I THINK MINING

Biking around Vancouver yesterday, we dropped into a coffee shop on Granville Island. The coffee was advertised as Organic and Fair Trade. I noticed that four of their major offerings were from Cuba. Baffled by the concept of anything fair trade from Cuba, I asked the young lady behind the counter how coffee from Cuba could possibly be fair trade. With a wave of her hand she replied “I dunno. That’s what they tell me to tell the customer. It keeps them quiet.” Which proves, I suppose, that truth is too precious to be wasted on the public. As long as you say it in elegant tones, most people will believe it. Certainly my companion bought $15 of Cuban coffee, which I refuse on principle to drink. It’s too much like benefiting from slave labor.

We stopped for a second cup of coffee in another shop. Lying on a dirty table was a copy of the Globe and Mail, that rather pompous Canadian national newspaper. The headline concerned a story I have previously written about on this blog; The scrap between Montana and British Columbia over mountaintop coal mining and gas extraction in BC that may send contaminants down the river to Montana.

The news report told of the Premier of British Columbia, Gordon Campbell, sending a letter to the Governor of Montana, Brian Schweitzer in support of BC mining. On reading the newspaper article, my first thought was that it is heartening to hear that the political leader of a major jurisdiction is going on record as a pubic supporter of mining. The Campbell letter unequivocally supports mining in BC

I do not have a copy of the letter. In fact the Globe and Mail report says that the Governor of Montana does not yet have the letter. Here is what the Globe and Mail says is in the letter.

Stung by a letter from Mr. Schweitzer three weeks ago that takes B.C.’s performance to task, Mr. Campbell took his own gloves off and offered up a detailed defense of the province’s environmental assessment program while casting aspersions, in diplomatic language, on the Montana record: “I’m surprised and disappointed that you are rejecting the draft action plan developed by our officials over the last 18 months, I find it difficult to understand that you would reject a plan for our two governments to work together through the Action Plan.”

The Premier suggests that the main reason Mr. Schweitzer wants to preserve the Flathead is because the rest of Montana has been turned over to industrial use: “We recognize in particular that Montana’s land-use and resource-development decisions elsewhere in the state mean the Flathead Basin is the only remaining major protected area in Montana,” Mr. Campbell says.

He argues that the Flathead, and adjacent Glacier National Park, face far more serious threats than future energy developments in B.C.:”I understand scientists, including Montana scientists, predict there may be no glaciers in Montana’s Glacier National Park by 2030 or sooner due to global warming.”

The Premier then tells Mr. Schweitzer it is “inappropriate and unjustified to single out mining of fossil fuels” in Canada as the only threat to the Flathead ecosystem: “Other human development activities in the region represent clear, and perhaps more immediate threats to water quality and wildlife in the area,” the Premier says. “Urbanization and residential development, other industrial activity, recreational activity, unregulated and unplanned development on private land are among them.”

Mr. Campbell then takes Mr. Schweitzer to task for negative comments about potential coal-bed methane development, pointing out that while B.C. will not allow energy companies to discharge wastewater from coal-bed methane wells on the surface, Montana does. “I understand Montana has 807 producing coal-bed gas wells,” the letter states.

Now this letter sounds to me like a defence of fair trade coffee from Cuba. At least it is convoluted enough to join the gallery of silly defences of wrong-headed causes. How can a leader of a major jurisdiction try to defend his county’s actions by attacking another country’s past sins. OK, I know this is done in third world places, but the sight of two so-called civilized places stooping to such silly invective is embarrassing.

If you deconstruct Campbell’s reasoning, he is saying the Montana has already messed up its environment so bad with mining and industry, that BC could do no worse to BC nor Montana. Campbell is saying that global warming is going to mess up Glacier so bad, that it is irrelevant how much mess BC makes.

Now both of these propositions may be entirely true. But that does not, in my opinion, constitute a polite basis for international diplomacy, or a justification for further environmental despoliation.

Surely the only basis for going ahead with the new mines in BC is that proper procedure has been followed in all jurisdictions potentially affected by the development. If the mines are not going to negatively impact the environment, and we all know that it is possible to mine and achieve these objectives, then let us prove this up front by following the rule of law and due process. I cannot see how trading school-boy insults between Premiers and Governors is going to prove anything, net alone advance the cause of scientific and objective enquiry.

Naturally politics is involved. The people who now own Montana are politicking their politicians. The rich and famous who now own the ranches, valleys, and hills of Montana, do not need mining to pay for their jets and jewels. They have come to the state for its pristine beauty, and as I know from many a trip through the state there is a lot of it, in spite of Campbell’s assertion of wide-spread mining and industrial devastation. The people of Montana do not want mining, they want granola nature.

I cannot get my head around the political science implications of this story: normally the rich and well-connected come wanting to mine and they are opposed by the local poor, who do not understand the advantages that await them when the mine opens. In this case, we have the poor of BC wanting the mine for income and taxes. How else to pay for the drug injection sites and detox units springing up around Vancouver. And the rich and famous of Montana oppose the mining. It is all topsy turvey. It is made worse by scrapping politicians, and the dollars screaming to parity turn economic conclusions upside- down.

Thus my recommendation. Stop advertising fair trade coffee from Cuba, stop arguing that mountaintop mining is the answer to global warming, stop justifying future pollution by reference to past pollution, and stop sending letters. Rather set in motion the tried and trusted process of law that characterizes both jurisdictions. Stop acting like third world dictators, Castro included, and start acting like responsible democratic leaders.

Maybe all we need take away from this in another Investment Rule, as postulated here:

Investment Rule 4: Do not buy shares in a mining venture until the politicians have stopped grandstanding, even if they support the mine when waving their hands and trumpets.

PS. After posting this item, my attention was drawn to this news item:

HELENA, Montana (AP) Canada’s ambassador to the U.S. says Montana’s U.S. senators went too far in requesting an international panel. It was sought to review a possible coal mine in southeastern British Columbia. Ambassador Michael Wilson says convening a panel to review the proposed Cline Mining Company project would be unprecedented and unnecessary. In a letter to Senators Max Baucus and Jon Tester, Wilson also says neither US nor Canadian law provides for an international review. The senators cite environmental reasons in wanting to head off the proposed Cline coal mine north of Montana’s Glacier National Park. Wilson says Cline hasn’t even requested permits.