Decision disappoints
The Chronicle-Herald
Voice of the people
Published: 2008-02-09
As longtime yearly visitors to Nova Scotia, my family and I have been wildly applauding the designation of the Ship Harbour Long Lake area as protected land. This was such an enlightened, responsible decision that we have been singing the praises of the Nova Scotia government to all who will listen.
We now find ourselves deeply disappointed in this same government’s giving permission for open-pit mining right beside the parkland. There is no shortage of research on the long-term environmental devastation that open-pit mining brings to an area. Please say it isn’t so.
Dr. Judy E. Turner, Toronto
Mining as a toxic issue
RALPH SURETTE
Chronicle-Herald
Published: 2008-02-16
THERE WAS an editorial in the New York Times on Thursday describing a fight over uranium exploration permits just outside Grand Canyon National Park. The permits were granted with little public notice and no formal environmental review, provoking widespread outrage. It was done under an 1872 law, of which, said the Times, the "worst feature by far is that it elevates mining over all other uses of the land."
This introduces us briskly to Nova Scotia, where we don’t even need antique laws to elevate mining above all other uses of the land. We have an antique political culture to do that.
A case in point is the newly authorized Moose River gold mine, promising a five- to seven-year burst of 100-plus jobs, then leaving a toxic hole in the ground. To read the government’s announcement, full of praise for the controls and sensitivities of modern gold mining, you’d think this was actually a joyful day for the environment.
But the key here is that the company was allowed to hire a consultant to do its own environmental assessment. The kid glove approach was noted by none other than the Bilcon company, which had its Digby Neck gravel quarry turned down after being raked over the coals by a stiff formal review. That will be part of its argument before the secret panels of NAFTA, where it will be complaining of unfair treatment and suing for compensation. Its question is a logical one: If this gold mine can get away with it, why can’t I?
According to the Eastern Shore Forest Watch Association, which was instrumental in getting the province to protect the Ship Harbour-Long Lake wilderness area – the top lake (Scraggy Lake) of which borders the mining project – what the gold mine is getting away with is this: The company’s assessment was "limited to the mine site, completely ignoring the risk of environmental consequences downstream if the mine effluent, carrying cyanide, arsenic and even mercury, accidentally spills into Scraggy Lake," potentially contaminating a 30-kilometre watershed.
Further, "the company plans to pump a huge quantity of water from Square Lake, on Crown land, pollute this water with cyanide in the gold extraction process, then dump the partly cleansed effluent into Scraggy Lake." Along with a pit "deeper than Bedford Basin" and a "rubble mountain over 35 hectares, the height of a 15-storey building," there will be a permanent toxic legacy which will require virtually "perpetual care."
A rather excited gold prospector was quoted as saying that this project will "raise the profile" of 60 other gold-bearing areas in the province. If one can be slipped in without proper review, why not 60?
Plus, there’s the business of a new quarry approved at Upper Granville over local protests. It’s 3.9 hectares, just under the limit to trigger an environmental review. Bilcon, had it understood us better, could have had the entire North Mountain range to itself had it only cut it up 3.9 hectares at a time. Plus, there’s strip mining for coal in Cape Breton and a controversial new gypsum project behind Windsor, and renewed pressure to lift the moratorium on uranium mining.
The point is this: We’re a small province, with no hinterland to speak of, and watersheds everywhere flowing to the sea, already compromised by clearcutting and other activities. Mining can’t be a wild west cowboy show. The review panel on the Digby Neck quarry proposed that all quarry projects on the North Mountain be put on hold until a proper policy is developed, and proposed that a coastal zone policy be created to guide large coastal developments. Others want us to tally our limited and partly polluted groundwater resources in this context. And then there’s the demand that the province simply respect its own environmental assessment guidelines. Why is this too much to ask – especially in view of the MacDonald government’s incessant bragging about its environmental prowess?
The answer is no doubt the need to be perceived to be "open for business" – having been forced to kill the Digby Neck quarry, the idea is to give the mining industry something to take home.
Indeed, there’s an argument going around that I have trouble with – the notion that we’re getting a reputation for saying "no" to everything. It started with opposition to obstructing view planes in downtown Halifax, then the nixing of the Commonwealth Games, then the Digby Neck quarry, and no doubt I’ll be accused of joining in by asking for a proper regulation of mining projects. There’s a kind of blackmail in this. We’re being asked to say "yes" just for form’s sake, no matter how problematic the project.
But it’s peculiar how being "open for business" is a message that is crafted overwhelmingly for the mining sector. Do people who invest in ports, manufacturing, forestry, retail or whatever need convincing that we’re open for business, considering the grants and other incentives we’ve lavished on them for decades? Being "open for business," then, means primarily this: Come and take us. We’re easy.
(
rsurette@herald.ca)
Ralph Surette is a veteran freelance journalist living in Yarmouth County.