We are all familiar with the term 'whitewash', which means to cover up what is dirty with a layer of good-looking paint, or to dress up what is dirty and filthy with a pretty outer garment. The Bible has a term 'whitened sepulchres' which gets across the same idea - a beautifully whitewashed exterior enclosing a corrupt and stink, decomposing body inside.

A term of more recent origin is 'greenwash', used to describe the practice of companies/governments disingenuously spinning their products/policies as being environ-mentally friendly, whether they are or not.

Usually, significantly more money or time is spent advertising, or claiming to be green (that is, operating with consideration for the environment), than is actually spent on environmentally-sound practices.

The seventh draft of Jamaica's National Minerals Policy has now been published by the ministry of mining, and it is full of greenwash. It starts with the title on the cover: "The National Minerals Policy: Sustainable Development of the Mining Industry". Minerals are non-renewable resources which are extracted by mining and quarrying and one day the resource will be depleted; when the last ton of bauxite has been mined, 'it done!'

By definition, mining is an unsustainable activity; it cannot be sustained indefinitely. We cannot even sustain bauxite mining until the end of this century. To speak of the sustainable development of the mining industry is therefore either green-wash of the highest order, or illiteracy - using words without knowing what they mean.

The glossary of terms in Appendix II defines 'sustainable mining development' as "financially viable mining development that takes place in an environmentally and socially responsible manner, with sound governance that provides benefits that last beyond the life of the mine to the communities where mineral development, production and transportation take place". This definition is pure greenwash and pure deception, as it is not the mining that is said to be sustainable but the 'benefits to the communities' that will 'last beyond the life of the mine'. The mine has a finite life, and will come to an end, but the benefits to the community will go on and on.

Dislocation and relocation

What benefits are these? Mining has meant dislocation and relocation for communities and farms, as well as a significant dust nuisance; alumina refining has meant respiratory illnesses, corrosion of roofs and damage to crops due to caustic soda. These negative impacts will definitely go on and on; some people will suffer from their respiratory illnesses for life! I don't know how persons or individuals in rural St Ann, Clarendon, Manchester and St Elizabeth can be said to be better off because of bauxite mining or refining and how these benefits will last beyond the life of the mine. But it gets worse.

On Page 33, in a section titled 'Conservation of Mineral Resources', one reads: "Conservation of minerals shall be construed as a positive concept enabling augmentation of resource base through improvement in mining methods ..." This is not just greenwash; this is nonsense! No matter how much you conserve, you cannot augment the minerals resource-base, you cannot add to or increase the amount of bauxite that is there. You can improve your processing efficiency, and you can reduce product loss, but you cannot augment your resource base.

Somebody is trying to fool somebody.

And, what do you think of this statement: "Particular effort has been made to ensure that sustainable development considerations, especially environmental considerations, are infused into the strategies outlined for the development of the industry and the guiding principles that will be followed". The truth is that greenwash has been infused throughout the government's national minerals policy.

Need for honesty

What we need here is some honesty. Bauxite mining is an unsustainable activity, and one day, it will come to an end. There is no need to dress it up. The policy needs to say how we are going to minimise the negative impacts of mining on the environment, and what we are going to do when our ore runs out.

There is much else to be said about the national minerals policy, and I will continue the analysis next week.

Peter Espeut is an environmentalist and a Roman Catholic deacon. eedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.