Comments on: In ecology news– land-walking octopi, turtle locomotion, Pebble Mine science, fracking, Neanderthal love

By: Liza Lester

Liza Lester — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 23:51:54 +0000

Mineral resources are an irresistible lure and our economic system rewards burning through them. This is an interesting case because there is so obvious a monetary cost (or at least risk) to exploiting the Pebble prospect. I’m sitting here with my computer, benefiting from digital connectivity built from a lot of copper, so I’m certainly not disinterested. Is there a way to mine metals and keep other natural resources too? I mean, could we solve the problems with water contamination and destruction of wilderness if we threw more money and research effort at it, or are there some places that can’t be mined without irretrievable losses?

Edited to add: I like your Red Dog story particularly for the personal illustrations of the dilemma.

By: Erin

Erin — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 23:18:45 +0000

In the case of Pebble, the majority of Bristol Bay villages are opposed to mining, though it does vary. The village where all the exploration operations are based out of (not the closest) is supportive. The downstream villages tend to be the least supportive.

Land ownership is a big part of whether the mine benefits locals – generally mines on native corporation land will benefit them more than those on state land (like Pebble) or on federal land.

But it’s always complicated. Kivalina village is near the active Red Dog Mine (on native land), and people there seem simultaneously happy for the jobs Red Dog provides, and worried about contamination in the river that flows from the mine down to the village.
http://www.groundtruthtrekking.org/Essays/RunningwithRedDog.html

By: Liza Lester

Liza Lester — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 19:40:56 +0000

Hi Hig! You make a good point. Are lawmakers aiming to increase prospecting, not so much for tax revenue, but to pump up economic activity in the state? It isn’t clear to me how much money from mining stays in the region. The companies tend to be multi-national, and not necessarily Alaska-based. They ship in equipment, food, and often labor, from elsewhere. The claims are typically remote, so workers with dollars in their pockets aren’t bolstering local townships. Or are they? They villages in direct proximity to mines seem supportive. Are they benefiting substantially from the presence of the mine?

By: Hig

Hig — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 19:00:41 +0000

On Edgmon’s thought that mining might replace oil: A big problem there is that state mining taxes are tiny compared to state oil taxes… less than 2% as opposed to about 20%. Even the fishermen get taxed much more than mining at about 5%. (details: http://www.groundtruthtrekking.org/Issues/MetalsMining/Mining-Taxes-Revenue-Alaska.html)