Coal Mining Pros And Cons

What some people may be worried about is the fact that this mine could destroy the wonderful peace of the Boundary Waters, for at least 20 years while PolyMet does their mining. The Boundary Waters are located in one of the 12 places on Earth where you can go 15 minutes without hearing human noise. You can ask pretty much anyone who has been to the Boundary Waters, and they will tell you just how peaceful and serene it is. I honestly think 20 years worth of jobs in that area cannot match up to the amazing environment that is already there.

Another reason this land should be protected is because it is one of the last natural living ecosystems. Alaska’s diverse ecosystem is one of the last places on the planet that has not effected by man. The Alaskan citizens follow a special way of life that has been going on for thousands of years. This way of life is used so that the people can coexist with nature. By mining this lad, that way of life would be completely

Some argue that, economically, the mining operation will be a net gain in money for the working class and that 75 to 80 percent of the jobs in northern Minnesota will be local [1]. However, for the project to fully go through, it requires “$200 million to $400 million in financial protections, and would overall be a financial liability for taxpayers” [2]. So despite how many jobs the project will create, it could result in a net loss of money for the people living in that area. Another problem that PolyMet thinks they have solved is the mass amount of pollution that will surface during the mining process. They say they will “use the most advanced mining procedures to extract the materials and prevent pollution during the mines 20 year life” [3]. Not only is this solution incredibly vague in its description, but many argue that “the pollution will be a problem long after the mine plays out and PolyMet is gone. The latest studies shows a possibility that the mine’s wastewater could flow north to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness” [3]. The argument that advanced procedures would be used against pollution falls short of satisfactory when their description is so ill-defined.

I disagree with the Polymet mine being authorized, and I want to tell you some reasons why. I believe that Polymet should not be approved because of previous track records, the unpredictable pollution, and the associated environmental damage.

deciding whether or not to increase my land’s intake of the resources collected from the mines. However, we

One of the many reasons why I believe that the mine should be relocated is because of the toxins that the mine would create. The toxins will penetrate through the ground and into the ground water, which will flow into the rivers and into Bristol Bay where the salmon

I am against the mine because it is an environmental danger and can destroy wildlife and business not just the boundary water.

Without metal we wouldn't have items such as buildings, cars, and machines. Metal is not a renewable resource, therefore we have to mine it where we find it, which is here in Minnesota. Metal also kills up to 99.9% of bacteria, which is important for hospitals. Some argue the mine will pollute the Boundary Waters, but according to Mr. Richardson the chances of pollution are extremely slim. The PolyMet company has a well developed plan,

For example, the core theme of the video revolves around the Benefit-Cost Analysis for the eventual fate of Coal Mountain. The analysis within the video shows a great position for a number of environmental and regulatory issues that could be seen within energy production and particularly within the coal industry. The costs to the environment with its landscape facing permanent disfiguration and inability to be used from policies such as mountaintop removal is one such factor. On top of this the video illustrates toxic waste issues that are associated with coal mining that is similar to the issues that decommissioned nuclear reactors face as they are deposited in temporary or unsuitable storages facilities further leading to mass environmental issues within water and air. This cost also includes the health and social issues that directly affect the citizens within coal communities. In the video, there are numerous examples of health issues such as cancer and asthmatic symptoms that are caused by the coal dust and pollution that envelops areas with coal mining. To the people who live in these areas what are the benefits, if

The PolyMet mining project should be immediately halted because it has a sustained life span of two decades, PolyMet is backed by a questionable company, and any contamination to the environment by the project will put the town and its people at a significant risk. Though it will create jobs the town’s people should not bank their success on this

I personally believe that the mine would be a good thing for Minnesota. The first reason I support the PolyMet mine is because the mine will create more of a cash flow in the area which will stir economic growth, and will

A company called PolyMet wants to build a copper-nickel mine in Northern Minnesota. It would infringe on Superior National Forest, where many species and geographical elements would be disrupted. PolyMet plans on mining for 20 years, and afterwards will do its best to repair and return the land to its original state. There are numerous debates and arguments over whether they should be allowed to mine on the land. The state owns the land, but the company owns its mineral rights. (BC Hydro, 2013, p. X) This causes conflict with many different groups and clashes between what is more important: economic opportunities or the effects on the population. My opinion is that the dangerous effects far outweigh the gain.

Firstly, economic valuation of ecosystem services can provide a logical reasoning to oppose unwarranted industrial development in Boreal zone. For instance, a study conducted by Canadian Boreal Initiative on Counting Canada’s Natural Capital estimated the total economic value of boreal ecosystem services (both market and non-market values) in the year 2002 as 750 billion CAD which would equate to 61 percent of the value of Canada’s GDP (as of 2002). Furthermore, on comparing the values, it was found that total non-market value of boreal ecosystem services is 13.8 times greater than the net market value of boreal natural capital extraction. The results imply that economic, ecological and social benefits of boreal forest systems in their pristine state, may be significantly greater than the market values derived from current industrial development—forestry, oil and gas, mining, and hydroelectric energy- combined.

Mountain Top removal mining (MTM), is decimating some of the last pristine environments left in our country, and it needs to stop. The devastation left in the wake of mans’ pursuit to satisfy his insatiable greed for energy, is nothing shy of a brutal crime scene. I feel, like many others, it has got to be stopped, and replaced with a more sensible, and appropriate, appetite for energy. The severe health, and environmental risks are abundant, yet we continue to mask this atrocity behind statistics, and well-orchestrated advertising. As noted by RP Siegel of Triple Pundit Magazine (April 2012), “Coal contains the most CO2 per BTU, the largest contributor to global warming.” Obviously, this should be enough to convince the average, sensible individual that there is no more tolerance for continued MTM practices. However, big mining companies continue to destroy delicate ecosystems, rural family lands, and cause irreversible damage to the geological infrastructure of the land.

Mountaintop removal causes permanent deforestation, which can harm the habitats of endangered animals and cause global warming and erosion. Local towns have to face the many dangers and consequences that affects their community like having their drinking water being poisoned by toxic chemicals and worrying about their home being destroyed by a boulder from the blastings caused by a mountaintop removal site. Many people only realize how cheap and more efficient it is compared to other coal mining strategies and think it's safe because miners don’t have to risk going underground to mine. Everyone needs to pay attention to how much this method of mining is affecting the climate, the environment, and other people’s safety and health and not only on how it is benefitting us economically because it is doing more damage environmentally than we think it