We make logging companies "replant forests" (yes it's not at all the same as the old growth but it's something). Why do we let mining companies completely rape the land and replace nothing? It doesn't even look like they backfill with the unused debris, much less restore topsoil or plant anything.
Well, not 100% on this, but maybe because we're an overaged society that elects corrupt politicians rather than accept that change in lifestyle is necessary? Or maybe it is the brainwashing of the Springer-press that continues to vilify the Greens. Maybe a mix of both.
Or maybe it is the brainwashing of the Springer-press that continues to vilify the Greens
The German greens are the greatest insult to ecology and progressivism in the history of Earth. Born out of the antinuclear movement and immediately coopted by fossil fuel lobbies, the only thing they've done is to encourage MORE coal plants to be opened (due to pushing for the closure of nuclear plants), and supported every single neoliberal anti-welfare budget and every military intervention (think bombing of Yugoslavia, bombing of Libya, invasion of Iraq). They're seriously one of the worst parties in the EU.
They do backfill, but they obviously lose quite a bit of volume in the process, so they cannot completely fill the hole. The remaining part is usually flooded.
Where I live they are required to rehabilitate the land afterwards, but usually that's after the mine has been running for like 30+ years and by the time they shut down, they do some weird financial trickery and declare bankruptcy despite having made millions in profits the previous decades and then they just walk away and tax payers need to clean up.
And not nearly enough because no human activity can realistically cover some 100-200 million years of geological processes.
In most places they just want to flood the hole. These artificial lakes then become a toxic hole because the Iron-Sulfide exposed during mining oxidizes into Iron-Sulfate, leading to these lakes being diluted Sulphuric Acid for decades if not centuries.
Also the groundwater cannot recover a century of pumping it out in less than multiple centuries. Then the water used for flooding is diverted from rivers, which already are running low in these region and the artificial lakes are evaporating a lot of water, further drying things out.
Oh and of course the holes tend to be sold to some smaller private investors by the end of their lifetime who do not have nearly enough funds to be held liable for renaturization. So the tax payers will be looking at dozens if not hundreds of billions of damages to front over the next centuries while the profiteers moved their money elsewhere.
Probably, but the entire idea of "you can see it from space" is stupid anyways. Its only meaningful if its with the naked eye and the distance is specified. You can see anything from space if you have enough optical zoom...
Literally, yes you can, on that specific website's satellite imagery. Bloody thing's over 10 km wide, it's the size of a large city. I can still easily spot it on my screen if I zoom far enough out to also include Edinburgh and Riyad!
The only way not to see it from space would be to look in the wrong place or when it is cloudy.
This is very real and has been an issue for years. I remember when I was younger, watching public TV, and I saw a news report about an elderly lady who was forced to sell her home along with the rest of her village so that they could dig up the entire area for coal. At the time it was a big deal, because she took so long to agree, which got media attention. It was incredibly depressing. It felt dystopian.