This is the second in a two-part series on issues discussed at the quarterly Lake Superior Binational Forum, held March 23 in Ashland, Wisconsin. The Forum is a citizen stakeholder group commissioned by the American and Canadian governments to give input on issues related to management of the Lake Superior basin. The first article talked about mining and the environment.
How much good does mining do for a region? According to the Iron Mining Association of Minnesota, Minnesota’s iron mining industry directly employs over 4,200 people, and their average wage and benefit package is worth $100,000 a year. Vendors supporting the industry employ another 13,000 people. The industry pays over $100 million in taxes annually, over $36 million which goes to K-12 education and over $12 million which goes to the University Trust Fund.
Tom Power, professor emeritus of the University of Montana Department of Economics, said that mining’s impact on the local economy “often isn’t that spectacular. …Mining doesn’t always bring prosperity.” The industry’s boom and bust nature sometimes leaves poverty and joblessness in its wake. People stick around mining communities after the most of the jobs are gone, hoping they will be the lucky ones who will be hired for what’s left of the mining operation.
Power conducted a long-term study that showed population grown near zero in former mining communities, per capita incomes 20 percent lower than in other areas, and payrolls that grew on average only half as fast as in non-mining-dependent communities.
Power suggested four reasons for this: 1) The worldwide market for minerals is volatile; 2) as technology develops, fewer people are needed to do the same amount of work; 3) environmental restoration is an economic drain; and 4) other “more viable” industries are displaced.
Power recommended more critical evaluation of the long-term costs and benefits of mining projects. What will the community do with the houses, streets, schools, and fire halls it built during the boom period? What will home values be? Being more “economically rational” about mining does not mean the nation would need to go without copper or iron, Power said. Less costly sources of these materials might need to be tapped, however.
Power has studied the economy of the Iron Range and found that when mining jobs decreased, other sectors of the economy expanded, diversifying the overall economy. Businesses have moved to where workers and customers are located, and with a “significant increase in retirement-related income flowing into Iron Range communities,” medical and health services jobs have seen rapid growth. Small communities, good schools, low crime, scenic beauty, wildlife, and outdoor recreation have attracted people to the area, he said.
“Environmental quality is not just a matter of ‘prettiness,’ or aesthetic preferences,” said Power. “it is a central part of any region’s economic base and its potential for economic vitality.
“…In general, sustainable communities do not rely on the export of just one or a few products. …The natural landscape is not just a warehouse from which to extract commercially valuable commodities. That natural landscape is also the source of valuable environmental services that make a location an attractive place to live, work, and do business.”
Public comments
Most comments at the Forum did not favor iron mining in the Lake Superior region. Some were philosophical.
One man from Ontario said when you build a mine, make sure you know— the day before the mine opens—what the community is going to do to sustain its economy the day after the mine closes. His community successfully transitioned to a timber industry, but that went flat when the U.S. housing market collapsed.
Another man said that when a canary fell off its perch in a coal mine, it was time to get out of the mine. When people are being warned to limit their consumption of certain kinds of fish from certain bodies of water, it doesn’t make sense to do more mining until we’ve cleaned up the effects of the mining that has already taken place.
If mining ceased in the Northland, what is the alternative? Do we want others somewhere else to do this mining, and what would be the cost to their environment? Are we willing to make whatever societal changes are necessary to no longer use these products? Lake Superior Binational Forum Co-Chair Bruce Lindgren said these questions will require a lot of people to work together to find solutions.
A local organic farmer said he believed many people in the room realized lifestyle changes would need to take place. How do to that “fairly,” he said, is a good question.
The Lake Superior Binational Forum will meet in Marquette, Michigan in September to discuss non-ferrous mining.
Leave a Reply