Comment from Anonymous

After taking a look at several comments that have already been posted to this forum, I do hope this comment is found and read. There have been several instances now in which I have seen a direct copy paste of the same general message. Through this, I suspect a large majority of them follow the same trend, and there is malicious play in regards to what should be a forum for individuals to voice their concerns, approval, or general input towards a topic and governmental action that can actually affect the life millions of American citizens. See the image below, to see this sort of behavior yourself. Now to get into the real discussion of whether or not off-shore minerals should be harvested, As it currently stands, The United States is heavily reliant on foreign sources for critical minerals, importing over 50% of its supply for 43 out of 50 key minerals and maintaining a 100% import reliance for at least 12, including gallium, graphite, and manganese. China is the primary source for many of these materials, supplying over 50% of U.S. demand for 21 nonfuel mineral commodities. China, being the #1 supplier of such, puts the United States at an extreme disadvantage when it comes to world power. There should be no case in which our defense sector is reliant on what is our current biggest rival for world power. This not only puts us in the position of we cannot build our country as need be, but in the position of what is used by our military on a regular basis in the advanced world we live in today cannot be guaranteed to be supplied to us. Should there ever be a major war again in the world, Is it likely China will be on the same side as the United States? Unlikely, as is unlikely in that event they would still choose to supply us with the very materials we would use to build our military against them. Now there will be concerns of people pointing to the ecosystem and the damages such activities will have on the environment. At the same time, I'm sure a decent portion of those people will also be against combustion vehicles. Where do these people suggest we then get the materials needed to provide the ability to transition to cleaner energy? It is a complete fallacy to be against the harvesting of minerals and metals in the oceans, blocking the very resource that would provide the greener future they so desire. We can now get into the unfortunate reality we live in, Majority of critical/rare metals and minerals are sourced from 2nd and 3rd world countries, ones in which environmental oversight and regulations are near non-existent. People are exposed and subjugated to various forms of toxic waste, their water sources being contaminated for generations to come, and entire liveihoods destroyed for the benefit of a mega corporation in their locality. A real life example of this could bhe pointed towards the Amazon Rain Forest. Per Greenpeace.org.uk, Approximately 17%-20% of the Amazon Rain Forest has been destroyed. It is further explained by Green Peace that it is expected if the Amazon Rain Forest loses an additional 5%-8%, It will be beyond the point of regenerating itself back to full health. Why is it being destroyed? Because it contains rare and critical metals, such as copper, tin, nickel, bauxite, manganese, iron ore, gold, and other various rare earth metals. How can Green peace, and those sharing similar beliefs and values, oppose Deep Sea Mining, while at the same time the ONLY other alternative is to continue destroying such bio-diverse areas? The solution, while currently in its early stages, is set to be by harvesting deep sea minerals/metals. The Amazon Rain Forest, and similar environments being exploited as it is current day with little to no regulation has a worse biological affect than the mining of deep sea materials. The different in the amount of life in one square kilometer between the two areas is a staggering, multiple times difference. And despite how much negativity the United States gets for pollution, the amount of harm that will be done to the planet if we leave this material collection to countries who simply do not care will far out pace the ecological disasters caused than if the United States were to authorize such activities. Therefore, I am in strong support for the United States to gain back some of its independence, to not rely on an adversary for its military needs, and to promote a safer, better alternative for the future than the current barbaric free for all we have left the 3rd world to run in our efforts to advance forward.