Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Oxygen discovery defies knowledge of the deep ocean

News Feed
Monday, July 22, 2024

Oxygen discovery defies knowledge of the deep oceanGetty ImagesUntil this discovery, it was believed that oxygen could not be produced without sunlightScientists have discovered “dark oxygen” being produced in the deep ocean, apparently by lumps of metal on the seafloor.About half the oxygen we breathe comes from the ocean. But, before this discovery, it was understood that it was made by marine plants photosynthesising - something that requires sunlight. Here, at depths of 5km, where no sunlight can penetrate, the oxygen appears to be produced by naturally occurring metallic “nodules” which split seawater - H2O - into hydrogen and oxygen. Several mining companies have plans to collect these nodules, which marine scientists fear could disrupt the newly discovered process - and damage any marine life that depends on the oxygen they make.NOC/NHM/NERC SMARTEX The potato-sized metal nodules look like rocks, littering parts of the deep seabed“I first saw this in 2013 - an enormous amount of oxygen being produced at the seafloor in complete darkness,” explains lead researcher Prof Andrew Sweetman from the Scottish Association for Marine Science. “I just ignored it, because I’d been taught - you only get oxygen through photosynthesis.“Eventually, I realised that for years I’d been ignoring this potentially huge discovery,” he told BBC News.He and his colleagues carried out their research in an area of the deep sea between Hawaii and Mexico - part of a vast swathe of seafloor that is covered with these metal nodules. The nodules form when dissolved metals in seawater collect on fragments of shell - or other debris. It's a process that takes millions of years. And because these nodules contain metals like lithium, cobalt and copper - all of which are needed to make batteries - many mining companies are developing technology to collect them and bring them to the surface. But Prof Sweetman says the dark oxygen they make could also support life on the seafloor. And his discovery, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, raises new concerns about the risks of proposed deep-sea mining ventures.Science Photo Library/NOAAThe scientists worked out that the metal nodules are able to make oxygen precisely because they act like batteries.“If you put a battery into seawater, it starts fizzing,” explained Prof Sweetman. “That’s because the electric current is actually splitting seawater into oxygen and hydrogen [which are the bubbles]. We think that’s happening with these nodules in their natural state.”“It's like a battery in a torch,” he added. “You put one battery in, it doesn't light up. You put two in and you've got enough voltage to light up the torch. So when the nodules are sitting at the seafloor in contact with one another, they’re working in unison - like multiple batteries.”The researchers put this theory to the test in the lab, collecting and studying the potato-sized metal nodules. Their experiments measured the voltages on the surface of each metallic lump - essentially the strength of the electric current. They found it to be almost equal to the voltage in a typical AA-sized battery. This means, they say, that the nodules sitting on the seabed could generate electric currents large enough to split, or electrolyse, molecules of seawater.The researchers think the same process - battery-powered oxygen production that requires no light and no biological process - could be happening on other moons and planets, creating oxygen-rich environments where life could thrive.Camille BridgewaterThe researchers measured the voltages on the surfaces of the metallic nodulesThe Clarion-Clipperton Zone, where the discovery was made, is a site already being explored by a number of seabed mining companies, which are developing technology to collect the nodules and bring them to a ship at the surface.The US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration has warned that this seabed mining could “result in the destruction of life and the seabed habitat in the mined areas”. More than 800 marine scientists from 44 countries have signed a petition highlighting the environmental risks and calling for a pause on mining activity.New species are being discovered in the deep ocean all the time - it is often said that we know more about the surface of the Moon than we do about the deep sea. And this discovery suggests that the nodules themselves could be providing the oxygen to support life there.Prof Murray Roberts, a marine biologist from the Univerisity of Edinburgh is one of the scientists who signed the seabed mining petition. “There’s already overwhelming evidence that strip mining deep-sea nodule fields will destroy ecosystems we barely understand,” he told BBC News.“Because these fields cover such huge areas of our planet it would be crazy to press ahead with deep-sea mining knowing they may be a significant source of oxygen production.”Prof Sweetman added: “I don't see this study as something that will put an end to mining.“[But] we need to explore it in greater detail and we need to use this information and the data we gather in future if we are going to go into the deep ocean and mine it in the most environmentally friendly way possible.”

The discovery that lumps of metal on the seafloor produce oxygen raises questions over plans to mine the deep ocean.

Oxygen discovery defies knowledge of the deep ocean

Getty Images Sunlight shining into an ocean caveGetty Images

Until this discovery, it was believed that oxygen could not be produced without sunlight

Scientists have discovered “dark oxygen” being produced in the deep ocean, apparently by lumps of metal on the seafloor.

About half the oxygen we breathe comes from the ocean. But, before this discovery, it was understood that it was made by marine plants photosynthesising - something that requires sunlight.

Here, at depths of 5km, where no sunlight can penetrate, the oxygen appears to be produced by naturally occurring metallic “nodules” which split seawater - H2O - into hydrogen and oxygen.

Several mining companies have plans to collect these nodules, which marine scientists fear could disrupt the newly discovered process - and damage any marine life that depends on the oxygen they make.

NOC/NHM/NERC SMARTEX  Metallic nodules on the Pacific seafloor at 4,000m depthNOC/NHM/NERC SMARTEX

The potato-sized metal nodules look like rocks, littering parts of the deep seabed

“I first saw this in 2013 - an enormous amount of oxygen being produced at the seafloor in complete darkness,” explains lead researcher Prof Andrew Sweetman from the Scottish Association for Marine Science. “I just ignored it, because I’d been taught - you only get oxygen through photosynthesis.

“Eventually, I realised that for years I’d been ignoring this potentially huge discovery,” he told BBC News.

He and his colleagues carried out their research in an area of the deep sea between Hawaii and Mexico - part of a vast swathe of seafloor that is covered with these metal nodules. The nodules form when dissolved metals in seawater collect on fragments of shell - or other debris. It's a process that takes millions of years.

And because these nodules contain metals like lithium, cobalt and copper - all of which are needed to make batteries - many mining companies are developing technology to collect them and bring them to the surface.

But Prof Sweetman says the dark oxygen they make could also support life on the seafloor. And his discovery, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, raises new concerns about the risks of proposed deep-sea mining ventures.

Science Photo Library/NOAA A remotely operated machine collects a metallic nodule from the seabedScience Photo Library/NOAA

The scientists worked out that the metal nodules are able to make oxygen precisely because they act like batteries.

“If you put a battery into seawater, it starts fizzing,” explained Prof Sweetman. “That’s because the electric current is actually splitting seawater into oxygen and hydrogen [which are the bubbles]. We think that’s happening with these nodules in their natural state.”

“It's like a battery in a torch,” he added. “You put one battery in, it doesn't light up. You put two in and you've got enough voltage to light up the torch. So when the nodules are sitting at the seafloor in contact with one another, they’re working in unison - like multiple batteries.”

The researchers put this theory to the test in the lab, collecting and studying the potato-sized metal nodules. Their experiments measured the voltages on the surface of each metallic lump - essentially the strength of the electric current. They found it to be almost equal to the voltage in a typical AA-sized battery.

This means, they say, that the nodules sitting on the seabed could generate electric currents large enough to split, or electrolyse, molecules of seawater.

The researchers think the same process - battery-powered oxygen production that requires no light and no biological process - could be happening on other moons and planets, creating oxygen-rich environments where life could thrive.

Camille Bridgewater A metal nodule collected from the deep sea is probed with a voltmeter on a lab benchCamille Bridgewater

The researchers measured the voltages on the surfaces of the metallic nodules

The Clarion-Clipperton Zone, where the discovery was made, is a site already being explored by a number of seabed mining companies, which are developing technology to collect the nodules and bring them to a ship at the surface.

The US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration has warned that this seabed mining could “result in the destruction of life and the seabed habitat in the mined areas”.

More than 800 marine scientists from 44 countries have signed a petition highlighting the environmental risks and calling for a pause on mining activity.

New species are being discovered in the deep ocean all the time - it is often said that we know more about the surface of the Moon than we do about the deep sea. And this discovery suggests that the nodules themselves could be providing the oxygen to support life there.

Prof Murray Roberts, a marine biologist from the Univerisity of Edinburgh is one of the scientists who signed the seabed mining petition. “There’s already overwhelming evidence that strip mining deep-sea nodule fields will destroy ecosystems we barely understand,” he told BBC News.

“Because these fields cover such huge areas of our planet it would be crazy to press ahead with deep-sea mining knowing they may be a significant source of oxygen production.”

Prof Sweetman added: “I don't see this study as something that will put an end to mining.

“[But] we need to explore it in greater detail and we need to use this information and the data we gather in future if we are going to go into the deep ocean and mine it in the most environmentally friendly way possible.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Sea level rise threatens thousands of hazardous sites: Study

Rising sea levels could flood thousands of hazardous sites in marginalized communities mostly across seven states by 2100 should greenhouse gases continue to build up in the atmosphere, a study published Thursday in Nature Communications warns. Flooding could strike 5,500 sites and release contaminants should flood waters hit these sites. Eighty percent of the sites...

Rising sea levels could flood thousands of hazardous sites in marginalized communities mostly across seven states by 2100 should greenhouse gases continue to build up in the atmosphere, a study published Thursday in Nature Communications warns. Flooding could strike 5,500 sites and release contaminants should flood waters hit these sites. Eighty percent of the sites at the greatest risk of severe flooding are located in Louisiana, Florida, New Jersey, Texas, California, New York and Massachusetts. The study suggests that if destabilized, these hazardous sites could harm neighborhoods that researchers identified as “Hispanic, households with incomes below twice the federal poverty line, households without a vehicle, non-voters, and renters.” “Racial residential segregation and the inequitable distribution of stormwater infrastructure further contribute to racialized patterns of flood risk across U.S. cities,” researchers said. More than half of these sites could start to face severe flood risks much sooner, as early as 2050, the study stated. This is due to extreme coastal flooding that is expected to double by that year. Researchers studied hazardous sites in Puerto Rico and 23 states with a coastline. Using historical sea level measurements, they then analyzed sea level rises based on low- and high-level emission scenarios. The low-level scenario showed that 11 percent of sites were at risk. “Under the high emissions scenario, over a fifth of coastal sewage treatment facilities, refineries and formerly used defense sites, roughly a third of power plants, and over 40% fossil fuel ports and terminals are projected to be at risk by 2100,” researchers wrote. Rising flood waters could also bring health risks if industrial animal farms or sewage treatment plants are struck, University of Maryland professor Sacoby Wilson told The Associated Press. People near these waters could be exposed to bacteria like E. coli, while flooded industrial sites could expose chemicals that cause rashes, headaches, fatigue and burning of the eyes. “For folks who are vulnerable, maybe have an underlying health condition, those health conditions could be exacerbated during those flood events,” Wilson, who was not behind the new study, told the AP. The goal of the study is to “get ahead of the problem by looking far out into the future,” Lara J. Cushing, associate professor in the University of California, Los Angeles, Department of Environmental Health Sciences, told the AP at a press conference Wednesday. “We do have time to respond and try to mitigate the risks and also increase resilience,” added Cushing, who co-authored the paper. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Shein pressed over sale of "childlike sex dolls" by bipartisan representatives

A bipartisan group of lawmakers is demanding answers from fast-fashion giant Shein related to the possible sale of dolls "with a childlike appearance" to U.S. consumers.The big picture: The rare cross-party scrutiny piles onto years of criticism the Chinese-founded online retailer has faced over its environmental and labor practices and comes as it faces new trade barriers to its sale of ultra-cheap goods.Driving the news: The letter, addressed to Shein's CEO, expressed deep concern that the company's website may have been used to sell "childlike sex dolls" to American customers.The lawmakers pointed to the company's 2024 Sustainability and Social Impact Report, which states sellers are prohibited from hawking products that promote "child abuse and exploitation."The letter reads, "There is no question as to whether these dolls encourage child abuse and exploitation."The Hill was the first outlet to report on the letter.Catch up quick: French officials recently threatened to cut off Shein from the country's market after the nation's consumer and anti-fraud watchdog reported the company over the dolls, saying the description of them "makes it difficult to doubt the child pornography nature of the content."A Shein spokesperson said in a statement to Axios that the e-commerce titan imposed "strict sanctions on sellers involved in the sale of child-like dolls" following the French report and that it implemented a "complete ban" on all sex-doll products.Donald Tang, the company's executive chairman, said the marketplace listings were from third-party sellers and that Shein was "tracing the source and will take swift, decisive action against those responsible."Zoom in: The lawmakers said that while they commended Shein for banning the sale of sex dolls, "it is unacceptable that these products were ever allowed to be sold on Shein's website."They imposed a December 20 deadline for the company to answer whether such dolls were ever available for sale in the U.S. via the Shein e-commerce marketplace and if they were sold to American customers, among other inquiries. What they're saying: "It is incredibly disappointing that a major global retailer allowed childlike sex dolls to be sold on its platform, products that are known to fuel pedophilia and endanger children," said Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.), who led the letter alongside Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.).In another bipartisan effort to crack down on the sale of such products, Buchanan introduced a bill in February with Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) to make it a crime to import, transport, buy, sell, distribute or possess a sex doll that resembles a child.The bill was introduced after a local South Florida station reported that a woman said her daughter's likeness had been stolen and used to create a sex doll that was for sale online.The bottom line: Wasserman Schultz said in a statement that "[w]e cannot end the sexual exploitation of children if these repulsive products are built, sold and shared."Go deeper: The biggest threat to Chinese e-commerce sites

A bipartisan group of lawmakers is demanding answers from fast-fashion giant Shein related to the possible sale of dolls "with a childlike appearance" to U.S. consumers.The big picture: The rare cross-party scrutiny piles onto years of criticism the Chinese-founded online retailer has faced over its environmental and labor practices and comes as it faces new trade barriers to its sale of ultra-cheap goods.Driving the news: The letter, addressed to Shein's CEO, expressed deep concern that the company's website may have been used to sell "childlike sex dolls" to American customers.The lawmakers pointed to the company's 2024 Sustainability and Social Impact Report, which states sellers are prohibited from hawking products that promote "child abuse and exploitation."The letter reads, "There is no question as to whether these dolls encourage child abuse and exploitation."The Hill was the first outlet to report on the letter.Catch up quick: French officials recently threatened to cut off Shein from the country's market after the nation's consumer and anti-fraud watchdog reported the company over the dolls, saying the description of them "makes it difficult to doubt the child pornography nature of the content."A Shein spokesperson said in a statement to Axios that the e-commerce titan imposed "strict sanctions on sellers involved in the sale of child-like dolls" following the French report and that it implemented a "complete ban" on all sex-doll products.Donald Tang, the company's executive chairman, said the marketplace listings were from third-party sellers and that Shein was "tracing the source and will take swift, decisive action against those responsible."Zoom in: The lawmakers said that while they commended Shein for banning the sale of sex dolls, "it is unacceptable that these products were ever allowed to be sold on Shein's website."They imposed a December 20 deadline for the company to answer whether such dolls were ever available for sale in the U.S. via the Shein e-commerce marketplace and if they were sold to American customers, among other inquiries. What they're saying: "It is incredibly disappointing that a major global retailer allowed childlike sex dolls to be sold on its platform, products that are known to fuel pedophilia and endanger children," said Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.), who led the letter alongside Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.).In another bipartisan effort to crack down on the sale of such products, Buchanan introduced a bill in February with Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) to make it a crime to import, transport, buy, sell, distribute or possess a sex doll that resembles a child.The bill was introduced after a local South Florida station reported that a woman said her daughter's likeness had been stolen and used to create a sex doll that was for sale online.The bottom line: Wasserman Schultz said in a statement that "[w]e cannot end the sexual exploitation of children if these repulsive products are built, sold and shared."Go deeper: The biggest threat to Chinese e-commerce sites

Coalition to help Labor rush through new nature laws if environmental protections dropped

Sussan Ley’s offer allows a clear path to pass laws to rewrite Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act in final sitting weekGet our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcastThe Coalition has offered to help Labor rush through new nature laws if it agrees to gut environment protection, challenging Labor to side with business interests over green groups to implement the long-awaited changes.Environmental lawyers are urging the government against further weakening already flawed laws at the “behest of industry”. Continue reading...

The Coalition has offered to help Labor rush through new nature laws if it agrees to gut environment protection, challenging Labor to side with business interests over green groups to implement the long-awaited changes.Environmental lawyers are urging the government against further weakening already flawed laws at the “behest of industry”.The new offer from the opposition leader, Sussan Ley, gives Anthony Albanese a clear path to pass the laws to re-write the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act when parliament returns next week for the final sitting of the year.Sign up: AU Breaking News emailBut it would require ceding to the Coalition’s demands to water-down protection for nature and stripping back the powers of Labor’s proposed environment protection agency (EPA), risking a major backlash from environmentalist and potentially members of Labor’s backbench.After Guardian Australia revealed senior Liberals were optimistic about a deal, Ley confirmed the opposition would agree to overhaul the EPBC Act if Labor accepted its amendments while rejecting the Greens’ demands, which include new protection for native forests and measures to consider the climate impact of projects.The opposition wants changes to address seven points of concern, including the powers of the EPA, the requirement for large projects to disclose projected emissions upfront and threat of “excessive” financial penalties for breaches of nature laws and “stop-work” orders that could halt projects.The Coalition is also concerned about two provisions designed to protect nature: a new definition of “unacceptable impact” on the environment and a “net gain” test that is supposed to force developers to make up for damage and deliver an overall benefit for the environment.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Breaking News AustraliaGet the most important news as it breaksPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotion“The Coalition is seeking sensible amendments,” Ley said in a statement.“If they are adopted, then we will be supportive of legislation next week. However, if the government rejects sensible suggestions and chooses to put jobs at risk, then we will vote against them, with an open mind to revisit negotiations next year.”The environment minister, Murray Watt, remains open to striking a deal with either the Coalition or the Greens to get the laws through the Senate before parliament wraps up for 2025 next Thursday.On Thursday, Watt was adamant that the legislation would pass next week despite not yet having the support of either party.The Greens leader, Larissa Waters, said if Labor stitched up a deal with the Coalition then it wasn’t serious about protecting nature.“I think if the Labor government wants to do a deal with the climate denying, anti-science dinosaurs in the Liberal party that tells you everything that you need to know about what the government’s motivations are. It’s not the environment. It’s lining the pockets of big corporates,” she told ABC’s Afternoon Briefing.The warning came as the Environmental Defenders Office told a senate committee examining the government’s legislation that the bills, as drafted, risked making the failings of the current laws “worse”. EDO’s deputy director of policy and law reform, Rachel Walmsley, told the committee the parliament had three options: fail to pass the legislation and keep the failed EPBC Act in place for many more years, pass the bills as proposed or even weakened at the “behest” of industry or strengthen the bills and “actually deliver outcomes for nature”. “It has to be option three,” she said.

Nature not a blocker to housing growth, inquiry finds

Commons committee report challenges ‘lazy narrative’ used by ministers that scapegoats wildlife and the environmentNature is not a blocker to housing growth, an inquiry by MPs has found, in direct conflict with claims made by ministers.Toby Perkins, the Labour chair of the environmental audit committee, said nature was being scapegoated, and that rather than being a block to growth, it was necessary for building resilient towns and neighbourhoods. Continue reading...

Nature is not a blocker to housing growth, an inquiry by MPs has found, in direct conflict with claims made by ministers.Toby Perkins, the Labour chair of the environmental audit committee, said nature was being scapegoated, and that rather than being a block to growth, it was necessary for building resilient towns and neighbourhoods.In its report on environmental sustainability and housing growth, the cross-party committee challenged the “lazy narrative”, which has been promoted by UK government ministers, that nature was a blocker or an inconvenience to delivering housing.The report said severe skills shortages in ecology, planning and construction would be what made it impossible for the government to deliver on its housebuilding ambitions.Perkins said: “The government’s target to build 1.5m homes by the end of this parliament is incredibly ambitious. Achieving it alongside our existing targets on climate and sustainability – which are set in law – will require effort on a scale not seen before.“That certainly will not be achieved by scapegoating nature, claiming that it is a ‘blocker’ to housing delivery. We are clear in our report: a healthy environment is essential to building resilient towns and cities. It must not be sidelined.”skip past newsletter promotionOur morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what’s happening and why it mattersPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionExperts say the planning and infrastructure bill – in its final stages before being passed into law – rolls back environmental law to allow developers to sidestep the need for surveys and mitigation on the site of any environmental damage by paying into a central nature recovery fund for improvements to be made elsewhere.Ecologists, environmental groups and some MPs have been fighting for changes to the draft legislation to keep protections for wildlife and rare habitats as they are. But the secretary of state for housing, Steve Reed, told MPs to vote down the changes during a Commons vote on the bill this week.The committee said it had concerns that the legislation as drafted would mean the government would miss its legally defined target to halt the decline of nature by 2030 and reverse it by 2042.The report found that local planning authorities were severely underresourced in ecological skills. It heard evidence that staff at Natural England were “stretched to their limits”, that the skills needed to deliver the ecological aspects of planning reforms “simply do not exist at the scale, quality or capacity that is needed”.This comes as Natural England will take on a major role in planning under the government’s changes. The body will oversee the national nature restoration fund, which will be funded by developers and will enable builders to sidestep environmental obligations at a particular site – even if it is a landscape protected for its wildlife.Critics of the bill have questioned the conflict of interest in giving Natural England new funds from developers while expecting the body to regulate their actions.

Where’s nature positive? Australia must ensure environment reforms work to restore what’s been lost

Australia is among many countries working to protect and restore nature at scale. But long-awaited environmental law reforms won’t help much as they stand.

Kai Wing Yiu/GettyFor decades, conservation was focused on stemming how much nature was being lost. But a new era of nature positive environmental policy is taking hold worldwide, shifting from preventing further harm to restoring what’s been lost. In 2022, almost 200 countries signed up to the goal of 30 by 30 – restoring 30% of lands and seas by 2030. Globally, the goal is to restore an area almost the size of India. Australia is working towards this international goal of increasing protection and restoring the highest priority areas under its Strategy for Nature. Over the last two centuries, Australia has already lost much biodiversity. Laws should play a key role in protecting and restoring nature. But Australia’s national Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is not currently fit for purpose. The 2020 Samuel Review concluded the existing laws do not “facilitate the maintenance or restoration of the environment”. In 2022, the Australian government promised to reverse the decline of nature with new nature positive laws which would repair ecosystems and help species recover. Shortly afterwards, parliament created a national Nature Repair Market to provide incentives for land managers to restore degraded ecosystems. After a failed attempt at reform last year, the federal government last week announced its long-awaited broader reform package. In introducing the bill, Environment Minister Murray Watt said the laws would enable “stronger environmental protection and restoration”. Will these reforms be a game changer for restoration? It’s not so clear. Protecting habitat isn’t enough – restoration will be essential to stop the decline of nature. Adam Campbell/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND What would the proposed laws do for restoration? Labor’s reform bills run to over 550 pages. This level of complexity means it’s hard to give a definitive answer on what the reforms would do for restoration. At this stage, it appears that while the package contains long-awaited reforms, it falls short on ecosystem restoration. The cornerstone of the reforms will be a new power for the Environment Minister to create National Environmental Standards, as called for in the Samuel Review. Once in place, they would work by requiring environment approvals not to be inconsistent with any standard. These standards have been watered down somewhat. The Samuel Review recommended binding national standards which would outline clear requirements for protecting endangered species and other nationally significant matters. Under the current reforms, the minister is not obliged to make any standards and environment approvals need only be “not inconsistent” with them. The reform package continues Australia’s reliance on environmental offsets – the practice of allowing developers to destroy habitat in one place by “compensating” for it by restoring habitat elsewhere. The text of the draft bills suggests a developer must compensate for any long-lasting significant impact through offsets or paying a restoration contribution. The goal is to have a net gain for nature. This sounds promising, but the concept of “net gain” is unclear and the focus on offsets still assumes the loss of nature somewhere. A better option would be if developers were legally required to explore ways to avoid or mitigate environmental damage first before relying on offsets. While the minister must “consider” this hierarchy of options in making decisions, they’re not actually obliged to apply it. Overall, this is disappointing. Rather than creating new incentives for restoration at a landscape scale, restoration work will instead be linked to the traditional legal model of approval for specific, environmentally degrading projects through the use of offsets and restoration elsewhere. The new “restoration contributions” scheme is even more troubling. It would allow developers to contribute to an offset fund rather than undertake the work themselves. This would be a shortcut, allowing developers to pay for environmental destruction. Offsets should only be used where habitat can genuinely be replaced. But as they stand, these reforms don’t require assessment of whether offsets are even feasible for a particular project. Biodiversity offsets have also been thoroughly criticised for their failure to prevent loss of nature, let alone generate nature positive outcomes. The reforms would also allow biodiversity certificates issued under the Nature Repair Market to serve as offsets, despite the government ruling this out in 2023. Linking the nature repair market to offsets may divert investment away from some types of restoration projects. It diminishes the net gain from voluntary restoration when the results merely compensate for a loss elsewhere. Planning across landscapes To boost ecological restoration, the Samuel Review recommended better planning at the national and regional scale. Taking a zoomed-out view would help environmental planners connect habitat, safeguard climate refuges and protect critical habitat on a landscape scale. These new reforms seem to be a step forward on this front. The minister, though, would retain a power to make bioregional plans at their discretion. If plans are made under the environment laws, they should specify zones for development and areas where restoration will be undertaken. It’s heartening to see restoration included in these plans. The problem is, restoration is still tied to land-degrading activities such as mining or land clearing. That is, it’s done as a response to new damage caused to the environment, not to repair already degraded landscapes. Landscape-scale planning will be essential in arresting nature’s decline. Ant Le Breton/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND Time for a new model What’s missing from the proposed reforms is a positive agenda to address Australia’s deep historic losses of nature. As the draft laws are debated in parliament, the best outcome would be if clear measures to actually restore nature at landscape-scale and to do it actively, rather than as a response to development damage. An excellent example Australia could look to is the European Union’s Nature Restoration Law adopted last year. It sets ambitious targets to restore the EU’s heavily degraded ecosystems: 30% by 2030, 90% by 2050. The targets would help restore biodiversity while combating climate change and boosting nature-based adaptation. Under the law, EU states must prepare their own national restoration plans. Prototype ecosystem restoration laws are also being developed by the international Society for Ecological Restoration. After decades of decline and species loss, Australians deserve environment laws which genuinely protect and restore unique wildlife and ecosystems. The government’s proposed reforms have promise. But they don’t yet make restoration the national priority it must be. Emille Boulot receives funding from the Society for Ecological Restoration. She is affiliated with the Australian Environment Review and the Tasmanian National Parks Association. Jan McDonald receives funding from the Australian Research Council, is a Director of the Tasmanian Land Conservancy and a member of the Department of Environment, Climate Change, Energy and Water's Biodiversity Assessment Expert Reference Group.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.