<p>An analysis from the University of Calgary has concluded that coal mining on environmentally sensitive slopes of Alberta's Rocky Mountains wouldn't be an overall benefit to the province. The analysis considers the impacts of a hypothetical open-pit coal mine built on land now considered environmentally sensitive. Much of the technical information was drawn from recent hearings, which rejected the Grassy Mountain coal mine proposal for the Rockies. University's School of Public Policy Economist Ms Jennifer Winter said "The net economic benefit is minimal. When you compare that to the fairly significant impacts to wildlife, to the natural landscape, to other economic activities, it's not in Alberta's interest to proceed."</p> <p>Ms Winter and her colleagues took a different approach to their analysis than a strict cost-benefit breakdown. She said they tried to get beyond weighing wages earned and taxes paid to examine overall economic, social and environmental impacts. She said "In many of these project assessments, there is a big emphasis on the economic impacts because we have numbers to attach to them. It's much more holistic to look at these other impacts as well and identify not just that there are impacts, but who specifically would be affected."</p> <p>Those impacts, says the report, affect all Albertans while the benefits are concentrated more tightly. Report concludes "The private benefits are concentrated in the project proponent; any increases in tax revenue are marginal given the size of Alberta’s economy, and any incremental labour income is captured by a few individuals employed by the hypothetical mine. In contrast, the negative environmental and social impacts would affect a much broader population."</p>
<p>An analysis from the University of Calgary has concluded that coal mining on environmentally sensitive slopes of Alberta's Rocky Mountains wouldn't be an overall benefit to the province. The analysis considers the impacts of a hypothetical open-pit coal mine built on land now considered environmentally sensitive. Much of the technical information was drawn from recent hearings, which rejected the Grassy Mountain coal mine proposal for the Rockies. University's School of Public Policy Economist Ms Jennifer Winter said "The net economic benefit is minimal. When you compare that to the fairly significant impacts to wildlife, to the natural landscape, to other economic activities, it's not in Alberta's interest to proceed."</p> <p>Ms Winter and her colleagues took a different approach to their analysis than a strict cost-benefit breakdown. She said they tried to get beyond weighing wages earned and taxes paid to examine overall economic, social and environmental impacts. She said "In many of these project assessments, there is a big emphasis on the economic impacts because we have numbers to attach to them. It's much more holistic to look at these other impacts as well and identify not just that there are impacts, but who specifically would be affected."</p> <p>Those impacts, says the report, affect all Albertans while the benefits are concentrated more tightly. Report concludes "The private benefits are concentrated in the project proponent; any increases in tax revenue are marginal given the size of Alberta’s economy, and any incremental labour income is captured by a few individuals employed by the hypothetical mine. In contrast, the negative environmental and social impacts would affect a much broader population."</p>
