an ethically-informed reason to oppose
nickel-sulfide mining in Michigan
home 16 December 2007 Governor Jennifer M. Granholm P.O. Box 30013 Lansing, MI 48909 Dear Governor Granholm: We, the undersigned, urge you to reject the proposal to allow Kennecott Mining Co. to create a nickel-sulfide mine in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Many of our colleagues have offered appropriate environmental reasons to reject the mining proposal. We appreciate those reasons. Here, we present additional reasoning for rejecting the mining proposal – reasoning that, we believe, has been underappreciated. Mining proponents value the economic welfare of Michigan. As do we. Mining proponents realize that nickel is a valuable raw material that can be utilized in many positive ways (such as batteries for use in hybrid automobiles). We recognize this as well. Mining proponents see nickel mining as a way to promote Michigan’s short-term economic welfare. We also see this. Mining proponents also realize that the proposed mine would cause and might cause various harms to the environment. We agree. Ultimately, proponents of the mining proposal think that the certain, short-term economic benefits outweigh the risk of incurring short-term and long-term environmental costs. Although many Michiganders agree with this reasoning, many do not. For a democratically elected leader, the issue seems difficult to resolve because the (environmental) costs do not appear to clearly outweigh the (economic) benefits, nor does the reverse seem clearly true. The apparent equality between these costs and benefits is a misperception for two reasons. First, many appreciate the various environmental costs that scientists tell us will or may occur if this mine were built. Despite well-appreciated complexities that uncertainty brings to a decision-making process, uncertainty about the costs inevitably results in those costs being discounted, at least to some extent. Sadly, this accounting overlooks an important dimension of the costs – a dimension that transcends science and economics. Namely, many Michiganders, very simply and quite reasonably, think that the proposed nickel-sulfide mine represents an inappropriate relationship with Michigan’s natural environment. In the same way that human prostitution is not made right because it would create jobs or because psychologists debate what exactly are its effects on human health, the value of nickel-sulfide mining cannot be made right by scientific or economic arguments. In contrast to the science and the economics of nickel-sulfide mining, there is no uncertainty that many (perhaps most) Michiganders respect nature in a way that precludes nickel-sulfide mining. Manifesting their respect is to manifest our democratic principles. The second reason that the costs and benefits appear irresolvably similar is that the benefits of the mine have been greatly exaggerated. The health of our economy is not, as is implied, fundamentally dependent on having more nickel. If it were, we would work harder to satisfy more than just 1/3 of our demand for nickel with recycled nickel1. Moreover, the prosperity of our economy cannot depend on more nickel. Our own federal government reports that if the United States were to more equitably share nickel resources with the rest of the world, global nickel reserves would be depleted in less than 60 years1. From now on, flourishing economies will be those that discover how to live prosperously in a world with less, not more, nickel per capita. Ultimately, controversy about nickel-sulfide mining arises from being confused about the nature of our problem. Proponents of the mining proposal mistakenly think that our primary problem is how to get more nickel. However, our problem is indisputably how we will learn to flourish in an economy with less nickel, per capita. Even if nickel is not fundamental to our economic health, might it be most sensible to develop sustainable economies and mine nickel for short-term profit? No. Unsustainable economic activities are fundamentally inconsistent with a sustainable economy. Without underestimating the severity of Michigan’s current economic condition, the economic benefits of the mining proposal are exaggerated. The benefits are fleeting, distracting, and of too little benefit to too few Michiganders. At best, the mining proposal is a ‘fix’ to our current economic problems, in the same way that another hit of heroine fixes an addict’s shakes. The mining proposal is far from a harmless fix; its costs are real and underappreciated. Rather than a fix, Michiganders need solutions that will carry us into the new economy. For these reasons, we urge you to reject the mining proposal. 1source: U.S. Geological Survey, cited by David Cohen, Ph.D. economist, in a New Scientist article, doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(07)61315-3. Robert Arking, Ph.D. Professor of Biological Sciences Wayne State University Mark Axelrod, Ph.D. Visiting Assist Professor of Fisheries & Wildlife Michigan State University Jackie Bird, DVM, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Biology Northern Michigan University Burton V. Barnes, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Natural Resources University of Michigan John G. Bruggink, Ph.D. Professor of Biology Northern Michigan University Gene Cline, Ph.D. Professor of Philosophy Director of Prentiss M. Brown Honors Program Albion College David J. Flaspohler, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Ornithology Michigan Technological University Jacqualine B. Grant, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Conservation Biology Michigan Technological University Brent M. Graves, Ph.D. Department of Biology Northern Michigan University Gail Griffith, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Chemistry Northern Michigan University Thaddeus Grudzien, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Biology Oakland University Scott Herron, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Biological Sciences Ferris State University Casey J. Huckins, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Aquatic Ecology Michigan Technological University Daniel M. Kashian, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Biology Wayne State University Barb Keller, Ph.D. Associate Professor and Chair Dept. of Chemistry and Environmental Sciences Lake Superior State University Steven Kohler, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Ecology Western Michigan University Mark A. Largent, Ph.D. Director of Science, Technology, and Environmental Public Policy Specialization Assistant Professor, James Madison College Michigan State University Jordan J. Lindberg, Ph.D. Executive Vice President, eFulfillment Service, Inc. Adjunct Faculty, Department of Philosophy and Religion, Central Michigan University Alec Lindsay, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Molecular Ecology Northern Michigan University Terry Link Director, Office of Campus Sustainability Michigan State University Carol A MacLennan, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Anthropology Michigan Technological University Alex S. Mayer, Ph.D. Professor of Geological & Environ. Engineering Michigan Technological University Aaron McCright, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Environmental Sociology Michigan State University Linda M. Nagel, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Forestry Michigan Technological University Michael P. Nelson, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Environmental Ethics Michigan State University Moti Nissani, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Biological Science Wayne State University Kelly A. Parker, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Philosophy and Chair Department of Philosophy Grand Valley State University Ivette Perfecto, Ph.D. Professor of Natural Resources University of Michigan Rolf O. Peterson, Ph.D. Professor of Wildlife Ecology Michigan Technological University Thomas Pypker, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Forest Ecology Michigan Technological University John Rebers, Ph.D. Professor of Biology Northern Michigan University Alan Rebertus, Ph.D. Biology Department Northern Michigan University Gary Stark, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Business Northern Michigan University Geoffrey Steinhart, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Biology Lake Superior State University Roger Strand, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Aquatic Ecology Northern Michigan University Karen Strasser, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Biological Sciences Ferris State University Jean I. Tsao, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Biology Michigan State University John A. Vucetich, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Animal Ecology Michigan Technological University Maarten Vonhof, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Biological & Environmental Studies Western Michigan University Craig Waddell, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Rhetoric & Communication Michigan Technological University John Waller, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of History of Medicine Michigan State University Gregory Zimmerman, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Biology Lake Superior State University
Signatories (in alphabetical order)
Michigan’s state government is considering allowing the development of a nickel-sulfide mine in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.  There are substantial, well-articulated scientific reasons to opposed this mining effort.  The letter below enriches technical reasons for opposing the mine by presenting a scientifically- and ethically-informed reason to oppose the proposed mine.  The letter has been signed by more than 40 professors from universities across Michigan.
For a pdf version of this letter, click here.