In Ely there is a schism,
caused by filiopietism *,
but Elyites tell mining jobs are the sell
and NO to clean water environmentalism!
* “the tragic circle”
|
||||||
|
After Hurricane Sandy swept through the northeast of the United States late October 2012, millions of New Yorkers were left for days without electricity. But they still had access to drinking water, thanks to New York City’s reliance on protected watershed areas for potable water. Instead of using electric-powered water treatment plans, New York City brings its high-quality drinking water through aqueducts connected to protected areas in the nearby Catskill/Delaware forests and wetlands – just one example of how protecting watersheds can provide residential areas with drinking water and flood and pollution protection at bargain basement prices. New York saved between four and six billion dollars on the cost of water treatment plants by protecting forests and compensating farmers in the Catskills for reducing pollution in lakes and streams. “Whether you need to save water-starved China from economic ruin or protect drinking water for New York City, investing in natural resources is emerging as the most cost-efficient and effective way to secure clean water and recharge our dangerously depleted streams and aquifers,” said Michael Jenkins, president of Forest Trends, a non-governmental organization (NGO) in the United States, which compiled the report. Previous studies have shown that pollution, the building of dams, agricultural runoff, conversion of wetlands, and waterworks engineering have severely affected global river systems. The wealthier the country, the bigger the threat to river systems, primarily because of expensive waterworks engineering, according to the first-ever health assessment of river ecosystems around the world, as previously reported by IPS.Promoting a new approach But trees, grasses and plants are extremely effective at cleaning and retaining water, as well as reducing sedimentation that clogs water reservoirs, Bennett told IPS. “The benefits from these watershed programs extend far beyond water: they support biodiversity, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and provide income for the rural poor,” she said. In watershed protection programs such as those in New York, farmers are paid to use soil and water conservation techniques – payment for good stewardship that benefits the public, Bennett added. Government regulations, however, remain a major constraint to similar projects in many countries. New York’s well documented and highly successful strategy has not been emulated by many other cities, including those in China or India, where engineering expertise is highly prized and huge engineering works are a matter of national pride. China is one country that has begun to change its approach, according to the report. About 108,000 residents in struggling communities upstream of the southern coastal city of Zhuhai are receiving new health insurance benefits in exchange for adopting land management practices to improve drinking water in the region. “There are lots of different ways watershed investments are being made in China, some good and some bad. There’s lots of learning happening,” said Bennett. Beginning of change In Latin America, the trend in water programs is to offer compensation other than cash for protecting water resources. In Bolivia’s Santa Cruz valley, for example, more than 500 families receive beehives, fruit plants and wire, which can be used for fencing to keep livestock away from rivers and stream banks, in return for their water protection efforts. The vast majority of investments in watersheds are with public money. The private sector still thinks providing good quality water is up to governments, Bennett said. However, the public sector is unlikely to be able to invest the 17.7 trillion dollars needed for water infrastructure by 2030, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
Nancy Schuldt from the Fon Du Lac band of Lake Superior Chippewa talks about the significant problems hard rock mining has caused to the St. Louis River and the Lake Superior Watershed. She also discusses the water quality problems posed by the proposed Sulfide Mining in this region. You can view here talk at VCC in Ely on July 22 here. Northeastern Minnesota is, for the most part in one form or another, wetlands. Lakes, rivers, swamps, bogs, marshes, etc. The two watersheds, the Rainy River and the Lake Superior, make up the largest fresh water system in the world. These watersheds are vital to the health and well being of every Minnesotan and it could reasonably be argued to all people of the world. It’s proper functioning is constantly under threat by local, county and state (occasionally even nationally as when South West U.S. politicians suggested running a water pipeline from the Great Lakes to their regions of misused and dwindling water resources) interests with little understanding of the importance of the health of these watersheds.
-“If someone said ‘name me a prosperous mining town,’ you’d be hard-pressed to come up with a name.” –Thomas Power, Ph.D., Chairman Univ. of Montana Economics Dept.[1] See Dr. Power’s Ely Presentation (similar talk recently given in Duluth) Here: Minnesota Backcountry Hunters & Anglers (BHA) are a grassroots group of sportsmen and women who are united by a passion to protect and conserve the public lands, forests, mountains, prairies, streams, and lakes that support our hunting and angling traditions. We respectfully request that the International Joint Commission (IJC) examine and report upon the water-related impacts from sulfide mining exploration and development within the Rainy River and Lake Superior Basins. “Mining without harm” and “environmentally safe mining” may sound great, but there is zero evidence to back up the claim that sulfide mining can be done without causing devastating watershed pollution. In fact, mining of sulfide-metal ore has never been accomplished without causing eventual acid-metal leachate pollution of ground and surface waters. As a result, Wisconsin placed a moratorium on sulfide mining operations in 1997, until it could be demonstrated that such a mine would not pollute the water. In fact, there are no examples in the world of such a mine that has not polluted. America’s public lands—and the fish and wildlife that call them home—are struggling to recover from the effects of a century of hard-rock mining. In 2004, the federal government estimated it would cost taxpayers $7.8 billion to clean up 63 of the mining operations designated as Superfund sites by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; cleaning up all abandoned hard-rock mines would cost between $20 billion and $54 billion. In January 2012, the EPA released its annual Toxic Release Inventory. Once again, metal mining was at the top of the list of polluters across the country. Such mining was responsible for 41 percent of all pollution in our country last year. Pequaywan Township north of Duluth has become the third township in the region to pass a resolution asking for a go-slow-or-don’t-go approach to sulfide mining. The resolution asks for a state “prove it first” law that shows copper mines can be operated and closed without environmental degradation somewhere else before they are allowed to operate here. Mining has historically always been a boom and bust industry, and in the last 20 years sixteen hard rock mines declared bankruptcy. This devastates local economies dependent on the mining industry and forces taxpayers to cover the enormous cost of cleanup and restoration. If mining companies’ promises were true, northern Minnesota would be the wealthiest part of the country after some 130 years of iron ore mining in the region. As Minnesota BHA co-chair Darrell Spencer says, “The jobs are temporary. The profits are going to foreign ownership and foreign investors. The copper is going to Canada to be processed. The minerals will end up in China helping their GDP. And Minnesotans will be left to live with the to “In Minnesota, the fishing industry alone supports 50,000 jobs and recreational fishing brings in $3 billion a year,” adds Minnesota BHA vice-chair Erik Jensen, “which would be in jeopardy when acid-mine drainage (AMD) leaches into creeks, streams, rivers and watersheds, eventually ending up in Lake Superior. “There’s no doubt in my mind, conservation is at a crossroads right now,” former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said. “It’s about jobs,” Salazar added. “We know hunting and fishing and outdoor recreation have a huge economic contribution to this country.” Minnesota’s legislators should follow the advice of Interior Secretary Salazar, and not jeopardize tens of thousands of sustainable long-term jobs for a couple hundred temporary sulfide mining jobs that will cost the rest of us millions, and possibly billions. These short-sighted mining proposals amount to gambling with the future of our Great Outdoors, and Minnesota’s nearly 2 million hunters and anglers—and the bait shops, resorts, fishing guides, and hotels that depend on their business—won’t stand for it. They understand that healthy public wildlife habitat, rivers, and streams are the foundation supporting the American pastimes of hunting and fishing. We request that the Commission proceed with an analysis and recommendation regarding these proposed sulfide mining operations as soon as practical. Thank you in advance for your efforts to protect northern Minnesota’s pristine waters and wildlands and wildlife, and for considering our “boots-on-the-ground” input regarding these sulfide mining proposals. Sulfide Mining Information/Resources
The Complete Article can be read here: We respectfully request that the International Joint Commission (IJC)  Polar Amplification is one climate element changing Minnesota Significant changes in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Ecosystem are underway do to climate change and invasive species. Lee Frehlich is the Director of the U of M, Center for Hardwood Ecology. He teaches courses in Forest Fire Ecology and Landscape Ecology on the St. Paul Campus. He is a senior member of the Conservation Biology, Natural Resources Science Management, Ecology, and Invasive Species Graduate Programs. This talk was given to the Ely Tuesday Group, May 28, 2013. Click Here to see Dr. Frelich’s full talk on the climate factors changing the face of North Eastern Minnesota. And, view his slide show here: What Dr. Frehlich is describing is what has been occurring for some time in our region and continues to accelerate. The Climate Change deniers may want to use a different phrase, one that describes what they have seen and what they can not deny and that would be Increasingly Frequent and Catastrophic Weather Events, One has to look no further than the 10-11″ in one day rain fall in Duluth last summer, when Ely received 4-5 inches in that same time period. Dr. Frehlich explains, from his research, some of the significant factors changing the face of the BWCAW and Northeastern Minnesota ecosystems.
The canoeing event and the meeting at Sustainable Ely can be viewed in this video: Canoeing the Kawishiwi River and Meeting at Sustainable Ely. Yes, the crackle and pop you hear in the canoeing portion of this video is rain hitting the camera and microphone, we were all joyously IN the rain during that portion of the day. It goes with canoeing. Sustainable Ely was packed with supporters, reporters, and one or two “mining at any cost devotees.” Jaime A. Pinkham, a member of the Board of American Rivers, gave an inspirational talk from his background as a Native American and member of that board. He said, “American Rivers recognizes the South Kawishiwi and the Boundary Waters as a national treasure approaching a major tipping point. Those of you who live here stand up for all of us across this country, who love wild, free flowing, pure waters. I thank you.” His complete talk can be read here, Jaime A. Pikham at Sustainable Ely. Also speaking at the gathering was Don Shelby, former news anchor on WCCO-TV in Minneapolis, MN. Don was much more blunt than philosophical about the threats we face with Copper Nickel Sulfide mining. But, he was encouraging us by pointing out that many others were fighting this battle with us. Don’s talk can also be seen and heard in the video link, Canoeing the Kawishiwi River and Meeting at Sustainable Ely.
By BRUCE C. SWITZER Mine permitting is neither rigorous nor scientific. Disagree? Name one mine that did not proceed because of review process rejection. Then name one open pit mine that does not have, or has not had, serious environmental problems. In reality, the permitting process is a sham. Consultants collect voluminous amounts of regional natural history data from which impressive verbiage, charts, graphs and maps are prepared. Then the mine plan is superimposed on the maps showing the biological resources of the region. The mining company concedes loss under the mine footprint but promises never to have an accident, that everything will work exactly as designed, that nature will cooperate, that management places environmental protection ahead of production, that permitted discharges will never be exceeded, that only unemployed local people will be hired and so on. The real risks will not be identified except to minimize them, and future mitigation of these will be qualified with phrases like “as practicable” and “as mutually agreed upon.” Then the project is approved. Since 2008 Pebble has annually stated that permit applications are forthcoming next year. Five years later, it’s still next year. Under the Alaska process Pebble had more than enough environmental information for permitting in 2009. Moreover, approval is foregone as far as the Department of Natural Resources and the administration are concerned. Contrary to Pebble and others, permitting in Alaska is easy — witness Rock Creek. In fact, the archconservative Frazer Institute every year points to Alaska as one of the most mining friendly places on Earth. Pebble should have been in production two years ago. So, with commodities at record highs, why did Pebble delay permitting? I think it rediscovered what Cominco knew: Pebble is economically marginal and physically challenging. That’s why Cominco sold it for peanuts and waived back-in rights. The reason for procrastination is simple. Pebble can’t devise a mine plan that’s profitable. Besides low-grade ore and water management issues, energy and workforce costs are very high. Compounding that, Anglo is in trouble: three CEOs in five years; looming nationalization and violence in its African mines; billions in cost overruns in Brazil; labor problems in Chile; a downgrade by S&P, and gold just took the worst two-day loss in 30 years. For mine opponents, this is not good news. If Pebble decides to go into operation it will shave capital and operating costs to the bone. It will also sooner or later lobby for a new town and a publicly funded power plant and transmission line. It also means that as commodity prices continue falling, as they will, the possibility of abandonment becomes real. The raw natural history data Pebble recently dumped told us nothing about risk, was meaningless and a waste of our time and its money. The timid EPA effort was similarly useless. And Keystone? Read its report about the OK Tedi mine disaster, and then read about the successful Australian civil action against the mine. The risks are innumerable. Earthquake. Severe weather. Tailings dams fail. Pipelines rupture. Acid mine drainage is not always contained. Cyanide will be used. Mercury will be released from gold roasting and contaminate downwind streams. There will be accidents like a truckload of cyanide into a creek. There will be spills at the port. Culverts will be blocked. Mining is messy. The benefits are singular. Jobs. Unlike Red Dog, Pebble is not contractually obligated to hire anyone. However many workers it might actually hire, does anyone believe Anglo will invest $6 billion to $7 billion and then hire inexperienced people? Workers, especially in the higher paying jobs, will come from out of state, management from outside the country. Twenty percent of Red Dog workers still come from out of state. For a few temporary jobs many things are put at great risk including 50 percent of the world’s sockeye salmon. Profits go to Vancouver and London. The copper goes to China. And the gold? According to Moody’s, 80 percent of gold mined is used for jewelry, mostly in India and China. Trinkets. The inevitable impacts and clean-up costs? Alaska gets those.
Bruce C. Switzer is the former head of environmental affairs for Cominco Ltd. and an environmental and engineering consultant with experience throughout the United States and Canada. He also served as a consultant for Alaskans for Clean Water, a group that opposed the Pebble project.
|
||||||
|
Copyright © 2025 Ely Minnesota - All Rights Reserved Powered by WordPress & Atahualpa |
||||||
(Published: Saturday 19 January 2013 in Nation of Change)
Summary:
On June 1, 2013 citizens concerned about the threats of Copper Sulfide Mining in our region met to canoe the Kawishiwi River, recently listed by American Rivers as one of the top 10 most endangered rivers in the U.S. Later in the day the canoeists and other concerned citizens met at the Sustainable Ely Headquarters on East Sheridan St. to discuss the effects of mining proposed for our region.
One of the best definitions I’ve ever heard for insanity is the inability to see similarities or the inability to see differences. The differences are obvious Alaska–Minnesota. The similarities striking. Can you see the similarities?