2004-08-26 - 4:32 p.m.
hmmm... i guess what i mean to say is that even if the company hadn't (supposedly) strongarmed the people into the rights to their land and roads i wouldn't want this "development".
basically it all boils down to the power company wanting a cheaper (closer) source of coal for their plants. the coal in this region in particular is supposed to be much lower in sulfur and ash than the coal tested in other parts of the island.
the people in this community have been hard hit by the closure of the mines underground. this i understand all too well. the fact of the matter is that a huge gaping hole in the hub of 5 or 6 picturesque coastal communities is not the answer to economic renewal (as it would only make the big wigs in the comany fat and wealthy and hire about 20 men as miners. there are only about 20 men employed in another strip mine owned by the same company interested in this area.)
nor is it the answer to a sustainable energy source. the seam is only so big. the funding spent on purchasing this coal is only a short term fix to a greater problem. it should be channelled in ways which fund renewable energy sources to be implemented faster.
nor is it the answer to the economic woes of the few who will benefit from royalties by use of their land. if they stripped the land themselves, sold the lumber, topsoil, boulders, peat.. they'd make more money than they stand to gain by the pittance they'll make from a few extracted tonnes of coal. and what's more they'd have strict control over what occurred and be able to remediate properly.
nor can you say that it won't have any effect at all on the surrounding environment, even if an environmental assessment gives it the okay. groundwater is affected every time a mine is developed. heavy metals are no longer held hostage and the techniques employed to prohibit their escape are oftentimes futile when pitted against natural processes.
this area is like a natural truck stop for migratory birds. last year a berm broke a few km from one of the brooks that leads into the saltmarsh ecosystem where many important and fragile species of migratory birds stopover. the siltation in the brook was visually displeasing and took days to dissipate. heavy silt loads can affect ecosystems drastically by destroying food sources for higher order organisms by smothering developing eggs and hindering plant growth.
to be it boils down to the simple fact that YOU CAN NEVER ONLY DO ONE THING. there are still too many things that are beyond our control. we're not smarter than natural processes. i don't trust a company trying to make a buck to remediate properly and care about what the community thinks about their project. if they did care at all they wouldn't even be suggesting it. i don't trust a government who is in a conflict of interest because it has mineral rights to the ground, needs a source of energy for its people, but also deems who needs to undertake an environmental assessment and for what project and to what extent.
if you're looking for facts, good luck. the company doesn't have a website. they don't exactly want the public to know what they're up to. you cannot find an ngo site that is not emotionally fueled. the government pages describing mining efforts, mineral exploration, migratory birds and shiny happy retirees are linked to one another but only through the main government website. if you want to write to the dnr and ask what sorts of sensitive species live in their area they'll point you to a website made for school children and tell you that if you want anything more detailed you'll have to hire a consulting company to conduct a costly study. the process is flawed. the potential impacts are immeasurable.
you want a fact? here's a fact: i'll be flattened like a pancake by heavy equipment before i will let something like this happen.
|
