is of course necessary for us to have but if we spend excessive amount on it, that is mainly the result of the government corruption (i.e. pork) that exists in both parties.
You want to get government out of healthcare, but hands off your Medicare.
No, we want all government programs including Medicare audited for constitutionality and for waste and cut back as necessary. I personally want Medicare completely eliminated, as well as the Medicaid, Social Security and all Unemployment Benefits. If we want to help our fellow citizens (and I do) we should do it voluntarily through charity. We have no right to do it with other people's money.
You talk about entitlement as if people aren't entitled to things like Social Security they paid into and which don't add a penny to the deficit.
Both parts of your statement are laughable. Social Security is a broken and bankrupt system, I can provide as much evidence for it as you like. Even so, I have not heard of any Tea Party supporters calling for it to be abolished without paying out the benefits to those who paid into the system. Even those who are open about ending social security like Sharon Angle would only phase it out for new people entering the workforce, not for those who already paid into it.
You never complained while you were voting for Bush/Cheney twice, but the moment a Democrat is elected you answer the call of your corporate funders and organizers like Dick Armey and Glenn Beck to "take back" your country - that you and your fellow Republicans brought to ruin.
The country has never actually had a government that was as fiscally irresponsible as the current one. The Obamacare alone will over time (esp if Dems stay in power and eventually turn it into a fully socialized system as they intend to) bankrupt the country. Along wioth SS, and other programs, we are heading for European style 70%+ income tax burden for our children just to fund all the entitlements.
As for the Constitution, you want to gut the 14th Amendment,
Who does? Some Republicans do want to stop the deliberate abuse of it with the "anchor babies" and I agree with it, but that has really nothing to do with the Tea Party. Even so we only want to do this through a constitutional amendment. We don't want to bypass or ignore the constitution, we want to amend it. There is a procedure for that provided in, guess what, the constitution.
ignore the 4th Amendment add a homophobia amendment...
All I can say to that is... What!?
and march with racists who really just prefer the original intent of the Constitution that protects slavery.
There is not once single piece of evidence that Tea Party is in any way racist. I might as well say that the Democrats want to burn live babies. Stating something doesn't make it true. On the other hand there is plenty of evidence that there is a deliberate policy among the liberals to smear the Tea Party, and in fact any opponent, as racist. Would you like me to provide some?
This reminds me of Howard Hughes' Glomar Explorer (Score:2, Insightful)
This story reminds me of Howard Hughes' Glomar Explorer.
The whole story is fascinating, but the gist of it is that in the 70's the CIA located and wanted to raise a Russian sub from a depth of more than 5000m (17,000 feet or so). They contracted Hughes through a CIA shell called Suma Corporation to build the Glomar Explorer and get the sub. The story sold to the public at the time was that Hughes was building the Glomar in order to mine the sea bed for the abundant minerals that were available there. Despite the CIA's best efforts to keep a lid on the story, the story was broken by the LA Times in February of 1975.
Methane Hydrates = Global Disaster (Score:4, Insightful)
In addition to Coal, Tar Sands, and Oil Shale, if we burn these up, we will put the earth well on it's way to the "Venus Syndrome".
People in their 30's, their kids kids will surely suffer from this. It's time something was done about it. Getting a gas saving car does nothing but make it cheaper to buy carbon based fuels somewhere else, cap and trade is a complete hoax, it's time to start making renew-ables cheaper and tax usage of carbon based fuels across the board world wide. If we do nothing we may be responsible for killing everything on the planet.