Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
Evaluating the impacts on the environment isn't just red tape. If what you're proposing has the potential to affect fresh water and ecodiversity, that's not a good thing.
Look up what's happening in the Yukon right now with one of the biggest gold mines leaking cyanide into the drinking water. Coincidentally, said mine is on indigenous territory.
Not all environmentalists and indigenous groups are motivated by the same levels of greed and individualism that some of you are.
I'm not saying we shouldn't do things that are in the best interest of the country. But saying "#### it" when it comes to evaluating their impact isn't exactly a winning formula.
|
I would say I'm an environmentalist, but I hate to say that because I'm pro-development and progress. And also not crazy. Here's the issue with things like "cyanide in the drinking water," though—no one wants that outcome, and no one favors it. I'm assuming that you're talking about the Eagle Gold Mine? That mine had studies and impact assessments, and they still got the outcome no one wanted. They had a good partnership with the First Nations, and everything was running well until it wasn't. However, this is part of the issue with the consultations and assessments. You can still have bad outcomes just because you do all of those things.
Some of these standards, as they are, are subjective. Adequate consultation means different things to different people; even then, the idea is consultation. They're not asking for permission. They're telling you what they're doing and asking for some input, but how much of that input do they have to implement? And then you have this case like Eagle, where the relationship with First Nations was good, and the mine was the largest employer in the Yukon. Things soured when they had the failure, and I don't think that any amount of consultation could've prevented that.