Mining for renewable energy could worsen threats to biodiversity

Nature Communications

A University of Queensland photo.

Threats to biodiversity could increase in the future as more mines target materials used for renewable energy production, suggests a study in Nature Communications.

Renewable energy production is necessary to mitigate climate change. However, only 17% of current global energy consumption is achieved through renewable energies. Generating the required technologies and infrastructure will lead to an increase in the production of many metals, which may create potential threats for biodiversity.

Laura Sonter and colleagues mapped mining areas globally and assessed their coincidence with biodiversity conservation sites. The authors found that mining potentially influences approximately 50 million km2 of the Earth’s land surface with 82% of mining areas targeting materials used in renewable energy production. When looking at the spatial overlap between mining areas and conservation sites, they found that 8% of mining areas coincided with nationally-designated Protected Areas, 7% with Key Biodiversity Areas and 16% with Remaining Wilderness (sites considered important priorities for halting diversity loss).

The authors discovered that a greater proportion of pre-operational mines are targeting materials needed for renewable energy production (nearly 84%) compared to around 73% of operational mines. They also observed that pre-operational mines targeting renewable materials also appear to be more densely packed together than those targeting other materials.

Increasing the extent and density of mining areas will cause additional threats to biodiversity suggest the authors, and they argue that without strategic planning these new threats to biodiversity may surpass those averted by climate change mitigation.

New research finds - global heating is melting vast northern fields of permafrost so fast that - within decades - they'll likely stop cooling the planet as they have for millennia - and start doing just the opposite.

by Larry Powell

Permafrost Slide at Big Fox Lake, Ontario, Canada - 2015.
A Creative Commons photo by MIKOFOX. 

For thousands of years, so-called "permafrost peatlands" in Earth's Northern Hemisphere have been cooling the global climate. They’ve done it by trapping large amounts of carbon and nitrogen which would otherwise escape into the air as harmful greenhouse gases. 

More recently however, scientists have observed, they've been melting due to manmade global heating. As they melt, they're releasing large amounts of substances like methane - a potent greenhouse gas - into the air. 

But, without proper maps, it's been hard for scientists to get a handle on the degree to which this might be happening - until now. New ones drawn up using thousands of field observations, show; Permafrost peatlands cover a vast area of almost four million square kilometres.

And, to quote from the study, "Under future global warming scenarios, half to nearly all of peatland permafrost could be lost this century.” 

This means their age-old role, mostly as net “sinks,” keeping harmful greenhouse gases in the ground, would transform to a net source of atmospheric carbon, primarily methane.

A permafrost "slump" in Alaska. A USGS photo.

The research concludes that, “Although northern peatlands are currently a source of global cooling, permafrost thaw attributable to anthropogenic climate warming may convert peatlands into a net source of warming."

The findings were published recently in PNAS, the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 

But the impact of the nitrogen trapped in these fields cannot be underestimated, either. A separate study, also published in PNAS about three years ago, reveals, "Some 67 billion tons of it, accumulated thousands of years ago, could now become available for decomposition, leading to the release of nitrous oxide (N2O) to the atmosphere. N2O is a strong greenhouse gas, almost 300 times more powerful than CO2 for warming the climate. Although carbon dynamics in the Arctic are well studied, the fact that Arctic soils store enormous amounts of nitrogen has received little attention so far. We report that the Arctic may become a substantial source of N2O when the permafrost thaws, and that N2O emissions could occur from surfaces covering almost one-fourth of the entire Arctic."

                                                                   RELATED:

Only “Heroic Efforts” Will Spare Earth’s Mighty Boreal Forest From the Worst Ravages of Climate Change - Experts.

Damage from whopper hurricanes rising for many reasons

PHYS ORG

Hurricane Laura in Lake Charles, Louisiana - Tornado Trackers

          A destructive storm is rising from warm waters. Again. Story here.

There is at least 10 times more plastic in the Atlantic than previously thought

Science News 

"Seal trapped in plastic pollution" by tedxgp2 

Scientists measured 12-21 million tons of three of the most common types of plastic in the top 200 meters of the Atlantic. By assuming the concentration of plastic in the whole Atlantic is the same as that measured at 200 meters deep, the scientists estimated there is around 200 million tons of three of the most common types of plastic alone. Compare this to the previously estimated figure of 17 million. 

Details here.

Why deforestation and extinctions make pandemics more likely

nature

A public domain image.

As humans diminish biodiversity by cutting down forests and building more infrastructure, they’re increasing the risk of disease pandemics such as COVID-19. Many ecologists have long suspected this, but a new study helps to reveal why: while some species are going extinct, those that tend to survive and thrive — rats and bats, for instance — are more likely to host potentially dangerous pathogens that can then jump to humans. Details here.

Agriculture replaces fossil fuels as largest human source of sulfur to the environment

PHYS ORG

A PinP photo.

Historically, coal-fired power plants were the largest source of reactive sulfur, a component of acid rain, to the biosphere. A new study shows that fertilizer and pesticide applications to croplands are now the most important source of sulfur to the environment. Details here.

Is Manitoba's Brokenhead River about to become a dumping ground for an Alberta-based sand-mining company?

by Don Sullivan

Kayakers on the Brokenhead River. A Wikimedia photo.

The Brokenhead River begins in the wetlands of Sandilands Provincial Forest, located in Southeastern Manitoba. It ultimately drains 200 kilometres later into Lake Winnipeg. Most of the river is navigable by canoe or kayak.

This meandering river is now under threat.

It might very well become a toxic dumping ground for CanWhite Sands Corp (CWS) of Alberta. Last month, CWS  filed a proposal under Manitoba's Environment Act, for approval to construct a silica sand processing facility near Vivian in Southeastern Manitoba. The closing date for commenting on this proposal is August 25th, 2020.  If you have concerns, you have between now and then to express them, here. 

Once the processing facility receives government approval, CWS intends to submit a second application. This would be for both the mine, where the sand will be obtained and for the methods the company will use to extract it. The splitting of a single proposed project into two separate ones in this way, probably makes approval a foregone conclusion.

CWS indicates that 15 percent of what it will extract (from 200 feet below the surface in the Winnipeg Formation aquifer), will be sand and shale. That means that 85 percent, will be water (a fact conveniently ignored in the company application). Simple math shows, in order to produce its intended target of 1.36 million tonnes of sand per year, CWS will also need to extract 7.7.million cubic meters of water annually.

This will surely pose a serious problem for the people of Southeastern Manitoba who rely on this aquifer for their drinking water. Why? Because this much water coming out of the aquifer annually will certainly inhibit the ability of this aquifer to recharge itself.

Since the average Canadian uses 329 litres of water a day, again math shows the amount required by the company would serve a city much larger than Brandon each year.

The sand and water will be sucked up to the surface through hundreds of boreholes a  year. Only a fraction of it will be needed to process the sand in the wet plant. The bulk of it, likely more than six million cubic meters, will likely be dumped into the Brokenhead. It will contain high levels of heavy metals, chromium, arsenic, neurotoxins. It will also be acidic, as pyrite in the shale will cause acids to drain into the river. Of course CWS never mentions any of this in its application. That would apparently be too transparent for them and even raise a number of alarm bells.

The release of deleterious substances into the river would be a clear violation of the Federal Fisheries Act and threaten aquatic life there - life such as the rare Chestnut Lamprey eel. It's a species at risk, still surviving in the Brokenhead. It would almost certainly be impacted.

The river runs through the Brokenhead First Nation, which, to my knowledge, has never been consulted on the impacts of this project on their Treaty Rights.

"What The Frack Manitoba" is therefore calling on the appropriate authorities to do the following;

Request that the Province of Manitoba suspend its approval process until such a time that the appropriate federal authorities have the required information from CWS to determine the extent of the adverse impacts of the proposed development project will have with respect to federal jurisdiction. And that the proponent (CWS) submit information not only for its proposed silica sand processing facility but also its silica sand mine and mining method, to be reviewed as one project via a panel review process, to determine the extent of the adverse impacts with respect to federal jurisdiction.

Determine if the federal Impact Assessment Act (IAA) is applicable, and if not, that the appropriate federal Minister and or federal authority use the discretionary powers under the IAA to designate this proposed development an IAA Project for the purpose of applying the provisions contained in IAA.

Request that the Crown (Federal/Provincial as they are not divisible) undertake a Section 35 consultation process with Brokenhead First Nation to determine what if any adverse impacts of this proposed project will have with respect to Brokenhead First Nation Section 35 Rights prior to any environmental approval of said propose development project occurs.

Don Sullivan is the spokesperson for What The Frack Manitoba, is the former director of the Boreal Forest Network and served as special adviser to the government of Manitoba on the Pimachiowin Aki UNESCO World Heritage site portfolio. He is a research affiliate with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and a Queen Golden Jubilee medal recipient.

Don Sullivan (above) is the spokesperson for What The Frack Manitoba, the former director of the Boreal Forest Network and special adviser to the government of Manitoba on the Pimachiowin Aki UNESCO World Heritage site. He's a research affiliate with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and a Queen Golden Jubilee medal recipient.

RELATED: 

"When corporate interests trump the human right to clean drinking water - a case of concern in Manitoba, Canada.

Silica dust produces a distinctive reaction in the lung that eventually leads to the development of masses of fibrous tissue and distinctive nodules of dense fibrosis, which, by contracting, distort and damage the lung. Silicosis is a hazard in any occupation in which workers are exposed to silica dust, particularly rock drilling above or below ground, quarrying, or grinding with a wheel containing silica. Cases have also been reported in dental technicians, who use the material ground into a fine powder.

‘This is sacred’: the fight against a massive frac sand mine in Manitoba.

The sand in question here is destined for use in "facking," a method of extracting shale gas that has either fallen into disrepute or been banned in many places. This links you to what is perhaps the most comprehensive and authoritative compendium of information about the practise by two groups of concerned US physicians. Their bottom-line conclusion is - it ought to be banned!