Mining the USA
Authors: None The Lancet Planetary Health
Journal: The Lancet Planetary Health (2018)

On June 20, US President Donald Trump announced his intention to open up large areas of Minnesota's Superior National Forest to industrial activity, a move likely to benefit the mining company Twin Metals Mining Minnesota, which has previously expressed interest in this region. More precisely, Trump's plan is to undo one of his predecessor Barack Obama's final acts as president, a 20-year ban on industrial activity across about 234 000 acres of the national forest while studies on the potential environmental impacts of any mining-related activity are completed. The Trump administration has so far been a mining-friendly one: last December, Trump took similar steps to open up parts of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah to mining, and on June 13, Glacier Lake Resources announced that it was ready to begin the process of reopening the Colt Mesa copper mine which formerly sat within the bounds of this protected area. More worrying than this expansion of possible mining sites is the loosening of regulations on how these sites will be managed and cleaned up. In December, 2017, then US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt rescinded proposed Obama-era legislation requiring hardrock mining companies (ie, those mining hard minerals such as gold and copper) to prove that they were financially capable of cleaning up future pollution (even if they were to go bankrupt), and in February, 2018, he announced that the EPA would not be taking a role in the oversight or regulation of the hardrock mining industry. Arguing that these decisions will push the cost of cleanup on to taxpayers, the EPA is now being legally challenged by allied environmental groups. Supporting the EPA are states with significant mining interests, who argue that their own regulations governing how mines are run and maintained are sufficient to prevent major environmental damage. Opposition to new mines and calls for stricter regulation are nothing new, and not without reason. The environmental impact of an improperly managed mine can be catastrophic. Apart from the physical disturbance of the land in and surrounding a mine, the most common problems are related to water pollution. The process of mining and extracting minerals uses huge quantities of water, which can leak into groundwater or other nearby water sources. This leakage may contain toxic compounds used in the mining process, heavy metals leached from waste rock, sediment that can potentially clog rivers and smother aquatic habitats, or sulphuric acid, which is produced when naturally occurring sulphides in the rocks are exposed to air and water. All of these by-products have the ability to harm both the environment and the health of people living within their range. These problems do not just occur while a mine is in operation; problems can also arise from the huge amount of waste material produced during mining. This waste will need to be managed carefully for many decades, or even longer, after a mine has been closed. Improper waste management has been the cause of some of the most attention-grabbing mining accidents, such as the Mount Polley mine disaster in British Colombia, Canada, when a collapsing dam sent 24 million m3 of water and mining waste flooding into nearby rivers and streams and swamping large areas of forest. New mines do not necessarily mean new disasters, and mines, when managed responsibly, can bring major boons to local economies, such as with Western Australia's ongoing iron ore boom. Use of new technologies can and have made mining a less environmentally harmful practice as companies begin to realise that, when it comes to handling dangerous waste, prevention is better than a cure. However, the erosion of federal oversight of the industry in the USA under the Trump administration is more troubling. In his announcement on opening up Superior National Forest to mining, Trump promised to move carefully and to only act if the plans “could pass muster”—although according to whose standards is not clear. While individual states have their own regulations for mines operating within them, it is—from the short-term economic perspective at least—in their interests to keep the industry happy. Without the backing of the EPA, state governments could be put under increasing pressure from industry lobbyists, while the industry might lack sufficient incentives to adopt sustainable, but more costly, practices. As with so many environmental challenges, what is needed is for stakeholders to realise that mines are not short-term prospects; putting in the effort to minimise their environmental impact now could significantly reduce cleanup costs yet to come. Coal mining and coal use: the European perspectiveThe Lancet Planetary Health addressed the issue of coal mining in the USA and the need for a fast reduction in intensive coal use.1,2 It should be noted that the USA and the EU are adopting different policies concerning coal mining incentives and coal use. The EU has adopted a general framework to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 2050, including decreasing extraction and burning of coal. Some countries, such as the UK and Italy, have set their withdrawal from coal use even earlier (by 2025). Full-Text PDF Open Access