How can mines benefit from global warming?  Greg Easterbrook, in the April 2007 Atlantic Monthly notes that in economics there are no  zero-sum games; somebody will benefit from global warming.  His top nominees are the Inuit who rule Nunavut, a place that will change from a frozen waste land to a nice warm place.   Then there is Greenland waiting to be clear of the ice.  Both places probably contain ore bodies just waiting to be mined.  Is the mining industry ready?  The obvious action is to go exploring and stake claims.  This all seems like trivial, trash-press talk.  But just maybe it is not, and global warming may just be for real.  Rationale people might as well discuss how we are going to benefit from the inevitable. 

Easterbrook points out that the nations of the northern hemisphere, already blessed with resources, will probably benefit most from global warming.  He speculates that real estate prices in Buffalo will rise to levels now common in Florida.   He faces with equanimity the need to rebuild cities inundated by rising seas.  Can you imagine how much mining of sand and aggregate and metal will be needed to rebuild New York and New Orleans?  He notes that Canada, of all nations, stands to gain most from global warming—a possible explanation for its current blase attitude to emissions control and Kyoto implementation (in spite of the protestations of ambitious politicians relegated to opposition benches.)   

On the issue of whether planning to profit from global warming is immoral and a case of throwing in the towel, Easterbrook in an interview on the Atlantic website notes:

I think at this point some form of mandatory greenhouse gas restrictions are justified; the sooner the United States enacts them the better, as long as they are wisely written. I’m an optimist on this issue and I think that control of greenhouse gases will turn out to be cheaper than predicted and will turn out to work faster than predicted and that human ingenuity will be much more creative than people think. So within a realistic length of time—say, your lifetime—this problem of artificially triggered climate change will be brought under control. But even if reforms are really successful, as long as greenhouse theory is correct, a warming world is absolutely cast in stone—the armies of the world could not prevent it at this point. And even really successful programs of greenhouse gas reduction in the developed nations will not stop increasing accumulation in the atmosphere for at least several decades, and maybe longer. And unless greenhouse gas theory is totally wrong, in which case we don’t have to care about this, the world is going to get warmer and the climate is going to change and we must make our peace with it because we can’t stop it. That’s not capitulation, that’s pragmatism.

Hence let us be pragmatic about the opportunities for the mining industry.  We  leave the issue of curbing emissions in China and India (really the only way to achieve any real carbon emissions reductions) to the environmentalists, their Chablis and brie (to lift a phrase from Easterbrook.)   We leave the issue of carbon credits to the economists.  There must be a rationale free-market way to do this before we get stuck with ill-conceived government pie-in-the-sky emissions standards.

General Electric, GE, is singled out as the company most likely to succeed in a warming world.  They build power generating windmills.  They are developing clean coal-powered plants and getting ready to build nuclear power plants.  How can the mining industry emulate this. Clearly investment in clean-coal, uranium, and platinum mines is a winner for the future.  Clearly investment in the quarries and pits that will be needed to build dikes to control rising waters and to rebuild displaced cities is logical.  Clearly exploration of the northern parts of Canada, Greenland, and Siberia make sense. 

The people to make these mines in currently ice-covered places, are now in the hotter parts of the world from which they will want to flee.  So mines should stop trying to solve the problem of future workers by making schoolhouse presentations.  Rather we should be seeking people of merit in other countries and bring them in rapidly, now, and proactively in the future.  And just maybe a mining industry group or association will fund somebody to write the other side of Gore’s story—not an attack, not a rebuttal, but a realistic analysis of what demands global warming will make on the mining industry and how we can meet the challenges of ensuring the continuation of societies that we can be proud of and benefit from, and I do not mean societies where we all ride bikes and eat tofu. 

This piece would not be complete if I did not also note that global warming is now causing, and will cause great social change.  The April 2007 Atlantic Monthly also has an article that ascribes the tragedy in Darfur to global warming:  drought changed the relationship between the farmers and the pastoralists.  They no longer share resources, of which they are few to none.  Now they fight and kill and clear the land in the hopes of grabbing what little remains.   There will be vast movements, or attempted movements, of people from hot, desertified regions to more temperate climes.   Already Canada and Denmark are squaring off over distant islands in the north.  Can you imagine what will happen when heat-parched Brazil invades the cool parts of southern Argentina?  Maybe you had better get your mining in that part of the world done before the conflict begins. 

It is scary to postulate that miners will be in great demand to create new cities below ground in cool, deep caverns.  Just like those around Kansas City, dug into the limestone and even now places where there are universities and offices.   Maybe the SME should keep on with the specialty sessions on urban mining, for that kind of mining may be key to many a city’s survival.  Just imagine how bad Houston and Phoenix could get.  The good news is that Iowa will become warm; we will have two growing seasons.  Maybe you should sell your mining stock and invest in Iowa farm land. 

To close:  I recognize this topic incites and inflames.  I recognize I am talking about potential changes bigger than those resulting from past global wars.  I recognize I may have been frivolous (this is a blog.)  In defense, please accept that my underlying purpose is to cut through the rhetoric, cut to the chase, and shake us all into an awareness and profound discussion of something we can cost-effectively ameliorate before it is an international tragedy.  I know that mines will continue and be but a tiny part of a much bigger debate.   But I believe that mines and the mining industry can and must do its fair share to prepare for changes we currently do not see clearly.  Join me in this debate, for in so doing we may stumble on the answer.