Gold!

The BBC is reporting a "gold rush" by independent miners in the Amazonian lowlands, and something similar seems to be going on in Nome, Alaska.

Although Alaskans often believe themselves to be on the global periphery--Alaskans define their identity in part through their remoteness from the rest of the US, and indeed from the rest of the world--Alaska often finds itself in the middle of global economic and political currents.  A good example is the current commodity boon that is driving up the prices of things like oil, copper, gold, and other resources.  Similar dynamics drove the 1898 gold rush, and other resource-based industries in the state throughout its history. We may be far away from the source of this boom (economic development in places like China, India, South America, and even here in Africa), but globalization brought the effects to Alaska in the 19th century, and they continue to bring them in the 21st.

As an Alaskan conservationist, what to do?  On the one hand, I'm no big fan of mining, in Peru, Alaska, or anywhere else.  I don't like the environmental costs.  Of course, I use metal stuff (and other stuff that's mined).  So it's a little inconsistent to be opposed to mining across the board.

Intuitively, I sort of like the idea of wildcat miners--like those in Peru who are seeking precious metals in the lowlands.  These guys are typically poor and under-capitalized, and they really could use a hand.  I hate to see the Peruvian government cracking down on activities that might make poor people richer.

On the other hand, these "artisanal" miners are a total environmental disaster--a major cause of water contamination and deforestation, and they hurt other local people in those areas where they operate, but they also hurt the rest of us (for example, by preventing rainforest carbon sequestration).

Alaskan mining isn't great (and you won't hear me advocating for Pebble mine any time soon), but I often wonder if it's better to permit or encourage mining in places where governments are more able to regulate environmentally risky practices.

By the same token, I wonder if it's better to have large mining firms operating large, well-capitalized mines (which can remain safer and less environmentally harmful more easily) than having lots of wildcat miners dumping heavy metals into the Amazon in a very dispersed way that's very, very difficult to regulate.  Large mining firms are not saints, and they have certainly seen their share of environmental and human disasters, but my suspicion is that poor, unregulated, independent miners are even less interested in public health and environmental conservation than firms like Anaconda, Rio Tinto, and Barrick.  And they're more decentralized, harder to regulate and control, and they care less about international concerns for health and conservation.