Current U.S. Government Officially Rejects UN Sustainable Development Goals

   

     In August 2023, I wrote about UN sustainable development goals (SDGs) when reviewing and summarizing  Bjorn Lomborg’s excellent book, Best Things First, which presented a smart way to prioritize these goals for the most positive effect at the lowest cost. I was a bit shocked when Marco Rubio and the Trump administration decided to totally gut USAID, with stores of food and supplies to help the poor and destitute in developing countries being burned and otherwise destroyed, instead of being distributed, even when it would cost more to destroy the aid. I find that to be rather disgusting and disheartening. Are people dying due to the loss of U.S. aid? Rubio says no, but several reports say yes. The goals themselves have been marginally successful and continue to be, but a pullback in spending, especially from the U.S., threatens them further and guarantees that they will be slowed.

     I thought that the Trump administration simply gutted USAID, but they did more than that. They also officially rejected the UN’s SDGs. These are things like preventing malaria and giving nutritional assistance to young mothers and their babies. Back in March 2025, the U.S. said it “rejects and denounces” the SDGs. That, to me, is quite shocking. More specifically, the U.S. said:

“Although framed in neutral language, Agenda 2030 and the SDGs advance a program of soft global governance that is inconsistent with U.S. sovereignty and adverse to the rights and interests of Americans.”

     Giving aid to poor and desperate mothers and babies is “adverse to the interests of Americans?” I don’t think so, bud.

     The statement also said that the SDGs were pervaded with climate and gender ideology and that the U.S. needed to focus on America First and the needs of Americans rather than the needs of non-Americans. In the 7 or 8 months since then, has there been more focus on helping needy and suffering  Americans? I don’t see any evidence of that. While I understand that there are many concerns about the U.N. that I completely agree with, such as problems with the International Criminal Court, the Human Rights Council, and the pervasive anti-Israel focus, I have never considered the SDGs as part of those issues.

     According to Sustainability News:

“The SDGs, unanimously adopted by all 193 UN member nations in 2015, established an ambitious global framework comprising 17 interconnected goals to be achieved by 2030. The goals include eliminating global hunger, protecting the planet, ensuring prosperity for all people, and promoting peace.”

     The March statement, made by Edward Heartney, Minister Counselor to ECOSOC at the US Mission to the United Nations, emphasized America First principles and sovereignty concerns:

“We must care first and foremost for our own – that is our moral and civic duty.”

     Speak for yourself. My moral duty does not have borders or hierarchy based on nationality.

     While I am a patriotic American and I love my country, I must disagree with the selfishness of such a statement. I hold no such hierarchy of concern for one individual over another based on nationality. The statement also had legitimate concerns about China’s influence at the UN. I agree that we must curb the influence of countries that routinely flout international norms and particularly human rights, such as China, Iran, Russia, North Korea, and other regimes. We also need to keep in mind that the UN seeks to engage and get input from all countries since it is all-inclusive in that sense. I may agree with the U.S. that a few of the SDGs, especially those related to climate, are not useful; others, like feeding starving people, are clearly in everyone’s best interest. Going through the 2024 UN SDG report and Lomborg’s 2023 book, I didn’t see any focus on climate and gender ideologies. There was one small section in the report about climate education that I agree is not a pressing need. Most of the other environmental issues had to do with very significant health threats like air pollution, including the indoor air pollution from cooking fires that harm mostly women and children. Other environmental issues, like access to safe drinking water and sanitation, are an important focus as well.  The gender focus is on women who are mistreated in several countries through poverty, severe inequality, unpaid labor, sexual and reproductive health, and degrading practices like female genital mutilation. The UN SDGs also promote things like electricity and energy access, which officials like Energy Secretary Chris Wright have worked in the past to help. I do disagree with some UN energy actions like the promotion of inadequate renewable energy in countries that would better benefit from more cost-effective and more reliable energy from fossil fuels, especially natural gas.

     I believe that the UN should separate basic human needs from extraneous issues like reducing CO2 emissions. Thus, I would support a reform of the SDGs to focus exclusively on basic human needs and relegate emissions and renewable energy development to a different classification. Indeed, in Lomborg’s book, Best Things First, he focused on prioritizing the most important and most solvable issues that could have the most, fastest, and best benefits. Climate issues are potential future issues rather than immediate needs. The concern about climate ideology might be valid, but I saw nothing at all in the report that could be construed as gender ideology.

     The bottom line is that the U.S. should be ashamed of its selfish stance and its abandonment of struggling and suffering people who clearly need help, our help. Instead, we seem to be more worried about people being indoctrinated with liberal ideas about climate and gender. A big part of the denial of funds seems to have to do with the possibility that those poor and desperate people might adopt liberal viewpoints on such issues. Who the fuck cares about that? Apparently, our current government does. I am ashamed of them.  

References:

 

US abandons UN Sustainable Development Goals. Dashveenjit Kaur. Sustainability News. March 11, 2025. US abandons UN Sustainable Development Goals: Policy reversal explained

Sustainability Without the SDGs: US Policy Shifts and Corporate ESG. Matteo Tonello. Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Development. April 3, 2025. Sustainability Without the SDGs: US Policy Shifts and Corporate ESG

Remarks at the UN meeting entitled 58th Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly. United States Mission to the United Nations. March 4, 2025. Remarks at the UN meeting entitled 58th Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly - United States Mission to the United Nations

The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2024. United Nations. The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2024.pdf

 

 

U.S. Lithium Exploration and Development Projects: Low Commodity Prices and Other Challenges: Fed Bank of Dallas Report

     I have been working occasionally on a very large post about the North American lithium industry, and I recently came across a very informative report by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas about U.S. lithium projects, which I will summarize in this post.

     The report identifies and compares 66 U.S. lithium projects, most in the early stages of development. Several are currently under construction and could increase U.S. lithium output tenfold by the end of the decade. Whether this happens is dependent on several factors, including the ability to scale up the projects, lithium prices, which are currently quite low, and the permitting snafus that often affect mining projects, especially in the U.S.

     The report classifies the lithium projects into four types: hard rock, clay, brine, and direct lithium extraction (DLE), which also comes from brine. 25 projects, mostly in Nevada, involve mining lithium from clay. These involve mining from sedimentary rocks, soils, and brines with high lithium concentrations. 21 projects involve direct lithium extraction (DLE), which is a set of new technologies that can extract lithium from brines without the use of evaporation ponds. This eliminates the significant environmental problems associated with those ponds. The only operating lithium mine in the U.S., Silver Peak in Nevada, uses evaporation ponds. These projects are of several types. Hot mineral-rich geothermal brines in the Salton Sea area of Southern California are a major U.S. lithium play. These resources are being co-developed along with geothermal power plants for an added revenue stream. Those brines are also rich in other minerals that can be extracted alongside lithium. Deep, underground brine in Utah and Nevada is also being developed for DLE, although some are being developed with evaporation ponds as well. Oilfield brines, or produced water, basically oilfield wastewater, are also being targeted with ongoing and new DLE projects in Northeastern Pennsylvania, North Dakota, and West Texas.   

     One of the major DLE lithium plays is the Smackover brine in Southern Arkansas, Northern Louisiana, and East Texas. There, wells have been drilled into the brine that show very high lithium concentrations, close to or exceeding those of the Lithium Triangle area in South America’s Chile, Argentina, and Bolivia. ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Norway’s Equinor are involved in the Smackover lithium play. That region also benefits from a long history of extracting minerals from brines as well as available drilling and producing infrastructure.

     Below is a chart of the stages of U.S. lithium projects, which may take ten years or more to be fully developed. Most of the 66 identified projects, 38 of them, are in the initial stages of development and will be subject to the limitations of resource estimates and lithium market prices.

“Most projects that advance beyond this first stage subsequently release increasingly detailed reports. These range from a resource estimate, a precursory estimate of the size and quality of the resource, to a definitive feasibility study, which provides numerous details about the project, including expected capital costs and profitability. Only 10 percent of the projects identified are currently at that stage.”

     Since many of these projects are in the West and on federal lands, they are subject to additional timelines for permitting and approval, and subject to the possibility of environmentalist-driven litigation, which can delay projects considerably. There is also difficulty in securing financing as investors weigh the resource potential and market projections. After a project reaches a final investment decision (FID), the project construction timeline can be several years.

     Thacker Pass, an open-pit clay mine in Nevada, is one of three projects currently under construction. It expects Phase One production of up to 40,000 tons of lithium annually in late 2027. This will be significant since current U.S. production is just 4,000 tons annually. Two smaller projects in East Texas and Pennsylvania are expected to begin production in 2026 with a combined estimated rate of less than 10,000 tons per year. Other projects could come online by 2030, but these are less certain, according to the report. If built and once producing, these projects could produce an additional 100,000 tons per year. However, as noted below, we would still likely need to ship lithium to China for the processing of intermediate products.

“Importantly, these projects are often designed to produce the specific lithium chemicals used in lithium-ion batteries, lithium carbonate or lithium hydroxide, rather than intermediate lithium products. These intermediate products, such as lithium chloride, would require additional processing, likely requiring shipment to China and exposure to the very supply chain many sponsors hope to avoid.”

     One major hurdle is lithium market prices, which have fluctuated wildly over the last few years but are now quite low. Will the prices be enough to develop these projects? That is a major uncertainty. At current prices, the revenue is not enough to cover operating expenses, let alone upfront costs. Low lithium prices have also led to slower development of these existing projects. Some mines outside of the U.S. are currently shut-in due to low prices. This is another example where economic feasibility rules viability.

     Upfront costs for clay and hardrock lithium mines are into the billions, and long payout periods are expected, which makes future profitability questionable.  

     Government support is key, acknowledging the need for domestic critical mineral production. Chinese critical mineral leverage is also a concern.

“Government support could prove decisive in determining which projects move forward and, therefore, to what extent U.S. production grows. Indeed, federal interest in securing domestic production has already shaped the industry through billions in subsidized loans and grants and with policies intended to boost demand for domestically produced lithium.”

“Recent policy shifts have led to some retrenchment but have also introduced the possibility of new forms of assistance, such as price floors or direct capital investment in firms. Financial support of this type, or additional loans or grants, could materially shift the direction of U.S. production levels, especially if lithium prices remain low or companies encounter difficulties scaling up projects focused on unconventional resources.’

“This support, of course, is not a free lunch in the economic sense. Instead, it builds in a trade-off between the more uncertain outcomes and relatively higher costs associated with domestic lithium production versus the potential insurance against the risk of future lithium supply chain disruptions.”

     

 

References:

 

Rush for U.S. lithium production encounters tough economics. Michael Plante and Isabelle Tseng. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. October 14, 2025. Rush for U.S. lithium production encounters tough economics - Dallasfed.org

 

Vertical Solar Works Well on Flat Roofs in Norway’s Arctic Circle: Catches Morning and Evening Sun When Demand and Prices are Highest and Sheds Snow

    

       I once had solar panels put on an A-frame house roof with a higher pitch than most roofs. I think the pitch was a little less, but not too much less, than ideal, but the south-facing panel array does pretty good. Much further north in the Arctic Circle in Norway, Norwegian company Easy Over just built the world’s largest array of vertical solar panels with 6400 of them installed on a large cold storage building. This vertical panel configuration allows the panels not to be affected by snow and to collect morning and evening sun when demand for power and power rates are highest. It is expected that $1,632 in annual savings will be realized compared to conventional panels. The configuration allows the panels to collect low-angle sun and to be easier to access and maintain than more horizontal panels. Amazingly, the panels were installed by three people over four days. They claim that installation times are up to ten times faster than conventional configurations, which can save money.

     This vertical solar (VPV) installation, in Tromsøterminalen, in northern Norway, is the largest VPV project in the world. The company is promoting VPV tech as the best solution for large flat roofs at high latitudes. They note that the primary constraint for flat roof solar installations is roof load limits. They note that the vertical panels can be attached directly to roof trusses, eliminating the need for heavy materials to weigh the panels down, which leads to more panels being able to be installed and a lighter installation. VPV also eliminates intrusive fastening, which may cause roofs to leak. In VPV, no drilling into the roof is required.

     Easy Over notes:

“The roof's reflection (Albedo) can increase energy production by more than 30% on bright surfaces. This effect is especially advantageous in snow-affected regions, keeping your system reliable when traditional panels are covered. For instance, in Tromsø, our units outperformed conventional systems by 54%, yielding 747 kWh/kWp annually compared to their 485 kWh/kWp.”

References:

 

Officials power up world's largest energy project of its kind: 'We hope this becomes a model'. Rick Kazmer. The Cool Down. October 25, 2025. Officials power up world's largest energy project of its kind: 'We hope this becomes a model'

“They’re Stealing Sunlight In The Arctic”: Company Builds Impossible Solar Farm Where Sun Disappears. Eirwen Williams. Sustainability Times. September 28, 2025. "They're Stealing Sunlight In The Arctic": Company Builds Impossible Solar Farm Where Sun Disappears

New World Record in Tromsø: 6400 Vertical Solar Panels on a Flat Roof. Easy Over Solar. Updated September 9, 2025. New World Record in Tromsø: 6400 Vertical Solar Panels on a Flat Roof

Flat Roof Solar. Over Easy Solar. Lightweight Flat Roof Solar Panels | Over Easy Solar

 

 

 

 

Newly Discovered Ammonia-Tolerant Bacterium Found to Convert High-Protein Waste into Methane: May Explain Why Some Anaerobic Digesters Stop When Others Don’t

     A new bacterium has been discovered that converts organic waste into methane. Typically, bacteria break organic waste down into simple compounds that then break down into organic acids such as acetic acid. These organic acids are then consumed by methanogenic bacteria, or methanogens, also known as anaerobic bacteria, because they do not consume oxygen, and are then converted into methane. Researchers at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, led by Dr. Ryan Ziels, found that when there were no more methanogens left to consume acetic acid, their anaerobic digester was still making methane. In order to solve the mystery, they fed carbon to microbes to trace the carbon in proteins and found that a previously unknown bacterium was responsible for the continued methane conversion. These new microbes had one feature in particular, different from the other methanogens. They tolerate the high ammonia levels that are produced by protein-rich food, which shut down other methane producers. The discovery is not exactly game-changing, but it does improve our understanding and may have applicability in optimizing composting and possibly breaking down other materials like plastics. It also helps explain the mystery of why some aerobic digestors stop digesting when others continue digesting.

     The scientists were working at the City of Surrey Organic Waste and Biofuel facility, which has been operational since 2017, and which digests about 115,000 tons of food waste annually, to produce biomethane, also known as renewable natural gas.    

     The previously unknown bacterium is in the Natronincolaceae family. These syntrophic bacteria are hard to isolate and study. Thus, the methods used in the study – stable isotope probing and metaproteomics – have proven useful in the discovery of this:

“…rare and so-far uncharacterized syntrophic bacterium belonging to the family Natronincolaceae that expressed a previously hypothesized oxidative glycine pathway for syntrophic acetate oxidation.”

     According to the University of British Columbia:

“Protein-rich food waste naturally produces ammonia as it breaks down, but too much ammonia can halt methane production and cause acetic acid to build up, turning waste tanks acidic and unproductive. The newly discovered microbes, however, tolerate high ammonia levels that would shut down other methane producers, keeping the system running when it would normally fail.”

"Municipal facilities owe a lot to these organisms," said Dr. Ziels. "If acetic acid builds up, tanks have to be dumped and restarted—an expensive, messy process."

“The findings help explain why some digesters sputter while others, like Surrey's, continue producing energy under challenging conditions. The discovery also suggests that high-ammonia environments may actually benefit these key microbes, offering insights for more efficient designs.”

     The researchers are now utilizing similar techniques to study how microbes break down microplastics in the ocean. The current study marks an improvement in our overall understanding of anaerobic digestion.

     The study was published in Nature Microbiology. 

 

References:

 

Researchers discover previously unknown microbe capable of solving global crisis: 'We noticed something odd'. Brynne Wilcox. The Cool Down. October 24, 2025. Researchers discover previously unknown microbe capable of solving global crisis: 'We noticed something odd'

UBC researchers discover microbes turning food waste into energy. The University of British Columbia. Faculty of Applied Science. UBC Engineering. October 23, 2025. UBC researchers discover microbes turning food waste into energy - News | UBC Engineering

City of Surrey Organic Waste and Biofuel Facility. Convertus. Convertus City of Surrey Organic Waste and Biofuel Facility

Activity-targeted metaproteomics uncovers rare syntrophic bacteria central to anaerobic community metabolism. Skyler Friedline, Elizabeth A. McDaniel, Matthew Scarborough, Maxwell Madill, Kate Waring, Vivian S. Lin, Rex R. Malmstrom, Danielle Goudeau, William Chrisler, Morten K. D. Dueholm, Leo J. Gorham, Chathuri J. Kombala, Lydia H. Griggs, Heather M. Olson, Sophie B. Lehmann, Nathalie Munoz, Jesse Trejo, Nikola Tolic, Ljiljana Pasa-Tolic, Sarah M. Williams, Mary Lipton, Steven J. Hallam & Ryan M. Ziels. Nature Microbiology (October 21, 2025). Activity-targeted metaproteomics uncovers rare syntrophic bacteria central to anaerobic community metabolism | Nature Microbiology

 

 

U.S. Mine Development Times are Shockingly Long: Discourages Investment, Shows Need for Permit Reform, and Litigation Risk is Too High: U.S. Not Achieving Mineral Potential, Says S&P Global 2024 Report

     I just came across this rather shocking S&P Global report from June 2024 that shows that U.S. mine development times are the second-slowest in the world, behind Zambia. 

     The study focuses on U.S. mine development times and compares them to peers, Canada, and Australia. Some of the main reasons for these long U.S. development times are litigation risk and overly stringent requirements for mines on federal lands, which host significant mineral resources in the U.S. S&P Global looked at the following themes for comparison.

     Developing mines in the U.S. is costly, time-consuming, and uncertain. Compared to Canada and Australia, there is much more uncertainty in the U.S. about whether a mine will get built, even after many years of developing the project and acquiring permits. This is mainly due to litigation by environmental groups. They note that “…there are more mentions of litigation in US properties than in Canadian and Australian properties combined.” In the past 15 years, investor exploration spending in Canada and Australia has been 81% and 57% higher than in the U.S.

     Mineral endowments compared to exploration investment in the metric of ‘exploration budget per US$1,000 of estimated endowment’ show that the U.S. exploration budget per $1000 of endowment is slightly more than half (55%) that of Canada and less than three-quarters (71%) that of Australia. This is the basic “proof” that the U.S. is not achieving its mineral potential.

“The US’s copper endowment (reserves and resources), for example, is comparable to those of Canada and Australia combined and sufficient to satisfy US demand for the foreseeable future. But for several major energy transition minerals – copper, lithium, nickel, and palladium – the US receives significantly less in exploration budget per metric ton of endowment than Canada or Australia.”

     They also note that mining accounts for larger shares of both GDP and employment in Canada and Australia, which may influence faster and more certain approvals and development times. Gold mines are the fastest to develop, and copper mines (the mineral of electrification) are among the slowest.

     Not meeting our minerals development potential means that we are ceding market share and minerals security to countries like China, which control a lot of mining and processing. It makes us vulnerable to geopolitical situations, including those where mineral monopolies are used as leverage. Many of the U.S. mineral endowments are energy transition metals, demand for which is expected to increase in the coming years in the U.S. and globally, though less than before, at least through the current Trump years. Less mineral dependence means more mineral security and fewer vulnerabilities.

     Since minerals may be produced in countries with conflicts, different environmental concerns, supply chain risks, and shareholder concerns, those must always be considered.

     They also point out that importers of minerals must also compete with other importers of the same minerals, which can lead to different costs.

     The U.S. is beset by stringent federal lands requirements where decisions must be sought from multiple authorities without a single, coordinating agency.  Federal lands make up nearly half of the territory of the 11 western states where that US endowment is concentrated. Australia and Canada have a single coordinated agencies that handle mining permitting.

“A mine’s development is a resource-intensive undertaking in itself. First, there is the need to prove up the resource, which can take years and sometimes over a billion dollars. For mines on federal lands, a detailed plan of operations must be submitted to relevant federal agencies. If satisfied, they will issue completeness determinations (i.e. a complete plan of operations or a complete permit application has been submitted). This also often takes years. Then, required processes under the National Environmental Policy Act that produce an environmental impact statement can begin, which the government estimates takes approximately four years. This stage can include several government agencies, including the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Fish and Wildlife Service. These agencies, whose resources are themselves often constrained, may ask for further revisions of the environmental impact statement, adding to total development time.”

     This is kind of insane if you think about it, and very much underscores the need for permit reform in the U.S., particularly around NEPA and federal lands permitting. While both political parties acknowledge the need for permit reform and have been talking about it for about a decade, nothing really has been done aside from some executive orders meant to speed things up. Congress needs to act on this. Both parties have led initiatives on domestic critical minerals development, but they have not done enough. The time from discovery to production needs to be reduced drastically, preferably cut in half, which means roughly 12-15 years rather than the roughly 24-30 years it currently takes.

“There is widespread recognition across the US political spectrum that permitting has become a huge stumbling block for the development of its mineral resources. Challenges vary depending on the jurisdiction. On private or state lands, permitting is generally more predictable, with a relatively clear path for approval. On federal lands, permitting is characterized by delays, unpredictability and increasing costs. This is a major constraint because federal lands comprise almost half of the total terrain of the 11 mineral rich western states – and over 60% of Alaska. Moreover, the up-front costs for hard rock mining are much greater than for other kinds of energy projects.”

 

References:

 

Mine development times: The US in perspective. Mohsen Bonakdarpour, Executive Director, Frank Hoffman, Consulting Associate Director, and Keerti Rajan, Director. S&P Global. June 2024. Copper in the energy transition Consulting

Rocks in the Nuvvuagittuq Greenstone Belt of Northern Quebec May Be the Oldest Known Rocks on Earth at 4.2-4.3 Billion Years Old

  

   The oldest geological eon is known as the Hadean, named after Hades, the Greek god of the underworld. This is due to the intense heat that was present on the Earth then. The Hadean eon began when the Earth was formed about 4.6 billion years ago and ended about 4.03 billion years ago. It is estimated that the first crust cooled down enough to form rock about 4.35 billion years ago. Very little is known about the earliest rocks in the world and possibly the earliest life forms, in sediment accumulated around a hydrothermal vent in the vicinity of these rocks. These are ferruginous sedimentary rocks, interpreted as seafloor-hydrothermal vent-related precipitates.

      It has recently been confirmed, or perhaps just strongly suggested, that the oldest known rocks on Earth are located in northern Québec. The oldest terrestrial materials ever dated by scientists are zircon minerals discovered in Western Australia. They formed as early as 4.4 billion years ago, but their host rocks have long eroded away. The zircon crystals are thought to have formed in magmas produced by the melting of sediments deposited at the bottom of an ancient ocean. Research on the Hadean zircons also suggests that the earliest Earth rocks were mafic (rich in magnesium and iron).

     In 2008, some of the researchers of the new paper worked on using Neodymium-142 data to date the rocks of the Nuvvuagittuq greenstone belt (NGB) in northern Quebec, Canada, with suggestions that the rock is 4.28 billion years old. These are also oceanic crustal rocks. The most common rocks in the belt are known as Ujaraaluk rocks, meaning “big old solid rock” in Inuktitut. The suggested age of the rocks has been a matter of debate, with some scientists thinking they are younger, perhaps 3.8 billion years old, putting them in the Archaean eon. However, new research suggests they are older, likely older than 4.2 billion years old.

 

   

Mafic Intrusions Dated by Two Methods of Samarium-Neodymium Isotope Dating Show that They are about 4.16 Billion Years Old, Which Means the Rock They Intruded is Older

     In 2017, the researchers collected intrusive metagabbro rocks that intrude the existing greenstone belt rocks. The simple fact that igneous intrusive rocks must be younger than the rocks they intrude gives an age limit to the host rocks.  According to the scientists:

“We combined our field observations with petrology, geochemistry, geochronology and applied two independent samarium-neodymium age dating methods, dating techniques used to assess the absolute ages of magmatic rocks, before they became metamorphic rocks. Both assessments yielded the same result: the intrusive rocks are 4.16 billion years old.”

     As noted, the scientists used long- and short-lived samarium-neodymium isotope systems to determine when the rocks first crystallized. Also, as noted, there is still debate about the age of the rocks. The new dates given for the mafic metagabbro intrusive rocks, however, suggest that the older Hadean age is correct, as explained below by the scientists:

“The age agreement between both extant and extinct radiogenic systems, in rocks related through igneous fractionation, is compelling evidence for preservation of Hadean rocks in the NGB, opening a rare window into Earth’s earliest times.”

 

   

 

References:

 

The oldest rocks on Earth are more than four billion years old.  Hanika Rizo and Jonathan O’Neil. The Conversation. July 6, 2025. The oldest rocks on Earth are more than four billion years old

Evidence for Hadean mafic intrusions in the Nuvvuagittuq Greenstone Belt, Canada. C. Sole, J. O’Neil, H. Rizo, J.-L. Paquette, D. Benn, and J. Plakholm. Science. 26 Jun 2025. Vol 388, Issue 6754. pp. 1431-1435. Evidence for Hadean mafic intrusions in the Nuvvuagittuq Greenstone Belt, Canada | Science

Evidence for early life in Earth’s oldest hydrothermal vent precipitates. Matthew S. Dodd, Dominic Papineau, Tor Grenne, John F. Slack, Martin Rittner, Franco Pirajno, Jonathan O’Neil & Crispin T. S. Little. Nature. volume 543, pages60–64 (March 2, 2017). Evidence for early life in Earth’s oldest hydrothermal vent precipitates | Nature

Neodymium-142 Evidence for Hadean Mafic Crust. Jonathan O'Neil, Richard W. Carlson, Don Francis, and Ross K. Stevenson. Science. 26 Sep 2008. Vol 321, Issue 5897. pp. 1828-1831. Neodymium-142 Evidence for Hadean Mafic Crust | Science

 

 

Subsurface Microbiomes: Global Study Compares Surface/Subsurface Microbes and Terrestrial/Marine Subsurface Microbes

     In case you were wondering, there are microbes that live deep in the Earth and are found in mines, aquifers, and deep-seafloor boreholes. The first global study to catalog these microbes is underway. The study looks at microbes up to 4375 m (14,354 ft or 2.72 miles) below ground and up to 491 m (1,611ft) below the seafloor. The study is led by scientists at the Marine Biological Laboratory (MBL), Woods Hole, Massachusetts. Part of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. According to Phys.org:

“This discovery points to vast, untapped, subsurface reservoirs of diversity for bioprospecting new compounds and medicinals, for understanding how cells adapt to extremely low-energy environments, and for illuminating the search for extraterrestrial life."

     It is generally assumed that deeper into the Earth, there is less energy available and generally less microbial biodiversity. However, that is not always the case, especially among Archaean species of microbes.

"But we show that in some subsurface environments, the diversity can easily rival, if not exceed, diversity at the surface. This is particularly true for marine environments and for microbes in the Archaea domain," says Emil Ruff , lead researcher of the project.  

     The study took eight years to complete. Researchers compared terrestrial and marine subsurface microbes. They found that terrestrial and marine subsurface microbes vary in composition as they do above the surface, but that their levels of diversity are similar. Biological selection pressures are different for terrestrial and marine microbes.

"The first time scientists broadly realized there is a huge reservoir of microbes right under our feet, kilometers deep in rock and below the seafloor, was the mid-1990s," Ruff says. Scientists now estimate between 50–80% of Earth's microbial cells live in the subsurface, where energy availability can be orders of magnitude less than on the sunlit surface.

     With the low availability of energy, the microbes’ life processes are very slow. Some microbes can take 1000 years for a simple cell division. The slow pace is due to low energy availability.  

     If Mars had water, as it appears it did, then there is a possibility of finding subsurface microbes on the planet. Thus, understanding Earth’s subsurface microbes could help in exploring Martian subsurface microbes.

     The study analyzed 478 archaeal and 964 bacterial metabarcoding datasets and 147 metagenomes from diverse and widely distributed environments.

     Microbes have evolved to survive temperature extremes greater than 122°C or lower than −20°C, and from ambient pressures up to pressures greater than those of abyssal oceanic trenches. Although most of Earth’s microbial biomass is on the surface, it is also interesting to note that subsurface archaeal and bacterial biomass is greater than on the surface. According to the paper in Science Advances:

“Microbes can also increase cellular lifespan by slowing genome transcription or actively expressing mRNA for DNA repair enzymes. Among many other processes acetogenesis, methanogenesis; hydrogen, methane, and sulfur oxidation; fermentation of microbial biomass and necromass; symbiosis; serpentinization; and even radiolysis might contribute to the subsistence of deep life. While a portion of cells persist in a dormant state, many organisms actively metabolize but often with generation times of decades to centuries.”

     Previous studies noted that factors such as salinity, pH, and the availability of nutrients were among the major drivers of microbial community (microbiome) variance. The new study compares both surface and subsurface microbiomes, but also terrestrial and marine subsurface microbiomes.

     The figures below from the paper show sample sites, diversity, and species richness. As noted, certain archaeal and bacterial species lineages are most prevalent in the subsurface, including Lokiarchaeia, Bathyarchaeia, Hadarchaeia, and Caldatribacteriota. They also note that “it is likely that the subsurface holds a substantial degree of uncharted phylogenetic and likely metabolic diversity.” It was also found that species differ the most according to depth – generally, the deeper a species is found, the more it is different from surface species. They also noted that there are many differences in subsurface environmental, energy, oxygen, and other conditions that often do not correlate directly with depth.

 

 

 

References:

 

First global study provides insights into Earth's subsurface microbiomes. Science X staff. December 18, 2024. First global study provides insights into Earth's subsurface microbiomes

A global comparison of surface and subsurface microbiomes reveals large-scale biodiversity gradients, and a marine-terrestrial divide. S. Emil Ruff, Isabella Hrabe de Angelis, Megan Mullis, Jérôme P. Payet, Cara Magnabosco, Karen G. Lloyd, Cody S. Sheik, Andrew D. Steen, Anna Shipunova, [...] , and Frederick Colwell +11 authors Authors. Science Advances. 18 Dec 2024. Vol 10, Issue 51. A global comparison of surface and subsurface microbiomes reveals large-scale biodiversity gradients, and a marine-terrestrial divide | Science Advances