NewzIntel.com

Category: Environment

  • MIL-OSI Africa: Campaign to plant trees and help mitigate effects of climate change

    Source: Government of South Africa

    With the country bearing the brunt of climate change and the resultant devastation it causes in communities and economies, the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment has launched the One Million Trees campaign.

    “We have witnessed fires, deadly heatwaves, heavy rains, floods, and prolonged droughts. These events underscore our shared vulnerability, but also our shared responsibility to act, to adapt, and to do so in a way that leaves no one behind. 

    “Tree planting is one of the mitigating factors that are recommended to slow down this environmental threat. It is for this reason that the department is pursuing the coordination and implementation of the National Greening Programme,” said Deputy Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment Bernice Swarts.

    Speaking on Monday at the Pretoria National Botanical Garden, Swarts said to ensure that South Africans benefit from the National Greening Programme, President Cyril Ramaphosa directed that 10 million trees, comprised of 60 percent fruit and 40 percent indigenous, be planted in the country over a period of five years, ending in 2026. 

    The initiative, which links to goal 13 of Sustainable Development Goals, is a clarion call to South Africans from all walks of life to participate and contribute towards the greening of the country. 

    The Deputy Minister put forth a challenge to plant one million trees in a single day – on 24 September 2025 during Heritage Day – while celebrating Arbour Month. 

    “We are calling on all South Africans to join hands in greening our country. This is an all of society campaign which calls on collaboration by government departments, municipalities, civil society organisations, non-government organisations, corporates, students and learners, churches and the public at large to plant at least one million trees for the benefit of our country.

    “I have started conversations with different role players, and it came as a surprise when I saw the response. Some were asking “what can we assist with” – “how can we be part of this” – and so on. In no time, we had already amassed a lot of support – most have responded positively, though we are in the process of tallying commitments and pledges in this regard.”

     She said the greening programme was taking place at a time when the environment of the country and indeed the entire Africa was counting the cost of climate change, and drastic measures are urgently needed for a swift recovery. 

    “South Africa’s G20 Presidency’s Environment and Climate Sustainability Working Group prioritisation of Land degradation, desertification and drought highlights their direct threat to economies, food security, and sustainable development. Planting trees helps to combat these phenomena.” – SAnews.gov.za

    MIL OSI Africa –

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: Antimicrobial resistance meeting held

    Source: Hong Kong Information Services

    Secretary for Health Prof Lo Chung-mau convened the 10th meeting of the High Level Steering Committee on Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) today to review the implementation of the Hong Kong Strategy & Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance (2023-2027). 

    Noting that human health is closely intertwined with the health of animals and the environment, Prof Lo said that a “One Health” approach is required to tackle the issue, adding that interdepartmental and multidisciplinary co-ordination is particularly important.

    “I am pleased to see continuous improvements in various aspects through cross-sector collaboration.”

    Under the steering committee’s leadership, a series of initiatives was implemented, including the launch of the Computerised Transaction Record System in June for voluntary participation by licensed pharmaceutical traders, while legislative amendments will be initiated in a timely manner to mandate the systematic recording of antimicrobial prescriptions and dispensing through electronic means.

    The initiatives also include enhancing surveillance and dissemination of AMR data in food, and implementing the “veterinary prescription-only medication supply” policy in local food animal farms.

    At the meeting, the steering committee evaluated the latest local situation of AMR by analysing the latest surveillance data from various sectors, including human health data which showed the wholesale supply of antimicrobials to community pharmacies continually dropped from 18.5% in 2016 to 3.45 last year.

    The Hospital Authority, promoting the prudent use of antimicrobials through a stewardship programme, introduced an electronic platform last year to leverage data analytics to generate automatic reminders to clinicians to facilitate the review of antibiotic usage. The use of relevant broad-spectrum antibiotics dropped by 3.1% last year compared with 2023.

    As regards animal health, the Agriculture, Fisheries & Conservation Department has commenced a phased withdrawal of the Antibiotics Permits issued to local livestock farmers since October 2020 to tighten the use of antimicrobials in animal husbandry, in particular those critically important antimicrobials for humans.

    With the maturation of veterinary services and pharmaceutical supplies to local livestock farmers supported by the Sustainable Agricultural Development Fund, the department has ceased issuing the permits.

    Regarding food safety, the Centre for Food Safety has organised workshops for food handlers, formulated guidelines for the food trade, conducted inspections and promoted public education to further enhance people’s awareness of AMR.

    Meanwhile, the Environmental Protection Department commissioned local universities and testing institutions to conduct surveys on residual antibiotic amount and environmental AMR levels in different environmental waters from 2020 to 2025. The survey findings showed that the median levels of residual antibiotics in the local aquatic environment were below the “Predicted No Effect Concentration”, indicating no material impact on the aquatic environment.

    The steering committee will make every effort to combat the threat of AMR through multi-sectoral collaboration, the Health Bureau said, adding that the progress achieved so far underscores the importance of evidence-based strategies, strengthening surveillance and research as well as enhancing public awareness. 

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News –

  • MIL-OSI Africa: The Verdict is in and Greenpeace Won’t Accept Justice

    Source: APO

    Environmental hate group Greenpeace has once again launched an attack on the African Energy Chamber (https://EnergyChamber.org/) and Africa’s energy sector, citing the continent’s efforts to accelerate development as a coordinated attack on the right to dissent. Using the example whereby a jury in North Dakota issued a landmark ruling, ordering Greenpeace to pay $660 million in damages for malicious interference with the Dakota Access Pipeline, the organization has declared that companies such as the African Energy Chamber (AEC) utilize Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation – SLAPP suits – to intimidate and silence critics.

    Let us be clear: lawsuits like the example above are not tactical weapons to intimidate: it is a clear example of justice being served to organizations attempting to dismantle global development and community empowerment. The examples shared by Greenpeace are not “corporate weaponization of the law to dismantle civil society opposition” – it is a clear example of justice.

    Greenpeace has proven time and time again that it does not in fact care about people; it operates under a mandate to attack the energy industry. The AEC has been consistent in its calls, advocating for justice, inclusive development and equitable investments. On the other hand, Greenpeace has been consistent in its attacks, targeting projects that stand to make a difference in the world. As we have said before, the organization’s methods go beyond protesting – they involve a calculated strategy of misinformation, disruption and direct interference with energy infrastructure. When faced with the consequences of their actions – in this case, $$660 million worth – the organization blames investors, they blame the justice system and they blame the energy sector.  

    Africa is so close to unlocking significant economic development. With 125 billion barrels of crude oil, 620 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and abundant renewable energy potential, the continent is working hard to bring tangible benefits to its communities. Africa is not pursuing ambitious projects with the aim of exporting. Africa is accelerating development with the aim of creating greater value from its oil and gas resources – resources that western nations have long-benefited from.

    Organizations such as Greenpeace claim to stand on behalf of “concerned citizens,” yet they so carefully ignore the very citizens set to benefit from Africa’s oil and gas resources. We have said it time and time again, with over 600 million people living without access to electricity and over 900 million people living without access to clean cooking solutions, Africa cannot afford to leave these resources in the ground. This very statistic has led the citizens of Africa – not only corporations – to rally behind the call to “make energy poverty history.” And it is large-scale oil and gas projects that will achieve this goal. From Namibia’s Orange Basin to Libya’s Sirte to Angola’s Kwanza and Mozambique’s Rovuma, Africa’s oil and gas basins will transform the continent. Major investments stand to do more than extract resources, they create jobs, develop infrastructure, boost skills development and give hope to millions of Africans. These projects are being developed in close coordination with environmental groups.  

    Take the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP), a vital infrastructure project set to connect Uganda’s oilfields with Tanzania’s Port of Tanga. EACOP developer TotalEnergies has placed environmental protection and community engagement at the very heart of development. The project is being developed through specialized measures geared towards protecting the environment as well as the rights of local communities. Environmental and Social Impact Assessments were carried out in compliance with the standards of the International Finance Corporation, third-party reviews were conducted, regular engagement with impact communities is deployed. Right from the design phase of these projects, special attention has been paid to information, consultation and consensus-building with all stakeholders. Over 70,000 people were consulted for the ESIAs and more than 20,000 meetings have been held to date with the populations concerned and civil society organizations. The project is an example of how oil companies are in fact working in close partnership with environmental authorities.

    Greenpeace’s attacks on the industry go beyond infrastructure. The organization strongly opposes oil and gas exploration, disrupting seismic data acquisition and drilling. Campaigns have been launched against Shell in South Africa, and as a result, the country has been unable to understand the wealth of resources it has offshore. Greenpeace is seeking donations to support its efforts to block development in South Africa, calling “To Hell with Shell.” Similarly, the organization is opposing Africa Oil Corp as it strives to unlock new development opportunities in South Africa. Greenpeace is appealing an Environmental Authorization received by Africa Oil Corp to conduct exploration. In Mozambique, Greenpeace has called for investors to stop financing vital projects, including major LNG developments that could transform southern Africa into an energy hub. By accosting funders, they have impacted developments in the Rovuma basin, leaving millions in energy poverty without a second thought. But the question is, why Africa? Greenpeace are fiercely opposing African exploration efforts but ignoring projects in other regions such as the Middle East. This is an intentional attack on the continent.

    Greenpeace is right. The lawsuit against it is not an isolated event – it is a demonstration of how Greenpeace continues to blame others for the damages it causes. Organizations such as the AEC have tried again and again to work with environmental groups, but they are not interested in partnerships. They only want disruption. Sustainable development is about people, it is about inclusivity and it is about democracy. We should ask ourselves: will we allow environmental groups to dictate what Africa deserves? Will we allow these groups to attack projects, prevent growth and disrupt the livelihoods of people? Or will be make energy poverty history and transform the lives of African people?  

    Distributed by APO Group on behalf of African Energy Chamber.

    Media files

    .

    MIL OSI Africa –

  • MIL-OSI: Textile Recycling Market Projected to Reach $7.26 Billion by 2032, Growing at a 4.9% CAGR Amid Rising Sustainability Initiatives | AnalystView Market Insights

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    San Francisco, USA, July 07, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — The global Textile Recycling Market is experiencing a steady transformation as environmental concerns, sustainability goals, and circular economy initiatives reshape industry priorities. Valued at USD 7,258.59 million by 2032 and growing at a CAGR of 4.90%, the market reflects rising global awareness of the environmental toll caused by textile waste. Traditional fashion consumption patterns, driven by fast fashion and short product life cycles, have resulted in millions of tons of discarded clothing entering landfills annually. This growing waste stream has created an urgent demand for efficient recycling solutions.

    Textile recycling is the process of reclaiming fibers from used clothing, manufacturing waste, and household fabrics to create new materials or products. This process plays a crucial role in reducing environmental burdens such as landfill overflow, water usage, and dependency on virgin fibers. Globally, over 92 million tons of textile waste are generated each year, as per the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, with most ending up in landfills or incinerators. Additionally, producing one cotton shirt consumes around 2,700 liters of water. As sustainability gains traction across industries and among consumers, textile recycling is emerging as a key strategy to combat environmental degradation.

     Request a sample copy of this report at: https://analystviewmarketinsights.com/request_sample/AV4093

    Key Market Players

    The competitive landscape of the global textile recycling market includes both established players and emerging innovators. Major companies include:

    •  Worn Again Technologies
    • Birla Cellulose
    • Lenzing Group
    • BLS Ecotech
    • iinouiio Ltd.
    • The Woolmark Company
    • Ecotex Group
    • Unifi, Inc.
    • The Boer Group
    • Textile Recycling International
    • Pistoni S.r.l.
    • Renewcell
    • REMONDIS SE & Co. KG
    • HYOSUNG TNC
    • Martex Fiber
    • Anandi Enterprises, American Textile Recycling Service
    • Patagonia
    • Infinited Fiber Company
    • Prokotex
    • Retex Textiles
    • Pure Waste Textiles
    • Others

    Textile Recycling Market Segments:

    Global Textile Recycling Market, By Process- Market Analysis, 2019 – 2032

    • Chemical
    • Mechanical

    Global Textile Recycling Market, By Material- Market Analysis, 2019 – 2032

    • Polyester & Polyester Fiber
    • Nylon & Nylon Fiber
    • Cotton
    • Wool
    • Others

    Global Textile Recycling Market, By Textile Waste- Market Analysis, 2019 – 2032

    • Pre-consumer
    • Post-consumer

    Global Textile Recycling Market, By Distribution Channel- Market Analysis, 2019 – 2032

    • Retail & Departmental Stores
    • Online

    Global Textile Recycling Market, By End-Use Industry- Market Analysis, 2019 – 2032

    • Home Furnishings
    • Apparel
    • Industrial & Institutional
    • Others

    Market Drivers and Opportunities

    Several key drivers are fueling the growth of the textile recycling market:

    1. Environmental Regulations: Governments worldwide are implementing stringent regulations to minimize waste and cut greenhouse gas emissions. A notable example is the European Union’s directive, which requires member states to ensure the separate collection of textile waste by January 1, 2025, as part of its Circular Economy Action Plan. This mandate aims to boost reuse and recycling, reduce environmental impact, and promote sustainable production models. Such policy-driven initiatives are expected to significantly improve textile recycling rates across the EU, while also influencing regulatory frameworks in other regions. The growing legislative pressure underscores the urgent global commitment to advancing sustainable waste management practices.
    2. Circular Economy Initiatives: The rise of circular fashion—where products are designed, produced, and recycled with sustainability in mind—is gaining momentum. Many brands are investing in closed-loop systems, where discarded garments are recycled back into new clothing.
    3. Consumer Awareness: Increased public awareness regarding the environmental impact of fashion is influencing purchasing decisions. Consumers are now more inclined to support brands that prioritize sustainability and offer recycled or upcycled products.
    4. Technological Advancements: Innovation in recycling technologies, including AI-powered sorting systems, automated collection solutions, and efficient fiber recovery techniques, are making recycling more viable and cost-effective.
    5. Brand Collaborations: Partnerships between recycling companies and major fashion brands are helping expand the scope of textile recycling. For example, brands like Patagonia and H&M are implementing take-back programs and collaborating with recycling firms to develop new eco-friendly collections.

    The textile industry is one of the most resource-intensive and polluting industries globally. With fast fashion encouraging rapid consumption and disposal of clothing, millions of tons of textiles end up in landfills each year. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), more than 17 million tons of textile waste were generated in the U.S. alone in 2018, but less than 15% of it was recycled. This highlights the enormous potential for growth and the pressing need for efficient textile recycling systems.

    TABLE OF CONTENT

    1. Textile Recycling Market Overview
    1.1. Study Scope
    1.2. Market Estimation Years
    2. Executive Summary
    2.1. Market Snippet
    2.1.1. Textile Recycling Market Snippet by Process
    2.1.2. Textile Recycling Market Snippet by Material
    2.1.3. Textile Recycling Market Snippet by Textile Waste
    2.1.4. Textile Recycling Market Snippet by Distribution Channel
    2.1.5. Textile Recycling Market Snippet by End-use Industry
    2.1.6. Textile Recycling Market Snippet by Country
    2.1.7. Textile Recycling Market Snippet by Region
    2.2. Competitive Insights
    3. Textile Recycling Key Market Trends
    3.1. Textile Recycling Market Drivers
    3.1.1. Impact Analysis of Market Drivers
    3.2. Textile Recycling Market Restraints
    3.2.1. Impact Analysis of Market Restraints
    3.3. Textile Recycling Market Opportunities
    3.4. Textile Recycling Market Future Trends….

    Textile recycling not only reduces landfill waste but also conserves water, energy, and raw materials. Reprocessing fibers from used garments decreases the need for virgin materials like cotton or synthetic fibers, both of which have significant environmental footprints. As a result, governments, industries, and consumers are increasingly supporting textile recycling as a sustainable alternative.

    Regional Insights: Europe Leads, Asia-Pacific Follows

    Europe is expected to maintain its dominance in the textile recycling market throughout the forecast period. The region’s strong regulatory framework, early adoption of sustainable practices, and well-developed recycling infrastructure contribute to its leadership. Countries like Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands have implemented effective waste segregation systems, making textile recycling more efficient.

    The Asia-Pacific region is anticipated to witness the fastest growth. Countries such as China, India, and Bangladesh are major textile producers and consumers. With rising environmental awareness and growing volumes of textile waste, these nations are investing heavily in recycling infrastructure. China, for instance, aims to recycle 25% of its textile waste and produce 2 million tonnes of recycled fiber annually by 2025, aligning with its broader environmental goals.

    North America is also an important market, with the United States gradually enhancing its textile recycling infrastructure. Public-private partnerships and educational campaigns are improving recycling rates, although the region still faces challenges related to mixed material processing and consumer participation.

    Browse In-depth Market Research Report (269 Pages) on Textile Recycling Market: https://analystviewmarketinsights.com/report-highlight-textile-recycling-market

    Technology Landscape: Mechanical vs. Chemical Recycling

    The textile recycling market is segmented into mechanical and chemical recycling processes.

    • Mechanical Recycling involves shredding and reprocessing textiles into fibers without altering their chemical structure. It is cost-effective, widely applicable, and especially suitable for natural fibers like cotton and synthetic fibers like polyester. Due to its simplicity and lower environmental impact, mechanical recycling is currently the dominant technology.
    • Chemical Recycling, on the other hand, breaks down fabrics at the molecular level, allowing the recovery of high-purity fibers. This method is effective for mixed-fiber textiles but is currently more expensive and less scalable. However, ongoing innovations are expected to make chemical recycling more accessible in the coming years.

    Challenges and Constraints

    Despite the growing momentum, the textile recycling market faces several hurdles:

    • Lack of Infrastructure: Many regions still lack the infrastructure for efficient textile collection, sorting, and processing.
    • Contamination Issues: Textiles often contain mixed fibers, dyes, and chemicals, making recycling complex and resource-intensive.
    • Consumer Participation: Public engagement in recycling programs remains relatively low in several markets.
    • Economic Viability: In many cases, producing virgin fibers is still cheaper than recycling, particularly in regions where labor and manufacturing costs are low.

    Access Other Relevant Reports from AnalystView Market Insights:

    Electric Vehicle MCU (Microcontroller Unit) Market

    Backside Illuminated (BSI) CMOS Image Sensor Market

    Advanced Etch and Strip Systems Market

    Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Therapeutics Market

    Plasma Etching Equipment Market

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI: Textile Recycling Market Projected to Reach $7.26 Billion by 2032, Growing at a 4.9% CAGR Amid Rising Sustainability Initiatives | AnalystView Market Insights

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    San Francisco, USA, July 07, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — The global Textile Recycling Market is experiencing a steady transformation as environmental concerns, sustainability goals, and circular economy initiatives reshape industry priorities. Valued at USD 7,258.59 million by 2032 and growing at a CAGR of 4.90%, the market reflects rising global awareness of the environmental toll caused by textile waste. Traditional fashion consumption patterns, driven by fast fashion and short product life cycles, have resulted in millions of tons of discarded clothing entering landfills annually. This growing waste stream has created an urgent demand for efficient recycling solutions.

    Textile recycling is the process of reclaiming fibers from used clothing, manufacturing waste, and household fabrics to create new materials or products. This process plays a crucial role in reducing environmental burdens such as landfill overflow, water usage, and dependency on virgin fibers. Globally, over 92 million tons of textile waste are generated each year, as per the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, with most ending up in landfills or incinerators. Additionally, producing one cotton shirt consumes around 2,700 liters of water. As sustainability gains traction across industries and among consumers, textile recycling is emerging as a key strategy to combat environmental degradation.

     Request a sample copy of this report at: https://analystviewmarketinsights.com/request_sample/AV4093

    Key Market Players

    The competitive landscape of the global textile recycling market includes both established players and emerging innovators. Major companies include:

    •  Worn Again Technologies
    • Birla Cellulose
    • Lenzing Group
    • BLS Ecotech
    • iinouiio Ltd.
    • The Woolmark Company
    • Ecotex Group
    • Unifi, Inc.
    • The Boer Group
    • Textile Recycling International
    • Pistoni S.r.l.
    • Renewcell
    • REMONDIS SE & Co. KG
    • HYOSUNG TNC
    • Martex Fiber
    • Anandi Enterprises, American Textile Recycling Service
    • Patagonia
    • Infinited Fiber Company
    • Prokotex
    • Retex Textiles
    • Pure Waste Textiles
    • Others

    Textile Recycling Market Segments:

    Global Textile Recycling Market, By Process- Market Analysis, 2019 – 2032

    • Chemical
    • Mechanical

    Global Textile Recycling Market, By Material- Market Analysis, 2019 – 2032

    • Polyester & Polyester Fiber
    • Nylon & Nylon Fiber
    • Cotton
    • Wool
    • Others

    Global Textile Recycling Market, By Textile Waste- Market Analysis, 2019 – 2032

    • Pre-consumer
    • Post-consumer

    Global Textile Recycling Market, By Distribution Channel- Market Analysis, 2019 – 2032

    • Retail & Departmental Stores
    • Online

    Global Textile Recycling Market, By End-Use Industry- Market Analysis, 2019 – 2032

    • Home Furnishings
    • Apparel
    • Industrial & Institutional
    • Others

    Market Drivers and Opportunities

    Several key drivers are fueling the growth of the textile recycling market:

    1. Environmental Regulations: Governments worldwide are implementing stringent regulations to minimize waste and cut greenhouse gas emissions. A notable example is the European Union’s directive, which requires member states to ensure the separate collection of textile waste by January 1, 2025, as part of its Circular Economy Action Plan. This mandate aims to boost reuse and recycling, reduce environmental impact, and promote sustainable production models. Such policy-driven initiatives are expected to significantly improve textile recycling rates across the EU, while also influencing regulatory frameworks in other regions. The growing legislative pressure underscores the urgent global commitment to advancing sustainable waste management practices.
    2. Circular Economy Initiatives: The rise of circular fashion—where products are designed, produced, and recycled with sustainability in mind—is gaining momentum. Many brands are investing in closed-loop systems, where discarded garments are recycled back into new clothing.
    3. Consumer Awareness: Increased public awareness regarding the environmental impact of fashion is influencing purchasing decisions. Consumers are now more inclined to support brands that prioritize sustainability and offer recycled or upcycled products.
    4. Technological Advancements: Innovation in recycling technologies, including AI-powered sorting systems, automated collection solutions, and efficient fiber recovery techniques, are making recycling more viable and cost-effective.
    5. Brand Collaborations: Partnerships between recycling companies and major fashion brands are helping expand the scope of textile recycling. For example, brands like Patagonia and H&M are implementing take-back programs and collaborating with recycling firms to develop new eco-friendly collections.

    The textile industry is one of the most resource-intensive and polluting industries globally. With fast fashion encouraging rapid consumption and disposal of clothing, millions of tons of textiles end up in landfills each year. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), more than 17 million tons of textile waste were generated in the U.S. alone in 2018, but less than 15% of it was recycled. This highlights the enormous potential for growth and the pressing need for efficient textile recycling systems.

    TABLE OF CONTENT

    1. Textile Recycling Market Overview
    1.1. Study Scope
    1.2. Market Estimation Years
    2. Executive Summary
    2.1. Market Snippet
    2.1.1. Textile Recycling Market Snippet by Process
    2.1.2. Textile Recycling Market Snippet by Material
    2.1.3. Textile Recycling Market Snippet by Textile Waste
    2.1.4. Textile Recycling Market Snippet by Distribution Channel
    2.1.5. Textile Recycling Market Snippet by End-use Industry
    2.1.6. Textile Recycling Market Snippet by Country
    2.1.7. Textile Recycling Market Snippet by Region
    2.2. Competitive Insights
    3. Textile Recycling Key Market Trends
    3.1. Textile Recycling Market Drivers
    3.1.1. Impact Analysis of Market Drivers
    3.2. Textile Recycling Market Restraints
    3.2.1. Impact Analysis of Market Restraints
    3.3. Textile Recycling Market Opportunities
    3.4. Textile Recycling Market Future Trends….

    Textile recycling not only reduces landfill waste but also conserves water, energy, and raw materials. Reprocessing fibers from used garments decreases the need for virgin materials like cotton or synthetic fibers, both of which have significant environmental footprints. As a result, governments, industries, and consumers are increasingly supporting textile recycling as a sustainable alternative.

    Regional Insights: Europe Leads, Asia-Pacific Follows

    Europe is expected to maintain its dominance in the textile recycling market throughout the forecast period. The region’s strong regulatory framework, early adoption of sustainable practices, and well-developed recycling infrastructure contribute to its leadership. Countries like Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands have implemented effective waste segregation systems, making textile recycling more efficient.

    The Asia-Pacific region is anticipated to witness the fastest growth. Countries such as China, India, and Bangladesh are major textile producers and consumers. With rising environmental awareness and growing volumes of textile waste, these nations are investing heavily in recycling infrastructure. China, for instance, aims to recycle 25% of its textile waste and produce 2 million tonnes of recycled fiber annually by 2025, aligning with its broader environmental goals.

    North America is also an important market, with the United States gradually enhancing its textile recycling infrastructure. Public-private partnerships and educational campaigns are improving recycling rates, although the region still faces challenges related to mixed material processing and consumer participation.

    Browse In-depth Market Research Report (269 Pages) on Textile Recycling Market: https://analystviewmarketinsights.com/report-highlight-textile-recycling-market

    Technology Landscape: Mechanical vs. Chemical Recycling

    The textile recycling market is segmented into mechanical and chemical recycling processes.

    • Mechanical Recycling involves shredding and reprocessing textiles into fibers without altering their chemical structure. It is cost-effective, widely applicable, and especially suitable for natural fibers like cotton and synthetic fibers like polyester. Due to its simplicity and lower environmental impact, mechanical recycling is currently the dominant technology.
    • Chemical Recycling, on the other hand, breaks down fabrics at the molecular level, allowing the recovery of high-purity fibers. This method is effective for mixed-fiber textiles but is currently more expensive and less scalable. However, ongoing innovations are expected to make chemical recycling more accessible in the coming years.

    Challenges and Constraints

    Despite the growing momentum, the textile recycling market faces several hurdles:

    • Lack of Infrastructure: Many regions still lack the infrastructure for efficient textile collection, sorting, and processing.
    • Contamination Issues: Textiles often contain mixed fibers, dyes, and chemicals, making recycling complex and resource-intensive.
    • Consumer Participation: Public engagement in recycling programs remains relatively low in several markets.
    • Economic Viability: In many cases, producing virgin fibers is still cheaper than recycling, particularly in regions where labor and manufacturing costs are low.

    Access Other Relevant Reports from AnalystView Market Insights:

    Electric Vehicle MCU (Microcontroller Unit) Market

    Backside Illuminated (BSI) CMOS Image Sensor Market

    Advanced Etch and Strip Systems Market

    Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Therapeutics Market

    Plasma Etching Equipment Market

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI NGOs: Greenpeace: Governments are not powerless in the face of deep sea miners colluding with Trump

    Source: Greenpeace Statement –

    Kingston, Jamaica – Governments still have a chance to protect the future of the deep ocean as the 30th Session of the International Seabed Authority (ISA) resumes today, with 37 now calling for a moratorium on deep sea mining – the only credible path to decisively resist predatory corporate seizure and prevent the irreversible harm the industry could unleash.

    This is the first time governments have gathered to discuss deep sea mining since The Metals Company (TMC) submitted the first ever application to commercially mine the international seabed. The move was encouraged by an executive order signed by US President Donald Trump aimed to fast-track deep-sea mining operations in both US and international waters, and has bolstered opposition to deep sea mining, not only to protect the environment but also to defend international cooperation and international law.[1]

    Greenpeace International campaigner Louisa Casson, who is attending the meeting, said: “We are witnessing the dangers that arise when nations take unilateral action without regard for collective consequences. We should learn from nature that ecosystems collapse without cooperation; our global systems are at risk when we fail to work together for the common good. The deep sea must not fall victim to predatory corporate seizure. It is time for governments at the ISA to commit to a moratorium—this is the only viable path to prevent the irreversible harm that deep-sea mining would unleash.”

    Nearly 200 governments have signed the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), often referred to as the “constitution of the ocean”, which establishes a global legal framework that prevents states from taking unilateral action to exploit them.

    In its latest financial filings, TMC acknowledged that many governments and the ISA are likely to view any deep sea mining permit issued under the Trump administration as a violation of international law.[2] This could result in lawsuits, being unable to sell minerals, and companies refusing to work with TMC throughout the supply chain. 

    Pressure is already mounting on Allseas, a company headquartered in Switzerland with significant presence in the Netherlands, who own the deep sea mining ship and machinery that TMC intends to rely on for commercial operations, and are also one of its largest shareholders. Last week, Greenpeace activists hung a banner from Allseas office in Delft, urging the company to break ties with Trump.[3]

    Recently, Dutch media reported that Climate Minister Sophie Hermans is raising concerns directly with Allseas over their involvement with TMC, while the Swiss government outlined its expectations for companies registered or active in Switzerland to follow international law and norms.[4][5] Allseas’ CEO has stated that the company “would not do anything illegal”.

    Moreover, TMC’s strategic collaboration with PAMCO is coming under new scrutiny, with the Japanese metal processing company admitting that it “consider(s) the establishment of the business via a route that has earned international credibility to be a material issue”.[6]

    The ISA risks caving in to corporate pressure with the President of the Council, H.E. Duncan Laki, circulating instructions to ISA parties to speed up discussions in an attempt to finalize a Mining Code by this year, which would pave the way for  commercial deep sea mining to begin in the international seabed.[7] These included strong limitations of intervention times or recourse to smaller meetings where observers were excluded. In response, Greenpeace has sent a letter to Secretary General Leticia Carvalho, warning that the ISA must not reward industry-led efforts to rush the adoption of the Mining Code.[8] Several governments have also voiced strong opposition, stating, “We categorically disassociate ourselves from any suggestion or interpretation that the Council is bound, legally or politically, to adopt the regulations by the end of the year.”[9] Other NGOs, Indigenous peoples and some States also addressed the issue.

    Louisa Casson added: “Governments are not powerless in the face of deep sea miners doing a doomed deal with Trump. They have both the authority and, now more than ever, the responsibility to act. With growing scientific concern, mounting public pressure, and unprecedented risks to fragile marine ecosystems, the time for courageous leadership is now”.

    ENDS

    Photos available in the Greenpeace Media Library

    Notes:

    [1] Trump’s executive order 

    [2] TMC’s Financial Fillings: “the announcement or implementation of this strategy may cause additional regulatory and political tensions, delay ISA decision-making, or impair our ability to secure or maintain exploration contracts or an exploitation contract under the ISA framework and may result in our need to engage in costly and time-consuming litigation to enforce our rights. In addition, UNCLOS parties and the ISA are under a legal obligation, under UNCLOS, not to recognise any commercial recovery permit issued to us under DSHMRA; many UNCLOS parties and the ISA are likely to regard such a permit as a violation of international law, including UNCLOS, which could affect international perceptions of the project, and could have implications for logistics, processing, and market access in UNCLOS parties for seabed minerals extracted under a US license and for downstream products containing them, or for partnerships involving foreign entities, and could also result in actions, pursuant to UNCLOS, against TMC under the national laws of UNCLOS parties, any or all of which could have a material adverse affect on our business, financial condition, liquidity, results of operations and prospects.”

    [3] Greenpeace Netherlands release

    [4] Dutch Cabinet raises concerns over Allseas 

    [5] Swiss government puts pressure on Allseas

    [6] Pacific Metals Company Financial Results Briefing 

    [7] Proposal by ISA President H.E. Duncan Laki

    [8] Letter to Secretary General Leticia Carvalho

    [9] Submission by Chile, Costa Rica and France 

    Contacts:

    Sol Gosetti, Media Coordinator for the Stop Deep Sea Mining campaign, Greenpeace International: +34 664029407, [email protected]

    Greenpeace International Press Desk: +31 (0) 20 718 2470 (available 24 hours), [email protected]

    MIL OSI NGO –

  • MIL-OSI Africa: Cape Town’s sewage treatment isn’t coping: scientists are worried about what the city is telling the public

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Lesley Green, Professor of Earth Politics and Director: Environmental Humanities South, University of Cape Town

    Urban water bodies – rivers, lakes and oceans – are in trouble globally. Large sewage volumes damage the open environment, and new chemicals and pharmaceutical compounds don’t break down on their own. When they are released into the open environment, they build up in living tissues all along the food chain, bringing with them multiple health risks.

    The city of Cape Town, South Africa, is no exception. It has 300km of coastline along two bays and a peninsula, as well as multiple rivers and wetlands. The city discharges more than 40 megalitres of raw sewage directly into the Atlantic Ocean every day. In addition, large volumes of poorly treated sewage and runoff from shack settlements enter rivers and from there into both the Atlantic and the Indian Oceans.

    Over almost a decade, our multi-disciplinary team, and others, have studied contamination risks in Cape Town’s oceans, rivers, aquifers and lakes. Our goal has been to bring evidence of contaminants to the attention of officials responsible for a clean environment.

    Monitoring sewage levels in the city’s water bodies is essential because of the health risks posed by contaminated water to all citizens – farmers, surfers, and everybody eating fish and vegetables. Monitoring needs to be done scientifically and in a way that produces data that is trustworthy and not driven by vested interests. This is a challenge in cities where scientific findings are expected to support marketing of tourism or excellence of the political administration.

    Our research findings have been published in multiple peer-reviewed journals. We have also communicated with the public through articles in the media, a website and a documentary.

    Cape Town’s official municipal responses to independent studies and reports, however, have been hostile. Our work has been unjustifiably denounced by top city officials and politicians. We have been subject to attacks by fake social media avatars. Laboratory studies have even received a demand for an apology from the political party in charge of the city.

    These extraordinary responses – and many others – reflect the extent to which independent scientific inquiry has been under attack.

    We set about tracking the different kinds of denial and attacks on independent contaminant science in Cape Town over 11 years. Our recently published study describes 18 different types of science communication that have minimised or denied the problem of contamination. It builds on similar studies elsewhere.

    Our findings show the extent to which contaminant science in Cape Town is at risk of producing not public knowledge but public ignorance, reflecting similar patterns internationally where science communication sometimes obfuscates more than it informs. To address this risk, we argue that institutionalised conflicts of interest should be removed. There should also be changes to how city-funded testing is done and when data is released to citizens. After all, it is citizens’ rates and taxes that have paid for that testing, and the South African constitution guarantees the right to information.

    We also propose that the city’s political leaders take the courageous step of accepting that the current water treatment infrastructure is unworkable for a city of over 5 million people. Accepting this would open the door to an overhaul of the city’s approach to wastewater treatment.

    The way forward

    We divided our study of contaminant communication events into four sub-categories:

    • non-disclosure of data

    • misinformation that gives a partial or misleading account of a scientific finding

    • using city-funded science to bolster political authority

    • relying on point data collected fortnightly to prove “the truth” of bodies of water as if it never moves or changes, when in reality, water bodies move every second of every day.

    We found evidence of multiple instances of miscommunication. On the basis of these, we make specific recommendations.

    First: municipalities should address conflicts of interest that are built into their organisational structure. These arise when the people responsible for ensuring that water bodies are healthy are simultaneously contracting consultants to conduct research on water contaminants. This is particularly important because over the last two decades large consultancies have established themselves as providers of scientific certification. But they are profit-making ventures, which calls into question the independence of their findings.

    Second: the issue of data release needs to be addressed. Two particular problems stand out:

    • Real-time information. Water quality results for beaches are usually released a week or more after samples have been taken. But because water moves all the time every day, people living in the city need real-time information. Best-practice water contamination measures use water current models to predict where contaminated water will be, given each day’s different winds and temperatures.

    • Poor and incomplete data. When ocean contaminant data is released as a 12-month rolling average, all the very high values are smoothed out. The end result is a figure that does not communicate the reality of risks under different conditions.

    Third: Politicians should be accountable for their public statements on science. Independent and authoritative scientific bodies, such as the Academy of Science of South Africa, should be empowered to audit municipal science communications.

    Fourth: Reputational harm to the science community must stop. Government officials claiming that they alone know a scientific truth and denouncing independent scientists with other data closes down the culture of scientific inquiry. And it silences others.

    Fifth: The integrity of scientific findings needs to be protected. Many cities, including Cape Town, rely on corporate brand management and political reputation management. Nevertheless, cities, by their very nature, have to deal with sewage, wastes and runoff. Public science communication that is based on marketing strategies prioritises advancing a brand (whether of a political party or a tourist destination). The risk is that city-funded science is turned into advertising and is presented as unquestionable.

    Finally, Cape Town needs political leaders who are courageous enough to confront two evident realities. Current science communications in the city are not serving the public well, and wastewater treatment systems that use rivers and oceans as open sewers are a solution designed a century ago. Both urgently need to be reconfigured.

    Next steps

    As a team of independent contaminant researchers we have worked alongside communities where health, ecology, livestock and recreation have been profoundly harmed by ongoing contamination. We have documented these effects, only to hear the evidence denied by officials.

    We recognise and value the beginnings of some new steps to data transparency in Cape Town’s mayoral office, like rescinding the 2021 by-law that banned independent scientific testing of open water bodies, almost all of which are classified as nature reserves.

    We would welcome a dialogue on building strong and credible public science communications.

    This study is dedicated to the memory of Mpharu Hloyi, head of Scientific Services in the City of Cape Town, in acknowledgement of her dedication to the health of urban bodies of water. Her untimely passing was a loss for all.

    This article also drew on Masters theses written by Melissa Zackon and Amy Beukes.

    – Cape Town’s sewage treatment isn’t coping: scientists are worried about what the city is telling the public
    – https://theconversation.com/cape-towns-sewage-treatment-isnt-coping-scientists-are-worried-about-what-the-city-is-telling-the-public-260317

    MIL OSI Africa –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Cape Town’s sewage treatment isn’t coping: scientists are worried about what the city is telling the public

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lesley Green, Professor of Earth Politics and Director: Environmental Humanities South, University of Cape Town

    Urban water bodies – rivers, lakes and oceans – are in trouble globally. Large sewage volumes damage the open environment, and new chemicals and pharmaceutical compounds don’t break down on their own. When they are released into the open environment, they build up in living tissues all along the food chain, bringing with them multiple health risks.

    The city of Cape Town, South Africa, is no exception. It has 300km of coastline along two bays and a peninsula, as well as multiple rivers and wetlands. The city discharges more than 40 megalitres of raw sewage directly into the Atlantic Ocean every day. In addition, large volumes of poorly treated sewage and runoff from shack settlements enter rivers and from there into both the Atlantic and the Indian Oceans.

    Over almost a decade, our multi-disciplinary team, and others, have studied contamination risks in Cape Town’s oceans, rivers, aquifers and lakes. Our goal has been to bring evidence of contaminants to the attention of officials responsible for a clean environment.

    Monitoring sewage levels in the city’s water bodies is essential because of the health risks posed by contaminated water to all citizens – farmers, surfers, and everybody eating fish and vegetables. Monitoring needs to be done scientifically and in a way that produces data that is trustworthy and not driven by vested interests. This is a challenge in cities where scientific findings are expected to support marketing of tourism or excellence of the political administration.

    Our research findings have been published in multiple peer-reviewed journals. We have also communicated with the public through articles in the media, a website and a documentary.

    Cape Town’s official municipal responses to independent studies and reports, however, have been hostile. Our work has been unjustifiably denounced by top city officials and politicians. We have been subject to attacks by fake social media avatars. Laboratory studies have even received a demand for an apology from the political party in charge of the city.

    These extraordinary responses – and many others – reflect the extent to which independent scientific inquiry has been under attack.

    We set about tracking the different kinds of denial and attacks on independent contaminant science in Cape Town over 11 years. Our recently published study describes 18 different types of science communication that have minimised or denied the problem of contamination. It builds on similar studies elsewhere.

    Our findings show the extent to which contaminant science in Cape Town is at risk of producing not public knowledge but public ignorance, reflecting similar patterns internationally where science communication sometimes obfuscates more than it informs. To address this risk, we argue that institutionalised conflicts of interest should be removed. There should also be changes to how city-funded testing is done and when data is released to citizens. After all, it is citizens’ rates and taxes that have paid for that testing, and the South African constitution guarantees the right to information.

    We also propose that the city’s political leaders take the courageous step of accepting that the current water treatment infrastructure is unworkable for a city of over 5 million people. Accepting this would open the door to an overhaul of the city’s approach to wastewater treatment.

    The way forward

    We divided our study of contaminant communication events into four sub-categories:

    • non-disclosure of data

    • misinformation that gives a partial or misleading account of a scientific finding

    • using city-funded science to bolster political authority

    • relying on point data collected fortnightly to prove “the truth” of bodies of water as if it never moves or changes, when in reality, water bodies move every second of every day.

    We found evidence of multiple instances of miscommunication. On the basis of these, we make specific recommendations.

    First: municipalities should address conflicts of interest that are built into their organisational structure. These arise when the people responsible for ensuring that water bodies are healthy are simultaneously contracting consultants to conduct research on water contaminants. This is particularly important because over the last two decades large consultancies have established themselves as providers of scientific certification. But they are profit-making ventures, which calls into question the independence of their findings.

    Second: the issue of data release needs to be addressed. Two particular problems stand out:

    • Real-time information. Water quality results for beaches are usually released a week or more after samples have been taken. But because water moves all the time every day, people living in the city need real-time information. Best-practice water contamination measures use water current models to predict where contaminated water will be, given each day’s different winds and temperatures.

    • Poor and incomplete data. When ocean contaminant data is released as a 12-month rolling average, all the very high values are smoothed out. The end result is a figure that does not communicate the reality of risks under different conditions.

    Third: Politicians should be accountable for their public statements on science. Independent and authoritative scientific bodies, such as the Academy of Science of South Africa, should be empowered to audit municipal science communications.

    Fourth: Reputational harm to the science community must stop. Government officials claiming that they alone know a scientific truth and denouncing independent scientists with other data closes down the culture of scientific inquiry. And it silences others.

    Fifth: The integrity of scientific findings needs to be protected. Many cities, including Cape Town, rely on corporate brand management and political reputation management. Nevertheless, cities, by their very nature, have to deal with sewage, wastes and runoff. Public science communication that is based on marketing strategies prioritises advancing a brand (whether of a political party or a tourist destination). The risk is that city-funded science is turned into advertising and is presented as unquestionable.

    Finally, Cape Town needs political leaders who are courageous enough to confront two evident realities. Current science communications in the city are not serving the public well, and wastewater treatment systems that use rivers and oceans as open sewers are a solution designed a century ago. Both urgently need to be reconfigured.

    Next steps

    As a team of independent contaminant researchers we have worked alongside communities where health, ecology, livestock and recreation have been profoundly harmed by ongoing contamination. We have documented these effects, only to hear the evidence denied by officials.

    We recognise and value the beginnings of some new steps to data transparency in Cape Town’s mayoral office, like rescinding the 2021 by-law that banned independent scientific testing of open water bodies, almost all of which are classified as nature reserves.

    We would welcome a dialogue on building strong and credible public science communications.

    This study is dedicated to the memory of Mpharu Hloyi, head of Scientific Services in the City of Cape Town, in acknowledgement of her dedication to the health of urban bodies of water. Her untimely passing was a loss for all.

    This article also drew on Masters theses written by Melissa Zackon and Amy Beukes.

    Lesley Green has received funding from the Science for Africa Foundation; the Seed Box MISTRA Formas Environmental Humanities Collaboratory; and the Science For Africa Foundation’s DELTAS Africa II program (Del:22-010).

    Cecilia Yejide Ojemaye receives funding from the University of Cape Town Carnegie DEAL Sustainable Development Goals Research Fellowship and the National Research Foundation for the SanOcean grant from the South Africa‐Norway Cooperation on Ocean Research (UID 118754).

    Leslie Petrik received funding from National Research Foundation for the SanOcean grant from the South Africa‐Norway Cooperation on Ocean Research (UID 118754) for this study.

    Nikiwe Solomon received funding at different stages for PhD research from the Water Research Commission (WRC) and National Institute for Humanities and Social Sciences (NIHSS), in collaboration with the South African Humanities Deans Association (SAHUDA). Opinions expressed and conclusions arrived at are those of the author and are not necessarily to be attributed to the WRC, NIHSS and SAHUDA.

    Jo Barnes and Vanessa Farr do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Cape Town’s sewage treatment isn’t coping: scientists are worried about what the city is telling the public – https://theconversation.com/cape-towns-sewage-treatment-isnt-coping-scientists-are-worried-about-what-the-city-is-telling-the-public-260317

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Cape Town’s sewage treatment isn’t coping: scientists are worried about what the city is telling the public

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Lesley Green, Professor of Earth Politics and Director: Environmental Humanities South, University of Cape Town

    Urban water bodies – rivers, lakes and oceans – are in trouble globally. Large sewage volumes damage the open environment, and new chemicals and pharmaceutical compounds don’t break down on their own. When they are released into the open environment, they build up in living tissues all along the food chain, bringing with them multiple health risks.

    The city of Cape Town, South Africa, is no exception. It has 300km of coastline along two bays and a peninsula, as well as multiple rivers and wetlands. The city discharges more than 40 megalitres of raw sewage directly into the Atlantic Ocean every day. In addition, large volumes of poorly treated sewage and runoff from shack settlements enter rivers and from there into both the Atlantic and the Indian Oceans.

    Over almost a decade, our multi-disciplinary team, and others, have studied contamination risks in Cape Town’s oceans, rivers, aquifers and lakes. Our goal has been to bring evidence of contaminants to the attention of officials responsible for a clean environment.

    Monitoring sewage levels in the city’s water bodies is essential because of the health risks posed by contaminated water to all citizens – farmers, surfers, and everybody eating fish and vegetables. Monitoring needs to be done scientifically and in a way that produces data that is trustworthy and not driven by vested interests. This is a challenge in cities where scientific findings are expected to support marketing of tourism or excellence of the political administration.

    Our research findings have been published in multiple peer-reviewed journals. We have also communicated with the public through articles in the media, a website and a documentary.

    Cape Town’s official municipal responses to independent studies and reports, however, have been hostile. Our work has been unjustifiably denounced by top city officials and politicians. We have been subject to attacks by fake social media avatars. Laboratory studies have even received a demand for an apology from the political party in charge of the city.

    These extraordinary responses – and many others – reflect the extent to which independent scientific inquiry has been under attack.

    We set about tracking the different kinds of denial and attacks on independent contaminant science in Cape Town over 11 years. Our recently published study describes 18 different types of science communication that have minimised or denied the problem of contamination. It builds on similar studies elsewhere.

    Our findings show the extent to which contaminant science in Cape Town is at risk of producing not public knowledge but public ignorance, reflecting similar patterns internationally where science communication sometimes obfuscates more than it informs. To address this risk, we argue that institutionalised conflicts of interest should be removed. There should also be changes to how city-funded testing is done and when data is released to citizens. After all, it is citizens’ rates and taxes that have paid for that testing, and the South African constitution guarantees the right to information.

    We also propose that the city’s political leaders take the courageous step of accepting that the current water treatment infrastructure is unworkable for a city of over 5 million people. Accepting this would open the door to an overhaul of the city’s approach to wastewater treatment.

    The way forward

    We divided our study of contaminant communication events into four sub-categories:

    • non-disclosure of data

    • misinformation that gives a partial or misleading account of a scientific finding

    • using city-funded science to bolster political authority

    • relying on point data collected fortnightly to prove “the truth” of bodies of water as if it never moves or changes, when in reality, water bodies move every second of every day.

    We found evidence of multiple instances of miscommunication. On the basis of these, we make specific recommendations.

    First: municipalities should address conflicts of interest that are built into their organisational structure. These arise when the people responsible for ensuring that water bodies are healthy are simultaneously contracting consultants to conduct research on water contaminants. This is particularly important because over the last two decades large consultancies have established themselves as providers of scientific certification. But they are profit-making ventures, which calls into question the independence of their findings.

    Second: the issue of data release needs to be addressed. Two particular problems stand out:

    • Real-time information. Water quality results for beaches are usually released a week or more after samples have been taken. But because water moves all the time every day, people living in the city need real-time information. Best-practice water contamination measures use water current models to predict where contaminated water will be, given each day’s different winds and temperatures.

    • Poor and incomplete data. When ocean contaminant data is released as a 12-month rolling average, all the very high values are smoothed out. The end result is a figure that does not communicate the reality of risks under different conditions.

    Third: Politicians should be accountable for their public statements on science. Independent and authoritative scientific bodies, such as the Academy of Science of South Africa, should be empowered to audit municipal science communications.

    Fourth: Reputational harm to the science community must stop. Government officials claiming that they alone know a scientific truth and denouncing independent scientists with other data closes down the culture of scientific inquiry. And it silences others.

    Fifth: The integrity of scientific findings needs to be protected. Many cities, including Cape Town, rely on corporate brand management and political reputation management. Nevertheless, cities, by their very nature, have to deal with sewage, wastes and runoff. Public science communication that is based on marketing strategies prioritises advancing a brand (whether of a political party or a tourist destination). The risk is that city-funded science is turned into advertising and is presented as unquestionable.

    Finally, Cape Town needs political leaders who are courageous enough to confront two evident realities. Current science communications in the city are not serving the public well, and wastewater treatment systems that use rivers and oceans as open sewers are a solution designed a century ago. Both urgently need to be reconfigured.

    Next steps

    As a team of independent contaminant researchers we have worked alongside communities where health, ecology, livestock and recreation have been profoundly harmed by ongoing contamination. We have documented these effects, only to hear the evidence denied by officials.

    We recognise and value the beginnings of some new steps to data transparency in Cape Town’s mayoral office, like rescinding the 2021 by-law that banned independent scientific testing of open water bodies, almost all of which are classified as nature reserves.

    We would welcome a dialogue on building strong and credible public science communications.

    This study is dedicated to the memory of Mpharu Hloyi, head of Scientific Services in the City of Cape Town, in acknowledgement of her dedication to the health of urban bodies of water. Her untimely passing was a loss for all.

    This article also drew on Masters theses written by Melissa Zackon and Amy Beukes.

    Lesley Green has received funding from the Science for Africa Foundation; the Seed Box MISTRA Formas Environmental Humanities Collaboratory; and the Science For Africa Foundation’s DELTAS Africa II program (Del:22-010).

    Cecilia Yejide Ojemaye receives funding from the University of Cape Town Carnegie DEAL Sustainable Development Goals Research Fellowship and the National Research Foundation for the SanOcean grant from the South Africa‐Norway Cooperation on Ocean Research (UID 118754).

    Leslie Petrik received funding from National Research Foundation for the SanOcean grant from the South Africa‐Norway Cooperation on Ocean Research (UID 118754) for this study.

    Nikiwe Solomon received funding at different stages for PhD research from the Water Research Commission (WRC) and National Institute for Humanities and Social Sciences (NIHSS), in collaboration with the South African Humanities Deans Association (SAHUDA). Opinions expressed and conclusions arrived at are those of the author and are not necessarily to be attributed to the WRC, NIHSS and SAHUDA.

    Jo Barnes and Vanessa Farr do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Cape Town’s sewage treatment isn’t coping: scientists are worried about what the city is telling the public – https://theconversation.com/cape-towns-sewage-treatment-isnt-coping-scientists-are-worried-about-what-the-city-is-telling-the-public-260317

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: Marine fish culture licences and deep sea cages in Mirs Bay (South) new fish culture zone open for applications

    Source: Hong Kong Government special administrative region – 4

    ​The Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) announced today (July 7) that applications for marine fish culture licences and the use of government-provided deep sea cages in the new fish culture zone at Mirs Bay (South) are open for applications from today until September 6, to assist capture fishermen in switching to sustainable deep sea mariculture.

    A spokesman for the AFCD said, “Unlike the small-scale operations using traditional wooden fish rafts in the past, we aim to encourage the intensification of production for fishermen in the new fish culture zones while adopting a sustainable and environmentally friendly mode of operation, together with the use of steel truss cages or other types of deep sea cages that are resilient to strong wind and water current.” 

    To reduce the start-up cost for fishermen, the AFCD will set up two sets of steel truss deep sea cages and three sets of HDPE (high density polyethylene) deep sea cages equipped with modern aquaculture facilities in phases in the new fish culture zone at Mirs Bay (South) by the end of this year. These deep sea cages will be provided to local fishermen associations through licence agreements to help capture fishermen meet new challenges and assist the industry in switching to sustainable development or high-value-added aquaculture practices. 

    Applicants shall provide a detailed business plan, including an introduction to the proposed sustainable mariculture business, as well as a demonstration of their eligibility to use government cages and compliance with the relevant environmental protection and mitigation measures. 

    The spokesman added that those interested in operating in the new fish culture zone may consider applying for the Sustainable Fisheries Development Fund to develop their mariculture businesses. However, the fund cannot be used to pay for the licence fees of government cages. 

    The AFCD has designated Wong Chuk Kok Hoi, Mirs Bay, Outer Tap Mun, and Po Toi (Southeast) as the four new fish culture zones, covering a total area equivalent to three times that of the original fish culture zones. Among these, the Wong Chuk Kok Hoi and Mirs Bay fish culture zones began accepting the first round of marine fish culture licence applications by the end of 2024. 

    The AFCD will hold a briefing session on July 17 to introduce the application process and licensing requirements of marine fish culture licences and the use of deep sea cages. Details of the application and the briefing session are available on the AFCD website: https://www.afcd.gov.hk/english/fisheries/fish_aqu/fish_aqu_mfco/newfczmfcl2025.html.

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News –

  • MIL-OSI NGOs: Job Opening: Campaigner

    Source: Greenpeace Statement –

    This is a full-time permanent position based in Manila Office. Candidates who have the legal right to work and live in the Philippines are encouraged to apply.

    © Daniel Müller / Greenpeace

    About the Role

    The Campaigner is a key role in Greenpeace. This role leads the development and implementation of high impact campaign strategies and plans with the goal of achieving big and lasting wins in the policy and public perception spheres, towards systemic changes.

    This role works together with a cross-functional team to co-create and drive proactive and responsive initiatives that will influence policy, change mindsets and mobilize communities, groups and networks.

    The incumbent is expected to be knowledgeable in climate, energy and environmental issues, as well as cross-cutting social justice issues. They must be well-versed in local and international climate and energy policy and developments. In certain situations, as determined by internal and external events and upon the consideration and advice from the Country Director, the campaigner is expected to support other initiatives under the Greenpeace Philippines Program.

    Duties and Responsibilities:

    • Develop and implement smart, innovative and people-powered campaign strategies and projects in line with both the short and long term goals of the Climate Campaign, and the GPPH program in general, consistent with national, regional and international objectives and including detailed strategy, activities, timelines and budgets.
    • Maintain a working knowledge of technical information and be able to present the information to a variety of audiences within and outside the Philippines.
    • Maintain a working knowledge of mindset sciences, and political, legislative, regulatory and economic frameworks relevant to climate, energy, and the environment.
    • Lead the development and implementation of campaign plans and tactics
    • Initiate cross-issue campaign discussions for integrated project development, planning and implementation
    • Work with engagement focal points to strengthen the campaign’s people participation and audience journey components. Organize and oversee the work of campaign/project volunteers, interns and short-term contractors as required
    • Work with the communications focal points in preparing a variety of communications materials and provide assistance in the formulation of regional and international materials when necessary, and assist in planning communications and engagement strategies for the campaign
    • Respond to and engage in internal as well as external regional challenges beyond his/her normal issue/campaign area as circumstances require
    • Participate in campaign discussions and planning regarding strategic issues within Greenpeace Philippines, GPSEA, with other Greenpeace offices and with GP International (GPI) staff. This will include both written and verbal discussion as well as attendance at specific meetings
    • Keep the Philippine Country Director, Regional and other Campaigners, unit leads and project team members well-informed of activities in the campaign interventions (including the preparation of monthly reports and work plans) and recommend changes in tactics, or strategies as necessary
    • Represent Greenpeace and the campaign at relevant public events, movement events and at meetings with political decision makers, local citizens and affected communities; act as spokesperson for the campaign, and develop pro-active relationships with relevant media to increase campaign outreach
    • Build alliances and/or support relationships with partner organizations, relevant affected groups, grassroots organizations, academic and professional groups, labor unions and others as identified in strategic planning
    • Build, connect and/or catalyze relevant climate movements by creating, building and/or supporting networks, coalitions, and groups in support of campaign goals and in line with agreed campaign strategies
    • Direct, organize and participate in non-violent direct action to support and advance campaign goals and organization objectives
    • Reliably deliver on project engagement plans in line with the country strategy, campaign and engagement objectives and KPIs
    • Develop monitoring and evaluation mechanisms for the campaign and implement progress reviews and end-point evaluations

    Skills and Experience Requirements:

    • Bachelor’s degree or higher in a related field
    • At least 6 years work experience on environmental campaigning or any related field
    • Extensive knowledge about climate, energy, biodiversity and environmental issues
    • Proven experience in campaigning and project management, open campaigning, mass mobilization, public speaking, activist training, strategic planning and organizing people around an issue
    • Proven experience in directing a project from conception to completion
    • Proven ability to work both independently and in close coordination with a team
    • Excellent networking skills and the ability to communicate with a wide range of organizations and communities

    Functional Skills:

    • Strong strategic thinking and planning skills; proven experience in analyzing and planning campaign strategies
    • Strong personal organizational skills including ability to participate in multiple projects with competing priorities and timelines, strong interpersonal communication skills and ability to handle constantly evolving work
    • Knowledge and/or experience in working with volunteers
    • Excellent spoken and written communication skills in English and Filipino

    Greenpeace’s Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion

    Greenpeace values diversity as essential to its mission and success. The organisation fosters an inclusive environment that respects varied cultural experiences and perspectives, promoting solutions rooted in social and environmental justice.

    Deadline for applications: July 22, 2025

    Jobs

    Do you have a passion for this planet and want to do more? Work with us!

    TAKE ACTION

    MIL OSI NGO –

  • BRICS demand wealthy nations fund global climate transition

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Leaders of the BRICS group of developing nations prepared to address the shared challenges of climate change on Monday, the final day of their summit in Rio de Janeiro, demanding that wealthy nations fund global mitigation of greenhouse emissions.

    Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has touted the importance of the Global South in tackling global warming as he prepares to host the United Nations climate summit in November.

    Still, a joint statement from BRICS leaders released on Sunday argued that fossil fuels will continue to play an important role in the global energy mix, particularly in developing economies.

    “We live in a moment of many contradictions in the whole world. The important thing is that we are willing to overcome these contradictions,” Brazil’s Environment Minister Marina Silva said on the sidelines of the summit, when asked about the plans to extract oil off the coast of the Amazon rainforest.

    In their joint statement, BRICS leaders underscored that providing climate finance “is a responsibility of developed countries towards developing countries,” which is the standard position for emerging economies in global negotiations.

    Their declaration also mentioned the group’s support for a fund that Brazil proposed to protect endangered forests – the Tropical Forests Forever Facility – as a way for emerging economies to fund climate change mitigation beyond the mandatory requirements imposed on wealthy nations by the 2015 Paris Agreement.

    China and the UAE signaled in meetings with Brazilian Finance Minister Fernando Haddad in Rio that they plan to invest in the fund, two sources with knowledge of the discussions Reuters media last week.

    The joint statement from BRICS leaders also blasted policies such as carbon border taxes and anti-deforestation laws, which Europe has recently adopted, for imposing what they called “discriminatory protectionist measures” under the pretext of environmental concerns.

    (Reuters)

  • BRICS demand wealthy nations fund global climate transition

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Leaders of the BRICS group of developing nations prepared to address the shared challenges of climate change on Monday, the final day of their summit in Rio de Janeiro, demanding that wealthy nations fund global mitigation of greenhouse emissions.

    Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has touted the importance of the Global South in tackling global warming as he prepares to host the United Nations climate summit in November.

    Still, a joint statement from BRICS leaders released on Sunday argued that fossil fuels will continue to play an important role in the global energy mix, particularly in developing economies.

    “We live in a moment of many contradictions in the whole world. The important thing is that we are willing to overcome these contradictions,” Brazil’s Environment Minister Marina Silva said on the sidelines of the summit, when asked about the plans to extract oil off the coast of the Amazon rainforest.

    In their joint statement, BRICS leaders underscored that providing climate finance “is a responsibility of developed countries towards developing countries,” which is the standard position for emerging economies in global negotiations.

    Their declaration also mentioned the group’s support for a fund that Brazil proposed to protect endangered forests – the Tropical Forests Forever Facility – as a way for emerging economies to fund climate change mitigation beyond the mandatory requirements imposed on wealthy nations by the 2015 Paris Agreement.

    China and the UAE signaled in meetings with Brazilian Finance Minister Fernando Haddad in Rio that they plan to invest in the fund, two sources with knowledge of the discussions Reuters media last week.

    The joint statement from BRICS leaders also blasted policies such as carbon border taxes and anti-deforestation laws, which Europe has recently adopted, for imposing what they called “discriminatory protectionist measures” under the pretext of environmental concerns.

    (Reuters)

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: Sustainable fishing applications open

    Source: Hong Kong Information Services

    Applications for marine fish culture licences and the use of government-provided deep sea cages in the new fish culture zone at Mirs Bay (South) are open from today until September 6, the Agriculture, Fisheries & Conservation Department announced.

     

    The department explained that it hopes to encourage the intensification of production for fishermen in the new fish culture zones while adopting a sustainable and environmentally friendly mode of operation, together with the use of cages that are resilient to strong wind and water currents.

     

    To reduce the start-up cost for fishermen, the department will set up two sets of steel truss deep sea cages and three sets of high density polyethylene deep sea cages equipped with modern aquaculture facilities in phases in the new fish culture zone at Mirs Bay (South) by the end of this year. The deep sea cages will be provided to local fishermen associations through licence agreements.

     

    Applicants shall provide a detailed business plan, including an introduction to the proposed sustainable mariculture business, as well as a demonstration of their eligibility to use government cages and compliance with the relevant environmental protection and mitigation measures.

     

    While the department added that people interested in operating in the new fish culture zone may consider applying for the Sustainable Fisheries Development Fund, it also stressed that the fund cannot be used to pay for the licence fees of government cages.

     

    A briefing session will be held on July 17 to introduce the application process and licensing requirements of marine fish culture licences and the use of deep sea cages.

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Australia – Albanese Government Must Act, CSIRO Research Fuels Calls for Deep Sea Mining Moratorium

    Source: Deep Sea Mining Campaign

    As the peak international body on deep sea mining begins a three-week meeting, CSIRO has released a series of reports commissioned by mining proponent The Metals Company (TMC) that underscore the severe environmental risks and scientific uncertainty surrounding the dangerous industry.

    The findings confirm international consensus; the deep ocean is too poorly understood to proceed with deep sea mining safely or responsibly, prompting major environmental organisations to call on the Albanese Government to support a moratorium.

    The timing of the CSIRO reports appears to align with what was, until recently, TMC’s plan to submit an application to the ISA on June 27 – plans the company has now abandoned in favour of a controversial U.S. based pathway via a dormant 1980s law and enabled by the Trump administration. 

    Pressure is mounting on the Albanese Government to adopt a precautionary stance supporting a moratorium at the ISA in line with many of its major partners, including the UK, Canada, France, Germany and New Zealand. Currently, 37 countries back a deep sea mining moratorium.

    TMC continues to apply pressure on international regulators to accelerate approvals for this high-risk untested industry. With a state-funded agency producing research likely to be used to legitimise mining in international waters, ocean advocates are calling on the Albanese Government to direct CSIRO to take no further actions on behalf of TMC. 

    The CSIRO reports confirm the likely damage to the seafloor and to the marine environment that civil society, Indigenous Pacific communities, and independent scientists have warned about; deep sea mining is too destructive and there is too much uncertainty to proceed. 

    “These findings echo the concerns we’ve heard right across the Pacific region – that the deep ocean is a highly complex, precious environment, and that accelerating deep sea mining would be dangerous,” said Phil McCabe, Pacific Regional Coordinator at the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition.

    There remains a severe lack of real-world data about deep sea ecosystems – particularly in relation to the long-term environmental impacts and the risk of toxic pollution entering the food chain. Scientists warn that many of these impacts are likely to be irreversible in human timeframes. The CSIRO reports acknowledge the potential for heavy metals to bioaccumulate in marine life, including tuna, swordfish, whales, and dolphins. 

    “We’ve seen this before; traffic light systems, digital twin technology, adaptive management systems – all designed to give the illusion of sustainable management,” said Dr. Helen Rosenbaum, Research Coordinator at the Deep Sea Mining Campaign. “When the science is this uncertain, the only responsible signal is red.”

    TMC’s recent decision to abandon its application to the ISA and instead issue permits through a dormant U.S. law has been widely condemned by governments and legal experts as a direct challenge to international law and multilateralism. The move undermines the ISA’s authority just as states prepare to negotiate key regulations. 

    “Australia’s credibility is on the line,” said Duncan Currie, International Lawyer and advisor to the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition. “CSIRO’s involvement with The Metals Company (TMC) risks implicating Australia in their attempt to sidestep international governance. The Albanese Government must now draw a clear line; support a moratorium at the International Seabed Authority, and ensure CSIRO takes no further action on TMC’s behalf.”

    “At the ISA, a moratorium or precautionary pause on deep sea mining is the only viable path to protecting the deep sea,” said Shiva Gounden, Head of Pacific at Greenpeace Australia Pacific. “Delegates at the ISA must listen to the science and the voices of Pacific nations and back a moratorium to stop deep sea mining before it starts.”

    The Deep Sea Mining Campaign, Deep Sea Conservation Coalition, Greenpeace Australia Pacific, and Surfrider Australia call on the Albanese Government to announce its support for a Moratorium at the upcoming ISA meeting in Jamaica; and direct CSIRO to take no further actions on behalf of TMC.

    MIL OSI – Submitted News –

  • MIL-OSI Australia: ACT firefighters deployed to support Canada’s wildfire response

    Source: Northern Territory Police and Fire Services

    As part of ACT Government’s ‘One Government, One Voice’ program, we are transitioning this website across to our . You can access everything you need through this website while it’s happening.

    Released 26/06/2025

    15 firefighters from ACT Parks & Conservation Service (ACTPCS) and 5 firefighters from the ACT Rural Fire Service (ACTRFS) are leaving for Canada today to assist with wildfires burning throughout the country.

    The firefighters will be based in the province of Alberta for 38 days helping to control and put out wildfires. There are currently over 290 fires burning this severe wildfire season in Canada and over 50 of these are in Alberta. Australian firefighters have been deployed in Canada since 12 June 2025, and this group leaving today is the first ACT contingent.

    Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, Dr Marisa Paterson, is proud to see ACT firefighters giving up their time to help our friends overseas.

    “The past year has been a busy one for our ACT emergency services as they’ve responded to incidents across Australia. The deployment of ACT personnel to Canada is a powerful reflection of our people’s unwavering commitment to helping communities in need, wherever and whenever they’re called upon.”

    “I would like to wish all our firefighters departing today a safe journey. I look forward to hearing about their experiences and the valuable insights gained upon their return.”

    Quotes attributable to ACTRFS Chief Officer, Rohan Scott

    “Australia and Canada share a strong resource sharing relationship. ACT firefighters have been supporting Canadian wildfire efforts since 2016 and in return, Canada stood with us during the devastating Black Summer bushfires of 2019-2020.

    “Having just returned from visiting the aftermath of the Los Angeles fires, it is clear to me both North America and Australia can benefit from shared experiences and lessons learned. I look forward to seeing what our firefighters learn in Canada during this deployment that can impact how we prepare for and tackle bushfires here in Australia.”

    Quotes attributable to ACTPCS Director of Operations, Ailish Milner

    “The ACT Parks and Conservation Service is honoured to support Canada by sending our crews alongside the ACT Rural Fire Service to join the Canadian firefighting effort.

    “ACT firefighters have a proud history of supporting our international colleagues, joining multiple deployments overseas, including to Canada, over the past decade. Our skilled and experienced firefighters will provide Canada with much-needed relief during their difficult fire season.

    “Thank you to the crews deployed today who are really going above and beyond to will help protect life, environment and property abroad.”

    – Statement ends –

    Marisa Paterson, MLA | Media Releases

    «ACT Government Media Releases | «Minister Media Releases

    MIL OSI News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: ER Report: A Roundup of Significant Articles on EveningReport.nz for July 7, 2025

    ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on July 7, 2025.

    The hard questions NZ must ask about the claimed economic benefits of fast-track mining projects
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Glenn Banks, Professor of Geography, School of People, Environment and Planning, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University Getty Images Much of the debate about the fast-track applications by a number of new or extended mining projects has, understandably, focused on their environmental impacts. But the other

    New US directive for visa applicants turns social media feeds into political documents
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Samuel Cornell, PhD Candidate in Public Health & Community Medicine, School of Population Health, UNSW Sydney Angel DiBiblio/Shutterstock In recent weeks, the US State Department implemented a policy requiring all university, technical training, or exchange program visa applicants to disclose their social media handles used over the

    Ageing bridges around the world are at risk of collapse. But there’s a simple way to safeguard them
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andy Nguyen, Senior Lecturer in Structural Engineering, University of Southern Queensland The Story Bridge, with its sweeping steel trusses and art deco towers, is a striking sight above the Brisbane River in Queensland. In 2025, it was named the state’s best landmark. But more than an icon,

    Much to celebrate as NAIDOC Week turns 50, but also much to learn
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lynette Riley, Co-chair of the National NAIDOC Committee and Professor in the Sydney School of Education and Social Work; and Chair, Aboriginal Education and Indigenous Studies.original Education & Indigenous Studies., University of Sydney Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander readers are advised this article contains names and/or images

    Just $7 extra per person could prevent 300 suicides a year. Here’s exactly where to spend it
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Karinna Saxby, Research Fellow, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne xinlan/Shutterstock Medicare spending on mental health services varies considerably depending on where in Australia you live, our new study shows. We found areas with lower Medicare spending on out-of-hospital mental health

    A Māori worldview describes the immune system as a guardian – this could improve public health in Aotearoa NZ
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tama Te Puea Braithwaite-Westoby, Tautoro Māori Engagement Advisor, Malaghan Institute of Medical Research Getty Images In biomedical science, the immune system is described as a cellular defence network that identifies and neutralises threats. In te ao Māori (the Māori worldview), it can be seen as a dynamic

    We don’t need deep-sea mining, or its environmental harms. Here’s why
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Justin Alger, Associate Professor / Senior Lecturer in Global Environmental Politics, The University of Melbourne Potato-sized polymetallic nodules from the deep sea could be mined for valuable metals and minerals. Carolyn Cole / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images Deep-sea mining promises critical minerals for the energy

    ‘The customer is always right’: why some uni teachers give higher grades than students deserve
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ciprian N. Radavoi, Associate Professor in Law, University of Southern Queensland Pixels Effect/ Getty Images Grade inflation happens when teachers knowingly give a student a mark higher than deserved. It can also happen indirectly, when the level of difficulty of a course is deliberately lowered so students

    The Rainbow Warrior saga. Part 2: Nuclear refugees in the Pacific – the evacuation of Rongelap
    COMMENTARY:  By Eugene Doyle On the last voyage of the Rainbow Warrior prior to its sinking by French secret agents in Auckland harbour on 10 July 1985 the ship had evacuated the entire population of 320 from Rongelap in the Marshall Islands. After conducting dozens of above-ground nuclear explosions, the US government had left the

    Legends of a Nuclear-Free and Independent Pacific – Octo Mote
    Pacific Media Watch West Papuan independence advocate Octovianus Mote was in Aotearoa New Zealand late last year seeking support for independence for West Papua, which has been ruled by Indonesia for more than six decades. Mote is vice-president of the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) and was hosted in New Zealand by the

    ER Report: A Roundup of Significant Articles on EveningReport.nz for July 6, 2025
    ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on July 6, 2025.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: The hard questions NZ must ask about the claimed economic benefits of fast-track mining projects

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Glenn Banks, Professor of Geography, School of People, Environment and Planning, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University

    Getty Images

    Much of the debate about the fast-track applications by a number of new or extended mining projects has, understandably, focused on their environmental impacts. But the other side of the equation – economic growth and investment, the government’s rationale for new mines – is rarely interrogated.

    In fact, the environmental and economic debates are inseparable. Section 85(3)(b) of the Fast Track Approval Act allows for project applications to be declined if any “adverse impacts are sufficiently significant to be out of proportion to the project’s regional or national benefits”.

    So, the claims of economic benefits from the current round of proposals need to be scrutinised closely. If those benefits don’t stack up, any adverse environmental impacts become harder to justify.

    Having spent more than 35 years researching and consulting on mining projects and mineral policy in the Pacific, I have noted several important economic characteristics of the mining industry.

    First, the capital spend – the setup cost of an operation – is typically largely spent offshore. In the case of Trans-Tasman Resources, currently seeking to fast-track seabed mining off the Taranaki coast, this amounts to 95% of the $1 billion construction estimate. This will largely be spent on the building in China of a huge, sophisticated barge and two 450-tonne seabed crawlers.

    The government’s recent Investment Boost policy will also mean 20% of this investment is an immediate tax deduction for the company – money lost offshore to the foreign investor.

    Second, any estimate of annual revenue, operational costs, taxation and distribution of net profit has to come with a caveat. Annual variations in all these factors are typical across the sector due to commodity price volatility, high rates of depreciation on capital expenditure, unexpected events, and exposure to changing operating costs.

    The same applies to average annual figures for taxes and royalties. Mineral resource companies cannot be regarded as stable sources of government revenue. For example, foreign-owned OceanaGold – the largest gold producer in the country and operator of the MacRaes Flat and Waihi mines – paid no corporate income tax in 2021 or 2023 on gold production worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

    Essentially, the country can often receive a minimal share of the value of its own natural resources. Unlike forestry, dairy, wine, tourism and other major sectors, with mining we don’t get a second chance: when the resource is gone, it’s really gone.

    If New Zealand does decide to expand mineral resource extraction, however, there are four things that could be done to ensure the country benefits more.

    1. Adopt international best practice

    Over the past 30 years, the international mining sector has developed a range of best-practice guidelines, such as those developed by the International Council on Metals and Mining.

    These have been adopted by leading global mining corporations elsewhere to ensure ethical behaviours, high levels of social and environmental performance, inclusive stakeholder engagement, and conservation of biodiversity.

    International bodies such as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative also provide a means for signatory countries and their citizens to track the economic contributions mining (and oil) companies make.

    2. Capture a fair share of resource value

    Aside from being levied a small 2% royalty on the value of the minerals produced (or 10% of net profits, whichever is higher), mining companies are effectively treated like any other sector. But the price of mining commodities and revenues, and the operational costs, are highly volatile.

    A better model might involve a simple calculation made each year to determine the total value of mineral exports from each operation. An agreed, a mandatory proportion – half or two-thirds, perhaps – would then be required to accrue within New Zealand.

    This proportion of the value of the mineral resource exported should take into account local employment, locally sourced operational expenses, taxes and royalties. An additional tax could then be applied that brings the local share of the export value up to the agreed proportion, if needed.

    3. Mandate a return to communities

    Another common mechanism found in many countries is the community-level or regional development agreement. These exist at some New Zealand mine sites now, but they are not mandatory. They return a share of the value of the government’s take from the sector back to the communities or regions where the resource has come from.

    While mining companies often make voluntary “corporate social responsibility” contributions to local communities, these are not community-led programs funded from a share of the mining royalties collected from the region.

    Regional Development Minister Shane Jones has said he is looking at redirecting a greater share of mining royalties to the regions where mining takes place, particularly the west coast of the South Island.

    4. Establish a form of sovereign wealth fund

    Famously, Norway and the US state of Alaska have established hundred-billion-dollar trust funds by putting aside a proportion of mining and oil revenues.

    These funds now support national budgets, lower or eliminate taxes, and provide a mechanism for the intergenerational transfer of mineral resource wealth.

    New Zealand’s current oil, gas and mining sector is not of these magnitudes. But if the country does decide to significantly expand its extractive sector, we should be thinking about a “fair share” in intergenerational terms, too.

    A local sovereign wealth fund might not be huge to begin with. But if it were used effectively, it could grow and deliver ongoing benefits from non-renewable mineral resources.

    Without proper attention to the economic implications of mining, New Zealand risks
    being doubly worse off: few guaranteed long-term economic benefits from its own mineral resource, but still living with the inevitable environmental effects of those mines.

    Glenn Banks does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. The hard questions NZ must ask about the claimed economic benefits of fast-track mining projects – https://theconversation.com/the-hard-questions-nz-must-ask-about-the-claimed-economic-benefits-of-fast-track-mining-projects-259779

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: South Westland quarry approved

    Source: NZ Department of Conservation

    Date:  07 July 2025

    The approved quarry granted to Kokiri Lime Company Limited is a one-hectare site located south of Fox Glacier in the Te Wāhipounamu – South New Zealand World Heritage Area (WHA) on stewardship land and is a continuation of an historic quarry in the area. Kokiri Lime Company Limited originally applied for a 15 hectare site.

    Acting Department of Conservation (DOC) Director General Stephanie Rowe, says the decision to grant was finely balanced given the quarry’s location on the edge of the World Heritage Area.

    “The quarry is of strategic importance to the West Coast, with major infrastructure projects benefitting both economically and environmentally from locally sourced rock. It will supply rock for local flood protection and roading projects.

    “I’m confident that the quarry will not compromise the outstanding natural heritage of this area or the integrity of the World Heritage Area as a whole. The quarry approved for operation is small, at a size of one ha, relative to the 2.6 million ha WHA. Factors in the decision are its location on the very edge of the WHA, its proximity to a previously modified site with regenerating vegetation, and the consideration of specific values at the site.”

    “The approval requires the operator to take measures to mitigate the landscape effects of the quarry and protect local wildlife,” says Stephanie Rowe.

    Background information 

    Te Wāhipounamu World Heritage Area was established in 1990. It is made up of 2.6 million hectares (almost 10% of New Zealand’s total land area), and 70% of the WHA is located within Aoraki/Mount Cook, Fiordland, Mount Aspiring and Westland Tai Poutini National Parks, with the remainder made up of conservation land of other statuses.

    Contact

    For media enquiries contact:

    Email: media@doc.govt.nz

    MIL OSI New Zealand News –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: We don’t need deep-sea mining, or its environmental harms. Here’s why

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Justin Alger, Associate Professor / Senior Lecturer in Global Environmental Politics, The University of Melbourne

    Potato-sized polymetallic nodules from the deep sea could be mined for valuable metals and minerals. Carolyn Cole / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

    Deep-sea mining promises critical minerals for the energy transition without the problems of mining on land. It also promises to bring wealth to developing nations. But the evidence suggests these promises are false, and mining would harm the environment.

    The practice involves scooping up rock-like nodules from vast areas of the sea floor. These potato-sized lumps contain metals and minerals such as zinc, manganese, molybdenum, nickel and rare earth elements.

    Technology to mine the deep sea exists, but commercial mining of the deep sea is not happening anywhere in the world. That could soon change. Nations are meeting this month in Kingston, Jamaica, to agree to a mining code. Such a code would make way for mining to begin within the next few years.

    On Thursday, Australia’s national science agency, CSIRO, released research into the environmental impacts of deep-sea mining. It aims to promote better environmental management of deep-sea mining, should it proceed.

    We have previously challenged the rationale for deep-sea mining, drawing on our expertise in international politics and environmental management. We argue mining the deep sea is harmful and the economic benefits have been overstated. What’s more, the metals and minerals to be mined are not scarce.

    The best course of action is a ban on international seabed mining, building on the coalition for a moratorium.

    The Metals Company spent six months at sea collecting nodules in 2022, while studying the effects on ecosystems.

    Managing and monitoring environmental harm

    Recent advances in technology have made deep-sea mining more feasible. But removing the nodules – which also requires pumping water around – has been shown to damage the seabed and endanger marine life.

    CSIRO has developed the first environmental management and monitoring frameworks to protect deep sea ecosystems from mining. It aims to provide “trusted, science-based tools to evaluate the environmental risks and viability of deep-sea mining”.

    Scientists from Griffith University, Museums Victoria, the University of the Sunshine Coast, and Earth Sciences New Zealand were also involved in the work.

    The Metals Company Australia, a local subsidiary of the Canadian deep-sea mining exploration company, commissioned the research. It involved analysing data from test mining the company carried out in the Pacific Ocean in 2022.

    The company has led efforts to expedite deep-sea mining. This includes pushing for the mining code, and exploring commercial mining of the international seabed through approval from the US government.

    In a media briefing this week, CSIRO Senior Principal Research Scientist Piers Dunstan said the mining activity substantially affected the sea floor. Some marine life, especially that attached to the nodules, had very little hope of recovery. He said if mining were to go ahead, monitoring would be crucial.

    We are sceptical that ecological impacts can be managed even with this new framework. Little is known about life in these deep-water ecosystems. But research shows nodule mining would cause extensive habitat loss and damage.

    Do we really need to open the ocean frontier to mining? We argue the answer is no, on three counts.

    How does deep-sea mining work? (The Guardian)

    1. Minerals are not scarce

    The minerals required for the energy transition are abundant on land. Known global terrestrial reserves of cobalt, copper, manganese, molybdenum and nickel are enough to meet current production levels for decades – even with growing demand.

    There is no compelling reason to extract deep-sea minerals, given the economics of both deep-sea and land-based mining. Deep-sea mining is speculative and inevitably too expensive given such remote, deep operations.

    Claims about mineral scarcity are being used to justify attempting to legitimise a new extractive frontier in the deep sea. Opportunistic investors can make money through speculation and attracting government subsidies.

    2. Mining at sea will not replace mining on land

    Proponents claim deep-sea mining can replace some mining on land. Mining on land has led to social issues including infringing on indigenous and community rights. It also damages the environment.

    But deep-sea mining will not necessarily displace, replace or change mining on land. Land-based mining contracts span decades and the companies involved will not abandon ongoing or planned projects. Their activities will continue, even if deep-sea mining begins.

    Deep-sea mining also faces many of the same challenges as mining on land, while introducing new problems. The social problems that arise during transport, processing and distribution remain the same.

    And sea-based industries are already rife with modern slavery and labour violations, partly because they are notoriously difficult to monitor.

    Deep-sea mining does not solve social problems with land-based mining, and adds more challenges.

    Hidden Gem was the world’s first deep-sea mineral production vessel with seabed-to-surface nodule collection and transport systems.
    Photo by Charles M. Vella/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

    3. Common heritage of humankind and the Global South

    Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the international seabed is the common heritage of humankind. This means the proceeds of deep-sea mining should be distributed fairly among all countries.

    Deep-sea mining commercial partnerships between developing countries in the Global South and firms from the North have yet to pay off for the former. There is little indication this pattern will change.

    For example, when Canadian company Nautilus went bankrupt in 2019, it saddled Papua New Guinea with millions in debt from a failed domestic deep-sea mining venture.

    The Metals Company has partnerships with Nauru and Tonga but the latest deal with the US creates uncertainty about whether their agreements will be honoured.

    European investors took control of Blue Minerals Jamaica, originally a Jamaican-owned company, shortly after orchestrating its start up. Any profits would therefore go offshore.

    Australian Gerard Barron is Chairman and CEO of The Metals Company, formerly DeepGreen.
    Carolyn Cole / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

    A wise investment?

    It is unclear whether deep-sea mining will ever be a good investment.

    Multiple large corporate investors have pulled out of the industry, or gone bankrupt. And The Metals Company has received delisting notices from the Nasdaq stock exchange due to poor financial performance.

    Given the threat of environmental harm, the evidence suggests deep-sea mining is not worth the risk.

    Justin Alger receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

    D.G. Webster receives funding from the National Science Foundation in the United States and various internal funding sources at Dartmouth University.

    Jessica Green receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

    Kate J Neville receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

    Stacy D VanDeveer and Susan M Park do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. We don’t need deep-sea mining, or its environmental harms. Here’s why – https://theconversation.com/we-dont-need-deep-sea-mining-or-its-environmental-harms-heres-why-260401

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: We don’t need deep-sea mining, or its environmental harms. Here’s why

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Justin Alger, Associate Professor / Senior Lecturer in Global Environmental Politics, The University of Melbourne

    Potato-sized polymetallic nodules from the deep sea could be mined for valuable metals and minerals. Carolyn Cole / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

    Deep-sea mining promises critical minerals for the energy transition without the problems of mining on land. It also promises to bring wealth to developing nations. But the evidence suggests these promises are false, and mining would harm the environment.

    The practice involves scooping up rock-like nodules from vast areas of the sea floor. These potato-sized lumps contain metals and minerals such as zinc, manganese, molybdenum, nickel and rare earth elements.

    Technology to mine the deep sea exists, but commercial mining of the deep sea is not happening anywhere in the world. That could soon change. Nations are meeting this month in Kingston, Jamaica, to agree to a mining code. Such a code would make way for mining to begin within the next few years.

    On Thursday, Australia’s national science agency, CSIRO, released research into the environmental impacts of deep-sea mining. It aims to promote better environmental management of deep-sea mining, should it proceed.

    We have previously challenged the rationale for deep-sea mining, drawing on our expertise in international politics and environmental management. We argue mining the deep sea is harmful and the economic benefits have been overstated. What’s more, the metals and minerals to be mined are not scarce.

    The best course of action is a ban on international seabed mining, building on the coalition for a moratorium.

    The Metals Company spent six months at sea collecting nodules in 2022, while studying the effects on ecosystems.

    Managing and monitoring environmental harm

    Recent advances in technology have made deep-sea mining more feasible. But removing the nodules – which also requires pumping water around – has been shown to damage the seabed and endanger marine life.

    CSIRO has developed the first environmental management and monitoring frameworks to protect deep sea ecosystems from mining. It aims to provide “trusted, science-based tools to evaluate the environmental risks and viability of deep-sea mining”.

    Scientists from Griffith University, Museums Victoria, the University of the Sunshine Coast, and Earth Sciences New Zealand were also involved in the work.

    The Metals Company Australia, a local subsidiary of the Canadian deep-sea mining exploration company, commissioned the research. It involved analysing data from test mining the company carried out in the Pacific Ocean in 2022.

    The company has led efforts to expedite deep-sea mining. This includes pushing for the mining code, and exploring commercial mining of the international seabed through approval from the US government.

    In a media briefing this week, CSIRO Senior Principal Research Scientist Piers Dunstan said the mining activity substantially affected the sea floor. Some marine life, especially that attached to the nodules, had very little hope of recovery. He said if mining were to go ahead, monitoring would be crucial.

    We are sceptical that ecological impacts can be managed even with this new framework. Little is known about life in these deep-water ecosystems. But research shows nodule mining would cause extensive habitat loss and damage.

    Do we really need to open the ocean frontier to mining? We argue the answer is no, on three counts.

    How does deep-sea mining work? (The Guardian)

    1. Minerals are not scarce

    The minerals required for the energy transition are abundant on land. Known global terrestrial reserves of cobalt, copper, manganese, molybdenum and nickel are enough to meet current production levels for decades – even with growing demand.

    There is no compelling reason to extract deep-sea minerals, given the economics of both deep-sea and land-based mining. Deep-sea mining is speculative and inevitably too expensive given such remote, deep operations.

    Claims about mineral scarcity are being used to justify attempting to legitimise a new extractive frontier in the deep sea. Opportunistic investors can make money through speculation and attracting government subsidies.

    2. Mining at sea will not replace mining on land

    Proponents claim deep-sea mining can replace some mining on land. Mining on land has led to social issues including infringing on indigenous and community rights. It also damages the environment.

    But deep-sea mining will not necessarily displace, replace or change mining on land. Land-based mining contracts span decades and the companies involved will not abandon ongoing or planned projects. Their activities will continue, even if deep-sea mining begins.

    Deep-sea mining also faces many of the same challenges as mining on land, while introducing new problems. The social problems that arise during transport, processing and distribution remain the same.

    And sea-based industries are already rife with modern slavery and labour violations, partly because they are notoriously difficult to monitor.

    Deep-sea mining does not solve social problems with land-based mining, and adds more challenges.

    Hidden Gem was the world’s first deep-sea mineral production vessel with seabed-to-surface nodule collection and transport systems.
    Photo by Charles M. Vella/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

    3. Common heritage of humankind and the Global South

    Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the international seabed is the common heritage of humankind. This means the proceeds of deep-sea mining should be distributed fairly among all countries.

    Deep-sea mining commercial partnerships between developing countries in the Global South and firms from the North have yet to pay off for the former. There is little indication this pattern will change.

    For example, when Canadian company Nautilus went bankrupt in 2019, it saddled Papua New Guinea with millions in debt from a failed domestic deep-sea mining venture.

    The Metals Company has partnerships with Nauru and Tonga but the latest deal with the US creates uncertainty about whether their agreements will be honoured.

    European investors took control of Blue Minerals Jamaica, originally a Jamaican-owned company, shortly after orchestrating its start up. Any profits would therefore go offshore.

    Australian Gerard Barron is Chairman and CEO of The Metals Company, formerly DeepGreen.
    Carolyn Cole / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

    A wise investment?

    It is unclear whether deep-sea mining will ever be a good investment.

    Multiple large corporate investors have pulled out of the industry, or gone bankrupt. And The Metals Company has received delisting notices from the Nasdaq stock exchange due to poor financial performance.

    Given the threat of environmental harm, the evidence suggests deep-sea mining is not worth the risk.

    Justin Alger receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

    D.G. Webster receives funding from the National Science Foundation in the United States and various internal funding sources at Dartmouth University.

    Jessica Green receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

    Kate J Neville receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

    Stacy D VanDeveer and Susan M Park do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. We don’t need deep-sea mining, or its environmental harms. Here’s why – https://theconversation.com/we-dont-need-deep-sea-mining-or-its-environmental-harms-heres-why-260401

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: GREENPEACE – A dawn service to commemorate the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland

    Source: Greenpeace
    “You can’t sink a rainbow.”
    The iconic Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior will sail into Auckland today to mark the 40th anniversary of the bombing of the original Rainbow Warrior on 10 July 1985.
    A dawn ceremony of remembrance will be hosted by Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei on board the Rainbow Warrior from 7am on 10 July 2025 at Halsey Street Wharf in the Viaduct.
    [To have cameras set up on the ship, please be there by 06:30am.]
    Speakers include:
    Russel Norman, Greenpeace Aotearoa executive director
    Tui Warmenhoven, Ngati Porou, Greenpeace Aotearoa board chair
    Sharon Hawke, Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei
    Carmen Gravatt, Greenpeace International programme director
    Stephanie Mills, former Greenpeace nuclear campaigner
    The Rainbow Warrior comes fresh from confronting bottom trawlers off the East Coast of New Zealand on the Chatham Rise, a biodiversity hotspot under threat from the destructive fishing practice of bottom trawling. Activists from the Rainbow Warrior painted the words Ocean Killer on a Talley’s bottom trawling vessel and then again on a Sealord vessel. In response to the painting in June.
    Russel Norman says, “The Rainbow Warrior’s return to Aotearoa comes at a pivotal moment as the fight to protect our planet’s fragile life-support systems has never been more urgent.
    “On a planetary scale, climate change, ecosystem collapse, and accelerating species extinction pose an existential threat to us all, while here in Aotearoa, our Government is waging an all-out war on nature.
    “As we remember the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior and the murder of Fernando Pereira onboard that night 40 years ago, it’s important to remember why the French Government committed such an extreme act of violence.
    “They targeted our ship because Greenpeace and the campaign to stop nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific were so effective. We posed a threat to the French Government’s military programme and colonial power in the Pacific.
    “And it’s critical to remember that they failed to stop us. They failed to intimidate us, and they failed to silence us.
    “We showed that you can’t sink a rainbow. We showed that courage is contagious. Greenpeace only grew stronger and continued the successful campaign against nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific.
    “That lesson is important because now, forty years on, we are just as effective, and it is the fossil fuel industry and the billionaire oligarchs who try to stop us. This time, not with bombs but with armies of lawyers and legal attacks of the kind that right now could threaten the very existence of Greenpeace in the US and beyond.
    “But just like in 1985 when the French bombed our ship, now too in 2025, we are showing that we can not be intimidated, we will not back down, and we will not be silenced.
    “The Rainbow Warrior has sailed ever since as a symbol of resistance in action. And we cannot be silenced because we are a movement of people committed to peace and to protecting Earth’s ability to sustain life, protecting the blue oceans, the forests and the life we share this planet with,” says Norman.
    Following the anniversary, the Rainbow Warrior will be open to the public for tours and talks with the crew on the week

    MIL OSI New Zealand News –

  • BRICS nations support India’s bid to host COP 33; call for stronger climate action

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Leaders of the BRICS nations on Sunday welcomed India’s candidacy to host the 33rd Conference of the Parties (COP 33) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2028.

    In a joint declaration at the 17th BRICS Summit, the leaders said, “We express our full support to the Presidency of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) COP-30, which will take place in Belém, Brazil, highlighting the importance of action and cooperation on all pillars of the UNFCCC as applicable, considering each country’s membership and commitments thereunder. We also underscore our full commitment to a successful COP30 that will catalyze progress in implementing the UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement. We welcome India’s candidacy to host COP 33 in 2028.”

    The declaration reiterated the commitment of BRICS countries to remain united in pursuing the goals of the UNFCCC and called on all countries to uphold their existing commitments under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. It urged intensified efforts in mitigation, adaptation, and providing support to developing nations, reflecting equity and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.

    The BRICS leaders called for a stronger global response to climate change, linking it to sustainable development and poverty eradication. They endorsed the BRICS Climate Leadership Agenda as a pledge to advance solutions that support development priorities while accelerating implementation of the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement.

    The joint statement also highlighted the critical role of forests in conserving biodiversity, regulating water cycles, combating desertification, and serving as carbon sinks. It noted the United for Our Forests initiative and India’s proposal to form an international Big Cats Alliance, encouraging cooperation among BRICS countries on conservation efforts.

    The leaders stressed the urgent need to reform the governance of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) to ensure fairer representation and easier access to resources for developing countries, including Indigenous peoples and local communities.

    The declaration praised Brazil’s BRICS Chairship in 2025 and expressed full support for India’s Chairship in 2026 and the hosting of the 18th BRICS Summit.

    Prime Minister Narendra Modi, along with other leaders, attended the 17th BRICS Summit held in Rio de Janeiro on Sunday. Brazil took over the BRICS Chairship on January 1, 2025, under the theme ‘Strengthening Global South Cooperation for More Inclusive and Sustainable Governance.

    ANI

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Brian Cox CBE and Radek Rudnicki to receive honorary degrees Abertay graduation

    Source: University of Abertay

    A world-renowned Scottish actor and a pioneering sound artist will be awarded Honorary Degrees at Abertay University’s summer graduation ceremony later this month.  

    Dundee-born Hollywood star Brian Cox CBE will be recognised for his contribution to the performing arts over the last 50 years, while Radek Rudnicki will be honoured for his innovative work in new media and spatial sound.  

    The ceremony will take place on Friday 11 July at Caird Hall in Dundee, where over 400 graduates from Abertay’s academic schools will gather to celebrate the culmination of their studies.

    Photo credit: Jakub Hader

    Graduates from Abertay’s academic faculties – the Faculty of Design and Informatics and Business, the Faculty of Social and Applied Sciences, and the Graduate School – will be joined by friends, family, and members of the University leadership team, including Chancellor Professor Alice Brown and Vice-Chancellor Professor Liz Bacon, for a memorable day of celebration. 

    Professor Liz Bacon, Principal and Vice-Chancellor, said:

    Graduation is one of the most memorable days in the university calendar, and this summer we’re thrilled to celebrate not only our talented students but also two outstanding individuals whose careers represent the very best of creativity, innovation and dedication. We’re delighted to welcome Brian Cox and Radek Rudnicki to the Abertay community and to honour their extraordinary achievements.

    Brian Cox began his acting career in 1961 at Dundee Repertory Theatre, going on to become a founding member of the Royal Lyceum Theatre in Edinburgh. With a stage and screen career spanning more than six decades, his breakthrough Hollywood role came in 1986’s Manhunter and has since appeared in films such as Braveheart, Adaptation, The Bourne Identity, Troy, 25th Hour and X2: X-Men United, an iconic portrayal of the much-loved Dundee comedy character Bob Servant, and most recently in the award-winning HBO drama Succession. He has received two BAFTAs, an Emmy, and a Golden Globe, and remains deeply connected to his theatrical roots, including a forthcoming return to the Dundee Rep stage in Make It Happen.

    Radek Rudnicki is a new media artist, composer, and sound designer whose work blends spatial audio and immersive storytelling. Currently the lead sound designer for the Precyzja Foundation and director of Wave Folder Records, Radek’s digital studio develops cutting-edge experiences showcased around the world. His career includes collaborations with NASA’s Goddard Institute and the Stockholm Environment Institute, and partnerships with hardware synthesizer manufacturers like Waldorf, Elektron and Cwejman. His accolades include the Emerging Excellence Award, the Provost Award for World-Class Excellence in Research. 

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: The government approved a resolution on the establishment of the Donetsk Steppe Nature Reserve

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: Government of the Russian Federation – Government of the Russian Federation –

    An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.

    Resolution of July 1, 2025 No. 992

    Document

    Resolution of July 1, 2025 No. 992

    The state nature reserve “Donetsk Steppe” has been created in a number of territories of the Donetsk People’s Republic and Zaporizhia Oblast. The decree on this was signed by the Chairman of the Government Mikhail Mishustin.

    The new specially protected natural area includes 4 clusters – “Kalmiussky”, “Stone Graves”, “Chalk Flora” and “Khomutovskaya Steppe”, which were previously parts of the steppe reserve created in 1961. Their total area is more than 3 thousand hectares.

    The clusters represent different types of steppe landscapes, each with its own species of flora and fauna. Many of them are listed in the Red Book of Russia, including the Schrenk tulip, golden eagle, osprey, white-tailed eagle, demoiselle crane and others.

    The creation of the reserve will ensure a special protection regime for a significant number of rare and endangered species of plants, birds and animals, and will contribute to an increase in their numbers and natural migration.

    The work is being carried out within the framework of the implementation of the state program “Environmental Protection” and the program of socio-economic development of the Donetsk People’s Republic, Lugansk People’s Republic, Zaporizhia and Kherson regions.

    Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source of the information. It is an accurate report of what the source claims and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

    .

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: We don’t need deep-sea mining, or its environmental harms. Here’s why

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Justin Alger, Associate Professor / Senior Lecturer in Global Environmental Politics, The University of Melbourne

    Potato-sized polymetallic nodules from the deep sea could be mined for valuable metals and minerals. Carolyn Cole / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

    Deep-sea mining promises critical minerals for the energy transition without the problems of mining on land. It also promises to bring wealth to developing nations. But the evidence suggests these promises are false, and mining would harm the environment.

    The practice involves scooping up rock-like nodules from vast areas of the sea floor. These potato-sized lumps contain metals and minerals such as zinc, manganese, molybdenum, nickel and rare earth elements.

    Technology to mine the deep sea exists, but commercial mining of the deep sea is not happening anywhere in the world. That could soon change. Nations are meeting this month in Kingston, Jamaica, to agree to a mining code. Such a code would make way for mining to begin within the next few years.

    On Thursday, Australia’s national science agency, CSIRO, released research into the environmental impacts of deep-sea mining. It aims to promote better environmental management of deep-sea mining, should it proceed.

    We have previously challenged the rationale for deep-sea mining, drawing on our expertise in international politics and environmental management. We argue mining the deep sea is harmful and the economic benefits have been overstated. What’s more, the metals and minerals to be mined are not scarce.

    The best course of action is a ban on international seabed mining, building on the coalition for a moratorium.

    The Metals Company spent six months at sea collecting nodules in 2022, while studying the effects on ecosystems.

    Managing and monitoring environmental harm

    Recent advances in technology have made deep-sea mining more feasible. But removing the nodules – which also requires pumping water around – has been shown to damage the seabed and endanger marine life.

    CSIRO has developed the first environmental management and monitoring frameworks to protect deep sea ecosystems from mining. It aims to provide “trusted, science-based tools to evaluate the environmental risks and viability of deep-sea mining”.

    Scientists from Griffith University, Museums Victoria, the University of the Sunshine Coast, and Earth Sciences New Zealand were also involved in the work.

    The Metals Company Australia, a local subsidiary of the Canadian deep-sea mining exploration company, commissioned the research. It involved analysing data from test mining the company carried out in the Pacific Ocean in 2022.

    The company has led efforts to expedite deep-sea mining. This includes pushing for the mining code, and exploring commercial mining of the international seabed through approval from the US government.

    In a media briefing this week, CSIRO Senior Principal Research Scientist Piers Dunstan said the mining activity substantially affected the sea floor. Some marine life, especially that attached to the nodules, had very little hope of recovery. He said if mining were to go ahead, monitoring would be crucial.

    We are sceptical that ecological impacts can be managed even with this new framework. Little is known about life in these deep-water ecosystems. But research shows nodule mining would cause extensive habitat loss and damage.

    Do we really need to open the ocean frontier to mining? We argue the answer is no, on three counts.

    How does deep-sea mining work? (The Guardian)

    1. Minerals are not scarce

    The minerals required for the energy transition are abundant on land. Known global terrestrial reserves of cobalt, copper, manganese, molybdenum and nickel are enough to meet current production levels for decades – even with growing demand.

    There is no compelling reason to extract deep-sea minerals, given the economics of both deep-sea and land-based mining. Deep-sea mining is speculative and inevitably too expensive given such remote, deep operations.

    Claims about mineral scarcity are being used to justify attempting to legitimise a new extractive frontier in the deep sea. Opportunistic investors can make money through speculation and attracting government subsidies.

    2. Mining at sea will not replace mining on land

    Proponents claim deep-sea mining can replace some mining on land. Mining on land has led to social issues including infringing on indigenous and community rights. It also damages the environment.

    But deep-sea mining will not necessarily displace, replace or change mining on land. Land-based mining contracts span decades and the companies involved will not abandon ongoing or planned projects. Their activities will continue, even if deep-sea mining begins.

    Deep-sea mining also faces many of the same challenges as mining on land, while introducing new problems. The social problems that arise during transport, processing and distribution remain the same.

    And sea-based industries are already rife with modern slavery and labour violations, partly because they are notoriously difficult to monitor.

    Deep-sea mining does not solve social problems with land-based mining, and adds more challenges.

    Hidden Gem was the world’s first deep-sea mineral production vessel with seabed-to-surface nodule collection and transport systems.
    Photo by Charles M. Vella/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

    3. Common heritage of humankind and the Global South

    Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the international seabed is the common heritage of humankind. This means the proceeds of deep-sea mining should be distributed fairly among all countries.

    Deep-sea mining commercial partnerships between developing countries in the Global South and firms from the North have yet to pay off for the former. There is little indication this pattern will change.

    For example, when Canadian company Nautilus went bankrupt in 2019, it saddled Papua New Guinea with millions in debt from a failed domestic deep-sea mining venture.

    The Metals Company has partnerships with Nauru and Tonga but the latest deal with the US creates uncertainty about whether their agreements will be honoured.

    European investors took control of Blue Minerals Jamaica, originally a Jamaican-owned company, shortly after orchestrating its start up. Any profits would therefore go offshore.

    Australian Gerard Barron is Chairman and CEO of The Metals Company, formerly DeepGreen.
    Carolyn Cole / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

    A wise investment?

    It is unclear whether deep-sea mining will ever be a good investment.

    Multiple large corporate investors have pulled out of the industry, or gone bankrupt. And The Metals Company has received delisting notices from the Nasdaq stock exchange due to poor financial performance.

    Given the threat of environmental harm, the evidence suggests deep-sea mining is not worth the risk.

    Justin Alger receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

    D.G. Webster receives funding from the National Science Foundation in the United States and various internal funding sources at Dartmouth University.

    Jessica Green receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

    Kate J Neville receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

    Stacy D VanDeveer and Susan M Park do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. We don’t need deep-sea mining, or its environmental harms. Here’s why – https://theconversation.com/we-dont-need-deep-sea-mining-or-its-environmental-harms-heres-why-260401

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: We don’t need deep-sea mining, or its environmental harms. Here’s why

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Justin Alger, Associate Professor / Senior Lecturer in Global Environmental Politics, The University of Melbourne

    Potato-sized polymetallic nodules from the deep sea could be mined for valuable metals and minerals. Carolyn Cole / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

    Deep-sea mining promises critical minerals for the energy transition without the problems of mining on land. It also promises to bring wealth to developing nations. But the evidence suggests these promises are false, and mining would harm the environment.

    The practice involves scooping up rock-like nodules from vast areas of the sea floor. These potato-sized lumps contain metals and minerals such as zinc, manganese, molybdenum, nickel and rare earth elements.

    Technology to mine the deep sea exists, but commercial mining of the deep sea is not happening anywhere in the world. That could soon change. Nations are meeting this month in Kingston, Jamaica, to agree to a mining code. Such a code would make way for mining to begin within the next few years.

    On Thursday, Australia’s national science agency, CSIRO, released research into the environmental impacts of deep-sea mining. It aims to promote better environmental management of deep-sea mining, should it proceed.

    We have previously challenged the rationale for deep-sea mining, drawing on our expertise in international politics and environmental management. We argue mining the deep sea is harmful and the economic benefits have been overstated. What’s more, the metals and minerals to be mined are not scarce.

    The best course of action is a ban on international seabed mining, building on the coalition for a moratorium.

    The Metals Company spent six months at sea collecting nodules in 2022, while studying the effects on ecosystems.

    Managing and monitoring environmental harm

    Recent advances in technology have made deep-sea mining more feasible. But removing the nodules – which also requires pumping water around – has been shown to damage the seabed and endanger marine life.

    CSIRO has developed the first environmental management and monitoring frameworks to protect deep sea ecosystems from mining. It aims to provide “trusted, science-based tools to evaluate the environmental risks and viability of deep-sea mining”.

    Scientists from Griffith University, Museums Victoria, the University of the Sunshine Coast, and Earth Sciences New Zealand were also involved in the work.

    The Metals Company Australia, a local subsidiary of the Canadian deep-sea mining exploration company, commissioned the research. It involved analysing data from test mining the company carried out in the Pacific Ocean in 2022.

    The company has led efforts to expedite deep-sea mining. This includes pushing for the mining code, and exploring commercial mining of the international seabed through approval from the US government.

    In a media briefing this week, CSIRO Senior Principal Research Scientist Piers Dunstan said the mining activity substantially affected the sea floor. Some marine life, especially that attached to the nodules, had very little hope of recovery. He said if mining were to go ahead, monitoring would be crucial.

    We are sceptical that ecological impacts can be managed even with this new framework. Little is known about life in these deep-water ecosystems. But research shows nodule mining would cause extensive habitat loss and damage.

    Do we really need to open the ocean frontier to mining? We argue the answer is no, on three counts.

    How does deep-sea mining work? (The Guardian)

    1. Minerals are not scarce

    The minerals required for the energy transition are abundant on land. Known global terrestrial reserves of cobalt, copper, manganese, molybdenum and nickel are enough to meet current production levels for decades – even with growing demand.

    There is no compelling reason to extract deep-sea minerals, given the economics of both deep-sea and land-based mining. Deep-sea mining is speculative and inevitably too expensive given such remote, deep operations.

    Claims about mineral scarcity are being used to justify attempting to legitimise a new extractive frontier in the deep sea. Opportunistic investors can make money through speculation and attracting government subsidies.

    2. Mining at sea will not replace mining on land

    Proponents claim deep-sea mining can replace some mining on land. Mining on land has led to social issues including infringing on indigenous and community rights. It also damages the environment.

    But deep-sea mining will not necessarily displace, replace or change mining on land. Land-based mining contracts span decades and the companies involved will not abandon ongoing or planned projects. Their activities will continue, even if deep-sea mining begins.

    Deep-sea mining also faces many of the same challenges as mining on land, while introducing new problems. The social problems that arise during transport, processing and distribution remain the same.

    And sea-based industries are already rife with modern slavery and labour violations, partly because they are notoriously difficult to monitor.

    Deep-sea mining does not solve social problems with land-based mining, and adds more challenges.

    Hidden Gem was the world’s first deep-sea mineral production vessel with seabed-to-surface nodule collection and transport systems.
    Photo by Charles M. Vella/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

    3. Common heritage of humankind and the Global South

    Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the international seabed is the common heritage of humankind. This means the proceeds of deep-sea mining should be distributed fairly among all countries.

    Deep-sea mining commercial partnerships between developing countries in the Global South and firms from the North have yet to pay off for the former. There is little indication this pattern will change.

    For example, when Canadian company Nautilus went bankrupt in 2019, it saddled Papua New Guinea with millions in debt from a failed domestic deep-sea mining venture.

    The Metals Company has partnerships with Nauru and Tonga but the latest deal with the US creates uncertainty about whether their agreements will be honoured.

    European investors took control of Blue Minerals Jamaica, originally a Jamaican-owned company, shortly after orchestrating its start up. Any profits would therefore go offshore.

    Australian Gerard Barron is Chairman and CEO of The Metals Company, formerly DeepGreen.
    Carolyn Cole / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

    A wise investment?

    It is unclear whether deep-sea mining will ever be a good investment.

    Multiple large corporate investors have pulled out of the industry, or gone bankrupt. And The Metals Company has received delisting notices from the Nasdaq stock exchange due to poor financial performance.

    Given the threat of environmental harm, the evidence suggests deep-sea mining is not worth the risk.

    Justin Alger receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

    D.G. Webster receives funding from the National Science Foundation in the United States and various internal funding sources at Dartmouth University.

    Jessica Green receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

    Kate J Neville receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

    Stacy D VanDeveer and Susan M Park do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. We don’t need deep-sea mining, or its environmental harms. Here’s why – https://theconversation.com/we-dont-need-deep-sea-mining-or-its-environmental-harms-heres-why-260401

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI: PBK Miner Launches New Short-Term Crypto Mining Contracts for Passive Income Seekers

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM, July 06, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — PBK Miner, a trusted name in cloud-based cryptocurrency mining, has officially launched a suite of short-term mining contracts designed to help everyday users earn passive income without upfront technical complexity or hardware investment. With a global user base of over 8.5 million and operations across 183 countries, PBK Miner is rapidly expanding access to simple, secure, and sustainable crypto mining.

    The new contracts are aimed at giving users faster returns with low entry costs, making the platform more inclusive for both newcomers and experienced investors. With contracts starting from as low as $10, users can now mine popular cryptocurrencies like BTC, XRP, ETH, DOGE, and USDT over flexible terms ranging from 1 to 50 days.

    What Makes PBK Miner Stand Out

    1. Short-Term Mining Contracts
      PBK Miner’s latest offering allows users to earn daily income with fixed returns and full principal payout at contract maturity. These new plans include a variety of durations and investment levels, including:
    • $100 XRP Plan – 2 Days – Earn $3.50 daily
    • $1,000 XRP Plan – 10 Days – Earn $13.50 daily
    • $5,000 XRP Plan – 30 Days – Earn $77.50 daily
    • $10,000 XRP Plan – 45 Days – Earn $165 daily

    All mining contracts are backed by real-time data from the platform’s infrastructure and optimized through AI for consistent profitability.

    1. Generous Referral Bonuses
      PBK Miner offers a multi-level referral program where users earn commissions from inviting others. Referrers receive a 5% bonus on the investment amount of each new user, along with additional rewards as their referral network grows. It’s a meaningful way to increase earnings while promoting the platform within your community.
    2. Secure and Green Infrastructure
      User assets are protected through Cloudflare and McAfee-secured infrastructure, and all mining operations are powered by renewable energy, aligning with the platform’s eco-conscious mission. PBK Miner operates globally via high-performance data centers with 99.9% uptime.
    3. Free Daily Mining Trial
      Every new user receives a $10 daily trial contract that earns $0.60 per day — no deposit needed. It’s a zero-risk opportunity to test the platform’s mining capabilities before committing to larger investments.

    Who Should Use PBK Miner?

    PBK Miner is ideal for:

    • Beginners seeking passive income without technical know-how
    • Crypto investors looking for stable, short-term returns
    • Global users in need of mobile-friendly and multilingual platforms
    • Environmentally conscious individuals who value sustainable mining
    • Anyone interested in earning with referrals and zero hidden fees

    How to Get Started

    1. Visit pbkminer.com
    2. Create an account — takes less than a minute
    3. Activate a free trial or choose a mining contract
    4. Start earning daily returns and referral bonuses

    About PBK Miner

    Founded in 2019, PBK Miner is a leading cloud mining platform committed to transparency, sustainability, and user empowerment. Serving millions of users worldwide, the company continues to innovate in decentralized finance by offering easy access to mining for all, without the cost or complexity of traditional mining setups.

    For media inquiries, contact:

    Alison Evans
    PBK Miner
    info@pbkminer.com

    Disclaimer: The information provided in this press release does not constitute an investment solicitation, nor does it constitute investment advice, financial advice, or trading recommendations. Cryptocurrency mining and staking involve risks and the possibility of losing funds. It is strongly recommended that you perform due diligence before investing or trading in cryptocurrencies and securities, including consulting a professional financial advisor.

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-Evening Report: The Rainbow Warrior saga. Part 2: Nuclear refugees in the Pacific – the evacuation of Rongelap

    COMMENTARY:  By Eugene Doyle

    On the last voyage of the Rainbow Warrior prior to its sinking by French secret agents in Auckland harbour on 10 July 1985 the ship had evacuated the entire population of 320 from Rongelap in the Marshall Islands.

    After conducting dozens of above-ground nuclear explosions, the US government had left the population in conditions that suggested the islanders were being used as guinea pigs to gain knowledge of the effects of radiation.

    Cancers, birth defects, and genetic damage ripped through the population; their former fisheries and land are contaminated to this day.

    Denied adequate support from the US – they turned to Greenpeace with an SOS: help us leave our ancestral homeland; it is killing our people. The Rainbow Warrior answered the call.

    Human lab rats or our brothers and sisters?
     Dr Merrill Eisenbud, a physicist in the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) famously said in 1956 of the Marshall Islanders:  “While it is true that these people do not live, I might say, the way Westerners do, civilised people, it is nevertheless also true that they are more like us than the mice.”

    Dr Eisenbud also opined that exposure “would provide valuable information on the effects of radiation on human beings.”  That research continues to this day.

    A half century of testing nuclear bombs
     Within a year of dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the US moved part of its test programme to the central Pacific.  Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands was used for atmospheric explosions from 1946 with scant regard for the indigenous population.

    In 1954, the Castle Bravo test exploded a 15-megaton bomb —  one thousand times more deadly than the one dropped on Hiroshima.  As a result, the population of Rongelap were exposed to 200 roentgens of radiation, considered life-threatening without medical intervention. And it was.

    Part of the Marshall Islands, with Bikini Atoll and Rongelap in the top left. Image: www.solidarity.co.nz

    Total US tests equaled more than 7000 Hiroshimas.  The Clinton administration released the aptly-named Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments (ACHRE), report in January 1994 in which it acknowledged:

    “What followed was a program by the US government — initially the Navy and then the AEC and its successor agencies — to provide medical care for the exposed population, while at the same time trying to learn as much as possible about the long-term biological effects of radiation exposure. The dual purpose of what is now a DOE medical program has led to a view by the Marshallese that they were being used as ‘guinea pigs’ in a ‘radiation experiment’.

    This impression was reinforced by the fact that the islanders were deliberately left in place and then evacuated, having been heavily radiated. Three years later they were told it was “safe to return” despite the lead scientist calling Rongelap “by far the most contaminated place in the world”.

    Significant compensation paid by the US to the Marshall Islands has proven inadequate given the scale of the contamination.  To some degree, the US has also used money to achieve capture of elite interest groups and secure ongoing control of the islands.

    Entrusted to the US, the Marshall Islanders were treated like the civilians of Nagasaki
     The US took the Marshall Islands from Japan in 1944.  The only “right” it has to be there was granted by the United Nations which in 1947 established the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, to be administered by the United States.

    What followed was an abuse of trust worse than rapists at a state care facility.  Using the very powers entrusted to it to protect the Marshallese, the US instead used the islands as a nuclear laboratory — violating both the letter and spirit of international law.

    Fellow white-dominated countries like Australia and New Zealand couldn’t have cared less and let the indigenous people be irradiated for decades.

    The betrayal of trust by the US was comprehensive and remains so to this day:

    Under Article 76 of the UN Charter, all trusteeship agreements carried obligations. The administering power was required to:

    • Promote the political, economic, social, and educational advancement of the people
    • Protect the rights and well-being of the inhabitants
    • Help them advance toward self-government or independence.

    Under Article VI, the United States solemnly pledged to “Protect the inhabitants against the loss of their lands and resources.”  Very similar to sentiments in New Zealand’s Treaty of Waitangi.  Within a few years the Americans were exploding the biggest nuclear bombs in history over the islands.

    Within a year of the US assuming trusteeship of the islands, another pillar of international law came into effect: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) — which affirms the inherent dignity and equal rights of all humans. Exposing colonised peoples to extreme radiation for weapons testing is a racist affront to this.

    America has a long history of making treaties and fine speeches and then exploiting indigenous peoples.  Last year, I had the sobering experience of reading American military historian Peter Cozzens’ The Earth is Weeping, a history of the “Indian wars” for the American West.

    The past is not dead: the Marshall Islands are a hive of bases, laboratories and missile testing; Americans are also incredibly busy attacking the population in Gaza today.

    Eyes of Fire – the last voyage of the Rainbow Warrior
     Had the French not sunk the Rainbow Warrior after it reached Auckland from the Rongelap evacuation, it would have led a flotilla to protest nuclear testing at Moruroa in French Polynesia.  So the bookends of this article are the abuse of defenceless people in the charge of one nuclear power — the US —  and the abuse of New Zealand and the peoples of French Polynesia by another nuclear power — France.

    Senator Jeton Anjain (left) of Rongelap and Greenpeace campaign coordinator Steve Sawyer on board the Rainbow Warrior . . . challenging the abuse of defenceless people under the charge of one nuclear power. Image: David Robie/Eyes of Fire

    This incredible story, and much more, is the subject of David Robie’s outstanding book Eyes of Fire: The Last Voyage and Legacy of the Rainbow Warrior, published by Little Island Press, which has been relaunched to mark the 40th anniversary of the French terrorist attack.

    A new prologue by former prime minister Helen Clark and a preface by Greenpeace’s Bunny McDiarmid, along with an extensive postscript which bring us up to the present day, underline why the past is not dead; it’s with us right now.

    Between them, France and the US have exploded more than 300 nuclear bombs in the Pacific. Few people are told this; few people know this.

    Today, a matrix of issues combine — the ongoing effects of nuclear contamination, sea rise imperilling Pacific nations, colonialism still posing immense challenges to people in the Marshall Islands, Kanaky New Caledonia and in many parts of our region.

    Unsung heroes
     Our media never ceases to share the pronouncements of European leaders and news from the US and Europe but the leaders and issues of the Pacific are seldom heard. The heroes of the antinuclear movement should be household names in Australia and New Zealand.

    Vanuatu’s great leader Father Walter Lini; Oscar Temaru, Mayor, later President of French Polynesia; Senator Jeton Anjain, Darlene Keju-Johnson and so many others.

    Do we know them?  Have we heard their voices?

    Jobod Silk, climate activist, said in a speech welcoming the Rainbow Warrior III to Majuro earlier this year:  “Our crusade for nuclear justice intertwines with our fight against the tides.”

    Nuclear-Free and Independent Pacific . . . the Rainbow Warrior taking on board Rongelap islanders ready for their first of four relocation voyages to Mejatto island. Image: David Robie/Eyes of Fire

    Former Tuvalu PM Enele Sapoaga castigated Australia for the AUKUS submarine deal which he said “was crafted in secret by former Prime Minister Scott Morrison with no public discussion.”

    He challenged the bigger regional powers, particularly Australia and New Zealand, to remember that the existential threat faced by Pacific nations comes first from climate change, and reminded New Zealanders of the commitment to keeping the South Pacific nuclear-free.

    Hinamoeura Cross, a Tahitian anti-nuclear activist and politician, said in a 2019 UN speech: “Today, the damage is done. My people are sick. For 30 years we were the mice in France’s laboratory.”

    Until we learn their stories and know their names as well as we know those of Marco Rubio or Keir Starmer, we will remain strangers in our own lands.

    The Pacific owes them, along with the people of Greenpeace, a huge debt.  They put their bodies on the line to stop the aggressors. Greenpeace photographer Fernando Pereira, killed by the French in 1985, was just one of many victims, one of many heroes.

    A great way to honour the sacrifice of those who stood up for justice, who stood for peace and a nuclear-free Pacific, and who honoured our own national identity would be to buy David Robie’s excellent book.

    You cannot sink a rainbow.

    Greenpeace photographer Fernando Pereira being welcomed to Rongelap Atoll by a villager in May 1985 barely two months before he was killed by French secret agents during the sabotage of the Rainbow Warrior. Image: David Robie/Eyes of Fire

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI China: Major shipyards power ahead with green, high-tech vessels amid order surge

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    People watch a model of electricity-powered container ship during the Tianjin International Shipping Industry Expo 2024 in Tianjin, north China, July 11, 2024. [Photo/Xinhua]

    Shipyards in south China’s Guangzhou, one of the country’s top shipbuilding bases, are operating at full capacity this summer as they secure surging orders for high-tech, low-carbon vessels aimed at meeting global green shipping targets.

    Last month, Guangzhou Shipyard International Company Limited began constructing a 230-meter-long LNG dual-fuel car carrier for a client in the Republic of Korea. The vessel will rank among the world’s largest of its type, and will be powered by both fuel oil and natural gas.

    General manager Zhou Xuhui said the company has more than 90 ships on order, 80 percent of which are designed as high-tech, high-value-added green vessels. Deliveries are scheduled through 2028.

    Also in June, CSSC Huangpu Wenchong Shipbuilding Company Limited started building China’s first LPG/liquid ammonia carrier powered by ammonia and another fuel.

    Ammonia, a major chemical industry feedstock, has a high energy density and due to its carbon-free nature, produces only water and nitrogen when fully combusted. This makes it a highly promising fuel for decarbonizing shipping.

    A company executive told Xinhua that Huangpu Wenchong currently holds orders for 16 such gas carriers, and has made independent breakthroughs in small and medium-sized gas ship technology, while expanding into new-energy ship markets to support low-carbon growth.

    In the first four months of 2025, the company secured over 13.7 billion yuan (about 1.92 billion U.S. dollars) in new contracts, up 111 percent year on year.

    Also in June, the world’s first pure ammonia-powered demonstration vessel, the Anhui, successfully completed its maiden voyage in Hefei, east China’s Anhui Province, marking a major step forward for green shipping.

    Guangdong Province, a major shipbuilding base in China, has maintained growth momentum despite a slowdown in global orders. From January to May, Guangdong’s output of completed ships rose 2.5 percent year on year, and its order backlog increased 29.3 percent, according to the provincial shipbuilding industry association.

    Guangzhou, which is Guangdong’s capital city, has developed a complete shipbuilding supply chain, said Chen Jianrong, secretary-general of the association.

    Local authorities have pledged to continue building Guangzhou into a hub for marine innovation, targeting cutting-edge sectors such as the deep sea, green and smart marine industries.

    “Guangzhou was born by the sea and thrives because of the sea,” said Guo Yonghang, Party chief of the city. “We must accelerate the cultivation of new quality productive forces in the marine sector and strengthen breakthroughs in key core technologies.”

    After over a decade of research, Guangzhou HG Marine Co., Ltd. has developed a globally leading rim-driven electric propulsion system for ships.

    According to Qiu Xiangyao, head of HG Marine, traditional ship propellers generate significant underwater noise that can scare away fish, and their mechanical drives can also cause oil pollution in the sea. That is why many countries are turning to rim-driven electric thrusters, which feature zero pollution, low noise, and high efficiency.

    “The company has maintained strong growth this year, with orders surging and production scheduled more than a year ahead,” said Qiu, who added that the export of the megawatt-class rim thrusters has opened up broader international markets for the company and secured stable orders for future ocean-going fishery processing vessels.

    As Guangzhou ramps up its shipbuilding innovation and green technology, this momentum reflects a broader push across China and the global shipping industry to cut carbon emissions.

    Following years of intense negotiations, nations reached a landmark agreement in April to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from global shipping by setting mandatory fuel standards and introducing an industry-wide carbon pricing mechanism.

    The framework, approved by the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the International Maritime Organization, is the first to combine mandatory emissions limits and greenhouse gas pricing across an entire industry sector.

    Scheduled for formal adoption in October 2025 and implementation by 2027, the measures will apply to large ocean-going vessels exceeding 5,000 gross tonnage, which are responsible for approximately 85 percent of carbon dioxide emissions from the global shipping fleet.

    Countries around the world are advancing green shipping through the adoption of clean energy and technology upgrades. China, positioning itself as a strong advocate of sustainable shipping, rolled out an action plan at the end of 2023 to build a preliminary green shipbuilding development system by 2025.

    Several breakthroughs have already emerged. In March, the world’s first floating production storage and offloading (FPSO) vessel with a carbon capture and storage facility was delivered in Shanghai.

    By capturing the carbon dioxide generated during sailing and oil production and using the exhaust heat energy to generate electricity, the AGOGO FPSO, measuring 333 meters in length and 60 meters in width, can achieve both environmental protection and energy savings. 

    MIL OSI China News –