Category: resources

Are there enough minerals in the world for a total transition to an alternative energy system?

Are there enough minerals in the world for a total transition to an alternative energy system?

There’s an ongoing debate concerning the availability of minerals needed for a full transition to alternative energy sources. This conversation involves factors such as the Earth’s resource capacity, energy return on investment (EROI) for various energy technologies, technological advancements, and the practicality of shifting away from fossil fuels.

Many discussions have raised concerns about the adequacy of critical minerals required for renewable energy technologies like solar panels, wind turbines, and electric vehicle (EV) batteries. These technologies rely on materials such as rare earth elements, lithium, and cobalt, which might not be as abundant as more common resources. However, advancements in technology and improved recycling methods are being considered to address these concerns.

Recently, I have been reading about energy return on investment and energy flows in the current system (Brockway, 2019 and Barnard, 2023). Energy return on energy invested (EROI) is a calculation that experts use to try to answer questions about transitioning the energy system. EROI tells us the proportion of return on investment for producing energy and this can be then compared to the percentage that is used in the system and the investment needed to use it. Unfortunately, some methodologies for calculating EROI focus on the production side and compare energy source to source. These experts claim that since the EROI on oil is so much higher than for renewables, transition would be impossible from a sheer energy perspective. Other experts have begun to look at energy flows through the system, factoring wasted energy into the equation. These experts are saying that renewable energy produces  such little waste that the EROI is comparable with oil after factoring in efficiency (Brockway, 2019). Still others are saying that as the cost of extracting and processing the finite resource rises the transition to renewables is inevitable (Barnard 2023). 

A diagram of a energy consumption

Description automatically generated

Energy is often viewed as the economy is, as a supply and demand equation. After all, the economy is largely a story of energy inputs and outputs. On the supply side, people pay for energy produced and delivered with utilities accounts. This view is loaded with assumptions and hides energy waste out of view entirely. As a result, consumers pay for the lost 65% of energy generated in the delivery fees along with grid maintenance costs!With the supply side getting most of the attention we can easily stop imagining a brighter future with a thriving economy for our descendants.

However, the demand side of the equation is simply the wattage hours, rather than the cost of wattage hour. The wattage hours metered, the gallons pumped, or cordage dropped represents the demand side of the equation. A recent article by Micheal Barnard, for example, says that, “The primary energy fallacy is the assumption that all the energy, in all of the oil, gas and coal that we burn today must be replaced. We don’t need to replace it, we need to replace the unwasted energy services.” (Barnard, 2023). And that is less by a factor of two-thirds! Viewing it from this perspective suddenly seems much more doable.

The technologies are developing rapidly, for storage especially, but the intermittency of renewable energy is still a challenge to be met. The scale of that challenge, however, is less ominous than I thought. If we are building that new system for energy actually used and not comparing sources solely on the basis of production ROI, the future looks brighter. While concerns about mineral availability and EROI are well founded, ongoing developments suggest that a complete transition to an alternative energy system is plausible. This transition will likely require a combination of technological advancements, efficient energy utilization, and a shift in focus from energy replacement to maximizing energy services while reducing waste.

By Rachel Lyn Rumson


References

Barnard, M. (2023, February 13). Why Aren’t Energy Flows Diagrams Used More To Inform Decarbonization? CleanTechnica. https://cleantechnica.com/2023/02/13/why-arent-energy-flows-diagrams-used-more-to-inform-decarbonization/

SKAGEN Fondene (Director). (2023, January 16). Mark Mills: The energy transition delusion: inescapable mineral realities. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgOEGKDVvsg

Brockway, P. E., Owen, A., Brand-Correa, L. I., & Hardt, L. (2019). Estimation of global final-stage energy-return-on-investment for fossil fuels with comparison to renewable energy sources. Nature Energy, 4(7), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-019-0425-z

Lithium Mining: The Economics of the Future

Lithium Mining: The Economics of the Future

The recent discovery of a “world-class” lithium deposit in Newry, Maine, has sparked off a contentious debate over the environmental and economic future of the State. In response to this revelation, a recent bill was proposed to change Maine regulations to allow for unlimited mining for metals of any size, with up to 100 acres per individual location. However, the bill would retain Maine’s regulations requiring developers to prove that there will be no acid mine drainage or harm to water before any mining begins. Currently, Maine only permits open pit metal mining in 3 acre sections. 

Geologists believe the lithium deposit has a value of over $1 billion dollars, presenting Maine with an economic opportunity. The lithium crystals appear to be of very high quality, far surpassing the quality necessary for batteries. Furthermore, the change in regulations will affect the harvesting of other metals considered crucial for the transition to green energy, including a manganese deposit in Aroostook county. This has led to several environmental groups, including the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, coming out in support of this regulatory change, while others want the acre limit reduced or outright oppose the relaxation of mining regulations. 

There are also several other bills under consideration by the Environment and Natural Resources Committee. These alternatives present a range of options, such as a five-year moratorium on lithium mining, as well as a proposal that would exempt the type of minerals found in Newry from the law altogether. 

At the center of this mining debate is whether or not the definition of “metallic mineral” should be changed. Advocates want to make exemptions for lithium and other metals used in renewable energy. This is because Maine’s quarrying rules are much less stringent, making for a more efficient but less stringent process.

Under current law, “metallic mineral” is a policy definition which depends on what the harvested metals are used for. This makes it difficult to classify minerals on how they might be used in the future. This is especially true in regards to Newry, where the metals would be sold to out of state distributors. 

This topic is a clear example of how environmental and economic issues intersect. The push for sustainable green energy is creating a demand for lithium and other metals. This, in turn, necessitates more mining, which has a negative effect on the environment. Meanwhile, for the State of Maine, taking advantage of these deposits presents economic opportunities at the potential cost of the local environment. In a strange political twist, prominent environmental groups are calling for an expansion to mining and decreased regulations surrounding these metals, making the calculation that the long term economic and environmental benefits outweigh the risks. In conclusion, the national transition towards renewable energy is shaping the economic, cultural, and environmental debate in Maine. It will ultimately be up for the state to decide, but the economic and environmental tradeoffs are fascinating and caught our attention here at rbouvier consulting. If you are interested in this issue, the referenced sources below provide more detail, or contact us directly. 

Works Cited: Cough, K. (2023, April 24). State lawmakers consider removing size limits on open-pit metal mines. Press Herald. Retrieved April 25, 2023, from https://www.pressherald.com/2023/04/23/state-lawmakers-consider-removing-size-limits-on-open-pit-metal-mines/

Changes to the Census: What it Means to Researchers and Policy Makers

Changes to the Census: What it Means to Researchers and Policy Makers

At rbouvier consulting, we understand how vital Census data is at all levels of society. Not only is decennial Census data used to appropriate seats in the US House of Representatives, state governments, and allocate billions of dollars in federal funding, it’s also vital data used in research across the country that supports both public and private decision making.  

Which is why we’re concerned about changes to the 2022 Census and what it might mean for researchers and policy makers alike.

Challenges of the 2020 Census  

The 2020 Decennial Census was set to face unprecedented challenges even before the COVID-19 pandemic hit. In 2019, Kenneth Prewitt, a Carnegie Professor of Public Affairs and the Special Advisor to the President at Columbia University, spoke out about the 2020 Census and the issues it was expected to face. He addressed the major challenges the decennial census has faced throughout history and the nuanced challenges of the 2020 decennial census.

Since its inception, the census has consistently faced two major challenges: operational issues and partisan interference. Budget constraints and public distrust in the period prior to the COVID-19 pandemic added to those difficulties for the 2020 census. 

The US Census Bureau’s advertising budget for the 2000 and 2010 Censuses was dramatically boosted as a result of the concerningly high and rising non-response rates in the 1990 Census. Due to the success of the Bureau’s advertising activities and the country’s population growth, another budget rise for the 2020 Census was anticipated. Congress, however, decided against approving a budget increase for the 2020 Census. The Census Bureau did manage to offset at least part of its budget constraints by allowing able households to fill out the Census online. It also used administrative records to fill in gaps when respondents choose not to answer certain questions, helping to avoid costly in-person follow-ups to these respondents’ homes. The use of administrative records, however, posed another operational issue to the Bureau: public distrust and privacy concerns, which were more difficult to manage. 

Unsurprisingly, the outset of the pandemic brought about additional operational issues as concerns over health and safety halted all in-person operations. When in-person field operations did resume, the country was experiencing multiple hurricanes and deadly wildfires, and the Census Bureau struggled to find in-field staff due to public health concerns. Additionally, the country saw a mass number of people that were forced to relocate due to both the pandemic and multiple natural disasters, impacting the public’s ability to participate in the Census and the Bureau’s ability to reach certain households. There were a number of actions the Bureau took to mitigate these challenges, such as encouraging online responses and extending in-field operations by two months.2 

Partisan interference is a long-standing tradition of the Census, and the 2020 Census was no exception. Interference in the 2020 Census came in the form of a directive from the Trump Administration to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census form. The Administration claimed that the directive would assist the US Department of Justice in applying the Voting Rights Act. The directive went against the recommendation of the Census Bureau and sparked a fierce debate. The Bureau held that the question would both increase costs and result in a significant increase in non-response rates about immigrants and non-citizen households. It was expected that, if this question were to be added to the 2020 Census form, major cities with large immigrant populations could lose up to billions in federal funding. Many also feared the addition of a citizenship question would have significant implications for both disaster relief funding and disaster planning. Without an accurate count of the population, planners and emergency responders would struggle with both identifying vulnerable populations and effectively allocating resources. The Trump Administration did ultimately drop its efforts to add a citizenship question due to legal challenges, however, it is possible that the Administration’s efforts had lasting effects on the public’s view of the Census. The heated political debate both increased public concerns about the use of the Census as a government surveillance tool, as well as throwing the topic of the Census into a fiercely politically polarized debate. 

Quality of the 2020 Census 

In March of 2022, the Census Bureau released the results of its analyses of the quality of the 2020 Census. The Census conducts two analyses, a Post-Enumeration Survey (PES) and a Demographic Analysis (DA). Both of these analyses estimate the accuracy with which the Census has counted the nation’s population and population groups. The PES uses a sample survey to estimate the population size while the DA uses vital records and other types of data.  

Nationally, only 0.24% of the entire population was missed in 2020. Some states, however, experienced higher miscounts than others. The map below shows which states had undercounts and overcounts. Six states had undercounts, including Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Texas. Arkansas and Tennessee had approximately 5% of their populations missed, about 1 in 20 residents, and undercounts in Florida and Texas cost the state’s congressional seats.3 States that were overcounted include Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Utah. Overcounts in Minnesota and Rhode Island have appeared to have gained the states congressional representatives. 

Diagram

Description automatically generated

Certain demographic groups were also undercounted and overcounted. By race or Hispanic origin, the Census undercounted those who self-reported as Black, Hispanic or Latino, American Indian or Alaska Native, and “some other race” American Indians or Alaska Natives living on reservations were undercounted at the highest rate. Racial groups that were overcounted include those that reported as non-Hispanic white alone and Asian. When compared with the 2010 Census, groups that were undercounted or overcounted at statistically significant rates include non-Hispanic white alone, black, Asian, some other race, and Hispanic or Latino. 

Source: United States Census Bureau4

By age and sex, those 50 years and over were overcounted. Children aged 0 to 4, both males and females aged 18 to 29, and males 30 to 49 were undercounted. 

Source: United States Census Bureau5

Additionally, homeowners were overcounted in the 2020 Census by 0.42%, while renters were undercounted by 1.5%.

Many researchers, including us at rbouvier consulting, rely on Census data for accurate information regarding the sociodemographic characteristics of the region we study. While any undertaking as large as the Census is bound to have its issues (and the Census has attempted to rectify some of its prior errors), it is unsettling to see traditionally underrepresented groups continue to be underrepresented. This concern is compounded when we consider “differential privacy,” a practice by which the Census Bureau attempts to preserve the anonymity of residents from small geographic areas, a topic of one of our upcoming blog posts. The decennial Census is one of the best and most reliable sources of sociodemographic statistics we have. Nonetheless, it is worth “ground truthing” it with local results wherever possible.

References

1Prewitt, K. (2019). The 2020 Census: Unprecedented Challenges & Their Implications. American Academy of Arts & Sciences. https://www.amacad.org/news/2020-census-challenges-implications, retrieved on May 19, 2022.

2Jennifer Reichert & Dale Kelly. (2021, March 1). Adapting Field Operations to Meet Unprecedented Challenges. United States Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2021/03/unprecedented-challenges.htmll

3Mike Schneider & Associated Press. (2022, May 19). In 2 states, 1 in 20 residents were missed during U.S. Census. PBS News Hour. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/in-2-states-1-in-20-residents-were-missed-during-u-s-census

4,5 United States Census Bureau. (2022, March 10). Census Bureau Releases Estimates of Undercount and Overcount in the 2020 Census [Government]. Census.Gov. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022/2020-census-estimates-of-undercount-and-overcount.html#:~:text=The%20PES%20found%20that%20the,not%20statistically%20different%20from%20zero

Blog post by – Averi Varney

What You Need To Know About Maine’s Recycling Reform

What You Need To Know About Maine’s Recycling Reform

By Kayley Weeks

Maine lawmakers have passed the nation’s first extended producer responsibility law for packaging materials made out of materials such as plastic, cardboard and paper. The new law will require producers of products that are sold in Maine to pay a fee based on the type of packaging material they adopt for their products. While the law targets all types of packaging material, it is primarily meant to mitigate the impacts of plastic. 


Photo: Plastic waste on the ground” by Ivan Radic is licensed under CC BY 2.0.

Plastic is currently the most common material used for packaging. According to the Natural Resource Defense Council, 300 million tons of plastic are produced each year worldwide. Plastic was mass-produced for the first time after World War II.1 Companies preferred manufacturing plastics over traditional materials due to plastics’ overall versatility and affordable cost, resulting in the “Plastic Boom.” The rapid rate of plastic production did not leave significant planning time for the proper disposal of this material. In most municipal waste processing facilities, the majority of plastics are not recyclable. 

Before Maine passed the extended producer responsibility law, municipalities were financially responsible for processing any waste created by packaging materials. Municipalities generally send their recyclable waste to a processing facility. These facilities contract brokers to sell the material on the raw material market.2 It has been common practice for difficult to recycle waste to be sold and shipped to other countries that have their own waste disposal and processing laws. There is a common misconception that all recyclable waste is ethically disposed of, but hard-to-recycle waste often ends up in landfills in developing countries or unregulated dump sites resulting in harm to the people and environment. 

Extended producer responsibility creates an incentive for producers to use packaging that is more sustainable and less costly to recycle or dispose of. Without such an incentive, producers will continue to use what is of least cost to them, leaving disposal costs to fall on the shoulders of consumers and municipalities. 

In July 2017, China, the country that until then had been the primary buyer of the United States’ recycling material, banned the import of many types of foreign waste under Operation National Sword. Other bans followed. The impact of those bans reverberated throughout the world.  

Waste disposal costs increased sharply. In 2019, according to a report conducted by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, managing waste from packaging materials cost Maine municipalities between $16 million and $17.5 million each year.That cost is then passed on to taxpayers.

Maine’s new law requires private companies to pay in advance to cover the cost of the disposal of accumulated packaging materials. The stewardship program achieves this by requiring producers to pay into a fund based on the amount and recyclability of their products. The collected funds will be used to reimburse municipalities for eligible recycling and waste management costs. 

Since Maine’s law was passed, Oregon and Colorado have recently implemented their own extended producer responsibility laws, meeting Canada and many European countries who have had similar programs for years. This new legislation could help to decrease property taxes throughout the state, because taxpayers will no longer be responsible for covering the cost of packaging waste disposal. But, do not expect to see an immediate change. Due to the complexity of the reform and the large number of impacted stakeholders, the law will not formally go into effect for another 18 months. Municipalities will most likely receive their first payments in 2027. 

This is an example of what economists call “internalizing the externality.” By incorporating the cost of proper disposal into their production costs, producers are incentivized to develop packaging that is less costly to properly dispose of, and consumers may be prompted to buy products that are less damaging to the environment. Incorporating the full economic costs – financial, environmental, and social – into the price of a product will lead to more responsible long term decisions. 

Plastic was first mass-produced post-World War II. Then it surged again in the 1960’s and 1970’s 1. Consumers preferred plastics over traditional materials due to plastics’ ability to be produced in many different shapes and sizes, overall versatility, affordable cost and sanitation. These characteristics led to the rise of plastic, otherwise known as the Plastic Boom. The rapid rate of plastic production did not leave significant time to properly plan the best approach for disposing of this material. Today, plastic is the most common material used for packaging.

In the past, municipalities were required to pay for their own recycling or try to sell it on in the waste market. China, historically, has sorted waste and  reimbursed municipalities for valuable items. Now, municipalities have to pay other countries to take their waste, and the majority of that waste ends up in landfills in developing worlds, or unregulated dump sites. Not properly disposing of plastic waste is harmful to the environment. This is an unpleasant awakening to Americans due to the conjured up reality that there is a serious exportation problem. 

What exactly is producer responsibility? Producer responsibility will require that the companies that make products sold in Maine,  pay a fee per ton of packaging material that they create based on how recyclable the packaging is. The idea is that material that is easy to recycle will cost less, while harder-to-recycle materials will require a larger fee. The fees will then be reimbursed to municipalities. 

Producer responsibility creates an incentive for producers to use packaging that is more sustainable and easy to dispose of. Without any incentive, producers commonly cut corners to save money by using cheaper materials to package their products. 

Since January 2018, this practice has taken a toll on municipalities because China began to refuse to take any foriegn waste. Cities and towns have to pay more for recycling since China’s ban because there is no place for hard to recycle materials to go. 

In June 2021, Maine passed a new law requiring private companies to shell out the cost to dispose of packaging waste. Maine is the first state in the nation to pass this sort of legislation, meeting other countries around the world who have had similar programs for years. This new legislation could help to decrease property taxes throughout the state. But, do not expect to see an immediate change.

The law was originally drafted by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection in 2019, and was finally passed last summer. Due to the complexity of the reform and the large number of impacted stakeholders, the law will not formally go into effect for another 18 months. Municipalities will not catch sight of their first payments until 2027. 

Blog Post by Kayley Weeks.

1 Rogers, Heather. “A Brief History of Plastic – The Brooklyn Rail.” The Brooklyn Rail, May 2005, https://brooklynrail.org/2005/05/express/a-brief-history-of-plastic. Accessed 24 June 2022.

2 US EPA. “Recycling Basics | US EPA.” US Environmental Protection Agency, 21 December 2021, https://www.epa.gov/recycle/recycling-basics. Accessed 13 July 2022.

3 Natural Resources Council of Maine. “New Maine Law Will Shift Recycling Costs to Producers of Packaging Waste.” 13 July 2021, https://www.nrcm.org/sustainability/new-maine-law-shift-recycling-costs-to-producers-packaging-waste/. Accessed 8 July 2022.

Can Maine benefit from mining?

Can Maine benefit from mining?

With Maine’s forested lands and iconic rocky shoreline, the notion that forestry and fishing were once the mainstays of Maine’s economy should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with the state. But mining?

Well, yes – although you wouldn’t know it from looking at today’s employment figures.  But in addition to the geological phenomena that endowed Maine with its rocky soil and many lakes,  Maine was also blessed with an abundance of minerals from volcanic activity – at least in certain areas. In the late 1800s, Maine experienced something of a mini-boom in metallic mining – mining for iron, silver, copper, and zinc. However, a sudden drop in prices led to the abrupt decline of the industry, and Maine did not experience much mining activity until World War II.

In the mid-1970s, however, increased mineral exploration led to the development of several important caches, mainly copper, zinc, and lead. Those deposits have not been mined – yet. Why? The answer is complicated, but it has to do (at least partially) with the Callahan Mine, near Brooksville, ME in Hancock County.  After the zinc and copper mine ceased operation in 1972, the area was found to be contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), arsenic, and lead, among other heavy metals. The Environmental Protection Agency began a remedial investigation in 2004, with remedial action beginning in 2010. Clean-up is on-going, with passive treatment systems installed within the tailings impoundment and the removal of contaminated soils, either disposed of off-site or placed within a confined aquatic disposal (CAD) cell in another abandoned mine pit (Goose Pond). Full cleanup is expected to cost at least $23 million.

Unfortunately, even though remediation activities are ongoing more than 40 years after the site closed, groundwater at the site is still considered unfit for human consumption, and shore birds and other organisms are at risk. Part of the former mine site is located within the Goose Pond Estuary.

Within this context, the Maine legislature passed mining restrictions in the early 1990s that effectively prohibited metal mining. As a result, any mining activity in Maine was restricted to non-metallic mining (quarrying for rock, for example), at least until 2012.  While there still has been no active metallic mining since the 1990s, there sure has been a lot of activity.

In 2012, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection was directed by the Legislature to “modernize” the state’s 20 year old mining rules.  The new rules consisted of two parts: a section requiring permits for mineral exploration; and a section regarding the permitting process for mining-related activities.  The first part was adopted in 2013, but the second part was not approved by the legislature, hence creating an inconsistency between the existing mining rules and the Mining Act. The result has been a regulatory mess. In May of 2015, the Legislature’s Environment and Natural Resource Committee voted 8-5 to amend these rules again, but the resulting amendment failed to pass the Legislature.  By this time, both pro- and anti- mining positions were firmly entrenched.

Most recently, the Board of Environmental Protection voted unanimously to endorse a new set of regulations.   The proposed regulations attempt to resolve some of the shortcomings that had been pointed out last year. However, questions remain.

As an environmental and natural resource economist, my job is to look at the potential costs and benefits of any proposed legislation.  On the benefits side are the potential jobs and increased tax revenue that could come about from any development. On the costs side, of course, are the possible negative effects on the environment.

Let’s take a look at the benefits side of the equation. Anthony Hourihan, director of land development for Irving (a mining company with interests in Bald Mountain, one of the sites at the center of this debate), suggested that allowing this type of mining in Maine could result in 300 direct jobs and 400 indirect jobs, and a projection of $126 million in state and local taxes. Given that the proposed mining area lies in Aroostook county, an area of the state that experiences chronic persistent poverty and currently has an unemployment rate of 5 percent (as compared to 3.8% statewide and only 3.1% in Cumberland County), that is no small benefit.

But who will get these jobs?  Mining is not primarily a blue collar occupation any more -in fact, writes Phillipe Dolzone , a writer for the Balance, an online financial advice site, “The increasing complexity of the mining process and involved technology nowadays requires a much higher level of skills, including computer literacy.  As a result, most of the mining groups will more likely hire recently graduated students from high school programs in mining or technical school programs.”  Currently, Maine has none of these. So the first step in ensuring these jobs go to locals is to encourage any mining company that wants to establish a presence in Maine to incorporate a local training program, perhaps by partnering with a local Community college or trade school. One of the pitfalls of this “potential jobs” argument is just that- the jobs are potential. The job of a good economic development director is to ensure that those promised jobs do, in fact, materialize.

While a return to the days of mining camps is unlikely in Maine, companies may find it less costly to import talent from elsewhere rather than to foster it locally.  That may also be a boon to the area -if families come to Aroostook county for the mines and decide to stay, that itself is economic development.  It really depends on how long the mining activity is expected to last at a particular site. That,  in turn,  depends on the amount of reserves at the site and the rate of extraction, which in turn is determined by the price of the minerals and the cost of the technology needed to remove them.

That was the easy part. Now to look at the potential costs. Open pit mining,  which is the most common method and that most likely to be used in Maine, has the potential to expose radioactive elements,  as well as potentially contaminate groundwater and surface water. As minerals may be present in small quantities in a geographic area,  large quantities of ore need to be refined to get at it. Contaminants may be released into the water through separation of the minerals from the surrounding rock, where slurry containing mine tailings, water, and pulverized rock (which may in itself contain toxic or radioactive materials) is created. Other potential environmental costs are disruption to ecosystems and endangered species habitat,  large scale water extraction, and erosion.   Finally, some environmental groups have expressed concern that mining activity could affect Maine’s tourism industry.

To minimize these costs (and to maximize net benefit), the tailings or residue from mining activity must be contained and disposed of in a way that doesn’t adversely affect sediments, groundwater or surface water. Much of the waste that is generated is likely to be toxic or radioactive, and so proper disposal is essential.

Likewise, in order to minimize the harm done,  proper siting techniques need to be used. The mine’s footprint, including any access roads, must be sited in such a way that they don’t impact sensitive areas or endangered species habitat, or have the potential to increase flooding,  deforestation,  or erosion.

The biggest issues in the current fight over mining rules in Maine seem to be about both where mining can and can’t occur,  and what safeguards (environmental and financial) are in place to ensure restoration of the site after mining activities cease, as well as to pay for clean up should a disaster occur.

There are potential benefits and costs to mining in Maine.  The job of good policy is to ensure that institutions are in place to maximize the benefits and minimize the costs – as well as to ensure an equitable distribution of costs and benefits.  These include policies on local hiring, training and education, proper siting, and financial safeguards. Only then should each proposal be evaluated on its own merits.

I personally would like to see more economic development in Aroostook County. But only if that development does not come at excessive cost to the environment and to other industry.

What are your thoughts? Post them here!