An Argentine Scientist Is Facing Criminal Charges For A Very, Very Disturbing Reason

The Perito Moreno Glacier, in southern Argentina. Luca Galuzzi/Wikimedia Commons; CC BY-SA 2.5

Dr Ricardo Villalba, an internationally lauded and respected scientist, led the National Institute of Snow, Ice and Environmental Research (IANIGLA) in Argentina, from 2005 until 2015. Now, in a dramatic twist, he has been indicted on criminal charges involving a Canadian mining company, along with three other ex-environmental ministers.

So – what happened to this continuously rising star?

As reported by Science, those listed on the indictment are accused of favoring a mining company over the greater public good. They’ve been charged with “abuse of authority”, under a 2010 law that aimed to keep glaciated areas protected.

Argentina is home to a wide range of enormous glaciers, including most famously the colossal Perito Moreno Glacier. Plenty of glaciers like this are important sources of drinking water.

The indictment notes that glaciated areas that should have been protected under Villalba’s tenure were not, and as a result, mining was allowed to take place too close to several key water catchment areas. Consequently, several incidences of contamination occurred, most notably including cyanide leaks from the Veladero mine, which effused into a major watershed on at least two different occasions.

As explained by Nature, the international definition of a glacier uses satellites. Back in 2011, Villalba decided that only glaciers over 1 hectare (2.5 acres) in size counted. This is a conservative measure designed to not mistake snow patches for glaciers – and thus overestimate how many glaciers are left – but sometimes, smaller glaciers aren’t counted, and thus aren’t protected under Argentinian law.

Gold over glaciers. Phawat/Shutterstock

Grassroot environmental activists protested, and suggested that the reason small glaciers weren’t included in the inventory was so that nearby mines operated by the Toronto-based Barrick Gold Corporation didn’t suffer from additional regulations. Now, it looks like the courts will decide how true or not this is.

Cases like this aren’t always as black and white as they first appear. Sometimes, legislative processes involving scientists can get things wrong.

Full Article

If you liked this story, you'll love these

This website uses cookies

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By continuing to use our website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.