Hey, no racist overtones in that corporate moniker.

Anglo American. Let’s start a competing firm and call it Afro American, with a subsidiary called Mexican American.

I can just see the board meeting where the guiding geniuses ok’d that one. Criminy.

I continue to maintain that the US has no strategic need for a new source of copper, but I cannot deny your point that there is a strong financial argument for a new mine, or lots of new mines. The US is not the only consumer of copper.

Still, I do love salmon, as do my kids. AGW may spell the end of all fisheries, everywhere, but I’d still rather that be their fate, rather than heavy metal poisoning. Because it’s likely to take longer.

BTW, I am a big fan of your comments.

Now, if we employ Strangelet’s Second Law of Opinion Polls — which is: lop off 10% both directions from “No Opinion”, because a lot of people who really should have no opinion refuse to admit it — I suspect we find 100% opposition.

Of course, the locals could be doing a NIMBY thing. Is there a compelling reason why the Pebble Mine should proceed despite the essentially unanimous opposition of its human neighbors?

Gold, copper, moly….. I’m pretty sure the US does not have a strategically compelling need for another source of gold or copper, just now. Molybdenum is a little harder to evaluate, because it keeps showing up as a critical component of all kinds of things. Still, I’d be inclined to the notion that the prospective miners should be obligated to prove to the public (that’s you, Alaskans) the necessity for this new source of moly. Rather than the notion that I, or you, should have to prove that it’s unneeded.

Full disclosure: I love Alaskan salmon. Everybody should love Alaskan salmon. I’m personally certain that I would be willing to forego a substantial number of molybdenum-dependent high-tech items, for an indefinite period of time, in order to ensure that there would continue to be Alaskan salmon.

First a few perspective comments. If corporations are left to themselves to act responsibly then it is clear that their responsibility at least from their point of view is to their stock holders and management. Taking the example of Health Insurance Corporations, they daily make decisions to deny life saving care to policy holders in order to enhance profits. IOW they deliberately allow people to die. The profit motive of a mining company is no different, therefore they will do everything in their power to develop the mine if it can make a profit.

Although it may be “possible” given good planning, engineering and diligent management, to develop a mine with the minimum environmental impact, and avoid a catastrophic mistake that destroys fisheries, communities, etc. it can be depended upon that any corner that can be cut to enhance profits will be cut. What this means simply is that even given an excellent development plan and multiple layers of safeguards, without strict, vigilant and persistent enforcement by an objective overseer, such a plan will never be implemented or run according to its own stipulations. Moreover any oversight body can be corrupted. In an ideal world these considerations might be tractable. We do not live in an ideal world.

The force behind this project is simple, global demand for copper. Gold is worth more by weight but industrially insignificant by comparison. Copper is “the” best conductor of electricity and as such has no substitute. Any substitute would have an equal if not greater impact in the form of a resource exploitation elsewhere. To put some perspective to this issue I have seen citations to the effect that fully 1/3 of the world’s human population has no access to electricity. Recycling will not solve this problem as much of the copper used in infrastructure remains in service for decades. Eliminating pennies from the currency will not have a significant impact on demand for copper.

I could go on for a few more paragraphs painting how grim the picture is of resource demand versus maintenance of environmental quality. The fact is, however, that even the legitimate claim that this mine endangers magnificent and established ecosystems is somewhat tainted if the population of humans in Bristol Bay and environs is increasing at all. That population has an impact as well, just as does the global population increase. So at the notable Pogo comic strip cartoon from some decades past pointed out so eloquently, we have met they enemy and they are us.

There are other factors at play that may render the entire debate moot. Fish are quite sensitive to the temperatures of the water in which they live according to my primitive understanding. It may well be that in a decade or two the fisheries will be destroyed by increased water temperatures as a result of AGW. As I suggested in the previous paragraph, it may also be that overfishing will result in similar effects. This is not a hypothetical problem for a class room exercise, this is the real deal.

Many of you may be reasonably familiar with the concept of “peak oil”. Plainly stated it is the point at which the rate of discovery of new oil reserves falls behind the rate of exploitation of existing reserves. Peak copper was passed many years ago, and the same is true for a number of other commodities.

I don’t profess to have the wisdom or the knowledge to offer a throughgoing solution, on the contrary, I would suggest that lack of knowledge is one of our most urgent problems. Never the less, one thing seems logically compelling and that is if we are to accomplish the preservation of the environment and achieve sustainable living, the primary means of doing so is to slow the growth of demand and eventually stop it in its tracks.

As to practical suggestions I can only offer the following: Those opposed to the development of the Pebble Mine must come together and form a unified coallition that can apply their smaller resources to scrutinize the Pebble plan and criticize the weaknesses and vulnerabilities. Political action will also be required and having no expertise in that area I cannot say anything of substance. Further to that, any opposition must recognize that even a victory today of blocking the development of the mine will only forestall some future effort in the same direction. When the price of copper reaches $10 US/lb.

I have left out a lot of other factors that enter into all of this, it isn’t a simple problem, and there are no simple solutions. I am not advocating that the Pebble Mine project go forward because I am not familiar enough with the plans to say one way or the other if it is as sound as it can be made and as stated above, skeptical that even if it was it would be executed responsibly. But I am trying to raise the level of awareness here as to what the driving forces are.

There is basically only one thing that will stop the Pebble Mine, no profit.

We all should think about that in the context of our own lives when we try to act in a fashion that is responsible and considerate of the whole community.