It's the dreaded mining issue moving into our backyard again. Several times since moving to NM people have said to me with pride, "my kids in the mining school in Socorro," or people when boasting about what's good about New Mexico list the school as though it were something to be proud of. It's not. It sucks. Mining sucks. No one should be proud unless they're working to shut one down. Social pressure has worked since time began, my reply to these comments is, "shame on you."
A copper mine is headed into a community just a few miles south of town. It will destroy the place. it will wreck water, ruin land people and other forms of life will get sick and suffer. It will suck. No one who has anything to do with it should feel proud unless they're fighting to shut it down.
Public comments must be sent before March 9th to be considered: BLM_NM_LCDO_Comments@blm.gov or fax to: 703 760-4899
6 comments:
So sorry to hear this. Email, message and call every rep you have, at local, state and federal level. Even the ones that support this destruction. Often they have FB pages. Let them hear you!
This makes me wonder: what is an efficient, clean and environmentally-conscious way to get the mineral resources we need? Is there (could there be) an alternative natural resource movement?
I might think differently if it was in my own back yard although i do consider TOC to be pretty close.
But all in all I don't think there is anything inherently bad or evil in the concept of mining. Now there certainly is in the greedy corporations who often run said mines! Who waste and polite and usually run away and leave the mess behind. Are evil.
I think if nothing else a school like NMT could work at finding less damaging ways to mine and refine what is needed. And on how the best restoration and mineral/metal leeching reduction/stopping could work.
We also need to start mining and refining our own landfills.
I'm not unsympathetic; but,well ...,
Until Mikey stops using copper in his electronics (and the rest of us do so as well), we'll still need copper mines. Recycling helps some, but our demand is immense. NIMBY-ism is one of the reasons so much of our manufacturing has been outsourced (we transfer our pollution, along with the jobs).
And Nimby-ism generally represents a form of greed and hypocrisy: I want the product, but it should be at someone else's expense. Fundamentally no different than the mine owner/operator's greed and hypocrisy.
Move to a mining region, you shouldn't be so shocked and surprised when mining activities are proposed.
I agree with Peliens comment. We need minerals, they must be mined in the few places they are accessible and we would be better advised to use our efforts to demand "efficient, clean and environmentally-conscious" ways to get them.
How to fight?
Unless there is truly a fundamental flaw (locating a nuclear reactor directly on an active fault, for example), the best way to rationally fight these things is with a cost-benefit analysis approach. Yes, mines bring jobs and money (and tax revenues); but that is balanced by all the costs the citizens have to bear -- health impacts, deterioration of view, air quality, roadways, water quality, noise and on and on. Ah, the trick is how you value these intangibles -- for individuals and for the commons -- in a persuasive way. Creativity is required but much ingenuity has occurred in the 35 years since I used my economics background to fight my first zoning or permitting battle.
Also, contrast short-term benefits (say, 500 jobs to build a pipeline, but only for 6 months, and only, say, 25 long-term jobs to maintain and operate it, which may not even all be local; and they won't be purchasing needed equipment, materials and supplies locally) vs. the long-term, generally cumulative, intangible costs. Decision-makers always over-value short-term benefits (and extrapolate them into the future) and under-value long-term costs (and discount them for uncertainty). Our society is notoriously "short-sighted".
The cost analysis favorable to mining can be negatively skewed by the number of environmental and other restrictions imposed on the project; thus, it may become uneconomic to develop the mine. This is also true to the extent that external costs can be transferred back to the mine rather than borne by the commons. And, of course, delaying tactics by opponents are also a cost burden for the mine.
Until the decision-makers (generally politicians) are made to feel genuinely threatened with loss of power and perks (like losing the next election), they have historically demonstrated over and over that they'll go where the money is and, not surprisingly, the standard argument in favor of a project is jobs and prosperity (look how the spaceport was promoted). And what is the drumbeat in this country right now: jobs, jobs, jobs. Damn the environmental regulations, full speed ahead. You may have your work cut out for you.
I agree with "Patricio" It's one thing to be against mining--but are you willing to give up the things mining provides? Copper for electronics? If recycling would solve the problem demand and price wouldn't be rising.
I appreciate the comments, they're more sophisticated than my hot headed reactionary post. Like most things it is a complex issue. I am all for stopping the behaviors that produce death. Even if we loose the copper, the toys, the technology. At some point, as a society, we must put life first. Perhaps there is a way to mine that does not leave life diminished. But till we find that way I'd like to see mining paused.
Post a Comment