There's no question that there are always trade-offs.
I would argue for a more efficient use of resources across the board; and a more balanced use as well.
Forestry looks terrible on the landscape when its a clear cut; but when done with sustainability principles isn't that bad; though I'd rather we left all old-growth alone at this point.
Mining that's open-pit of any kind is a scar on the landscape, and typically one that is never erased.
Mining underground can be done with minimal aesthetic harm; through there certainly are potential consequences to the environment, both in the act itself and onward through processing.
The answer, to my mind is a mix of actions across the economy/society. Its not a single action.
But to take it back to quarrying; I really do want to see less of it; I don't want the Escarpment to be nothing but pockmarks.
That would be adverse to my quality of life (I enjoy hiking it!), the environment and tourism.
I also think we're using the resource at a unsustainable rate.
Mining underground is far far more expensive than open pit though. You might do it for gold or other expensive commodities where you have to go extremely deep to reach the ore and going open pit would involve removing 1-2km worth of rock above the ore that is of no economic value and is merely in the way. There types of mines actually have a greater impact on the landscape too, since they still generate a lot of waste rock. For example high grade gold ore is like 0.0002% gold and 99.9998% other rock, so all that waste rock still has to be disposed of, sometimes it can be put back underground to fill in the stopes but a lot of the time it ends up in big waste rock piles that have to be capped and isolated from the environment (due to risk of acid mine drainage). These waste rock piles typically have a footprint that's comparable in size to a fairly large limestone quarry.
But for limestone that's only a few meters deep and very low value, underground mining would represent a massive increase in extraction costs. Southern Ontario limestone would probably cost multiples more. We'd probably just end up exporting the problem to other jurisdictions that do allow open pit mining of limestone and use additional fossil fuels to transport it here.
I'm also not sure what you'd do with the remaining underground limestone mine works. I guess they'd fill up with water? I'd expect you'd have a high risk of sinkholes forming in that case (if the stopes are relatively shallow).
I agree that you're not returning the landscape to its original state, you're removing a lot of rock and since you're not generating waste rock to use to fill in the void, you're left with... a void. On the plus side, the process of mining limestone doesn't generate any toxic by-products, and the mines aren't ridiculously deep like some of those 500m deep open pit mines, limestone quarries will probably be just 10-20m deep.
I suppose end of lifecycle quarries could be filled in with construction rubble (ex the stuff being dumped at the Leslie Spit).
Or they could be sealed from any aquifers and then used as a more conventional landfill (ie the ones that process household waste). Then once the landfill is filled, it could be capped and have vegetation planted on top or something, like with BraeBen Gold Course in Mississauga (which was formerly the Britannia landfill).
They could also be left unfilled, but nonetheless still naturalized one way or another. Kerncliff Park in Burlington is a former quarry (albeit a significantly smaller one than the main ones operating today):
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
www.google.ca
This pond at Brickyards Park in Mississauga is what used to be the Cooksville Quarry (shale, which was used to make bricks I assume).
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
www.google.ca
Kelso Quarry Park in Milton would be an example of a restoration effort at a quarry that's getting closer in size to the currently operating mega quarries. I will say though that these restoration efforts seem rather expensive so maybe the quarry operators should be asked to pitch in more in exchange for the permits?
I believe most of the lumber we use is not from old growth forests anymore (at least in Ontario). They're generally clear cuts a few hundreds of meters across, and then they get replanted and allowed to naturalize for few decades before I assume they get harvested again.
bramptonist.com
/https://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/news/queenspark/2015/12/01/star-investigation-would-be-truckers-have-better-chance-of-passing-at-rural-test-centres/truck-test-introjpg.jpg)
outline.com
