Making Mining Great Again: From Villain to Hero

Countries where mining is favored 

In several developed and developing countries, mining is an industrial activity that is considered key to development, just as no one should argue against agriculture, since it provides the sustenance for our survival. All industrial activities contribute to our development and well-being, and locally they have negative effects on the environment, which can be reduced to a minimum when some basic rules are established that minimize water and air pollution, guide responsible waste management, and lead to implementing measures that compensate for the inevitable ecological footprint, offsetting the damage generated in the ecosystem. This is how these countries advance to achieve the well-being of the population, and promote technological innovation to improve industry and environmental protection. 

In these countries, mining is a necessary activity, promoted by governments, which takes advantage of the riches of the territory, and transfers the benefits to citizens. What can be better than this?

Every country must take advantage of the resources that the Creator has placed on its soil, and promote the well-being of its people. The Creator has given us the planet to take advantage of and to take care of, and it seems to me that this is what the countries we are talking about are doing.

Countries That Do Not Want Mining

There are other countries that, although they know they need minerals for their development, have decided not to consider mining, because they do not want to see holes in their own soil; but they do want to enjoy the benefits that minerals generate in the form of fertilizers or metals used in other industries. This group includes several countries in Latin America and Europe. It is understandable that the rich countries of Europe do not want mining on their land because they can buy the minerals that others produce, but Latin American countries do not enjoy the development and well-being that Europe enjoys. In principle, this may be a valid position, if this position were to increase the well-being of their population, but in many cases, this decision does not increase well-being, but deprives the population of jobs, sources of wealth, income for the state, promotes migration and leads to greater poverty.

The anti-mining position as a banner

In several Latin American countries, politicians have adopted anti-mining discourses, out of ignorance, or perhaps convenience, to gain the support of eco-hysterical groups, national and foreign, who live off of slowing down development, but who believe themselves champions when they nationalize a specific mineral to be exploited exclusively by the government, who according to their own views, can do it more responsibly and efficiently than private companies.

In fewer cases, these same politicians assume an anti-hydrocarbon and anti-coal position, which they justify with the cause of climate change.

And on very rare occasions, they assume a position against minerals used in construction, such as those used for the production of cement, sand and gravel. Anti-mining groups even use slogans like “No to metal mining,” confirming that they have no objection to open-pit mining, usually used to find minerals for construction. Several contradictions can already be seen in these positions.

The countries in Latin America where anti-mining positions run into obstacles to advance are those where mining is not developed exclusively by foreigners, but is also developed by local businessmen, who, with their network of contacts and political influence, manage to stop, not always successfully, anti-mining policies.  

Anti-Mining Justifications

The anti-mining position adopted in various countries with different shades is based on the support they receive from small, eco-hysterical anti-mining groups, who consider that mining poisons the ecosystem and destroys the territory. Others assume that mining violates the land rights of Indigenous peoples and does not bring any kind of well-being to nearby communities, but on the contrary, generates division and destroys the social fabric.

Environmental Impact 

One leader from the mining industry has said that “this industry has the most positive environmental impact on the face of the Earth” .He is Marc Cutifani, the former CEO of Anglo-American and current chairman of Vale Base Metals. His justification is based on two considerations, one related to the contribution to agriculture, due to the minerals used to produce fertilizers, as well as the minerals used in the manufacturing of machines and tools, without which, agriculture would have a much larger ecological footprint than that obtained with the use of fertilizers and machinery. The second consideration is in urban development, which considers that without metals, high-rise buildings could not be planned, and cities would have a larger ecological footprint, since they would have to grow in surface area. Despite the great benefits obtained from minerals and metals, and the fact that it only occupies a small percentage of the planet's surface compared to the reduction of the ecological footprint achieved in agriculture and vertical urban development, mining undoubtedly needs to implement practices that reduce environmental and social impacts in the places where it operates.

Therefore, although the minerals obtained from mining are the saviors of civilization (the hero), many consider that the activity that allows their extraction is evil, damaging to the planet and that it must be stopped. Could it be that the villains are those who prevent or want to prevent the mining industry from prospering? Would the same criteria apply to those who oppose agriculture or livestock? Would the anti-miners and the eco-hysterics then be the villains?

Negative Public Perception

In several countries, the idea of ​​how evil metal and coal mining is has been successfully sold. The mining industry, for its part, has not been able to convey the correct message to the media, politicians and the population, with the necessary force and in a timely manner to counteract the noise generated by opponents. Is this an information battle?

It seems to me that the different actors in the industry have not united. They keep a distance between themselves, for different reasons, that prevents them from joining forces. Is this an urgent issue to be resolved – what do you think?