The Journal Sentinel editorial board opined support for relaxed mining laws for a possible mining site near Ashland, Wisconsin. They believe less regulation on mining will create jobs, and if done properly won't hurt the environment.
They admit the Wisconsin outdoors are a major source of pride, tourism and income. But the editorial board feels we can deregulate whilst protecting the environment.
And, if ifs and buts were candy and nuts, everyday would be Christmas.
By making mining laws weaker, we would be weakening environmental laws, and thus, harming the environment.
Yes, new mining would create jobs. But so would greener, sustainable projects, which wouldn't compromise the future of Wisconsin's environment. And, how long will the mining last? What are the guarantees? The article mentioned glowing projections for job numbers and pay, but will there be clawbacks or penalties for the mining company if they don't meet these goals?
The article states, "Too much red tape and too many bureaucratic delays can be deadly. That's why the state should change its laws." The "red tape" encumbered by mining companies was put in place because of the deadly consequences of their past actions. Mining is a filthy business. The disaster that occurred at WE Energy's plant (where hazardous materials ended up in Lake Michigan after a bluff collapse) in Oak Creek is another recent reminder that maybe we should take a pause before pushing forward with more potentially destructive legislation and deregulation all in the name of supposed job growth.
High unemployment should not force us into the dilema of weakening environmental laws for the sake of jobs. It's time we take a high-road strategy to development and jobs. This is the only planet we have.