However, more recently a new iron ore has been found just under the city. As extensive mining has a already taken place, the state is concerned about risk of collapse. What have they decided is the best solution to the problem? Let's move the city!
Years of debate have slowed down this project. The local inhabitants are used to being dependenton this industry and consider this an important project. However, they are unhappy with the prospect of moving their city to the location reserved for them. There is widespread recognition of an "historical trauma", but the plans will go ahead.
It is not yet clear who will pick up the tab for this lavish project, which will have to be a collaboration between all local partners. There are the obvious costs of the move, but there is also talk of paying indemnities to the local inhabitants.
What is surprising is the lack of discussion of the ecological consequences of this. Sustainability is considered only with regard to the well being of the local inhabitants, but there is alarmingly little debate about the pollution this will cause in the area. Just because there has always been extensive iron mining in this area, doesn't mean that further extension doesn't have further ecological impact.
It's interesting to see that a country such as Sweden, which prides itself on "being green" and climate awareness, forgets this as soon as there is money to be made. Another thing to consider is that this awareness is clustering in metropolitan areas and that a small city in the north, such as Kiruna, is more concerned with their financial sustainability than anything else. We're not even talking about extreme poverty in this case, as the large majority has food, a roof over their head and a generally comfortable lifestyle. Does poverty make unsustainable? Is money more important than our natural and social environments?
We can make all the money in the world, but if we continue to destroy our planet, none of us will have anywhere to live.
No comments:
Post a Comment