SUSTAINABLE MINERAL PRODUCTION
Congress in Cape Town, South Africa (Di Capua, et al., 2017). The Cape Town Statement defined geoethics as: “Geoethics consists of research and reflection on the values which under- pin appropriate behaviours and practices, wherever human activities interact with the Earth system. Geoethics deals with the ethical, social and cultural implications of geoscience education, research and practice, and with the social role and responsibility of geoscientists in conducting their activities.” The Cape Town Statement on Geoethics stated that its pur- pose is, “Embracing geoethics is essential: to improve both the quality of professional work and the credibility of geoscientists, to foster excellence in geosciences, to assure sustainable ben- efits for communities, as well as to protect local and global environments; all with the aim of creating and maintaining the conditions for the healthy and prosperous development of future generations.”
The Cape Town Statement contains ten fundamental
values of geoethics. The first six of these values are more or less standard parts of geoscience ethics codes advocating honesty, transparency, competence, verification of information and data, unbiased science, etc. New fundamental geoethics values are:
•Protecting geodiversity as an essential aspect of the development of life and biodiversity, cultural and social diversity, and the sustainable development of communities.
•Enhancing geoheritage, which brings together scien- tific and cultural factors that have intrinsic social and economic value, to strengthen the sense of belonging of people for their environment.
•Ensuring sustainability of economic and social activi- ties in order to assure future generations’ supply of energy and other natural resources.
•Promoting geo-education and outreach for all, to fur- ther sustainable economic development, geohazard prevention and mitigation, environmental protection, and increased societal resilience and well-being.
As Bohle and DiCapua (2019) note, “The recent develop- ment of the concept ‘geoethics’ is a response by geoscientists to shape deeper engagement with their professional respon- sibilities and the wider societal relevance of geosciences. This introductory chapter outlines the development of geoethics to date, as a ‘virtue ethics’ focusing primarily on the role of the geoscientist, describes its meaning and function in relation to neighboring fields and explores how to situate geoethics in relation to a wider range of issues that require ethical consid- eration.” This widening of geoscience professional ethics can be expected to spread to the ethics codes of other professions. The goal of “further sustainable economic development…and increased societal resilience and well-being” should become part of environmental and social licensing ethics as well.
Natural resource supplies are vital
Everything humans use is derived from natural resource extraction or agriculture (including forestry, livestock, and fishing). The quip, “If it can’t be grown, it has to be mined” may sound trivial but it is true. As our societies become increasingly urbanized and increasingly displaced from the natural resource and agricultural bases for our economies, our societies become increasingly generally ignorant about the foundational importance of mining and agriculture. While at first glance it appears that electricity comes from the plug in the wall, electricity has to be generated by some means. The
www.aipg.org
copper wire behind the plug does not cause most people to think of the details of copper mining, processing, and refining that occurs prior to the creation of the wire.
The Preamble of the IAPG’s White Paper on Responsible
Mining (Arvanitidis, et al., 2017) does point out other impor- tant characteristics of natural resource deposits:
•Modern societies are dependent on mineral-based products. Energy technology, information and com- munications technology, consumer electronics, infrastructure, logistics and food production all increasingly rely on an ever-widening array of miner- als and metals. For example, production of a personal computer or a smartphone needs over 40 elements.
•Mineral and metal consumption strongly correlates with economic growth and urbanization. Three billion additional people will likely move to cities by 2050. Improved recycling, resource efficiency, better prod- uct design and new materials will reduce mineral and metal consumption per capita, but mining of primary resources will continue to play an important role in the future in building sustainable societies.
•Geology defines the occurrence of mineral deposits, so mining is geographically constrained, but the use of the products of mining in down-stream industries or as final products often takes place in continents and countries different from the location of the mine. Therefore, mining communities do not necessarily appreciate the importance of mineral production for the welfare of people living in other countries, particu- larly if there is no tangible sharing of those benefits.
•Mining cannot choose locations that are logisti- cally, socially, environmentally, or politically optimal, appropriate, or ‘friendly’. This means that companies may have to deal with circumstances that could pose ethical challenges including: the relationship with local communities, position in the landscape/environ- ment, relationship with local and national govern- ments, weak governance and associated increased risk of corruption and bribery. It is necessary to deal with these challenges in a responsible way.
How are these characteristics of mineral deposits and the demands for mineral products now and in the future going to be balanced? These are legitimate geoethical questions. However, as Grennan and Clifford (2017) point out, most proponents of sustainable resources ignore geology, ignore the fact of depletability, and the unequal but worldwide distribution of deposits including locations in countries with less stringent environmental laws and reputations for various forms of gov- ernmental corruption.
Figure 1 presents the 2020 edition of the Minerals Education Coalition’s “mineral baby.” The mineral baby predicts that every American born in 2020 will need an estimated 3.19 million pounds of mineral products during its lifetime. Abbott (2017) describes how the estimates shown in each year’s min- eral baby are calculated along with graphs of some changes in the amount of particular mineral commodities over time. Although the mineral baby’s data is American, the mineral baby reflects the estimated minerals use of developed countries and the usage goals of under-developed countries. Certainly, modifications are needed to provide worldwide estimates of mineral usage requirements, but Figure 1 remains a useful estimate within its inherent limits. The Minerals Education
Oct.Nov.Dec 2020 • TPG 21
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64
