7. (15 points) Nonrenewable Resources: Mining -- The following article discusses

Question

7. (15 points) Nonrenewable Resources: Mining -- The following article discusses mining laws and policies in the US. Read the excerpt and answer the questions below.

Questions:

Currently the government does not have the right to prevent mining based on a review of possible environmental impacts. How do the concepts of irreversible externalities and tragedy of the commons apply to the mining industry landscape?

Based on the article are mining companies currently required to internalized externalities caused by mining? Who is expected to pay for the externalities?

Discuss in general possible policies to address mining pollution.

List and briefly discuss possible policies to promote Recycling of Non-renewable

Resources.

A Mining Law Whose Time Has Passed

New York Times, Jan 11 2012, By Robert M. Hughes and Carol Ann Woody
In 1872, President Ulysses S. Grant signed a mining law to spur the development of the West by giving hard-rock mining precedence over other uses of federal land. But the law has long since outlived its purpose, and its environmental consequences have been severe.

Mining claims for copper, gold, uranium and other minerals cover millions of those acres, and the law, now 140 years old, makes it nearly impossible to block extraction, no matter how serious the potential consequences. Soaring metal prices are now driving new mine proposals across the West.

Oregon’s Chetco River is one example. The river’s gin-clear waters teem with wild trout and salmon, including giant Chinook salmon tipping scales at more than 60 pounds. In 1988, Congress designated the Chetco a national wild and scenic river “to be protected for the benefit of present and future generations.” But the river is now threatened by proposals to mine gold along almost half of its approximately 55-mile length. Suction dredges would vacuum up the river bottom searching for gold, muddying water and disrupting clean gravel that salmon need to spawn. Despite the Chetco’s rich fishery and status as a wild and scenic river, the United States Forest Service is virtually powerless to stop the mining because of the 1872 law.

As Michael P. Dombeck, a former chief of the Forest Service, explained to a Senate committee in 2008, “it is nearly impossible to prohibit mining under the current framework of the 1872 mining law, no matter how serious the impacts might be.”

The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that headwater streams in 40 percent of Western watersheds are polluted by mining. A scientific review in 2006 of 25 modern Western mines by the environmental group Earthworks found that more than three-fourths resulted in water contamination. Over all, the E.P.A. has estimated that it will cost $20 billion to $54 billion to clean up abandoned mine sites.

In contrast to the pick-and-shovel operations of a century ago, most modern mines are large-scale operations that use toxic chemicals to extract metals from the ore, and they generate vast amounts of mine waste. After these mines close, treating the polluted water in perpetuity is often necessary.

At Oregon’s Formosa mine, for instance, toxic metal-laden drainage from mines is contaminating 18 miles of prime salmon habitat. In Montana, the Zortman Landusky Mine has polluted a dozen streams with arsenic, selenium and other harmful metals. The acidic runoff will continue for centuries.

So far, reform proposals have failed as a result of lobbying and opposition from legislators from mining states.

[...]
At the request of members of the Oregon Congressional delegation, the Forest Service proposed to withdraw a portion of the Chetco River temporarily from the jurisdiction of the 1872 mining law while seeking additional protection. This type of stopgap effort highlights the need for a comprehensive overhaul of the archaic law.
In a 2010 paper published in the journal Fisheries, we recommended important mining policy changes. Federal land managers must have discretion to balance mining with other land uses, and say “no” to mine proposals when necessary. No mines should be approved that can result in perpetual water pollution. There should be clear environmental standards, requirements to restore fish and wildlife habitat to pre-mining conditions and sufficient reclamation bonds to cover the full cost of cleanup. A dedicated source of funding should be established to pay for cleanup of the thousands of abandoned mines that continue to pollute our streams.
The mining industry has powerful friends in Washington, however, and nothing has come of our proposals or of other reform efforts. Now Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, is pushing a measure that would require mining companies to pay a royalty equal to what other industries have been paying for decades, provide safeguards for clean water and give communities and agencies a say about where mining is permitted.
The bill merits broad bipartisan support. It is unwise to let this 140-year-old law continue to operate at the expense of clean water, healthy fisheries, public lands and taxpayer dollars. America’s mining law must be brought into the 21st century.

Explanation / Answer

"An externality is a consequence of an economic activity experienced by unrelated third parties; it can be either positive or negative".In this case due to outdated and one side mining laws in favour of miners creates negative effects on people and surrounding environment and bio-life.

Yes, the tragedy of commons applies to this case. "The tragedy of the commons is an economic theory of a situation within a shared-resource system where individual users acting independently according to their own self-interest behave contrary to the common good of all users by depleting or spoiling that resource through their collective action". Hence it is very clear that miners act in their own interest and pollute the environment.

The theory of 'internalized externality' is: "internalize" an externality so that costs and benefits will affect mainly parties who choose to incur them.In this case, mining companies should be paying for the cost of pollution. lost of habitat and loss of ecosystem. New mining policy to bring 'polluters pay' principle in practice.

Possible policies to address mining pollution:

There should be a change in mining policy to make laws more eco-friendly. Federal land managers must have the discretion to balance mining with other land uses.No mines to be approved that pollute water and destroy the aqua ecosystem. Clear environment standards are to be set to restore natural environment affected by mines. A dedicated source of funding should be established to pay for the cleanup of abandoned mines that continue to pollute streams.

Possible policies to promote recycling of non-renewable resources:

1. Reduce, recycle and reuse of these resources.

2. Laws and regulations

Implementation of laws and regulations to curb waste of resources is important in the management of resources.

3. Managing water resources to save it from being overexploitation.

4. Use of eco-friendly technology rather than using polluting practices: Public transport, carpooling etc.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse 7
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.