To be for it, or not to be for it

The Iron Range is a hard place to be an intellectual “Hamlet” type. This is partly because some of our most powerful officials and opinion makers have no idea what that means. It’s also because it’s a place that operates best when you pick a side and stick with it. Loyalty, old relationships, stubbornness, and general fortitude are all highly prized on the Iron Range of Northern Minnesota. That’s why I’ve had a hard time articulating my exact opinion about the nonferrous mining proposed for the East Range by companies like PolyMet.

My Ranger sensibility calls on me to pick a side. Should I join my environmental friends in opposing the project for its environmental risk near the Boundary Waters? Or should I join my mining and development friends and support what could be a legitimate source of jobs and innovative mining techniques? I know and respect many people on both sides.

Mike Jennings penned a Sunday editorial on this topic for the Hibbing Daily Tribune. It seems Mike is struggling with this same question. As with any Iron Range political/economic/environmental issue, emotions are running high. Pro-nonferrous mining interests term the opposition as being shill obstructionists. Environmentalists dismiss out of hand that a company would actually use environmentally improved methods of extracting minerals. Jennings comes to a conclusion pretty similar to my current perspective.

PolyMet may be able to address all valid concerns raised by WaterLegacy before a draft EIS is released publicly. The likelihood that the successful, safe extraction of nonferrous minerals would open a promising new chapter in Minnesota’s mining history gives reason to hope that the company can do so.

But if legitimate causes for concern remain once a final draft EIS has undergone public review, then PolyMet should be placed on hold until its plans and its technology catch up with its promise.

I would like to see how the innovative technology being touted will address the concerns raised about sulfide mining around the world. I think that’s a fair question. But it also appears to me that efforts to essentially ban nonferrous mining in Minnesota at the legislature is an over-correction. What is the right action? To sleep, perchance to dream? Oh, hell.

Wherever natural resources in Northern Minnesota are concerned, leaders must make plans that benefit people here long term. The minerals and water beneath our feet, the timber and natural beauty around us will only become more valuable and vital to human survival as the years tick by. Let’s hurry up, but let’s do it right. I can envision safe new nonferrous mining practices in northern Minnesota. I just need to know that’s what we’re actually dealing with here.

Comments

  1. Let’s mine WAFFLES, then Rangers can go either way.

    I’m conflicted on this issue as well.

  2. Careful, we wouldn’t want syrup leaching into the ground water.

    Or would we?

    Oh dear, here we go again.

  3. I’m on the fence…leaning towards the jobs/new innovation. I guess it depends on how the wind blows, and it’s wicked out there tonight.

  4. I’ve said it before. I’ll say it again.

    I’m convinced the enviros would like nothing better than to see all mining disappear from the region.

    I, for one, want something more for this area than $9 an hour call center jobs and little knick-knack shops, or to grow my own food at a “community garden,” as is being proposed in Ely.

    Mine here, mine now.

  5. Well said anonymous~

Speak Your Mind

*

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.