Mining in the BWCA
Justine Wulff
The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCA) is a wilderness area within the Superior National Forest located in northeastern Minnesota. Currently, there is an ongoing debate about whether companies, more specifically Twin Metals and PolyMet should be able to sulfide mine near/in the BWCA. Many people have opinions about mining in the BWCA and will frequently dismiss other views or not know the impact that their decision would make. This commentary piece takes a look at the mining debate and the often overlooked questions during the debate.
Right now, the debate about mining in the BWCA is a controversial subject that involves many different factors that should be taken into consideration before making a decision. Essentially, it comes down to this question: should mining companies be allowed to mine here? Copper-sulfide mining has been shown to have detrimental environmental impacts, especially if it gets into the water.
Copper-sulfide mining would mine for metals such as nickel, platinum, gold, copper, and more. Some people oppose copper-sulfide mining in the BWCA because they’re concerned about the environmental impacts it could have and how it could affect the livelihood of those dependent on having a pristine wilderness. While others support mining in the BWCA because it would help improve the local economy and give jobs to more Minnesotans in the area. I wanted to look beyond the jobs versus environment debate and find the bigger picture of how this debate fits into global patterns of environmental exploitation and consumption.
I wanted to get more opinions about sulfur copper mining, so I talked to my peers through school and found out that most were against mining, and a recent poll¹ shows that most Minnesotans oppose mining. The majority of Minnesotans oppose mining, but that’s from a local perspective². To find a solution to a complex problem we need to look at the issue from a global perspective.
“Not in my backyard!” is a phrase commonly used by residents in an area to oppose a proposed development. If the majority of Minnesotans are saying “Not in my backyard,” then whose backyard are we mining in? Usually, when a developed country wants to preserve its natural resources, they encourage developing countries to procure those resources for them. This transfers the environmental impact of extraction. This not only becomes an environmental problem but also an ethical problem. In most cases, developed countries have the money to keep their environments pristine and will import resources from developing countries. For example, the United States imports 36% of its copper from Chile, Canada, and Mexico³. This creates a problem where the US will import minerals and the environmental impacts will happen elsewhere. Many people want to protect their local environment and the public attitude towards mining tends to be negative, but what is the global impact of protecting their local environment? We should think about these issues on a larger scale that includes the global impact that our choices and decisions made.
Another question that people should ask is: why are we mining? It doesn’t matter if people are for or against copper-sulfide mining, either way, they use copper for electrical equipment, construction, machinery, and more. While most people aren’t directly buying copper, they are indirectly buying copper, they’re indirectly participating in its consumption by purchasing these products. Looking at our consumption as a country, the United States is wealthy and can afford to consume a lot. As previously stated, the US has the money to buy resources from other countries, giving it the ability to keep its own environment pristine while transferring the environmental impact elsewhere. However, this transfer of environmental impacts leaves many Americans oblivious to their consumption and the effect that it has. Take copper for an example: there’s strong opposition to sulfide copper mining in the BWCA, however, copper is projected to have an increase in demand⁴. This creates a complex problem where we’re consuming a lot of copper, but not wanting to mine for it in our country. Copper-sulfide mining in the BWCA is controversial and most of the news is centered around local opinions, but to get the full context on the situation more people should look at the global impacts that it has as well.
Even though the majority of people are against copper-sulfide mining in the BWCA, many didn’t know about the impact that their decision makes. Saying “Not in my backyard!” not only creates a problem where Americans don’t take into account their high consuming actions but also leads to an environmental impact elsewhere. To help solve this problem, more people should think critically about the role they play in the environment, both locally and globally. Another way for people to help is to become educated on their consumption, becoming aware of the impacts in their backyard and around the globe.
Sources:
³ The Irresponsible Pursuit of Paradise, Jim L. Bowyer, pg 122)
⁴ https://copperalliance.org.uk/coverage-future-copper-demand/