An article in today’s Minneapolis Star-Tribune (here) talks about a big dispute between mining companies and environmentalists in northern Minnesota near the town of Ely. There’s loads of copper and nickel (and other metals) there waiting to be mined. In fact, I’ve been hearing about this since the early 1960s; our family owned property on the eastern edge of the area in question, so I was interested in what was going on. For a long time, it was just talk, but now the talk has turned to action as mining companies are beginning to explore the possibilities.
The question, however, comes down to which is more important, jobs for the blue-collar worker or preserving the environment. The environmentalists all say the same sort of thing, that mining companies cannot be trusted, that they will spoil this wonderful and beautiful area, and anyway there are jobs created by tourism.
On the other side, mining companies insist that their new technologies will make the acidic runoff that environmentalists are worried about much less likely, plus there will be plenty of good-paying jobs for locals and others, jobs that will be year-round and not seasonal.
What’s distressing in this debate is the extent to which the terms are set by the environmentalists. They say that mining companies cannot be trusted, and they don’t seem too interested in jobs for locals. The mining companies are accordingly forced to explain that their processes will not harm the environment, while the environmentalists do not seem as compelled to talk about the jobs that won’t be created. Maybe someday this will be reversed. After all, environmentalists engage in wild exaggerations and so cannot be trusted, and they have a history of not caring about jobs for poorer people.
As a former mayor of Ely put it, “It would be easy to conclude that this effort [by the environmentalists] is really the 1 percent trying to prevent the 99 percent from having a fair shot at a fair share.” Exactly right.
The question, however, comes down to which is more important, jobs for the blue-collar worker or preserving the environment. The environmentalists all say the same sort of thing, that mining companies cannot be trusted, that they will spoil this wonderful and beautiful area, and anyway there are jobs created by tourism.
On the other side, mining companies insist that their new technologies will make the acidic runoff that environmentalists are worried about much less likely, plus there will be plenty of good-paying jobs for locals and others, jobs that will be year-round and not seasonal.
What’s distressing in this debate is the extent to which the terms are set by the environmentalists. They say that mining companies cannot be trusted, and they don’t seem too interested in jobs for locals. The mining companies are accordingly forced to explain that their processes will not harm the environment, while the environmentalists do not seem as compelled to talk about the jobs that won’t be created. Maybe someday this will be reversed. After all, environmentalists engage in wild exaggerations and so cannot be trusted, and they have a history of not caring about jobs for poorer people.
As a former mayor of Ely put it, “It would be easy to conclude that this effort [by the environmentalists] is really the 1 percent trying to prevent the 99 percent from having a fair shot at a fair share.” Exactly right.
I remember this argument about 20, 25 years ago. I did some temporary work just out of college with a friend of mine who was (is still) a hard rock geologist working for an exploration company looking for gold up in that area. Nickel and copper were mentioned then, too. I was still fairly given to environmental causes, and objected to mining. Times and and notions change most of us. Anyway, it was the opposition by unions, the DFL, and the metropolitan populace that began changing my thinking. That's a great statement, and true, from the former mayor. The wolf center, an offering to the 1%, was supposed to be "economic development." Some day the rest of the metropolitan area will realize that their property taxes keep the small towns and counties of Northern Minnesota afloat. And some day, I hope, the union die-hards on The Range will realize that the DFL has not been their friend in three decades.
Posted by: J. Reed Anderson | 06/17/2013 at 11:14 AM
I, too, initially supported the environmental cause. Later on, I realized that the most ardent environmentalists among my friends were the wealthier ones. The poorer ones had other things to think about.
Posted by: John Pepple | 06/18/2013 at 03:05 PM
Exactly, John. Exactly. I was fairly active in the DFL, and even in the rural county I lived, I saw this emergent divide between those who were comfortable, and those whom liberals were supposed champion. You've nailed it correctly with Rich People's Leftism. They had their jobs (often in rural areas, employed in some government) and the rest were too busy trying to scoot the wolf off the top step.
Posted by: J. Reed Anderson | 06/19/2013 at 09:21 AM