Wrong way to talk about copper mining
Productivity miracle or an environmental disaster? Wrong way to talk about copper
Dear Reader,
In this edition of the S.A.D newsletter (where we critically look at Software, Algorithm, and Data), I continue my focus on the material aspect. In this case copper. Recently, I read
‘s article, The Discovery of Copper, which highlights the significance of copper in building a sustainable and energy-efficient future. While the article underscores the material aspect of our world, it fails to adequately address the environmental devastation caused by copper mining. The narrative of balancing progress and nature, suggesting that copper extraction is both a productivity miracle and an environmental disaster, falls short of acknowledging the stark reality. We cannot have it both ways. The relentless pursuit of copper has led to the obliteration of landscapes and detrimental impacts on the health of the workers and those living near mines. It’s time we confront the harsh truth that progress often exacts a heavy price on our planet and communities, rather than whitewashing the destruction (as Ed Conway’s article does) in a futile attempt to balance both sides. The environmental consequences of copper mining cannot be downplayed or sugarcoated.The article begins by getting nostalgic about Steve Job’s old mansion. You will see the connection with copper mining soon. The mansion was named after Daniel C. Jackling:
That brings us back to Jackling, a self-made man who came from poverty but managed to get himself trained as a mining engineer. What if, Jackling asked himself, you could extract copper not just out of those high-grade chunks (copper content of over five per cent) but also out of the other stuff too? In many mines around the world there were vast volumes of ores which looked to the untrained eye like normal rocks but contained a few percentage points of copper. They were set aside because it was simply too expensive to justify refining them. But, wondered Jackling, might there be some way of changing the calculus?
According to Conway’s article, in 1904, Jackling initiated a groundbreaking transformation in mining at Bingham Canyon, Utah. Utilising vast quantities of explosives, he turned a mountain into dust, which was subjected to a process called “flotation separation.” These techniques revolutionised copper extraction, making it possible to obtain large quantities even from low-grade ores, thus ending copper scarcity. This idea of scarcity comes back into the article and not surprising as an Economist Conway’s main preoccupation is about efficiency:
It is this phenomenon which has ensured we never ran out of copper. Even as the world’s population swelled to eight billion, the supply of copper remained more or less sufficient. We just got better and more efficient at getting it out of the ground. Bigger trucks, bigger machines, better chemicals. Fewer mineworkers blasting, shifting and grinding more tonnes of ore.
Jackling, along with financiers like the Guggenheim family, played a pivotal role in meeting the rising demand for ultra-pure copper during 1920s. I also wrote about Guggenheim family and other American conglomerates’ exploitative work in Chile which had connections with the CIA-orchestrated 1973 coup. However, there is no mention about that coup in the “Discovery” article.
He then goes to mention the “destruction” aspect:
But there was a darker side to his innovation. What it meant in practice was that rather than burrowing into a mountain, following a rich seam of ore deep into the earth, miners would now essentially demolish the entire mountain to extract its metal. This was not just mass production, but ‘mass destruction’. The world got the copper it needed for the electrical era, but only thanks to the obliteration of landscapes like Bingham Canyon. Today Bingham Canyon is more than four kilometers long, two and a half kilometers wide and a kilometer deep. While it is a relatively small mine in output terms these days, it still produces staggering amounts of copper – more in a single year than the entire world produced each year before Jackling came along.
Then he talks about Chuquicamata, Chile, but the focus is back on supply and demand. Over the years, concerns about copper scarcity have arisen, but the price has largely kept pace with inflation. Reserves have expanded by redefining accessible ore, enabling the extraction of additional metals from the same rocks.
Apparently, this is similar to Moore's Law and has significantly reduced the effort required for mining.
But when it comes to the environmental aspect, this is what he has to say:
It is, depending on how you look at it, a productivity miracle or an environmental disaster. In practice, it’s a bit of both, as getting better at getting copper out of the ground also involved blasting ever bigger holes in the ground. This process generates enormous waste, from the rocks blasted out of the ground which had too little ore to process, through to the ‘tailings’ left behind after the copper ores have been processed – a toxic stew which used to be dumped into the sea. There is evidence that the health of those living near mines and refineries, not to mention those rivers and coastlines which once served as dumps for the waste, has been beset. These days the tailings are stored behind earthen dam walls. In Chuquicamata, the tailings dam containing all the waste material now covers an area bigger than Manhattan.
Depending on how you look at it? Really? The work of the Guggenheim family transformed Chuquicamata from an artisanal mine operation into the world's largest copper mine between 1915 and 1923. A recent paper from March 2023, entitled “New Historical Archives of Extractivism in the Atacama Desert: Contamination and Mortality during the Guggenheim Period in Chuquicamata, Chile, 1915–1923,” sheds light on the details behind the progress of copper mining, with the help of recently discovered historical documents related to the cemetery in Chuquicamata. Allow me to quote from the paper in detail:
"Chuquicamata is the cemetery of the Chilean race. Everything contributes to it, from the unhealthy and unhygienic nature of the popular camps, with their unhealthy, narrow rooms, without ventilation, without light and malodorous, to the forced poor nutrition due to low wages" (Gutiérrez and Figueroa, 1920, pp. 144–145).
Gutiérrez and Figueroa indicated that "infant mortality among the 'black men'3 is incredible. And if you don't believe, go see the many graves for infants and adults in the cemetery" (Gutiérrez and Figueroa, 1920, p. 11). Assessing this reality, the writers and ethnographers of the 1920s commented that the precarious nutritional conditions and the low quality of the water, accused of being brackish, generated hundreds of cripples or invalids. This situation also caused morbidity and mortality: "there is hunger in the popular camps. The men are ragged. Women have pale faces from poor nutrition. And the children grow up emaciated and stunted" (Gutiérrez and Figueroa, 1920, p. 10).
How is that for depending on how you look at it?
This narrative, trying to balance progress and nature, may seem convenient, but it ultimately falls short in acknowledging the stark reality. We cannot have it both ways. While it’s tempting to frame this as a productivity miracle, we must confront the environmental disaster it truly is. The relentless pursuit of copper extraction has led to the creation of ever-expanding craters in the earth, leaving behind vast amounts of waste. This waste, from discarded rock debris to toxic tailings, once found its way into our oceans, rivers, and coastlines, with devastating consequences for both the environment and human health. To his credit, he does link to a 2006 paper about “Urinary Metal Levels in a Chilean Community 31 Years After the Dumping of Mine Tailings”.
It’s time we confront the harsh reality that progress often exacts a heavy price on our planet and communities, rather than whitewashing the destruction in a futile attempt to balance both sides.
The labor force in Chuquicamata and other parts of the world played (and is still playing) a crucial role in supporting mining capitalism, essentially becoming a subsidy by providing a compliant and disposable workforce. The harsh environmental conditions in the area, including extreme temperatures and pollution resulting from mining operations, impacted the quality of life and contributed to the causes of death in the population.
I am glad the article by Ed Conway sheds light on the material aspect of our digital world; this is hugely important. But this is the wrong way to talk about copper.
Thank you for this. It makes such obvious sense that there should be a “price” for “progress” and for *astonishing* progress like we’ve seen in the past century, a high price indeed... or it *would* be obvious, but we are accustomed to dismissing “externalities” and pretending our modern marvels come for free, or for just the purchase price at market. But someone somewhere is paying our bill, maybe with their life