7 ms·
Norway to allow mining waste to be dumped in fjords
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago> “It’s frightening that the judicial system shows so little understanding for environmental rights.” The plaintiffs claimed the verdict was in breach of the EU’s water framework directive, which they claimed in this case had been misinterpreted. If Norway is not in the EU, how would such directives apply to them?
- kzrdude 3y agoNorway is part of EEA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area As they say, they are party to most of the EU regulations, but don't have voting rights to change them.
- lou1306 3y agoYeah I'd say if Norwegian goods (ore, in this case) can freely enter the common market, then they should be bound to the same regulations as EU mining companies, or they would have an unfair advantage. We'll see how the EU reacts to the verdict.
- Towaway69 3y ago> The court ordered Friends of the Earth Norway and Nature and Youth, the two environmental organisations who brought the case, to pay legal costs of about £110,000. They could still take the case to the court of appeal, but say their resources are currently too diminished to continue the fight, though they are hoping for external support. We are all equal in the eyes of the law but only some can afford the law.
- wahnfrieden 3y agoBut every single person is capable of becoming the billionaire who is needed to fight these billionaire owners - that's how we define freedom edit: yes i know
- devnonymous 3y agoThis is laughably incorrect!! The net-worth of an average millionaire is closer to that of an average minimum wage worker than that of an average billionaire. People really don't grok generational weath and scale of money.
- CuriouslyC 3y agoWhat's laughable is that you think the average minimum wage working person has a positive net worth.
- devnonymous 3y agoHeh, no, I don't and that doesn't change the assertion, if you think about it.
- elviejo 3y agosarcasm doesn't translate well in text form.
- strangecasts 3y agoEspecially frustrating, since, as the article points out, Norway is party to the Aarhus convention which specifically requires that environmental cases should not be "prohibitively expensive" ("uoverkommelig dyre"), but the government excluded "side costs" such as lawyers' fees and expert witnesses from their estimated cost of a trial [1] [1] https://issuu.com/deninternasjonalejuristkommisjon-norge/docs/icj-rapport_print https://issuu.com/deninternasjonalejuristkommisjon-norge/doc...
- throwup238 3y ago> but the government excluded "side costs" such as lawyers' fees and expert witnesses from their estimated cost of a trial [1] What the hell is left? Sandwich orders during intermissions?
- afsag 3y ago"Friends of the Earth Norway" and "Nature and Youth" weren't personally affected by "mining waste being dumped in fjords" (if this is what really is happening). This is not a case of people who can't afford to have the law solve an injustice they are suffering. This is a case of people who wanted to spend some money on some principled stand... well, having principles costs money. Why should every Norwegian person pay for all of this?
- strangecasts 3y ago> (if this is what really is happening) TU explains the process [1] - the waste is mixed with seawater and a flocculating agent, but it is fundamentally still being dumped [1] https://www.tu.no/artikler/nederlag-for-miljobevegelsen-tingretten-tillater-dumping-av-gruveavfall-i-fordefjorden/542208 https://www.tu.no/artikler/nederlag-for-miljobevegelsen-ting...
- Morte42 3y agoThe government consulted the Norwegian Institute of Marine Research to run a study and they did and concluded it was a bad idea. The government and court in turn decided to ignore their consultants... I expected better from a judge at least.
- strangecasts 3y agoI found it strange that one of the stated reasons behind the verdict was that the court believed that Nature and Youth's alternate proposal [1] of storing the waste in underground depots would not be any more environmentally friendly than the alternative [2]: > "Viktigst er likevel at tingretten ikke finner mest sannsynlig at et driftsalternativ med lagring av avgangsmasser i dedikerte bergrom vil være miljømessig vesentlig bedre enn sjødeponi – alle miljøvirkninger tatt i betraktning." ("The most important fact is that the court does not find it likely that mining operations with storage of mining waste in dedicated subterranean depots would be a substantial improvement environmentally on storing it at sea - with all environmental consequences factored in.") [1] https://drive.google.com/file/d/10bcrk0Iyvn8eouBshKcNGxe35fcnSmUL/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/10bcrk0Iyvn8eouBshKcNGxe35fc... [2] https://www.tu.no/artikler/nederlag-for-miljobevegelsen-tingretten-tillater-dumping-av-gruveavfall-i-fordefjorden/542208 https://www.tu.no/artikler/nederlag-for-miljobevegelsen-ting...
- hulitu 3y ago> I expected better from a judge at least. The judge is paid by the government.
- gruez 3y agoThat's a sad state of affairs, but I'm not exactly sure what the alternative is supposed to be. Have the state handle this? They're the ones that the environmentalists are fighting against.
- gizajob 3y agoHow will this affect their parrot populations?
- readyplayernull 3y agoPoliticians will be safe, thanks.
- whyenot 3y agoUnfortunately, the Norwegian Blue and its beautiful plumage has passed on.
- gizajob 3y agoSilly me - I thought it said pining but it said mining.
- e12e 3y agoYou jest, but Norway has "Ocean parrots" - the Atlantic Puffin: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_puffin https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_puffin
- salt-thrower 3y agoSad. I had no idea “dump it in the water” was still a waste disposal practice in any developed nations. As per the article, only three countries on earth still grant licenses for this: Turkey, Papua New Guinea, and Norway.
- wahnfrieden 3y agoThe rest just export the practice outside their constituency's sight, an expensive luxury only affordable to developed nations
- zh3 3y agoIndeed, Trafigura [0] [1] are a shining example of how to do business (they dodged prosecution in Norway [2] for the same kind of waste they dumped in Africa). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Ivory_Coast_toxic_waste_dump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Ivory_Coast_toxic_waste_d... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafigura https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafigura [2] https://www.nrk.no/dokumentar/a-small-pawn-in-the-game-1.6104888 https://www.nrk.no/dokumentar/a-small-pawn-in-the-game-1.610...
- afsag 3y ago[dead]
- iancmceachern 3y agoLots of places still do this, and just burn it in open pits. Places you would need expect like Tahiti which is a French Overseas Entity, and even Hawaii. There aren't a lot of options in some places.
- fallingknife 3y agoThis is mining waste. It's rocks and dirt. You can't burn it.
- 3y ago
- AdrianB1 3y agoWhat is the nature of the waste that will be thrown into the sea? Some kind of dirt, rocks or something else?
- mogadsheu 3y agoThe substances needed to efficiently extract the materials of interest and separate them from the remaining ore can be a toxic.
- wahnfrieden 3y agoMine waste can contain up to three dozen dangerous chemicals, including arsenic, lead, mercury, and cyanide. These metals accumulate in fish and the people and wildlife that eat them. The pollution contaminates drinking water, decimates ecosystems and destroys fisheries.
- renewiltord 3y agoCan contain or do contain? Does anyone know what the actual things are here? Searching for it I get a lot of these generic statements but nothing specific about this waste.
- goodSteveramos 3y agoNo. No one actually knows what wastes they are talking about.
- Morte42 3y agoGenerally speaking anything that cant be extracted profitably will be left behind, depending on the circumstances metals like iron and copper will even end up being discarded in some places. What ends up in a mines slurry might vary batch by batch. Then theres the fact that some things are only dangerous when in gas or dust form or are benign unless in very high concentrations. Sometimes there's a reaction between multiple things in the slurry that leads to the danger. Other times the slurry might be benign until it reacts with something where it is dumped. Acidity and deoxygenation can cause bigger problems than even very toxic mining waste in some circumstances. Consider that for every kilogram of usable Lithium we extract we need 170KG of raw ore which requires us to remove 1600KG of material. With Platinum we are moving 670,000KG to get a kilo of the metal. The waste vastly outweighs the end product but the end product is where the money is so we know little about the waste aside from that it needs to be disposed of.
- Dig1t 3y agoIs mining waste just rocks and dirt? Or is it chemicals? tbh I don’t see a problem with dumping rocks and dirt in the ocean
- dragonwriter 3y agoRocks and dirt are aggregates of chemicals, and different kinds of rocks and dirt are made up of different chemicals. Mining waste includes the chemicals from the ground, and chemicals used in the mining process (and chemicals produced in the interaction between the two.) Obviously, with significantly less of whatever was being mined, since the whole goal is to extract that from the first by use of the second.
- Modified3019 3y agoThe problem is that the rocks exhumed in mining are chemicals, which then release all that 100% natural heavy metal and arsenic. The surface of the earth has the benefit of being weathered, with most of the nasty stuff leached away or covered up, but it can be surprising much stuff the water running through debris or mine holes can pick up. Especially since we tend to choose to make mines in areas where there’s especially a lot of nasty stuff. I can’t speak to the actual danger presented, but this is a pretty reasonable thing to throw up a fuss about.
- Dig1t 3y agoDoesn’t this same thing happen with geological processes all over the world? Like when a volcano explodes or forms under water?
- Modified3019 3y agoYes, volcanoes are well known for toxic things they release. It is debatable whether stopping a volcano is harder than stopping a mining company from ignoring it’s responsibilities.
- refurb 3y agoBy that logic if there is a landslide happening at the coast, then we should marshal all available resources to stop it?
- NullPrefix 3y agoThey probably want to expand mines of cobalt, nickel or some other EV material
- tappaseater 3y agoSo much for the Brisling Sardines industry. We hardly knew ye.
- exabrial 3y agoHere’s an idea: put it back where you found it
- lgkk 3y agoI really hope some event happens that will just wipe greedy bastards off world
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y agoTo be clear, this is a municipal court decision. It may still be appealed, and the plaintiffs are still deciding whether to do so. My hunch is they will. There's been a massive surge of support, new members, and cash for these organisations as a reaction to the verdict. In addition this is a complex case with little precedent, involving international treaties. Cases like that are typically destined for the supreme court, and possibly even international courts. So this probably isn't the final verdict.
- nektro 3y agodisappointing.
- racketcon2089 3y agoThis makes perfect sense when you consider that all of the people who will benefit from this will be dead or far away in very large estates by the time the negative externalities become undeniable from a liability perspective.
- bamboozled 3y agoWhat else could be done with this waste ? Honestly. I absolutely hate this plan but we’re all using cosmetics, taking artificial joins etc, so it sounds like something they will be mined. So what is an eco friendly alternative ?
- vinni2 3y agoThis along with oil greed is making Norway an evil oil country. A small country like this doesn’t need so much money to offer comfortable life to its citizens at the cost of environment.