KIRUNA, Sweden -- High atop the Luossavaara Mountain in northern Sweden, Sami reindeer herder Lars-Marcus Kuhmunen mapped out a bleak future for himself and other Indigenous people whose reindeer have roamed this land for thousands of years.
An expanding iron-ore mine and a deposit of rare-earth minerals are fragmenting the land and altering ancient reindeer migration routes. But with the Arctic warming four times faster than the rest of the planet, herders say they need more geographic flexibility, not less, to ensure the animals' survival.
If a mine is established at the deposit of rare-earth minerals called Per Geijer, which Sweden heralds as Europe’s largest, Kuhmunen said it could completely cut off the migration routes used by the Sami village of Gabna.
That would be the end of the Indigenous way of life for Kuhmunen, his children and their fellow Sami reindeer herders, he said, in this far-north corner of Sweden some 200 kilometers (124 miles) above the Arctic Circle.
I may be absolutely super mega wrong here, but I believe that we should absolutely mine the crap out of the minerals.
These are minerals Sweden and the EU needs.
Sweden also has the capability to set up a mine in the right way, especially if we keep it administered by Sweden and not just sell it off to foreign capital.
We have the resources to set up a restoration fund that is run independent of the mining company, which would fund restoration work once the mine is closed, meaning we can limit environmental impact on a long term independent of the mining company.
I know I am posting on a community advocating for indigenous people, so I expect to be downvoted a fair bit, but please explain to me why I am wrong without only going "mine bad, sami good".
I can absolutely see that a mine in the area would offer plenty of good jobs and bring in money to the local community (if set up properly).
6
Fleur_ @aussie.zone - 3mon
I think it's an issue of who has the right to use the land. It makes perfect sense that the people who live somewhere should be the ones to decide how the land they live in is used. Yes there are minerals in the ground, but that's not the only thing that's there. There's value in the rivers, the forests and the animals that live there; just not economic value. And when the mine is built, the people who once lived where it lies will not be the beneficiaries of it. Their culture, homes and society will be pulled from the earth and sold to industry just as much as the rock beneath.
5
stoy @lemmy.zip - 3mon
This is an interesting question, how to distribute the wealth properly.
Sweden has an absolutely ridiculously low mineral fee for companies to come and mine.
I seem to recall that it is only 2-3% of the value of the minerals, raise it to 30-40% of the minerals.
Then you first set up an environmental restoration fund before any mining can be done.
The fund is 100% independently managed, but starts with an initial payment of say, 5 million SEK, then the company is required to pay 2% of the total value mined from the mine every year to the fund. Once the mine is dry, the fund is used to restore and clean the area.
Then we come to the division of the 30-40% mineral fee.
Out of that fee it should be divided something like this:
40% goes to the national budget
30% goes to landstinget
20% goes to the municipality
10% goes to the landowner
I expect that will be more than enough to satisfy everyone involved to approve the mine, especially since they don't need to factor in all of the cleanup work.
1
Fleur_ @aussie.zone - 3mon
The economic compensation to the Sami only makes sense if they consent to it. If the Sami's primary concern is the preservation of nature in their lands; destroying that land to finance them is entirely nonsensical.
Salamence in earthscience
Sweden's plans to mine rare-earth minerals could ruin the lives of Indigenous Sami reindeer herders
https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/swedens-plans-mine-rare-earth-minerals-ruin-lives-125335716cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/6078255
I may be absolutely super mega wrong here, but I believe that we should absolutely mine the crap out of the minerals.
These are minerals Sweden and the EU needs.
Sweden also has the capability to set up a mine in the right way, especially if we keep it administered by Sweden and not just sell it off to foreign capital.
We have the resources to set up a restoration fund that is run independent of the mining company, which would fund restoration work once the mine is closed, meaning we can limit environmental impact on a long term independent of the mining company.
I know I am posting on a community advocating for indigenous people, so I expect to be downvoted a fair bit, but please explain to me why I am wrong without only going "mine bad, sami good".
I can absolutely see that a mine in the area would offer plenty of good jobs and bring in money to the local community (if set up properly).
I think it's an issue of who has the right to use the land. It makes perfect sense that the people who live somewhere should be the ones to decide how the land they live in is used. Yes there are minerals in the ground, but that's not the only thing that's there. There's value in the rivers, the forests and the animals that live there; just not economic value. And when the mine is built, the people who once lived where it lies will not be the beneficiaries of it. Their culture, homes and society will be pulled from the earth and sold to industry just as much as the rock beneath.
This is an interesting question, how to distribute the wealth properly.
Sweden has an absolutely ridiculously low mineral fee for companies to come and mine.
I seem to recall that it is only 2-3% of the value of the minerals, raise it to 30-40% of the minerals.
Then you first set up an environmental restoration fund before any mining can be done.
The fund is 100% independently managed, but starts with an initial payment of say, 5 million SEK, then the company is required to pay 2% of the total value mined from the mine every year to the fund. Once the mine is dry, the fund is used to restore and clean the area.
Then we come to the division of the 30-40% mineral fee.
Out of that fee it should be divided something like this:
40% goes to the national budget
30% goes to landstinget
20% goes to the municipality
10% goes to the landowner
I expect that will be more than enough to satisfy everyone involved to approve the mine, especially since they don't need to factor in all of the cleanup work.
The economic compensation to the Sami only makes sense if they consent to it. If the Sami's primary concern is the preservation of nature in their lands; destroying that land to finance them is entirely nonsensical.