We knew that the mining industry was an enthusiastic supporter of Joan Fitz-Gerald before the CD-2 primary race started. And throughout the race she hasn’t even bothered trying to distance herself from those ties. As the race has worn on more of Joan’s mining support has come out, become more clear, stood up, been counted, shown its face, and given her opponents juicy ammo. All this exploded this week as Jared Polis’ campaign released a letter in which Joan tried to back Summit County away from banning cyanide heap leach gold mining (see previous post and ColoradoPols threads about this).
(Note that it didn’t take long for Jared to come out strongly against cyanide mining. Great job, Jared! I can tell you’ve been a passionate and dedicated opponent of this technique for years! Way to stick your neck out and take the opportune obvious expedient right position! Way to be a real leader on this! Oh wait, I guess Jared’s not so clean after all.)
On one of the Pols stories I commented about Joan’s cameo appearances in two different Colorado Mining Association newsletters (one in 2003, the other in 2006), praising her for her support for the mining industry.
Is this a problem? As some commenters in the Pols’ vigorous debate argue, we use the materials derived from mining constantly. We rely on those materials, so what’s the problem? Why is Joan’s defense of the mining industry a problem?
Mining itself is not the problem. We do rely on minerals, and to get those minerals we must mine for them. The problem is that the mining industry is comprised of private and publicly-held mining corporations and the only responsibility these companies have is to their owners or shareholders. They (and rightfully so), strive for maximum profit, and therefore minimal expenses. Mining cleanly? Mining with the utmost care and attention to the environment? An obvious expense.
Society has a different calculation to consider: minerals, yes, but not at the cost of a destroyed environment. The People need to balance minerals extraction with environmental preservation.
So we have a natural and unavoidable tension: mining companies want to make money, society wants the products and a clean environment. We create government regulations to try to ensure we get both, but it is clearly in the companies’ best interest to ensure the minimization of regulations.
So it is industry’s interest to not be regulated, it is in our interest that they are. The relevant question to be asked here is: which side is Joan Fitz-Gerald on? After seeing her praised in print by the CMA twice, after seeing her letter to Summit County, after noting her PAC contributions from mining industry groups, it’s pretty damn clear which side Joan is on. If she is acting in the interest of Mining can she also be acting in the interest of stringent regulations of mining? Not bloody likely. The relevant question for CD-2 voters is: does such a strong supporter of the mining industry warrant our vote?
Joan peppered the CD-2 energy and climate debate with platitudes about the environment, how she drives a Prius, how she’s against all things nuclear, etc. But Joan is walking a razor’s edge espousing a Prius-driving lifestyle while pushing counties away from banning potentially destructive mining practices and taking oodles of mining PAC money. This kind of hypocrisy may be present in most political officials, but it doesn’t mean we have to like it or accept it. In Joan I don’t.
A 100% environmental voting record from Colorado Conservaton Voters for JFG in the last 5 years shows a commitment to environmental interests.
I learned more about the Summit County pending(?) cyanide ban looking into this than I had ever previously heard. I can’t say what JFG’s motivations were in 2004, or her position on heap leaching now. Speaking as a naive idealist, it would be more effective public policy to ask the campaign to squarely address the policy rather than to denounce them for a letter sourced from Polis with out much context.
Some obvious missing context here would be hearing from those “anti-mining activists” on there motivations.
Finally, its a fallacy that regulation by all levels of government is inherently good (or legal) policy. There are credible arguments that county level zoning restrictions on mining are bad policy. See the convoluted legal challenges to the Summit county law.
Any, I’m still a JFG supporter.
PS I don’t think I’ll ever get motivated motivated to post to ColordaoPols – way too high personal attack ratio to insight . . .
“The problem is that the mining industry is comprised of private and publicly-held mining corporations and the only responsibility these companies have is to their owners or shareholders. They (and rightfully so), strive for maximum profit, and therefore minimal expenses. Mining cleanly? Mining with the utmost care and attention to the environment? An obvious expense.”
There are way too many environmental regulations and oversight agencies involved in mining and permitting (even after mines go in) for the above statement to be at all true. Of course mines strive for profit. So do all other businesses. Mines now have in-house environmental departments that take care to follow numerous state and federal regualations, and in many cases to exceed requirements.