Saturday, 7 November 2015

What motivates nimbyism towards the mining industry?

There is a lot of opposition to building new housing:
Futures Forum: What motivates nimbyism? Who benefits from land-use classification?

There has been a steady stream of opposition to the proposal for a quarry at Straightgate near Ottery St Mary:
Futures Forum: Quarrying in East Devon >>> consultation on County minerals plan closes Monday 16th November

Opposition seems to be pretty much the norm for all mining projects:

> in Devon:
Aggregate Industries draws up plan for huge new quarry | Tiverton Mid Devon Gazette
Rage erupts in Brixton near Plymouth over quarry plan | Plymouth Herald

> in the UK:
Giant North Yorks mine gets sinking feeling from 'Nimby' planners - Telegraph
Objectors speak out after mine plan is lodged - Northumberland Gazette

> abroad:
Dealing with NIMBYism in Mining Operations - Springer
Overcoming NIMBY Opposition to Mining Projects
Keystone and the troubling growth of NIMBYism | The Daily Caller

Here is a piece pointing out the 'selfishness' of nimbyists towards mining:


Mesabi Misadventures Blog
June 2, 2009
Hear ye, hear ye, I do declare
to all of you protesters who proclaim to care
about the soil, the water, the air
have you considered your lifestyle,
do you dare?
You protest the mines, the pipelines, the landfills,
while claiming our future is in solar and windmills.
You use fear tactics, create mountains out of molehills.
You neglect to see your role in the world,
your consumption equaling the mines and the oil drills.
You want your fancy house, your car and your things.
Your flat-screen tv, designer clothes and diamond rings.
You claim all you want is to protect those with fur, gills or wings
You send your pre-made Sierra Club letter to your congressmen
and never experience the result that it brings.
Solar panels and windmills aren't made with pixie dust.
They require glass, plastics and metals coated so that they won't rust.
They seem so "green" and they give you the conscience for which you lust.
But their raw materials came from oil rigs and mining sites.
In that fact, you can trust.
You want to consume your goods.  You want to buy, buy, buy.
You live in denial.  See the truth?  You'd rather not try.
Your lifestyle must come somewhere in the world, that's no lie.
But you'd rather not have to live with the impact
whereas I would prefer to have it nearby.
In Minnesota, we have MSHA, MPCA, DNR and strong unions.
Overseas, environmental regulations are rare and their land is in ruins.
For that ring on your hand, they slave under deadly working conditions.
You want all that you have and even more
but you don't want to live with the consequences of your decisions.
You drive your hybrid with the nickel-metal hydride battery pack
and a "Ban Sulfide Mining" bumper sticker ironically placed on the back.
You protest Cu-Ni mines with the vehemence of a junkie who needs crack
never once considering the source of the nickel in that battery
or the metals that comprise the laptop in your backpack.
You ask me how I can sleep at night, knowing that I work at a mine.
I know I'm fulfilling a need and my ethics are sound, so I do just fine.
We have to accept that our actions have consequences, yours and mine.
I care about the global environment, the workers and their families.
NIMBY is selfish and that's my final line.
Not in my backyard (NIMBY) - Mining Minnesota

This analysis suggests that 'nimbyists' shouldn't be called 'selfish':

Nimby Wars Far More Nuanced Than Often Described

The Saint Report - NIMBYPlanning and ZoningSaint IndexsaintblogThought Leadership
By P. Michael Saint, Chairman and CEO, The Saint Consulting Group
NIMBY’s are often in the news these days and the press stories seldom catch the complexity, nuances and shades of grey in such land use fights. For example:
But who are Nimby’s and are they good or bad?
Our latest national polling at Saint Consulting shows most Nimby’s are middle aged, upper income, highly educated, politically moderate, white, male homeowners, who fear new development will harm their property values and lifestyles. Younger, less educated, less wealthy, apartment dwellers who want to see economic progress in which they might participate are less apt to oppose new land use projects.
Critics call Nimby’s selfish. They claim Nimby’s raise the cost of residential development, making it harder for the “not rich” to find affordable housing. They block progress, like new telescopes or ballparks, or prevent socially desirable change, like wind farms or solar installations or retirement living facilities or distribution of energy supplies. And critics claim Nimby’s operate with bad motives: They fight because they have their piece of the pie and don’t want to share it with others.
Those who applaud Nimby’s, claim they are protecting the beauty, health, safety and integrity of communities. Their claims that new development will bring real harm to an area, are not fiction, or selfish, they say, but legitimate safety and environmental concerns. They did not see themselves as selfish but as those fighting to protect the community for everyone.
In many cases, Nimby fights pit anti-change, pro status quo, people with an economic interest to protect against those who see an opportunity to fill a profitable unmet need that will increase jobs and taxes and mean progress in the community.
And all these land use opponents are not necessarily local residents who live nearby the planned project. They can be competitors who are protecting profits or people with a cause who travel hundreds or even thousands to miles to block a project they feel is against the public interest.
When one digs deeper than the headlines, one finds the so-called Nimby battles over new development are far more complicated than portrayed in the press and involved far many more defensible positions on each side of the argument.
Nimby Wars Far More Nuanced Than Often Described

No comments: