Counterpoint: What happens when we say no to responsible mining in Minnesota?

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

As Congress and the administration make moves to increase our nation’s domestic supply of critical minerals to boost U.S. energy independence, we must ask whether Minnesota is prepared to embrace these types of projects in our state. Seeing as how we are home to the world’s largest undeveloped deposits of copper, nickel, cobalt and more, and because our state’s environmental standards that govern this type of mining are arguably the most stringent in the world, the answer should be, “Yes, let’s consider these opportunities.”

Minnesota Star Tribune editorial writer Jill Burcum suggested in a May 10 column (“Stauber sweetens sweetheart mining deal for Chilean firm”) that efforts in Congress to allow Minnesota mining projects to submit a plan and enter the environmental review process means environmental protections will also simultaneously be gutted. Nothing could be further from the truth. Any new mining proposal is subject to a multiagency review under both the state and federal government. No project will earn permits to construct a mine without meeting the incredibly high standards outlined in the rules as part of that process.

Let me illustrate what those “high standards” look like in Minnesota. For a project located in the Rainy River Watershed in northeast Minnesota, not a single drop of detectable pollution is allowed to enter the watershed. What’s more, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has consistently upheld the stringency of those regulations, stating in a May 2023 decision, “DNR found that the siting rule, in conjunction with other existing state and federal environmental protection laws, is adequate to protect the BWCAW [Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness] from potential water, air, and other impacts from nonferrous [copper-nickel] mining.”

As a leader in the building trades, I support mining projects having a chance to prove they can meet those standards. I also care deeply about the union work opportunities that will come from these projects, which promise millions of construction hours and thousands of good-paying jobs. These projects can help facilitate onshore critical mineral development and in turn, reshape the future of the American worker in the region.

Indeed, those very American jobs will also affect families across the United States. While copper and other minerals are essential to modern life — powering everything from solar panels, smartphones and infrastructure — they also power our homes. According to the Copper Development Association, an average single-family home uses more than 400 pounds of copper, with nearly 200 pounds coming from building wire and over 150 pounds going toward plumbing tubes, fittings and valves. Home construction demands copper, and our nation’s housing crisis requires a stable, affordable housing supply. Boosting copper production here at home can provide that much-needed supply and at a reliable price.

Further, it’s often these same critics who, like me, agree that Minnesota should have policies that foster clean energy development. Yet, they dig in their heels and demand that any acquisition of materials that are so critical to wind and solar energy sources not take place in their backyard — even though this development can be done in compliance with our environmental regulations.

I hope we can move beyond this “not in my backyard” sentiment and instead have a more nuanced approach to mining here at home. We must ask ourselves what will happen if Minnesota misses out on the opportunity to become a global leader in responsible mineral development. We will at the very least shift the responsibility of producing these materials to elsewhere in the world, where environmental and labor standards are nonexistent or subpar. Communities in northern Minnesota will continue to struggle from economic decline. The effects of climate change are likely to continue to degrade our state’s natural resources.

The time to have this discussion is now. Perhaps we consider a “maybe in our backyard” approach with proposed mining projects until we learn they can be done in compliance with our incredibly high standards. I firmly believe that “maybe” can become a “yes” if — and only if — mining companies can prove it.