Here’s an open letter to Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska:
Dear Sen. Begich,
Last week, I had the privilege to sit in on a constituent teleconference with you concerning a number of issues confronting Alaska. During the course of your comments, and in response to a question concerning the Pebble Project, you indicated that you were reserving judgment until EPA’s pending Bristol Bay Assessment was complete. Implicitly, you suggested that the assessment was entitled to great weight, and that your opinion on the project would be driven by the conclusions reached in that study.
Your comments along these lines are of grave concern to this writer because the Bristol Bay Assessment, as they say on Capitol Hill, will be “Dead on Arrival.”
There is no shortage of flaws in the process the EPA has used in creating the assessment. Among the most basic is that it is premised upon a hypothetical mine that the Pebble Project has not proposed to construct and which, under existing statutory and regulatory requirements, could not be permitted. Distilled to its essence, it is a fabrication based upon weak science, cobbled together by a ragtag band of folks who are driven by different, unhealthy motives.
The fishermen of Seattle fear a possible impact on their bread-and-butter fishery. The residents of the Bristol Bay Region have been electrified by baseless fear-mongering. The multimillion-dollar environmental industry has seized on this project to burnish its fund-raising mission. Little needs to be added to the public record about Bob Gillam’s motivation. And EPA has gone way out on a limb, legally, to enlarge its authoritarian role. In the classic context of American democracy, a variety of activists, operating in their own self-interest, have come together in a common cause to shoot themselves in the foot.
My concern here is not that you give heed to these diverse naysayers. Of course you must – that is your job – you could lose your job if you did not. My concern is that you scare the rest of the Alaska community by suggesting that once the EPA has done its thing, you will make an “ex cathedra” pronouncement that will somehow give credence to what the EPA has already telegraphed it will conclude. I, for one, urge you to keep your powder dry, not only at this point, but for a long time into the future. And here’s why:
For the past 35 years, the United States has worked hard to put into place a comprehensive process for the regulation of how and where industry may impact the environment. Everything from endless environmental impact statements to intricate rules governing every aspect of potential water and air pollution has been generated. The detailed examination of virtually every jot and tittle on every project has filled the case law reports in law libraries across the country. The regulatory process works to a fare-the-well. The Pebble Project will be the beneficiary of every single one of those prescriptions. No one is going to turn a blind eye to any theoretical risk to anyone associated with mining in the Bristol Bay Region. Comprehensive environmental regulation insisted upon by federal, state and local agencies and overseen by the full array of stakeholders ensure that should the Pebble Project ever mature into a mine, it will be the very best development that science and technology can assemble.
There are other factors, however, that you should also keep in the back of your mind when pondering your political position. Perhaps 7 billion people around the world want to enjoy, at a minimum, the American standard of electricity and plumbing, and that demands new copper. The Pebble deposit is huge, but not nearly huge enough to meet the projected requirements. Assuming that copper must be mined for computers and hybrids, if for nothing else, the choice is whether to mine it in the most regulated environment in the world or to ship those many jobs offshore to less regulated jurisdictions where pollution and other social negatives may thrive. If you opt for regulation, as we must, where in America would you prefer to remote Alaska, a state more than three times the size of California? And where in Alaska would be better than in the poorest region of the state where thousands of local jobs paying wages far in excess of the state average for perhaps 100 years or more would actually do some good? Currently, southwest Alaska is rapidly losing its population base due to the dearth of local economic opportunities. The Pebble Project could staunch or even reverse that.
Finally, permit me to say that you have commendably demonstrated courage during your brief tenure by pushing back against an administration of your own party that inarguably has no sense of Alaska issues. Mining is Alaska’s second-largest industry, and the Pebble Project is the largest potential mining development on the horizon, but there will be more. It is critical to all that you make sound decisions with regard to this subject. Alaska is a resource state; the Pebble Project is an important resource. It deserves watching, not prejudgment.
