https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/
In a column on Twin Metals’ planned sulfide ore copper mine (Local View: “Arrowhead better served without mineral leases,” Oct. 20), local economist Kris Hallberg wrote, “On the surface, the controversy appears to be a fight between two competing priorities: jobs versus environmental protection. But a closer look at the current economy of the region and the changing nature of rural economic development tells a different story.”
Hallberg was right that the debate is usually presented as this choice. However, as we at the Center of the American Experiment showed in our 2018 report, “Unearthing Prosperity: How Environmentally Responsible Mining Will Boost Minnesota’s Economy,” it is a false choice.
Sulfide ore copper mining can be done in an environmentally sustainable way. Sadly, despite her awareness of this trap, Hallberg fell into it herself.
She wrote, “A 2018 study by two Harvard economists compared the likely effects on employment and income of two alternative development paths — ‘with’ and ‘without’ the project — over the next 20 years. … The results were striking. Under almost all of the scenarios, the Twin Metals project would create a temporary boost to regional employment and income, but this would only last a few years.
After that, the economic benefits of the project would be outweighed by its negative impact on the recreational industry and in-migration. In the end, the region would be left worse off economically.”
For the rest of this article: https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/opinion/columns/4748809-An-Economists-Column-Mining-or-the-environment-is-a-false-choice-we-can-have-both