Norway to allow mining waste to be dumped in fjords | Hacker News Reader

Norway to allow mining waste to be dumped in fjords

theguardian.com

124 pointsatombender61 comments

> 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.

But 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

This 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.

What's laughable is that you think the average minimum wage working person has a positive net worth.

Heh, no, I don't and that doesn't change the assertion, if you think about it.

sarcasm doesn't translate well in text form.

Especially 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/doc...

> 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?

"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?

> (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-ting...

The 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.

I 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/10bcrk0Iyvn8eouBshKcNGxe35fc...

[2] https://www.tu.no/artikler/nederlag-for-miljobevegelsen-ting...

> I expected better from a judge at least.

The judge is paid by the government.

That'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.

Sad. 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.

The rest just export the practice outside their constituency's sight, an expensive luxury only affordable to developed nations

Indeed, 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_d...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafigura

[2] https://www.nrk.no/dokumentar/a-small-pawn-in-the-game-1.610...

Lots 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.

This is mining waste. It's rocks and dirt. You can't burn it.

Some you can, like coal

That's the product, not the waste

The earth doesn't care.

I was making the point that the parent commenter made an arbitrary distinction that wasn't even true.

There are other minerals, rather are side effects of mining the true target minerals, that are "burnable". They're used in fireworks to make them different colors.

https://mineralseducationcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/te...

Not just rocks and dirt. Mining waste is often toxic - heavy metals, acid, that sort of thing.

To 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.

What is the nature of the waste that will be thrown into the sea? Some kind of dirt, rocks or something else?

The substances needed to efficiently extract the materials of interest and separate them from the remaining ore can be a toxic.

Mine 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.

Can 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.

No. No one actually knows what wastes they are talking about.

Generally 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.

> the concern is not about adding rocks and dirt to the ocean.

That's not entirely true:

https://www.hi.no/en/hi/temasider/ocean-and-coast/mining-was...

> Dumping large quantities of sand and other material will have a big impact on fauna living at the bottom of the sea, and it may even completely wipe out existing ecosystems at the marine disposal site itself.

It is not hard to imagine fish and clam or whatever not doing very good getting rocks and mud dumped on them.

heavy metals that are bound in the Earth are freed during mining. There are many heavy metals that are directly toxic to most life a.k.a. poisonous. In addition, some heavy metals bioaccumulate in the food chain -- that is, when a fish eats the plant with the metals on it, the fish does not excrete the elements, over time, then a predator eats many fish. It is a serious and well-studied effect.

See the Norwegian Ocean Research Institute page on the topic:

https://www.hi.no/en/hi/temasider/ocean-and-coast/mining-was...

This 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.

This 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.

> “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?

Norway is part of EEA 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.

Yeah 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.

What 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 ?

So much for the Brisling Sardines industry. We hardly knew ye.

They probably want to expand mines of cobalt, nickel or some other EV material

Here’s an idea: put it back where you found it

How will this affect their parrot populations?

Politicians will be safe, thanks.

Unfortunately, the Norwegian Blue and its beautiful plumage has passed on.

Silly me - I thought it said pining but it said mining.

You jest, but Norway has "Ocean parrots" - the Atlantic Puffin:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_puffin

I really hope some event happens that will just wipe greedy bastards off world

disappointing.

Is 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

Rocks 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.

The 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.

Doesn’t this same thing happen with geological processes all over the world? Like when a volcano explodes or forms under water?

Yes, 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.

By that logic if there is a landslide happening at the coast, then we should marshal all available resources to stop it?

Landslides because the area is already highly weathered, so the relative risks of exposing bad things is much lower.

Even then, it can sometimes result in increased pollution of drinking water sources, in which case remediation needs to happen. Given that most landslides tend to happen in poorer countries, this isn’t always the case.

Sulfur, salt, mercury, arsenic, lead, are all rocks or in rocks

See my earlier comment:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38983228

Reply on news.ycombinator.com