The European Commission published its proposal for an EU raw materials initiative (Critical Raw Materials Act, CRMA) in March 2023. The proposal contains plans to open new mines in Europe and to utilize minerals found in the waste materials of closed mines. Permitting procedures for new mines are additionally proposed to be shortened, and mining companies will be required to report their environmental footprints to the EU. The European Parliament approved the Act last September. To scrutinize the proposed Act, along with its implications to mining practices and our planetary boundaries, we held a seminar series with invited experts during autumn 2023.

The seminar series revolved around crucial questions that are expected to fundamentally shape our future: do we have enough minerals in the world for a green transition? What will be the environmental impact of increasing the number of mines? Is circular economy the solution, or should we reduce our consumption?

Europe depends on imported critical raw materials for its green transition

The autumn seminars were kicked off with a thoroughly informative presentation by Henna Virkkunen, Member of The European Parliament (MEP), working on the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE). MEP Virkkunen laid out the facts: the EU is currently dependent on China when it comes to critical raw materials. While Europeans consume around 20% of the world’s critical raw materials, only approximately 2% are produced in Europe. The proposed Act supports the plan to shift this balance towards a more self-sufficient and supply-secure future. The audience raised concerns about environmental safety and environmental degradation due to the increasing volume of mining, especially considering the simplified permitting process for critical raw material projects.

Tackling biodiversity loss while increasing mining is a conundrum

Transitioning from a fossil fuel-based economy is argued to be dependent on mining more (critical) raw materials. But how to do it sustainably with minimal environmental damage, and how well are natural values considered in the short and long term when decisions are made regarding new mines? The Chairman of the Finnish Nature Panel Professor Janne Kotiaho, from the University of Jyväskylä, and environmental activist Riikka Karppinen from Sodankylä further reflected on these questions.

Professor Kotiaho’s message was grimly realistic: biodiversity loss continues at an accelerated rate in both Europe and Finland, and we are all responsible for it. He argued that at the current state of affairs, to truly halt biodiversity and nature loss, we need to implement restorative, nature-positive solutions instead of solutions based on the principle of no net loss. Karppinen expressed shock and discontent regarding the aims to facilitate the opening of new mines in currently protected areas in the name of a green transition. Karppinen has frequently spoken out against a global mining company that is planning on opening a new nickel mine near her home in an area protected by Finnish law and the EU Natura framework. During her presentation, she kindly shared her experiences regarding the residents’ struggles.

The critical raw materials are not renewable

The green transition’s burden on the natural environment may indeed be enormous. But do we have enough materials to fully shift to renewables, or are we about to reach the limits of the planet’s boundaries? Research Professor Simon Michaux, from the Finnish Geological Survey, provided astounding figures on the amounts of minerals actually required for the green transition. According to his estimates, at current energy use rates, we simply do not have enough minerals in the world to fully shift to renewables, and in fact, minerals are “the new oil”. Professor Michaux’s presentation left us thinking: if we do not have enough materials in the world to substitute fossil fuels with renewables, are our current consumption patterns simply doomed?

To better understand how the new Critical Raw Materials Act may look like in Finland, we listened to a presentation by Jarkko Vesa, Special Advisor at the Finnish Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment. He provided a thorough overview on how the implementation process began. As the Director of Sustainable Development of the mining company Terrafame, Veli-Matti Hilla further underscored: it is clear that mining has received a substantial boost from the EU institutes.

A mix of solutions is needed for a sustainable future

Director Lasse Miettinen from Sitra gave the closing presentation to our seminar series, and it ended on a rather optimistic note. He argued – in line with most of our presenters, along with our own concerns – that we are currently exceeding the limits of our planet. To imagine a more sustainable future, we need to learn to think about ecosystems in a more nuanced and interconnected way. The climate crisis, biodiversity loss, and natural resource depletion cannot be solved separately. Both biotic and abiotic resources are part of nature and managing them should be reframed accordingly. Director Miettinen argued that transitioning to a circular economy is a crucial part and precondition of the solution to our multiple crises. To reduce supply risks and ensure positive environmental outcomes, we need circular solutions, diversified supplies, and more local production beside aiming for sustainable lifestyles and biodiversity offsets. He encouraged us to think that building a more sustainable future is indeed possible.

Professor of Practice in Environmental Responsibility and Chair of the seminar series, Hannele Pokka further noted that while observing how mining in Finland has developed over the years, ordinary people tend to support mining but under no circumstances do they want a mine near their homes. Finland is an old mining country, and minerals have been extracted from the land for hundreds of years. Public opinion in Finland has taken a more critical stance on mining in recent years, which has been reinforced by the Talvivaara mine environmental disaster. It has been difficult for new mining projects to gain social acceptance, and several mining projects, especially in Northern Finland are pending. If mining companies want to seek approval for their projects, mining should be reformed to incorporate a more comprehensive notion of sustainability, including new approaches and technological solutions in water management.

The seminar series, above all, taught us that what used to be possible in mining is not so any longer, and we need drastic changes to remain within our planetary boundaries.

Seminar recordings and further reading materials are available via the links embedded in the text.

Source: Mirage News

The post Probing EU Mineral Policy: Can Mining Become Sustainable? appeared first on Policy Print.

Conservationists say they have high hopes a proposed shift in B.C. policy could result in revolutionary change for forest protection.

The province is currently conducting consultations on its draft Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health Framework, which it describes as “a new and strategic direction for a more holistic approach” to stewarding land and water resources for future generations.

The policy builds on a three-way deal between the province, federal government and the Indigenous-led First Nations Leadership Council announced earlier this month to protect 30 per cent of B.C. lands and waters by 2030.

“Despite a very boring name, it may actually be one of the most consequential conservation policies in Canadian histories if it lands correctly,” Ken Wu, executive director of the endangered ecosystem alliance, said of the proposed framework.

“The areas that are typically neglected or minimized in the protected area system, the big trees, may actually end up getting protected as a result of this policy.”

Wu argues the province’s forest policies have traditionally put the highest value on the economic value of timber, with areas selected for conservation chosen from land with less productive growth.

That’s typically left the massive trees most people think of when they hear the term “old-growth” out of the equation, he said, something that could change under a more holistic approach that targets all types of ecosystems for conservation.

“This policy may ensure we get those areas finally saved and the industry can log second growth, and they can do it sustainably,” he said. “There are other options than logging the last of the forest giants.”

The framework would also create a provincial Office of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health tasked with improving data collection on ecosystem health and “championing policies and approaches and ensuring accountability” on biodiversity in forestry policy.

Several other leading conservation groups in the province have also praised the proposed framework, but they aren’t the only ones at the table.

The industry group B.C. Council of Forest Industries told Global News Thursday that it was still reviewing the plan.

“Its potential direct impacts on our sector are not clear yet, and will depend on what the final policy looks like,” the council said in a statement.

Wu said First Nations will also play a critical role, as the stewards empowered to lead conservation initiatives on their territories.

The province is currently consulting with First Nations, multiple natural resource sectors and industry and local governments over the policy.

It is also accepting feedback from the public by email until Jan. 15, 2024.

Wu said he expects the policy to be finalized by next spring.

Source : Global News

The post Draft Policy Could Be a Game-Changer for B.C. Old-Growth Protection, Conservationist Says appeared first on Policy Print.

Gov. Maura Healey has unveiled what she’s touting as two “groundbreaking” new policies aimed at protecting the Massachusetts coastline.

The governor spoke about the policies during the keynote speech to a panel on ocean conservation at the Clinton Global Initiative’s meeting in New York City on Monday. She announced that, later this week, she’ll sign an executive order directing the state to create new biodiversity conservation goals for 2030, 2040 and 2050, as well as strategies for meeting them. Those targets, which will include coastal and marine habitats, will be “the strongest in the nation,” Healey vowed.

In addition, Healey said, she’ll sign another executive order that immediately bans the purchase of single-use water bottles by state agencies, a step she described as unprecedented among U.S. states.

“In our coastal state, we know climate change is our biggest threat,” Healey said. “We also believe that taking action is our greatest opportunity — to secure a safe, prosperous and sustainable future.”

Karissa Hand, a spokeswoman for the governor, said the state annually purchased about 100,000 single-use plastic water bottles. She added that while the ban will apply to state agencies including the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, it won’t affect individual school districts, which are controlled by municipalities.

Healey has positioned herself as a national climate leader since taking office in January, and she used her remarks to review previous steps she’s taken, including creating the nation’s first cabinet-level climate chief position — a role filled by former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Melissa Hoffer — and moving to fill 25% of the state’s annual electricity needs via wind energy.

Local environmental activists were especially bullish on Healey’s announcement of new biodiversity targets Monday. 

Chris Powicki, who leads the Sierra Club of Massachusetts’ Cape Cod and Islands group, said the biodiversity push has “transformative potential.”

“That’s the most exciting part of today’s announcement,” Powicki said.”The idea that we can start to focus state policies and programs and investments and industries on protecting ecosystems is a really novel one, and one that has been a long time coming. And if the government actually succeeds in adopting it, I think there’s potential for really significant change.”

David O’Neill, the president of Mass Audubon, said he and his colleagues were “thrilled” by Monday’s announcement.

“The commitments that they are making, we hope. are hard and fast targets to protect land around our biodiversity hot spots around the commonwealth,” O’Neill said. “We’d love to see a commitment of resources to be able to protect more land, and to restore and manage land.”

Amy Boyd Rabin, the vice president of policy at the Environmental League of Massachusetts, said the push for new biodiversity targets will prove to be the more significant initiative. But she also praised the immediacy of the ban on water bottle procurement, noting that single-use plastics create new demand for fossil fuels, spread forever chemicals, and clog waterways.

Several Massachusetts municipalities have implemented similar bans, but prohibitions in some communities have been repealed after sharp debate.

“Doing things that can have immediate impact has a lot of significance, because the climate crisis and our ocean pollution crisis are not getting better with each passing day,” Boyd Rabin said.

Source : WGBH

The post Healey Unveils ‘Groundbreaking’ Policies on Biodiversity and Single-Use Plastic appeared first on Policy Print.

Listening to some politicos on the campaign trail, it’s easy to assume that most Americans are against protecting the environment and that government should simply let the market regulate itself. For decades the Gallup poll has posed a question about the false trade-off between economic growth and environmental protection.

Even though the question is flawed, it indicates that, with few exceptions, the public has prioritized environmental quality over growing the economy for decades. From 1985 to 2000, about 60-70% favored environmental protection and 30% favored economic growth. From 2011 to 2013, a small majority favored economic development, but since 2016, a majority has again favored environmental protection.

In the most recent poll in early 2023, 52% favored protecting the environment to 42% who favored economic growth. In the same poll, about 56% of the public responded that the government was doing too little to protect the environment and 18% thought it was doing too much. Gallup also reported that 60% of Americans believed that global warming has already begun compared to 12% who think it will never happen.

Similarly, a recent high-quality survey by the Pew Research Center found in a “survey of 10,329 U.S. adults conducted May 30 to June 4, 2023…[that] 74% of Americans say they support the country’s participation in international efforts to reduce the effects of climate change…67% of U.S. adults prioritize the development of alternative energy sources such as wind, solar and hydrogen power over increasing the production of fossil fuel energy sources.”

“By sizable margins, Americans support a number of specific policy proposals aimed at reducing the effects of climate change through targeting greenhouse gas emissions and carbon in the atmosphere…Overwhelming majorities support planting about a trillion trees around the world to absorb carbon emissions (89%) and requiring oil and gas companies to seal methane gas leaks from oil wells (85%)…76% favor providing a tax credit to businesses that develop carbon capture technologies and 70% support taxing corporations based on their carbon emissions…61% favor requiring power plants to eliminate all carbon emissions by the year 2040.”

While the public favored taking steps to develop renewable energy, they opposed efforts to ban all fossil fuels and the internal combustion engine. The survey also found that Republicans tended to be more positive about fossil fuels, while Democrats favored renewable energy. Young people are more concerned about the environment than older people, and their concern is growing.

According to the March 2023 Harvard Youth Poll of over 2,000 18–29-year-olds, conducted by the Kennedy School of Government’s Institute of Politics, 50% of respondents believed that “government should do more to curb climate change, even at the expense of economic growth.” This 50% result should be compared to the 29% who favored enhanced climate policy back in 2013.

Americans understand the dangers of environmental pollution but are deeply suspicious of public policies that compel changes in the behavior of the broad public. My view of this is that regulatory rules and standards are required, but the methods of achieving those standards should focus on positive incentives rather than negative disincentives.

People should be motivated to protect the environment, not forced to do so. The strategy of shaming individuals or institutions for degrading the environment is not as effective as policies that reward actions that protect the environment. There is also a tendency of many environmental advocates to term environmental damage an “existential threat” when, for some people, there are more immediate threats to existence, such as homelessness, hunger, drug addiction, or threats of gang violence.

A sense of perspective is needed. Is global warming more of a danger than nuclear terror? Humankind faces many dangers, and the public faces competing demands for their attention and support.

Despite majority support for environmental protection, Republican support for the environment trends lower than the support of Democrats. Coupled with unrepresentative elements of our political system like gerrymandering, the electoral college, and the U.S. Senate and its filibuster rule, overwhelming public opinion majorities are often required to impact public policy.

Anti-environmental views, while often cloaked in the language of freedom and the glory of the market, are typically reflections of short-term economic interests flexing their political muscle. They are also common in Republican primary campaigns in deep red states where disinformation about environmental policy or renewable energy technology and economics is far too common.

And yet the widespread concern in America’s culture for the wellness and health of family and friends leads to a focus on fitness and diet and directly to demands for clean water, air, and food free of toxics. The goal is not a pristine environment, but one that enables people to remain healthy. Some people who oppose environmental protection see it as a luxury item or as peripheral to the goal of producing and accumulating wealth.

Early efforts at environmental protection required that we retrofit cars with catalytic converters or place stack scrubbers on power plants. This reduced pollution but added cost. In the 1970s, the connection of air pollution to public health was not yet understood, and most saw the environment as an aesthetic issue.

However, the connection of air pollution to asthma and lung cancer and toxic waste to cancer and other diseases transformed the environment from an aesthetic issue to an issue of public health. Technological innovations such as solar power, batteries, and electric vehicles enabled lower pollution to also become integral to product design, resulting in less pollution, better products, and lower rather than higher costs.

Many, although not all, understand the connection of environmental protection to economic growth. The trade-off question that Gallup has used for decades is a false trade-off. Pollution is a form of waste, and the impact of pollution is far from cost-free. Pollution is a drag on economic development, and a clean environment facilitates economic development.

Pollution increases costs due to the economic impact of extreme weather events, the cost of health care, losses of production, elimination of valuable ecological services and a wide variety of additional costly impacts. The engineering field of industrial ecology demonstrates the cost advantages of closed-system production.

Careful consideration of environmental risk is one element of a sound analysis of financial risk. Economic development sometimes ignores environmental impact because polluters assume that someone else will pay the cost of clean-up. However, in a world of instant and inexpensive communication and widespread ease of observation, it has become relatively easy to connect environmental pollution to environmental impact and cost.

It is true that some corporations, such as the owners of petrochemical plants in Louisiana’s Cancer Alley, use political influence to dodge responsibility for the costs of environmental clean-up and impact. I believe with exposure, companies are increasingly required to pay the costs of impact. More importantly, investors are starting to ask questions about the risk of incurring costs due to environmental impact. This, too, indicates that the trade-off between environmental protection and economic growth is losing credibility in financial markets.

Support for environmental protection is based on the health and economic costs of environmental pollution. The awareness of these costs has grown over the past several decades. The financial benefits of pollution have proven to be short-term or even nonexistent. There is a part of our culture which insists that pollution must simply be tolerated for the economic benefits it brings.

Indoor air pollution is a case in point. When former NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg proposed banning smoking from restaurants and bars, the owners of those establishments complained bitterly that he would put them out of business. Imagine their surprise when they found that business generally improved after the smoking ban. It turned out that a lot of people didn’t enjoy the smoke in some establishments and either stayed home or took their business to places that banned smoking. The economic value of clean air was as clear as the air itself.

Despite the widespread support for environmental protection, many environmental initiatives are opposed politically. Some of this is due to our polarized political process and the ideological extremes it embodies. Some opposition results from the framing of issues by environmentalists and their tendency to define environmental policy debates as a battle between good and evil.

To develop a winning strategy promoting environmental protection, we should look at our many success stories and seek to imitate them. Our air and water are cleaner today than they were when EPA was first empowered to set national environmental standards in the early 1970s. We accepted gradual improvement, provided federal subsidies, and focused on developing new technologies to improve environmental quality. Policy was based on widely shared values.

We built our air pollution policy on a simple fact that I often repeat: Everyone likes to breathe—we sort of get used to it.

Source : PHYS

The post Building Environmental Policy on America’s Support for a Clean Environment appeared first on Policy Print.

Environmental and conservation groups say they’re optimistic about changes to the board that oversees natural resources policy in Wisconsin after two members recently resigned, including its controversial former chair.

Bill Bruins and former chair Fred Prehn resigned from the Wisconsin Natural Resources Board at the end of last month, ending its conservative majority and allowing Gov. Tony Evers’ appointees to sit on the board.

Former Republican Gov. Scott Walker appointed both to six-year terms, but Prehn ignited controversy after refusing to step down when his term ended in May 2021. While Prehn claimed the move wasn’t political, texts showed he sought advice from conservative lobbyists, lawmakers, Walker and former Republican candidate for governor Rebecca Kleefisch about his decision to remain.

Scott Laeser, water program director for Clean Wisconsin, said the environmental group believes the board’s new makeup will make a difference in addressing policy issues like regulations for PFAS and nitrates in groundwater.

“We watched things like PFAS groundwater standards get rejected by the old board just about a year ago,” Laeser said. “We’re optimistic that the DNR will be able to revisit and redouble efforts to move forward sensible public health protections as a consequence of the turnover on the board.”

While those standards failed to pass in February, the board unanimously approved restarting the process to craft regulations for the harmful forever chemicals last month.

PFAS regulations have been among the most prominent debates before the policy-setting board for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, which have been influenced by special interests. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel previously reported that emails showed Prehn’s suggested changes to regulating PFAS in firefighting foam had originally been drafted by the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce. The state’s business lobby and industry groups have voiced concerns that PFAS regulations are too costly and questioned the science behind the state’s recommended groundwater standards.

Scott Manley, the group’s executive vice president of government relations, declined to comment on Evers’ appointees and the board’s shifting makeup. 

“As always, our expectation for the Natural Resources Board is that they follow the law, and pursue regulations that are fair, cost-effective, transparent, achievable, and no more stringent than necessary to meet the environmental goals established by the Legislature,” Manley said.

Evers appointed Milwaukee resident Sharon Adams and Drummond school teacher Sandy Naas to the board in April 2021. While Adams serves on the board, Prehn had blocked Naas from taking a seat until his resignation. The governor’s appointees are serving on the board while they await confirmation from the Republican-controlled Senate. The two are among around 180 people that have yet to be rejected or confirmed. 

Republican Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel this week that lawmakers will vote on Evers’ nominations. Even so, he told the paper some appointments to the DNR board were a “little more political” for lawmakers, warranting a closer look. LeMahieu’s office declined WPR’s request for comment Thursday. 

Tony Wilkin-Gibart, executive director of environmental firm Midwest Environmental Advocates, said Adams has worked for many years on water justice issues while Naas has more than 30 years of conservation experience. He said the board’s politicization has created a backlog of updates to environmental regulations not only for PFAS, but around 20 other substances that pose hazards to human health.

“The Senate certainly should respect the fact that the voters have spoken that they want action on climate, that they are concerned about clean water, and those should be the criteria by which they evaluate Natural Resources Board Member appointees,” Wilkin-Gibart said.

This week, Evers also appointed Viroqua farmer Paul Buhr to fill the seat left open by Bruins. Wisconsin Farmers Union President Darin Von Ruden, an organic dairy farmer, said Buhr embodies ideals that will help guide policies to protect the environment and residents. Von Ruden said he’d like to see the board take a renewed look at regulations scrapped by the DNR in 2021 that would have restricted manure spreading in areas sensitive to groundwater pollution from nitrates, the state’s most widespread contaminant.

“I think they need to bring it back because once the groundwater is contaminated, it’s hard to clean it up,” Von Ruden said.

Fred Clark, executive director of conservation group Wisconsin’s Green Fire, said he hopes the board’s new makeup will yield progress on those water quality regulations along with respect for science, citizens, and DNR staff that he feels has been too often missing.

“Seeing outside attorneys and lobbyists carry more weight than the department’s own staff is just not a good look,” Clark said.

Regardless of its makeup, any policies advanced by the board are subject to approval by the Legislature and Evers. But Clark said the board has authority to sign off on items like the state’s wolf management plan without legislative approval. Management of the state’s wolf population is among issues that generated fierce debate in 2021 between Evers’ DNR, Prehn and other conservative board members.

Despite that, advocates for conserving fish and wildlife are optimistic the board will strike a balance among those with differing views on resource management, including Mark LaBarbera, executive director of the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation. He highlighted areas of common ground in the last year, including the unanimous approval of a conservation easement for the Pelican River Forest.

“I believe that people will come in with an open mind and listen to the stakeholders and listen to constituents in order to make informed decisions for the good of all,” LaBarbera said.

Source : WPR

The post Environmental, conservation groups optimistic shifting makeup of DNR board will yield policy changes appeared first on Policy Print.