What makes The Metals Company (TMC), a little-known company that isn’t even making any money, a threat to the ocean, international conventions, transparency and the clean energy transition?

While deep sea mining has not begun at commercial scale anywhere on Earth – and we’ve built a global movement of millions of people and political support to keep it that way – the wannabe deep sea mining bros at TMC are getting desperate, using aggressive and controversial tactics like lobbying Donald Trump to let them start their dirty business. 

Here are 5 things you need to know, so we can stop them together.

1. Private interests trying to carve up the Pacific 

Headquartered in Canada, with a tech-bro CEO who stands to make millions and staff overwhelmingly based thousands of miles away in the Global North, TMC wants to unleash deep sea mining in the Pacific Ocean. This would drive ocean destruction in the global commons, in a region already resisting the impacts of climate breakdown and industrial fisheries. 

The company (originally called DeepGreen) has been part of a private sector push to monopolise deep sea mining exploration in the Pacific Ocean: at one point, it held rights to a quarter of a million square kilometres of the deep ocean floor. 

Repeating the injustices of destructive exploitation from North America and Europe, TMC has been heavily criticised by Pacific campaigners, communities and even governments for deepening neo-colonial extractivism.  

CEO Gerrard Barron has tried to marginalise opposition from Indigenous Pasifika groups, claiming he’d met with native Hawaiian “elders” and “listened to their thoughts”, but dismissed them: “there’s a lot of niche groups who have a lot of thoughts, right?”

This isn’t his first rodeo either: Barron had been an early investor in a different company that tried to mine the deep ocean in Papua New Guinea, only for it to massively underestimate local opposition and go bust before they started mining. This left the island state to pick up a bill of over US $100 million. 

2. TMC tried to set governments’ agenda – it backfired!

As TMC has no way of turning a profit until they get permission to start deep sea mining, political support for ocean protection has been their biggest barrier.

They lobbied hard at the International Seabed Authority (ISA), the intergovernmental regulatory body established by the UN, even shamelessly using a Pacific country’s seat at the table to tell governments, “personally, I get very uncomfortable when people describe us as deep sea miners”. But when it became clear that governments were listening to public concern and scientific warnings more than corporate interests, TMC stepped things up. 

In 2021, their sponsoring state used a legal loophole which effectively delivered an ultimatum: either finish a Mining Code allowing deep sea mining to begin within two years, or TMC will submit an application with no rules in place at all. Even by the cowboy standards of the high seas, this was a “stick ‘em up!” move.  

But despite tough talk, this bullying tactic actually backfired. Before TMC triggered this two-year ultimatum, no government was publicly questioning whether deep sea mining should start or not. Since TMC made this threat, over 35 governments from around the world have called for a moratorium on the start of deep sea mining. 

3. TMC loved to greenwash – until they got called out by clean energy companies and scientists 

If you’re trying to start deep sea mining, when love for the ocean unites people around the world and governments are agreeing a Global Ocean Treaty to protect marine life, you’re never going to win a popularity contest.

In a bid to stop people focusing on the tank-sized excavators five kilometres below the waves required to scrape up the bottom of the ocean, TMC launched a PR campaign to pitch deep sea mining as the solution to climate change. Company representatives gave hundreds of interviews, creating a false dilemma, claiming that humanity had to choose between destroying rainforests and oceans to mine minerals for car batteries. They tried to fool everyone that there was no other possible way, with Barron letting the deception slip: “Everyone’s a sucker for the story.” 

It didn’t take long for the companies actually making the batteries and electric vehicles to call this out. Sixty companies, like Panasonic, BMW and Renault, have committed to steer clear of minerals mined from the deep sea and have called for a moratorium, due to the environmental risks. When an industry has such a bad rep before it’s even started, it turns out big brands don’t want to be associated with something so toxic.   

What’s more, in light of scandals of mining on land, battery manufacturers didn’t turn to deep sea mining – they innovated away from the problematic minerals. In recent years, household names have committed to phase out cobalt, and new battery chemistries are surging, which don’t use three out of the four minerals TMC wants to mine from the deep sea. 

Meanwhile, scientists were making more discoveries about the incredible diversity of life in deep ocean habitats that TMC wants to turn into a wasteland, learning that whales swim through these waters, and even discovering the existence of “dark oxygen”. This led to TMC following in the steps of tobacco companies and the fossil fuel industry by casting aspersions over this science, even though they had funded some of the initial research. 

Showing their true colours, TMC took Greenpeace to court to try to stop our peaceful protest at sea, which disrupted their mission to collect data for their mining application. But just as we don’t back down when oil giants use legal intimidation to try and quash protests, the power of the global movement against deep sea mining was undimmed by corporate efforts to try and stop people defending what’s right. In a spectacular own goal for TMC, courts upheld Greenpeace’s right to peaceful protest not just once, but twice. A judge ruled it was “understandable” that Greenpeace International resorted to peaceful direct action in the face of the “potentially very serious consequences” of the company’s plans.

4. They’re struggling to make deep sea mining happen 

Despite TMC’s own hype, deep sea mining has faced mounting challenges that paint a bleak picture of whether this industry has a future at all. 

Major insurers and banks are seeing deep sea mining as too risky and staying away, while some of the big names supporting TMC at the start have fled. Danish shipping giant Maersk pulled out as a ship provider, followed by mining company Glencore selling its equity stake.

TMC has already received not one but two notices from the Nasdaq stock exchange, warning they faced delisting if their share price stayed so low and out on the water, initial tests have also been rocky. Whistleblower footage revealed that during TMC’s mining test, wastewater and debris from the ocean depths were released into surface waters of the Pacific. And that was only with a prototype machine – the Swiss-Dutch company Allseas that TMC relies on for its ships and mining machine has admitted they haven’t started funding or building full-scale mining equipment. 

5. Now they’ve hitched their wagon to Donald Trump 

Despite telling the media there was only a “0.1 of one percent chance” that governments would block TMC’s first mining application, it took less than three months of a scientist being overwhelmingly elected in charge of the international regulator for TMC to leave in a huff. 

Despite swift and strong international pushback, TMC have now bypassed the international legal framework and are asking Donald Trump to give them permission to mine in the global oceans.

This isn’t such a surprise for a CEO who has said removing the parts of the deep sea habitat that marine life depends on is like collecting “golf balls on a driving range”. But it’s a desperate act that marks the first application to commercially mine the seabed, as not only a grave threat to the oceans, but also an act of total disregard for international law and scientific warnings. 

TMC may have had a meltdown, but they’re now playing with fire. France’s ocean minister has described this as an act of piracy, and even the company itself admits that this will likely be seen as a violation of international law, creating major obstacles for them to conduct business. TMC has given governments around the world yet another reason to stop deep sea mining for good. 

Stop Deep Sea Mining

We need a global moratorium to stop the launch of this destructive new extractive industry. Join the Campaign.

Add your name

Louisa Casson is a campaigner at Greenpeace International.

This story was originally posted by Greenpeace Africa.

In Nairobi’s Dandora dumpsite, Joyce, a young mother rises each day not to farm her land or build her dream, but to scavenge through plastic waste to sell and feed her children. Years of inhaling toxic fumes have damaged her lungs. Hospital visits are now part of her daily reality. Still, every morning, she returns to that mountain of waste, because she has no other choice.

Plastic waste colonialism is fuelling injustice for African communities

Joyce’s story is not an exception. It is the reality of too many African women whose lives are being shaped, and shortened, by a crisis they did not create. Women in Africa are on the frontlines of the climate and plastic crisis, not just as victims but as the invisible backbone of communities striving to survive amidst environmental collapse.

The global plastic crisis may affect us all, but its impacts are not equally distributed. Africa contributes the least to global plastic pollution, yet our rivers, coastlines, and cities are overflowing with it. Our markets are flooded with single-use plastics manufactured thousands of miles away and greenwashed as “recyclable”, “reusable”, or even “circular”. Our communities are turned into dumping grounds in the name of global trade. And the poorest, especially women, are left to deal with the toxic aftermath.

This is not accidental. It is structural. It is a system that prioritises corporate profit over human life. This is plastic waste colonialism. And it must end. Recently, Greenpeace Africa took their message to Coca-Cola’s corporate offices in Johannesburg, South Africa to demand a different future, one where corporations are held accountable and communities, especially women, are protected and empowered.

The Global Plastic Treaty must prioritise people over profit

Millions of people across the world have joined the movement for a strong, binding Global Plastics Treaty. This treaty must not be another vague agreement. It must deliver justice.

We need a Global Plastics Treaty that:

• Caps and phases down global plastic production, starting with single-use plastics
• Holds polluters accountable across the entire plastics lifecycle, from extraction, production to disposal
• Bans toxic chemicals of concern used to make plastics and waste trade from high-income to low-income countries
• Prioritises the needs of frontline communities like waste pickers, informal recyclers, and Indigenous Peoples
• Guarantees meaningful participation of African voices, especially women, in negotiations and implementation as well as a stable financial mechanism that will drive the treaty implementation
• Protects human health, especially in communities near incinerators, dumpsites, and plastic manufacturing zones

Because this isn’t just about the environment. It’s about dignity, health, and justice.

Let’s end the age of plastic!

Ask world leaders to support a strong Global Plastic Treaty that addresses the whole life cycle of plastic.

Take action

In Kenya, Greenpeace Africa’s documentary Dumped: A Waste Picker’s Story brought Joyce’s voice to the global stage. In South Africa, there are calls for legal efforts to ban hazardous single-use plastics. Across Cameroon and Senegal, we are building grassroots power to demand systemic change. We are demanding  for solutions that are rooted in equity, science, and human rights. 

Women like Joyce are not passive recipients of aid. They are leading change, when given the chance. Joyce and her community should not have to choose between survival and safety. And they should never bear the cost of a crisis they did not cause. 

A plastic-free future is not a dream. It is a decision. Let’s make it together.

Dr Oulie Keita is the Executive Director of Greenpeace Africa.

Safina Okumu is a Content Editor for Greenpeace International, based in Nairobi, Kenya.

Amsterdam, Netherlands – In a first, landmark test case of the European Union’s new legislation to protect freedom of expression and stop abusive lawsuits, Greenpeace International today challenges the US oil pipeline company, Energy Transfer, in court in the Netherlands.[1] The multi-billion dollar company brought two back-to-back SLAPP suits against Greenpeace International and Greenpeace in the US, after showing solidarity with the 2016 peaceful Indigenous-led protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline. The first case was dismissed, but the Greenpeace organisations continue to defend against the second case, which is ongoing, after a North Dakota jury recently awarded over 660 million USD in damages to the pipeline giant.

Activists from Greenpeace International and allies were present outside the courthouse in Amsterdam for the first hearing in the case with a banner reading “ENERGY TRANSFER, WELCOME TO THE EU – WHERE FREE SPEECH IS STILL A THING”.

Mads Christensen, Executive Director, Greenpeace International said:
“Energy Transfer’s attack on our right to protest is an attack on everyone’s free speech. Greenpeace has been the target of threats, arrests and even bombs over the last 50 years and persevered. We will continue to resist all forms of intimidation and explore every option to hold Energy Transfer accountable for this attempt at abusing the justice system. This groundbreaking anti-SLAPP case against Energy Transfer in the Netherlands is just the beginning of defeating this bullying tactic being wielded by billionaires and fossil fuel giants trying to silence critics all over the world. Something absolutely vital is at stake here: people’s ability to hold corporate polluters to account for the devastation they’re causing.”

The lawsuit is an important test of the European Union’s Anti-SLAPP Directive — adopted in April 2024.[2] The Directive is designed to protect journalists, activists, civil society organisations, or anyone else speaking out about matters of public concern, from Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) — unfounded intimidation lawsuits brought by powerful corporations or wealthy individuals seeking to suppress public debate.[3] Since Greenpeace International is a Netherlands-based foundation and the damage caused by Energy Transfers’s US SLAPP suit is occurring in the Netherlands, both Dutch and EU law applies.

Amy Jacobsen, Senior Legal Counsel, Greenpeace International said:
“This case paves the way for protections from bullying lawsuits being implemented throughout Europe and beyond. The lawsuits that Energy Transfer have brought against Greenpeace International are the perfect example of the kind of abusive legal proceedings that the anti-SLAPP Directive is designed to protect against. By calling upon the EU anti-SLAPP Directive’s protections, Greenpeace International refuses to allow the bullying tactics of wealthy fossil fuel corporations like Energy Transfer to compromise our fundamental free speech rights.”

At the time of the press release it was still uncertain whether Energy Transfer would appear in the hearing. The next steps are for the judge to agree on a schedule for the case.

ENDS

Photos and videos are available in the Greenpeace Media Library

Notes:

[1] The new EU rules are aimed at addressing the growing number of abusive lawsuits against journalists, media outlets, environmental activists and human rights defenders. 

In February 2025, Greenpeace International initiated the first test of the European Union’s anti-SLAPP Directive by filing a lawsuit in Dutch court against Energy Transfer. Greenpeace International seeks to recover all damages and costs it has suffered as a result of Energy Transfers’s back-to-back, meritless lawsuits demanding hundreds of millions of dollars from Greenpeace International and the Greenpeace organisations in the US. 

[2] EU Member States have until 7 May 2026 at the latest to transpose the rules into their national laws, but the Dutch government has indicated that the Directive’s  protections can already be applied under existing Dutch legal frameworks.

[3] Big Oil companies Shell, Total, and ENI have also filed SLAPPs against Greenpeace entities in recent years. Some of these cases have been successfully stopped in their tracks. This includes Greenpeace France successfully defeating TotalEnergies’ SLAPP on 28 March 2024, and Greenpeace UK and Greenpeace International forcing Shell to back down from its SLAPP on 10 December 2024. Greenpeace Romania was being sued by the energy company Romgaz in 2025 – with the aim of dissolving the organisation, but their claims were withdrawn and they were forced to pay the court expenses to Greenpeace Romania. Greenpeace Italy and Greenpeace Netherlands are facing the Italian oil giant Eni in an ongoing court case in Italy.

Contacts:

Daniel Bengtsson, Communications Lead, Greenpeace Nordic
+ 46 703009510, daniel.bengtsson@greenpeace.org

Greenpeace International Press Desk, +31 (0)20 718 2470 (available 24 hours), pressdesk.int@greenpeace.org