The Ambler Mining Road, Explained (reasonably)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 чер 2024
- The Ambler Mining Road is a proposed industrial access corridor in the Brooks Range of Alaska. The purpose of the road is to access a valuable mineral belt, known as the Ambler Mining District, in order to mine metals such as copper, zinc, cobalt, and others. The road would cut 211 miles across the Alaskan tundra, including Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve, and is expected to have significant impacts on fish, wildlife, subsistence and Native inhabitants, and recreation users. The anticipated mines would also have associated impacts. In this video, I give you all the information you need to come to an informed decision about the Ambler Mining Road.
Here is the public comment link: eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-u...
Here is an automated opposition letter from NPCA: www.npca.org/actions/315-revo...
Support me on Patreon: / nationalparkdiaries
Follow me on Instagram: / nationalparkdiaries
Sources and Resources:
BLM Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): eplanning.blm.gov/public_proj...
NPS Environmental and Economic Assessment: parkplanning.nps.gov/document...
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA): www.nps.gov/locations/alaska/...
AIDEA Application Summary: dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/ambler-roa...
Misc. Articles and Resources:
www.npca.org/articles/3599-bi...
www.npca.org/articles/3304-no...
www.npca.org/advocacy/35-prot...
www.washingtonpost.com/climat...
www.washingtonpost.com/climat...
www.washingtonpost.com/climat...
alaskabeacon.com/briefs/new-e...
alaskapublic.org/2023/10/24/d...
www.doyon.com/ambler-road-upd...
www.nytimes.com/2023/10/13/cl...
peltola.house.gov/news/docume...
www.counterpunch.org/2022/11/...
www.highnorthnews.com/en/west...
alaska-native-news.com/blms-s...
www.frontiersman.com/news/nor...
www.adn.com/opinions/2023/10/...
Ambler Metals: www.amblermetals.com/
AIDEA: www.aidea.org/About
Videos: vimeo.com/646793833
• Ambler Road: Harry Dou...
• The Land We Live In
Images and Music:
Storyblocks
NPS (Kyle Joly, Christopher Houlette)
NPCA
Brooks Range Council
Ambler Metals, LLC - Розваги
I'm an Alaska Resident, without public access, it's a hard pass for me. Giving road access to the national park, to local communities that lack the road access, in edition to opening up the areas natural resources to responsible exploitation is a good thing, but it really seems they're hell bent on only allowing this road to be a benefit for the mining companies, and I don't think that mining alone justifies the construction of the right of way.
Thanks for that perspective. I'm not an Alaska resident, of course, but personally, I'd still be opposed even if the road was publicly accessible. And I say that as someone who is a huge proponent of public access in general. For this specific area, I'd like to see it remain how it is. In my opinion, some places should just remain as they are, without any external pressures or benefits to humans. They're valuable _because_ of their remoteness and isolation, and the difficulty in reaching them imbues them with a spirit of exploration and wonder to those who can visit them. Thanks for sharing.
The Dalton Highway used to be for oil field and pipeline support and now it’s open to the public. The states coffers have a real good return on mining leases. I wish we only had the roads and people from about 1980. I worked out a pump station near where this road is going for many years. There is already a winter road to Bettles and road about where this one is going all the way to the river. I’ve been on the road to Bettles and hiked on the mining road to the river. Where do you think the metals are going to come from for your next electronics?
@@NationalParkDiaries Well, I am an Alaska resident and an environmentalist. I've walked the walk, talked the talk and paid the dues. Too many places in Alaska remain just as they are and difficult, if not practically impossible to reach. My home state of Utah, in contrast, has five National Parks, several National Monuments and innumerable other scenic regions, including wilderness areas in a state where no place in it is more than 7 miles from a road. These areas, though popular, haven't been significantly degraded by their popularity and accessibility by the public, but they have notably enhanced both Utahns' and Americans' quality of life and increased promotion of conservation and preservation. Gates of the Arctic National Park is the least visited park in the whole NPS system. Currently, an argument could be made that access to its spectacular landscapes is limited to the relatively wealthy few, who can afford the float plane flights into the park and surrounding areas. Its status as just another 'float plane only reserve' for the well-heeled is frankly elitist and runs contrary to why the NPS was created in the first place. Ambler Road wouldn't impact much of the park's ecosystem, but would allow more casual, impromptu and inexpensive access by the public. There's still plenty of wonder and exploration to be had from nearby road access and better tourism infrastructure outside the park. I understand the native Alaskans in the area favor the project for the economic stability and opportunities it provides. But, if the general public is excluded from using the road, that's entirely self-serving and hypocritical. In addition, funds from all Alaskans' PFD are being diverted to study and promote this road. All Alaskans and Americans should be able to use this Ambler Road on a restricted basis, if necessary, if the road is built.
@geoffreyeble32 Thanks for the reply, Geoffrey. You make some great points, and have clearly thought deeply about this complicated issue, which I appreciate. Ultimately, this seems like an "agree to disagree" moment, where we both have our own opinions and philosophies on National Parks and conservation. As I mentioned in an above comment, I am a big proponent of public access - it's one of the core tenets of my conservation philosophy. However, I am also aware that public access does not come without its downsides in terms of environmental impact. In Utah, for example, there is ample evidence that the presence of humans in Zion National Park has driven out mountain lions from Zion Canyon (mountainlion.org/2015/03/26/linking-a-cougar-decline-trophic-cascade-and-catastrophic-regime-shift-in-zion/). This is an unfortunate consequence of public access, but as you say, I'm willing to accept some of that impact for the sake of environmental education and awareness for the long term well being of these places. In the case of Gates of the Arctic/Ambler specifically though, I think this is an area simply too important to subject to those increased visitation pressures. The impact will not be limited to the road corridor itself, but will spill over into the surrounding landscape in the form of: water quality degradation, air quality degradation, habitat fragmentation, subsistence impacts, and more (link to EIS in description for full list of impacts). For me, given that Gates is a National Park with national significance, this is a price I'm not willing to pay. I don't disagree that this means Gates will remain a largely "rich person" park, but I think our collective philosophy regarding National Parks/conservation has evolved enough/is flexible enough to prioritize wilderness preservation in one of the world's last "wild" places at the expense of public access _in this particular case._ Again, I appreciate your comment, thanks for taking the time to write it and engage with me on the issues.
I agree. No Ambler Road. Don't crap up the Brooks Range. My guess is they will sooner or later. It's like Midnight Oil said, "The company takes what the company wants, and nothing's as precious as a hole in the ground." I have a car, a phone, a computer. I'm part of the problem too. Anyway, the Dalton Highway opened to the the public in 1994. Apart from a few tour buses and lone adventurers, it doesn't attract a lot of tourists. It alternates between terrifying and boring, and there's nothing for kids to do. So I've heard. The Trans-Taiga Road built for Hydro in northern Quebec is similar. You can drive it if you want, but it down't really go anywhere anyone wants to go. Oh, and if you get stuck out there, the authorities will pull you out, but the bill won't be cheap. I throw my two cents in for no Ambler. Every day it gets delayed is a victory for the wilderness.
Excellent Midnight Oil quote!
You did such a great service with this - have you brought up how interest has reawakened in the US reserves of lithium deposits?
I'm in Oregon and two attempts to commercialize mining in the Alvord Desert were blocked/abandoned (again) in the past year. The intensity here and in neighboring states (basically The Upper Great Basin) is only increasing with recent discoveries that indicate McDermitt Caldera may well be the largest lithium deposit found on Earth (so far).
I've been hearing a lot about McDermitt Caldera, but haven't looked into it too much yet. Will definitely be following it closely these next few years. Thanks for watching.
Thacker Pass is very interesting. As a Northern Nevadan, the benefits are far too high compared to the cons in my opinion, economically and environmentally. However, not a great start with their handling of the native community frustrations.
I just sent in my opposition form.
I hope I am one of many, because I am very aware of the mitigation sites throughout,
the country that could never fully recover.
THANK YOU,
Rik Spector
Thanks Rik!
npca sent. I agree that some pristine areas need to stay pristine for future generations. Once this scar is added, it can not be undone.
Thank you!
Thats it.
Your opinion at the end was well put!
Thank you for taking the time to make this video and all the information you provided for people to make an informed decision.
Absolutely, glad you enjoyed it. Thanks for watching!
You did a great job explaining it.
Thank you!
How do you know that he did a great job explaining the issue? Do you live in the affected area or anywhere in Alaska? What research have you done on the topic that would give you a clear enough picture that you could say the video "... did a great job explaining it."?
This video is just one layperson's opinion that is based on NGO and mass-media sources, all of which have proven themselves to have a poor track record in accurate, unbiased reporting--especially over the last 8 years or so.
Closed to the public is insane, so "NO" if only mining has access... BUT, if the public can also benefit from the road then "YES"... I've been to Coldfoot and to the Gates of the Arctic Visitor Center. It is such a beautiful and wild place, but average people have no way to experience even a piece of it. Public access could also open up economic opportunities to the villages that would be connected. But all of that depends on public access.
I personally would still be opposed even with public access. I've never been to Gates of the Arctic, of course, but part of it's allure for me lies in its isolation and remoteness. We have so few places in this world that are truly still wild and inaccessible, and even as a huge advocate for accessibility on public lands, I want Gates to retain it's sense wilderness character by remaining hard to reach. And that doesn't even consider the environmental impacts associated with the road + mines. I appreciate you taking the time to respond - thanks for sharing your perspective.
The big problem with public access is that it would open up the area to hunting pressure by urban hunters, and that would be a death knell to substance users (and would probably kill any support by local native corporations who are large land owners that the road would need to cross).
What?? Yes they do and also , wouldn't it be nice to have a little left for the future generations
@@rmf9567 The only National Park that gets less visitors is in American Samoa 😐 Nobody is going to see it, now or in the future, if there isn't access. It's also the second largest National Park, so access to a little corner would have a relatively small impact.
@@ClipsNSnips Having seen more access to National Parks in my 62 years of visiting that one statement alone "Nobody is going to see it, now or in the future, if there isn't access." isn't the "pro-road" statement you might think. More access has basically ruined the parks in the lower 48 so lets no let that happen to those wild/remote parks that are left.
Thank you for the great video and all the amazing content!!
Thanks for watching!
Once i heard the word "mining" I knew i was not going to like this road and i was right!
thank you for breaking it down so well!
Thanks for watching!
I was wondering what the locals thought with me sitting here in New Jersey. I have read a few of their comments here and thank you for helping me understand.
I have a big problem with it being a private road. I can see lots of pros & cons for this road. Natural resources is what makes a country prosper. The true purpose of the USFS and BLM is to manage those resources. The State of Alaska knew that one day a road would be needed before they signed off on making the National Park. But I can see several reasons for not building the road too. Follow the money.
With that said, not knowing the local condition or how the local population would BE HELPED, here is my thought in favor of public road: Zoos are bad for wild animals. But if it wasn't for zoos, people would not have been educated in the need to protect wild animals. Zoos showed people that the animals were worth saving. It is a double edge sword.
In Yellowstone NP, they would never be allowed to build the road through the Lamar Valley today. They would have called the area too pristine, would endanger the wildlife, etc... However, because of that road, I was able to see about 1,300 buffalo or about 1/3 of the parks bison as well as several other animals in the wild, just from that road. The rest of the bison were in other areas of park that had no roads. What the road provided was limited access to Yellowstone National Park. Million of visitors now know why that park is worth protecting. If a proposal was placed forward to do some damage to that park the uproar would be very loud coming from people who live around the world. People, who actually have been there and visited that park instead of only a few local residents.
Any proposed road must allow public access to the Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve. 25 miles of road inside that national park may do more to protect that area than the harm it would cause. Congress and presidents has been known to down grade a few national parks and national monuments and with the push for EV cars, mining operations may endanger all national parks if we need the natural resources bad enough. People will not fight for a national park that nobody never been to or never seen.
I'm actually sympathetic to the public access argument in some cases, but for me personally, I'd like to see Gates of the Arctic actually remain _inaccessible._ I've never been myself, but I can rest easy knowing that one of the last remaining true wildernesses in America is protected, even if that means me visiting it is much harder. Like I said, I'm a big proponent of public access (as regular viewers of this channel can attest), but in this situation, I'm actually in favor of less access, not more. I appreciate your sharing your perspective though, and sympathize with a lot of your arguments in general.
Thanks! Great presentation!
Thanks for watching!
You should make a video about the efforts to reintroduce grizzlies to the Northern Cascades.
That's a good idea - thanks for the suggestion!
@@NationalParkDiaries happy to help
Thank you for posting this ! Good information.
Thanks for watching!
it would be great that you will do a video about the biggest national park of the us system, st elias national park or the great rewilding project the american prairie. Greetings from spain and happy christmas
Both great suggestions, thank you! Happy Holidays to you as well!
I wish you had been around when they decided to build a road and destroy part of the Petroglyph National Monument.
Maybe you can use Petroglyph to show how much a road can destroy.
Even when " well planned _ minimal impact _ low use _ blah blah blah....
What it cost... Just so people could avoid driving around...
It starts with a small service road...
But once the land is designated ...
Well, now its a high traffic thoroughfare .
I think that's definitely another concern with Ambler. If the road is built, where does it stop? I read a couple of accounts of people who were concerned with this possibility and definitely adds to the arguments in opposition. Roads beget more roads - that's been true throughout history...
What happened? I am Canadian so not familiar with the road issue at Petroglyph in New Mexico.
@@anitawarburton6087 your can find info on the wiki site but basically, an agreementbwas reached allowing an access road, and that turned into a 4 lane highway. The small community that wanted to shorten thier commute into Albuquerque. (a community with money) Grew in size once they had better access into the city. So the road also grew.
Local communities tried to get attention for the issues, many in Albuquerque tried to stop it. (But, the people who had bought property in anticipation of the road would lose money of the road did not get built. Over the years of legal wrangling the plan went from a limit access road for a small community into a 4lane highway that ran directly accross many of the petroglyphs)
In addition, traffic exhaust has destroyed even more petroglyphs. Other traffic polutiob ( sound, trash, etc ) have done even more damage.
The thing people have to realise is that the environment/wilderness doesn't end at the park boundaries. Therefore if you want the road to exist the shortest route is the least destructive option to the environment. It's either short road, or no road in my mind, but I'm not the one whose opinion matters.
Yeah, I think that's a fact often lost in a lot of these conversations. Parks are just lines we drew on a map, but don't consider the larger, interconnected ecosystems these landscapes are a part of.
Would any of the alternative routes significantly reduce the environmental impacts particularly on the caribou and fish habitat?
It is a shortcoming of this presentation that he only talks about option A.
In terms on the public “voting” on this, opponents of the road would do well to focus on a clear yes/no decision vs. splitting their vote.
No, all routes have significant impacts. The differences would be localized, depending on the route, but in general, all routes have significant impacts to fish and wildlife.
Off topic but your new haircut and color choice look good on camera. Props.
I wish I had discovered this in time.
We've actually had some good news on this front! The Biden Administration rejected the permits for the Ambler Road, ensuring the road will not be built. www.npca.org/advocacy/35-victory-advocates-stop-a-proposed-mining-road-from-harming-alaskan
Ultimately we need to make a compromise between preservation and utilization.
Alaska is a large state, which could utilize a different longer route to avoid the park and wilderness.
The problem with that argument is the assumption that the environment/wilderness ends at the park boundaries, when in fact, it exists in the entire region. This means a longer road is even MORE destructive to the environment. If you want the mining to exist the shortest route is the best option, otherwise it's no road and no mining.
@MrRBMcD I agree. However, the federal land has set boundaries where it protects. Look at the East Coast metro parks with a fine cutoff.
If we could preserve every square inch, I would be all for it. However, there is a fine line. It will be interesting to look at what happens in the next few tears
Either way this will change the region forever and we will lose one of our last true wilderness areas in the USA
This was my comment to BLM, figured I'd drop it here to.
I urge you to choose the No Action Alternative in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and revoke the permits for the Ambler industrial mining road.
The Ambler Mining Road, while promising short-term benefits, poses a significant threat to the pristine wilderness of the Gates of the Arctic National Preserve. I trust that you are well-informed about both the extensive impacts and purported advantages of this project, so I will refrain from delving into extensive detail. Instead, I wish to emphasize the enduring value of maintaining the preserve in its current state-a haven that has stood unblemished for centuries.
The Gates of the Arctic National Preserve represents one of the last vestiges of true wilderness, a rare treasure in our modern world. Preserving this sanctuary is not just an act of environmental stewardship; it is a commitment to conserving a lens into our past. In safeguarding this wilderness, we ensure the preservation of an invaluable connection to the history of humanity.
A wilderness is not merely an expanse of untouched land; it is a living archive that offers us a tangible glimpse into the world as it existed for our ancestors. The Gates of the Arctic National Preserve, with its untamed beauty, provides a unique opportunity to understand the challenges and triumphs of those who came before us, not only millennia ago but even just a few hundred years in the past.
It is crucial to recognize the profound inspiration that humanity draws from the unspoiled beauty of nature. Throughout history, our greatest achievements in art, literature, and innovation have often been born from the contemplation of the natural world. The harmony and resilience found in nature have, time and again, sparked the imagination of scientists, artists, and thinkers, leading to advancements that benefit society as a whole. Preserving the Gates of the Arctic National Preserve is an investment in the ongoing inspiration that nature provides, contributing to the collective well-being and progress of humanity.
In our age of unprecedented abundance and convenience, we cannot afford to overlook the importance of safeguarding these few remaining places that serve as windows into our shared history. The Gates of the Arctic National Preserve is not just a testament to the world that once was-it is a beacon guiding us towards a future where preservation and understanding coexist.
I want to live in a world where I can still find the world that inspires me, that has inspired humans for millennia
I implore you to make the choice that aligns with our best long-term interests, for the sake of our collective heritage and the invaluable insights this wilderness provides. Choose the No Action Alternative, and let the Gates of the Arctic National Preserve stand as a testament to our commitment to the enduring legacy of our planet.
Thanks for sharing!
Email sent and shared the video to all my environmental groups!
Thank you!
I would have been totally on board with a 'No' until you got to the part where the road access was authorized during the initial creation of the national park.
While the road was authorized during the creation of the park, the road doesn't _only_ go through the park. That's why BLM had to conduct the more rigorous EIS that's now up for public comment. That's the analysis that ultimately allows the full impact of the road to be revealed, including those outside of park boundaries, and ultimately what allows a "No Action" alternative to be a viable choice for the Ambler Road. In other words, there is a legal justification for the road not to be built, despite it being authorized by ANILCA to cross through NP boundaries.
At the moment, no mention of Ambler Mining District industrial road in Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve Wikipedia article
The project seems to be kind of flying under the radar in the mainstream. I hear about it frequently, but I fly in these parks/conservation circles. This is part of the reason I wanted to make this video.
What is the argument for keeping the road private access only?
Several reasons, it is safer to keep the road free from smaller private vehicles when its intended and designed for large mining trucks, it also prevents the wildlife areas from being invaded by a deluge of campers and hikers which (if allowed in) would damage both th environment (in ways that trucks staying on the road won't) and the experience of everyone who is already using the park as a large part of the wilderness experience in remote parks like this include the solitude you can't find in crowded local parks
@xp8969 haul trucks would not drive the road would make no sense to drive them that far and I doubt huge crowds would be an issue because it's so remote already and you would need to be very prepared to make a trip like that. It would be a pain to deal with the people who weren't but I get both sides
It’s kind of insane that if the road is built it would not be publicly accessible.
Protect the parks for future generations is the most important thing. If the road is doing any harm to the land, or the people living there, then it's not worth the money. Maybe put that money on the McCarthy Road.
Agreed! Although, I'd keep the McCarthy Road as it is too! I think these places benefit from their isolation and can make a visit to them all that more rewarding. Plus, the associated environmental and cultural benefits.
There is always the idea that someone other place is less destructive to mine. But they never lost those areas.
Find the way that does the smallest amount of damage.
MUST be a public road!
I’m not super tech savvy. How could you and I get in touch? I live in Alaska and my children are Nana shareholders and live on the banks of the Kobuk river. We should talk please. I believe if we did, we might be able to make some even larger impact.
Letter sent ..... I am not an Alaskan citizen but at what point do we quit destroying the wilderness for profit? I live in an area where a shortcut to the MS gulf coast was built via waterway and there were so many environmental promises made, and all of them were broken :-(. Enough is enough for future generations!
Thank you!
Ok, hear me out here, the insane remotness of this anyway basically completely negates any benefits. Like unless this magical ore deposits that may or may not be there anyway are just already refined iron and gold ingots, its so far out there that all the other necessary infrastructure, from transport to refining to emergency precautions basically makes it a net loss anyway, even if you ignore the whole, you know, tearing up a massive chunk of on of the most sensitive and irreplaceable habitats on Earth
This is an argument a lot of those in opposition are citing as well. Many think the economics of this just don't work at all, especially when it comes to spending public funds.
The problem is, we have already mined a lot of the easy to get to materials. The only option is to go to more and less accessible places to continue to be able to build the things we all want to buy.
@@NationalParkDiaries Of course the economics of this don't work out. If they did, they wouldn't be trying to have the state of Alaska front the money for the road construction. If this was economically viable, Ambler Metals would be raising the money to build the road themselves.
Remember that saying "no" here means saying "yes" somewhere else, likely somewhere else just as sensitive and important like the Amazon or the jungles in Africa. Doing it here can be done in a responsible manner with a partnership between environmental groups and industry, whereas the off-shore options will be totally unregulated.
The last true wilderness we have left in The USA absolutely needs to be left alone at all costs
Nothing about this ensures that the Amazon or Africa won't ALSO develop mines, and roads.😂😂
Be better if it was a railway. At least then it'd be more sustainable and with a lower impact on the environment.
And who knows, the WP&Y was a mining and ore railway, and it turned into a huge tourist drawcard, when the mines close this railway will probably be a vital connection for communities and a scenic tourist railway.
The opposition argument is less about the _mode_ of transportation, and more about the fact that any sort of industrial infrastructure in this area will severely disrupt one of the last large wilderness areas in the United States. A railway would still have significant impacts on fish, wildlife, and subsistence living.
@@NationalParkDiaries I'm not so sure about your claims on the impact of a railway against a road. The area will probably be mined irrespective of the locals wishes at some point in the 21st century, the price of the resources produced will be too tantalising at some point.
To that end, a railroad will be far better for the environment. Due to the fact that one track can handle many road lanes worth of traffic, that reduces the amount of land needed to be modified, and poses less hazard to wildlife owing to how few trains need to run to move large amounts of anything. There also wont be road salt runoff in winter and heavy metal runoff year round from automotive brake pads.
Rail is also less carbon intensive and highly recyclable and long-lasting and is a hindrance to the average yahoo in a truck or car getting out somewhere they shouldn't be, the railroad should also be mandated to operate a regular railcar service on the line to serve the communities it passes near.
It won't end. We're on a runaway train, and by the time it crashes it will be too late.
we have such little true wilderness left, yet these mines keep trying to get approval all around alaska, quite rude truly
Agreed. We keep taking little chunks here an there, until eventually we're left with nothing... Some places should just remain wild.
If they are going to mine on public land then it should be public access
"Destroying the environment to save the environment", spot on.
I sympathize with Alaskans. But this whole project is a disaster. A 212 mile dirt road for mining, crossing a National Park ? Thumbs down. Only a National emergency would justify it.
Agreed.
Silly. And discriminatory. I know you'd like to hold on to the delusion that Alaska should be an undeveloped, float plane reserve for the wealthy, but the fact is that roads for tourism and other purposes do get built in National Parks. Right now, planes are allowed almost unfettered access to Gates of the Arctic for tourist access while the FAA rules say they're supposed to stay 2,000 feet above ground level in National Parks! So is it really wildlife or ecosystem preservation you care about? Why should Alaska be the only state that doesn't allow normal tourist access to public lands. That mindset that Alaska is 'different' or 'special' in regards to legitimate commercial development or the ordinary public amenities, access and tourist facilities surrounding National Parks in the rest of the country is discrimination against Alaskans.
@@geoffreyeble32 agreed.. I live in Alaska and people can't comprehend how massive it is here.. this will be a hair in a hay field
NO ROAD!
I'd definitely oppose this road, on the grounds presented. Even if there are sufficient resources to mine, there won't be any high-quality jobs, and once the mines are closed up, the whole area is left with torn-up areas and roads cutting through what once was wilderness that supported local subsistence and tourism. No tourists will want to see a current or former mining area.
Presenting it as a 'requirement' for 'clean energy' is also highly disingenuous, when Alaska mostly relies on oil and diesel, with micro and small nuclear reactors being the best option to provide clean electricity and heat to communities in the area, much like what has been done in remote regions of the Russian Federation.
I see this particular road as something similar to the solar farms being installed in the southern parts of the USA, in desert areas over the protests of local natives, resulting in the destruction of not only historical and sacred landmarks, but also fragile ecosystems. The investors win, but nobody else does. The few guys who scoot between the PV panels with a bucket and mop to clean sand off the PV panels would probably have preferred a job with a better career outlook, too.
Those are great points about the potential negative impacts of renewable energy installations. It goes to show that those projects _also_ have downsides for ecosystems and indigenous communities as well. I think it's important to talk about those sorts of impacts so we can understand the full weight of our actions and opinions when we advocate for them. Renewable energy is important, but ecosystem damage is ecosystem damage, no matter what is causing the impacts. Thanks for sharing your perspective.
The NPS empire already knows how they want this to end. They seldom lose. They game the process by narrowing the alternatives permitted in scoping. Right or wrong, they really anger locals who feel they've been scammed with the illusion of choice.
The NPS isn't leading this analysis, the BLM is. Both agencies have also already approved this project once, but the analysis had to be redone after litigation and a change of administration. It's okay to disagree with their position, but I think it's important to present the facts here.
A 50' wide road does not destroy a 16 million acre area. Sheesh
A road's physical footprint does not account for all of its associated impacts. It's well documented that roads fragment habitat and degrade water quality in the areas where they are constructed. They also invite other development by making places more accessible. These impacts would only be _more_ significant in a place like Gates of the Arctic because of it's current isolation and relatively undisturbed landscape. This article is pretty accessible for understanding the impact of roads in places like these (and has some more technical articles linked within it) if you'd like to learn more: www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/roads-habitat-fragmentation
The company and politicians will minimize the environmental impact. There's still a string of junk in the Territories known as the Canol Highway. It's mostly a trail by now. The road was active for oil access in WWII. Instead of hauling the trucks and huts out 800km to a junkyardm the gov't declared them all national monuments. Again, AFAIK, it was horrible road and fell into disuse right after the war
I mean, without building this road, how can all teenagers have a cell phone? How can all adults own two or three electric cars? We must build this so that we can have all of these things!
NOT.
We will just purchase those materials from somewhere else in the world that is most likely even more ecologically devastating. Imagine the lack of care that the Chinese put into there own mining operations, do we really want to support that? Where else are we going to get these materials from? Are you going to stop using ALL electronics?
"no, don't put a mine in my state, we can just purchase resources from other countries, out of sight out of mind!!"
No matter what, our technological progress is going to contend with nature. Unless we start calling for literal eugenics, ban all people from entering ANY wild area, and go to the EXTREME we will always be digging up the ground in order to keep the lights on, trampling wildlife, and destroying habitats. The world has 8 billion people right now.
How many different phones are going to be used to watch this video? What about every other youtube video? How many power plants are running, powering data centers for all of us to access? How many gallons of gasoline are being used by all of us to get to and from work? How much wilderness has been taken away in order for us to grow crops to eat?
If this mine ends up not being built, more resources will be used to get those minerals elsewhere, from even farther distances in the world. We can guarantee that countries like russia and china don't give a damn about the environment, so why would we want to become more reliant on their exports? ( THEY DO WAY MORE DAMAGE TO THE WORLD) If the mines arnt built in Alaska, they will just be built in Russia, or Africa, or East Asia, or South America, any other country that does not have the resources (or care) that the US has when it comes to conservation. We can afford cleaner burning trucks, we can afford natural cleaner materials for the road itself, we can afford to conduct ecological surveys and studies, and we legitimately care about the wildlife.
We need to choose the lesser evil
This is an important point. Even in Canada, it was shocking how much devastation was just out of sight of the highway. In other countries even worse. We should care about this.
On the other hand, we have limited unspoiled areas in America. Each road that damages spawning grounds, or cuts up habitat, or rolls back subsistence lifestyles even further, tends to be a bit cumulative.
I wonder if these are truly the best locations to mine these materials. Are they the only, or by far the best, in our rather geographically large country? Or just another? This should be weighed in the discussion. We have a lot of mines, including a large one in my county. I'm fine with that. As the OP states, we need materials, and better overall that it happen with care, in one of the countries like ours that takes care. The precautions that the local mine takes are significant. But just off an existing paved state highway, is different than hundreds of miles into roadless wilderness. There's lots that can be mined far nearer to existing infrastructure; I'm curious what's so special to merit such an intrusive and lengthy road to this proposed mining area.
There is no world in which some random mine in the middle of Alaska is going to magically stop American companies from buying minerals from overseas for much cheaper prices.
@asuka7309 no but it cuts off a lot, if this was the case, then no one would buy copper from US mines but they are open literally every where and still going strong
Everyone wants clean energy But nobody wants mining. If you want clean energy you need mining. Just saying.
True, but I think there's a lot more nuance with a lot of these projects, especially one like Ambler. This is one of the last remaining large wilderness areas in the US, and indeed the world, and I think it's fair to not want that destroyed at the expense of a private mining operation with questionable local benefits. We definitely have to wrangle with these sorts of questions when it comes to renewable energy, but for this project, I think the costs are way too great.
All these environmental inpacts before even discussing the actual mines and a commercial only road through a national park?
I'm sorry Alaskans but this doesn't sound like such a great deal for some new jobs...
Yeah, I didn't even discuss the environmental impacts of the mines, which are certain to be substantial. Without an official proposal, it's hard to know exactly, but open pit mining in an Alaskan wilderness is surely not going to come with the best environmental track record. The Red Dog mine is an example of that: theworld.org/stories/2018-06-09/most-toxic-town-america
You should have re-edited with the correct pronunciation of the Alaska economic and industrial development agency.
Aim for completeness.
@@SolaceEasy why
If you support the green agenda, then it would be pretty hypocritical not to support this project. As an environmentalist, I am conflicted on the project. But then, i don't support the green agenda.
I don't necessarily think it's hypocritical to oppose the project while supporting clean energy infrastructure. Many of these projects are more nuanced and complicated than is often discussed and require grappling with difficult questions about our own values and beliefs. In the case of Ambler, I personally don't think the benefits gained are worth the destruction of a fragile Alaskan landscape.
@@NationalParkDiaries if not there, where? It is an extremely remote area, only ever seen by very few people. Just about any other place in the world it will have more of an impact, and in much of the world there will be little in the way of environmental or labor protections.
I think the fact that it is remote and inaccessible means it would have _more_ of an environmental impact, not less. The area is one of the last remaining large wildernesses in the US, if not the world, and in my opinion, it should stay that way. A landscape like Gates of the Arctic is too ecologically and culturally important to destroy for private mining purposes.
@@NationalParkDiaries a similar mine in Siberia, for example, would have a far more devastating impact on the environment. Of course, as an American, I value Alaska more than I do Russia, but from an environmental standpoint, there is no reason to.
Bouilding a simple road does not destroy a wilderness, especially one that large. 100% disagree with your opinion.
Trying to understand your logic here, Care to elaborate? Would a smaller road destroy more wilderness somehow?
What do you think people do with that road?
This is not my opinion. The impacts of roads like this are well documented. I've linked the full analysis in the description if you want to take a look.