3 ms·

> Extractive mining is terrible for the environment and ecosystems. This depends on how and where it is done. For example, underground hard rock mining in a we

by cgh 10y ago

> Extractive mining is terrible for the environment and ecosystems. This depends on how and where it is done. For example, underground hard rock mining in a western country, eg Canada, is relatively benign. By far the biggest impact is caused by road building, and these are decommissioned after the mine's lifetime (which can be decades). Clearcut logging has much greater long-term repercussions. Mining is often maligned unfairly.

hueving 10y ago
>Clearcut logging has much greater long-term repercussions. Mining is often maligned unfairly. Definitely. The biggest damage to the Amazon rainforest is the development of farms. People advocating for more inefficient farming (e.g. 'organic', 'local') are doing significantly more damage to the environment than extractive mining. One important caveat, I'm only applying this to modern mining operations like those in US/Canada that follow pollution regs.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- ergothus 10y ago
  > I'm only applying this to modern mining operations like those in US/Canada that follow pollution regs. I am by no means a mining expert, but most of my exposure comes from east-coast US, where a lot of the mines (well...a lot of the mines you hear about - there could a great many very nice mines that I never heard of) have problems with acidic wash off, strip mining, etc. I know SOME of the issues I've listed are impacted by modern environment regs (at least until those get rolled back under the current lawmakers), but I don't know if they all are. Can you expand your point?
- caust1c 10y ago
  Organic, sure. Local? I disagree. I'm sure it's hard to measure, but I imagine the impact of transporting perishable foods long distances is pretty great. More than either of those things though, a heavy meat diet is much more inefficient than a vegetarian one. And if I'm not mistaken, a lot of the rainforest is becoming pastures for raising cattle.
  - evgen 10y ago
    > I'm sure it's hard to measure, but I imagine the impact of transporting perishable foods long distances is pretty great. You would be incorrect. The modern food distribution system is a high-volume, low-margin system that runs incredibly efficiently and any advance you could come up with that can squeeze even a tenth of a percent more energy efficiency into the process would make you incredibly wealthy. There are an order of magnitude more 'food miles' racked up when consumers drive to the local grocery store and return home that went into delivering that food to the store in the first place. In fact, local food is often _less_ efficient in terms of transportation energy costs because it lacks the economies of scale and the efficiencies that come from that in the regular food distribution system.
- senorjazz 10y ago
  Last I looked at a map, the Amazon wasn't in the US / Canada. Where I can assure you the mining does a lot more damage. Perhaps I just haven't found it yet, but I haven't read articles about organic / permaculture farms in the amazon poisoning river systems, poisoning the land, causing increased rates of cancer in the local populations, corrupting local politicians etc etc
  - terravion 10y ago
    You should have read about restrictive production systems poisoning the Amazon. It is European production restrictions that cause them to need cultivation in virgin rain forest to feed their population. USA on the other hand, is one of the largest agricultural exporters.
mythrwy 10y ago
But mining does produce nasty long term effects from time to time. Particularly acidic runoffs leaching through metals and into the water supply. Certainly not all mining operations though.
jat850 10y ago
Coming from a town that does underground, hard rock mining in western Canada, I would agree with this idea generally speaking, with an add-on, though: While the act of extraction is relatively benign, the act of processing and refining for use is anything but benign. Technology has changed but the town and surrounding area bear many, many, many visible (and in some cases, permanent) scars of the processing methods.

by cgh 10y ago

hueving 10y ago

>Clearcut logging has much greater long-term repercussions. Mining is often maligned unfairly. Definitely. The biggest damage to the Amazon rainforest is the development of farms. People advocating for more inefficient farming (e.g. 'organic', 'local') are doing significantly more damage to the environment than extractive mining. One important caveat, I'm only applying this to modern mining operations like those in US/Canada that follow pollution regs.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ergothus 10y ago
> I'm only applying this to modern mining operations like those in US/Canada that follow pollution regs. I am by no means a mining expert, but most of my exposure comes from east-coast US, where a lot of the mines (well...a lot of the mines you hear about - there could a great many very nice mines that I never heard of) have problems with acidic wash off, strip mining, etc. I know SOME of the issues I've listed are impacted by modern environment regs (at least until those get rolled back under the current lawmakers), but I don't know if they all are. Can you expand your point?
caust1c 10y ago
Organic, sure. Local? I disagree. I'm sure it's hard to measure, but I imagine the impact of transporting perishable foods long distances is pretty great. More than either of those things though, a heavy meat diet is much more inefficient than a vegetarian one. And if I'm not mistaken, a lot of the rainforest is becoming pastures for raising cattle.
- evgen 10y ago
  > I'm sure it's hard to measure, but I imagine the impact of transporting perishable foods long distances is pretty great. You would be incorrect. The modern food distribution system is a high-volume, low-margin system that runs incredibly efficiently and any advance you could come up with that can squeeze even a tenth of a percent more energy efficiency into the process would make you incredibly wealthy. There are an order of magnitude more 'food miles' racked up when consumers drive to the local grocery store and return home that went into delivering that food to the store in the first place. In fact, local food is often _less_ efficient in terms of transportation energy costs because it lacks the economies of scale and the efficiencies that come from that in the regular food distribution system.
senorjazz 10y ago
Last I looked at a map, the Amazon wasn't in the US / Canada. Where I can assure you the mining does a lot more damage. Perhaps I just haven't found it yet, but I haven't read articles about organic / permaculture farms in the amazon poisoning river systems, poisoning the land, causing increased rates of cancer in the local populations, corrupting local politicians etc etc
- terravion 10y ago
  You should have read about restrictive production systems poisoning the Amazon. It is European production restrictions that cause them to need cultivation in virgin rain forest to feed their population. USA on the other hand, is one of the largest agricultural exporters.

mythrwy 10y ago

But mining does produce nasty long term effects from time to time. Particularly acidic runoffs leaching through metals and into the water supply. Certainly not all mining operations though.

jat850 10y ago

Coming from a town that does underground, hard rock mining in western Canada, I would agree with this idea generally speaking, with an add-on, though: While the act of extraction is relatively benign, the act of processing and refining for use is anything but benign. Technology has changed but the town and surrounding area bear many, many, many visible (and in some cases, permanent) scars of the processing methods.