Editorial Counterpoint: On mining decision, NIMBY wins over rule of law, climate

The Star Tribune Editorial Board casts last week's Department of the Interior (DOI) decision to cancel mineral leases in northern Minnesota as a victory for law and order ("BWCA decision respects, follows law," Jan. 30). It's not.

In reality, it's an administrative opinion that delivers a blow to property rights, scientific inquiry and the fight against climate change.

Let's start with property rights. Twin Metals Minnesota and its predecessors have held these leases for more than 50 years. With the consent and encouragement of state and federal governments, they have invested more than $530 million in exploration and engineering. And they developed a project for those same governments to review under that encouragement to tap the largest undeveloped copper-nickel deposit on Earth.

Then one presidential administration refused to renew the leases. The next administration chose to renew the leases. And now, the current administration has reversed that decision on procedural grounds. This effectively changes the rules in a way that lays waste to the very substantial investments that were encouraged by those rules.

We will leave it to the lawyers to wrangle over the procedural issues. We are more concerned with the impact this will have on belief in science, global economic justice and Minnesota's economy.

Those of us who build things are very familiar with the phrase "Not in my backyard." NIMBY shows up when someone opposes something that needs to be done, because they just don't want it in their neighborhood. NIMBY efforts almost always turn on arcane procedural arguments and are rarely supported by real facts. That is most certainly the case with the attack on Twin Metals.

This is NIMBYism with global consequences. It will result in the U.S. shirking its responsibility for global leadership in addressing the climate crisis. The metals needed to prevent a climate catastrophe will have to come from nations and people who can't or won't protect the environment or their workers.

Yet, when the DOI has the opportunity to thoroughly study a proposed mine here in Minnesota, it instead seeks to ban mining and cancel existing mineral leases in an area that contains vast domestic sources of critical minerals.

The consequences of this contradiction are jarring.

It is denial of science.

Contrary to what the Editorial Board wrote, there is no data supporting the claim that the Twin Metals project will contaminate the Boundary Waters, nor would it be approved if that were true. The only way to acquire the environmental data needed to support any permitting decision is to complete an environmental-impact statement process.

It's a recipe for continued environmental injustice.

It will prevent workers in Minnesota from participating in the green economy.

Thousands of Minnesota workers stand to benefit from the family-sustaining jobs produced by mining. These opportunities will bypass Minnesota if the DOI opinion stands.

Does this mean we need to put the BWCA at risk? Absolutely not.

The U.S. may be the only nation on earth with the commitment, the technology and the skilled workforce to build and operate a mine that will both deliver the needed raw materials and protect the surrounding environment. We owe it to our grandchildren to leverage that global leadership.

In Minnesota, we can step into that responsibility by completing the environmental-impact study on the proposed Twin Metals mine. If last week's arbitrary action by the Interior Department stands, the opportunity to do what we know we need to do will be lost.