Bluestem is beginning to wonder if endorsed Republican U.S. Senate candidate is just a really big picture guy and not a numbers dude.
After all, as Range blogger Aaron Brown and economist Louis D. Johnston pointed out, he was extremely generous in throwing out unemployment figures on the Range, claiming that the numbers were higher than they are.
Perhaps that's why during a recent visit to Willmar, McFadden waxed expansive about PolyMet's potential to create jobs. In McFadden tours MinnWest, talks economy and energy, West Central Tribune staff writer Linda Vanderwerf reports in McFadden tours MinnWest, talks economy and energy:
To aid in developing industry, he said, he would favor “sensible regulation” by the federal government.
He pointed to a proposed copper mine on the Iron Range that could yield thousands of jobs in an area of high unemployment. The plan has been under federal review for seven years.
According to PolyMet Mining's Go PolyMet website page on Minnesota Jobs And More, Polymet will create:
- 360 full-time mining jobs in operations
- 600+ related jobs*
And MPR reported that the project will create 1000 temporary construction jobs--nothing to sneeze at, but not the long-term solution that McFadden implies. Nor is there any guarantee that the construction jobs will be filled by unemployed people who live in the area.
A native and student of the Range and its culture, Aaron Brown warns about McFadden's earlier statement in Beware Iron Range hyperbole in Election 2014:
Further, the suggestion here is that the higher unemployment rate is because there are people qualified to work in the mines who can’t, because environmental review is holding up their livelihoods. That’s simply not true at all. As I’ve said before, if you can pass a drug test and have two years of technical training in some aspect of the mining industry, you have a very good chance at a mining job right now. And sure, new mining would open more jobs — probably bringing in new residents to work the nonferrous mines more than anything else.
That’s good, actually, but if we’re really concerned about those 7.5 percent who are here now and not employed, we should be figured out a way to get them the two years of college they currently can’t afford or aren’t prepared to take. We should be concerned about their wages for full time work, so that people with families don’t have to work 70 hours to pay for basic needs. Is this what McFadden was talking about? I wonder. Sen. Al Franken has talked about these issues, but he is the one McFadden blames for the discrepancy. . . .
For McFadden and other Republicans challenging DFL incumbents, this sort of Iron Range mining and unemployment hyperbole makes for a nice talking point. And these points are rooted in real issues deserving of our attention, but they are exaggerations made for effect, not outcome. Exaggeration makes jokes funnier and fish bigger. But the real story is often more complex and requires solutions not rooted in the staccato party doctrine soundbites of a modern campaign.
Read the entire piece at Minnesota Brown, and follow the blog and its less extensive mirror at the Star Tribune, The Up North Report.
Mount Polley Mine disaster and Polymet
But even McFadden isn't opposed to clean water, the aspiring senator tells the West Central Tribune readers:
“No one in Minnesota wants to do something that will harm our lakes,” he said, so he isn’t in favor of doing away with all regulation.
However, “we’re not good at it,” he said. “We need to become great at it. … We should have one agency in charge.”
Since McFadden doesn't want to so something that will harm our lakes, we hope he's read Brown's latest piece at the Strib, Canadian mine disaster raises tough questions about Minnesota nonferrous mines:
It's true: engineers are fallible, and it would be wise for every mining operation in the world to take another look at the design of their tailings basins based on this terrible disaster. Responsible companies will learn from this and react appropriately. PolyMet says it will be seeking third-party engineering consultants to confirm the safety of their plans once they are permitted.
Mining the minerals we use in everyday products is inherently risky and, to some degree, inherently necessary. The question for Northern Minnesota is whether the need for and benefit from new nonferrous mining is greater than the risks and costs. Incidentally, this is what mining companies talk about behind boardroom doors. Communities and states should do the same, and lay out the considerations plainly in public view.
What happened in British Columbia simply must not be allowed to happen in Minnesota; the effects would be culturally and economically devastating. But we should also acknowledge that there is an acceptable amount of risk to take when it comes to mining necessary minerals. The challenge is finding the tipping point.
When you break this debate out of the emotional, culturally-motivated battle between developers and environmentalists you see that we have a question that can probably be answered, if we're willing to use math honestly to determine what the future of Northern Minnesota could and should look like.
It would seem that McFadden favors a centralized discussion by one federal agency rather than one in which a larger and more transparent discussion can take place, rather than "laying out considerations in plain view," as Brown suggests.
Images: Above: the proposed PolyMet project's Erie Plant, via Copper Investing News; Below- From the CBC: "A aerial view shows the damage caused by a tailings pond breach near the town of Likely, B.C. Tuesday, August, 5, 2014. The pond which stores mining waste from the Mount Polley Mine had its dam break on Monday spilling its contents into Hazeltine Creek, Polley Lake, and Quesnel Lake, causing a wide water-use ban in the area. (Jonathan Hayward/Canadian Press)"
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
Email subscribers can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen at gmail dot com as recipient.
Comments