Strong Objection

I strongly object to the Marathon Palladium Project. According to the Marathon Palladium Project Joint Review Panel Report the Project is "likely to cause significant adverse effects, which by definition are adverse effects that cannot be fully mitigated." https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/documents/p54755/144651E.pdf

I just spent the last 15 minutes reading Potential Federal Environmental Assessment Conditions https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/documents/p54755/145137E.pdf. I reject this document, both despite the fact it mentions "mitigation" 68 times, AND precisely because of this fact. I will repeat the quote above "which by definition are adverse effects that cannot be fully mitigated.” 

Here are some more quotes from the executive summary, which highlight my concerns:

"the Project is likely to cause a significant adverse environmental effect on the hydrology of Stream 6 (Angler Creek)."

"the Project is likely to cause a significant adverse cumulative effect on Lake Sturgeon habitat."

"the Project, in combination with other projects and activities is likely to cause a significant adverse cumulative effect on Little Brown Myotis, Northern Myotis and Eastern Whip-poor-will."

"the Project is likely to cause a significant adverse effect on critical habitat for caribou, as well as on connectivity of habitat within the Lake Superior Coastal Range."

"the Project, in combination with other projects and activities, would cause a significant adverse cumulative effect on human health."

"the Project is likely to cause a significant adverse environmental effect, and cumulative effects on Biigtigong Nishnaabeg’s current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes, physical and cultural heritage, and health and socio-economic conditions."

"Indigenous communities who have occupied the lands since time immemorial, would experience adverse effects."

Obtaining "critical minerals" and "full time jobs for an operational Project lifespan of 12.7 years" and "net economic benefits to the Town of Marathon" is not reason enough to move forward with the project. Approving this project would be a betrayal of Mother Nature, the voiceless non-human beings we share this land with, and all future generations. The land is a living entity, and to violently extract and consume these resources for short-term gain (economic or otherwise) is not a sustainable way to exist on this planet. In a time of mass extinction and climate crisis, I demand we actually start putting the planet over profit. Don't "mitigate" damages - stop allowing activities which require mitigation in the first place.