What you need to understand about “environmentalists” and Northvolt

This week, a barrage of criticism fell on the “environmentalists” as if they were a homogeneous group represented by the individuals who vandalized trees on the Northvolt site.

• Read also: Northvolt resumes its work in Montérégie

• Read also: Northvolt: “By claiming to be making an ecological gesture, they are doing the opposite”

However, nothing is more wrong.

Plurality

The environmental movement is as heterogeneous as the nationalist, feminist, and other movements. A diversity of voices coexist there adopting varied strategies.

Although protecting the environment is the common goal of “ecologists,” there is not always consensus on the best way to achieve this.

As in all movements of all eras, there are tensions between individuals and organizations. Sometimes healthy, other times destructive.

If by definition an ecologist is a person “specialized in the study of ecology”, the use of the term has extended to all individuals who mobilize to protect the environment.

Legitimate concerns

In the case of the mobilization surrounding the Northvolt battery mega-factory project in Montérégie, ordinary citizens have become “ecologists” because they are worried.

Worried about the endangered species that inhabit the few wetlands that remain near their homes. Green spaces that are valuable in the context of climatic extremes.

Concerned about releases into the air, water and soil from the future factory planned near the Richelieu River and urban areas. (They are even more so when they see the privileges granted to the Horne Foundry in Rouyn-Noranda where the profits of the multinational come before the health of the population.)

Concerned about the socio-economic impacts in their region in terms of access to housing, health care, mobility, etc.

Government opacity

What is the government doing to respond to the population’s growing concerns?

He ignores them.

No worse! He feeds them.

In particular by modifying the regulations which would have required the holding of a BAPE. This public consultation process which sheds light on the impacts and improves economic development projects.

In addition, our ministries send journalists redacted documents after requiring them to go through the law on access to information.

In short, the Legault government did everything to generate social unacceptability where it could have been avoided by holding a BAPE.

It is the creation of this unpredictability that is bad for investors. Not questions from the population.

Need real good solutions

If there is a consensus within the ecological movement, it is that it is necessary to move away from fossil fuels as quickly as possible in order to reduce GHG emissions.

Although technologies like those proposed by Northvolt are part of the energy transition, they cannot be implemented randomly.

Environmental standards must be essential. It is unacceptable to modify them to accommodate the industry. Even “green”.

The protection of green spaces, particularly wetlands, plays a crucial role in protecting the climate, health as well as biodiversity.

Holding a BAPE is in the interest of Northvolt and the government. Not just from the population.


source site-64

Latest