http://www.startribune.com/local/139067154.html?page=1&c=y
This article is the latest in an ongoing dialogue in my home state of Minnesota about the possibility of the next mining boom in the northern part of the state. I believe this issue is a very good case study of the arguments for local economic developments versus the desire to preserve protected environments. On one hand, the basic economic argument is that these mines would bring a significant number of jobs to the region, as well as increasing revenue for the state from leasing state property. To bolster their argument, the mining companies promise clean, safe mines, financial backing for cleanup, and additional positive impacts on the economy. On the other hand, environmental advocates reject the claims that it is possible to safely mine for precious metals from sulfide rock formations, the substrate that causes acid mine drainage. This is especially problematic in areas like Minnesota that consist largely of wetlands. Therefore, the economic benefits are not worth the environmental damage which would have its own negative impacts on the tourism and fishing industries of the region. Furthermore, the mining industry is unpredictable and prone to booms and busts. These mines will operate for a relatively short time regardless, but if the mining companies fail as they have in the past, they will leave behind partially completed mines and someone else will be responsible for cleaning up after them, certainly an undesirable situation.
There is also a global element to this argument. If the minerals are not mined in MN, where strict environmental standards do exist, the corporations will look to other parts of the world that may not have the same regulations. Is it the best choice for the global environment to force these mining companies to search for other mineral deposits if it results in worse environmental impacts somewhere else? There is no easy answer to this question, but there are at least some obvious considerations. Are other mineral locations situated in areas as environmentally sensitive as northern MN? Are other mineral deposits as low-yield as this one? Sulfide mining is particularly dangerous in areas with large interconnected water sources, which likely does not include every other copper-nickel deposit in the world. To undergo this type of mining with its associated environmentally risks seems difficult to justify for a yield of less than 1% of the substrate, unless more mineral-rich deposits do not exist elsewhere.
I would agree that the mines do not seem like a worthwhile risk. There is a constant battle between preservation of the environment and prospective economic gain. But, in this case, the prospective gain is uncertain and temporary. Mining is not a permanent industry, as evidenced by the current economic depression in Minnesota's Iron Range. Pollution could also harm tourism, which is big industry especially near the Boundary Waters. Tourism also doesn't seem like a good reason to stop the project, but it has been a strong supporting factor in several of the cases we've looked at--including the Gulf Coast and Lamu, Kenya.
ReplyDeleteThe Doctor, at the end of the post, asked if it would be better to have the mine in Minnesota where there would be at least some regulation, rather than a place where it could have worse environmental impacts. I’m not sure I like the idea of doing the least harm though. I don't think Minnesota would have any sort of responsibility to take on the burden of mining if their mine would be better, although still environmentally harmful, than a mine in another location.
Good post and responding comments. Makes one think about the consequences of siting mines and the notions of environmental responsibility.
ReplyDelete