Mining vs. Fishing in the Alaskan Wild

The Environmental Protection Agency has announced it will not move to delay the development of a gold and copper mine in Alaska’s Bristol Bay region, despite a report finding that it, “may well contribute to the permanent loss of 2,292 acres of wetlands and … 105.4 miles of streams.” This announcement follows after a court ruling that found that the EPA could revoke a “preemptive veto” proposed under the Obama administration, and pave the way for the US Army Corps of Engineers to approve the permit for the Pebble Mine.

This move is the latest development in a decade-long battle between the mining company and environmental conservationists. Opponents are concerned with the environmental damage that will be caused by the mining operations. In particular, there is concern that polluted water from the mine will enter the region’s streams and destroy the salmon fishery. The Bristol Bay region is home to roughly half of the world’s population of wild sockeye salmon, as well as four other salmon species. Not only is salmon fishing a major source of income in the region, it also is a major part of the native culture, and the salmon are an important food source for other animals, such as bears, that live in the wild.

Discussion Questions:

1. Other than banning mining, what are some other remedies the government can use to minimize the damage caused by the mine, i.e. how can they get the mining company to “internalize the negative externality.”
2. What are some of the barriers that might prevent the fishing industry and mining industry from reaching a Coasian private bargaining solution?

Sources: The Washington Post “EPA opts not to delay controversial Alaska mine for now” by Juliet Eilperin and Brady Dennis; Science Magazine “How a salmon scientist got hooked into a battle over the world’s largest gold mine” by Warren Cornwall; National Geographic; Scientific American “Alaska Mine Threatens Salmon and Native Cultures” by Nicole Mordant.