Introduction
Mining activities can pose serious environmental and health implications. Although, these environmental and health hazards can be mitigated and effectively managed through sound engineering and environmental practices, these environmental and health issues associated with mining operations could not be totally eradicated. In general, there are three major players in the mining industry: the company, which include the employees and the stockholders; the regulatory bodies, which include the government and other national and international environmental organizations; and the community, which are not directly related to the mining industry, but is impacted by its operations. Each one of these stakeholders has their personal interest and prejudice that is in conflict with each other. This conflict of interests creates an ethical dilemma that is often difficult to address. One particular characteristic of ethical dilemmas is that there are no accurate solutions primarily because the perception of what is ethical varies between individuals. Some ethical views may be agreed with others, while others may consider it as unethical. Most often, personal interests and prejudices influence ethical decisions. Since individuals differ in their personal interests, their ethical orientations also differ. Similarly, the different stakeholders of the mining industry see the environmental impact of a mining operation in varied perspectives. The company, for instance, is motivated by profit and may not be as concerned with the environmental impact of their operations as compared to those people in the community who does not have any economic interest in the company. The interest of the regulatory bodies, on the other hand, lies in balancing industrial and economic progress with environmental sustainability. With this perspective in mind, regulatory bodies are at a neutral ground and may perceive the mining industry in a different light as compared to the perception of the company and the impacted community. It is, thereby, necessary to provide a third party analysis of the ethical issues that arise out of the environmental impacts of mining operations, particularly the waste water or effluent that the industry disposes on natural bodies of water. For the same reason, this paper aims to address the question, is it ethical for mining industries to dispose their wastes in bodies of water?
Waste Water Treatment and Disposal
The practice of disposing waste water or effluents to natural bodies of water is not a new practice, nor it is only isolated to mining industries. In fact, this practice is so old that it has been observed even in the ancient Indus and Minoan civilizations that flourished around 3,000 B.C. (Burian & Edwards, n.d., p.2). The Indus and Minoans, for instance, create drainage systems within their city for the purpose of directing their wastes towards nearby rivers and streams as well as to manage rain water in order to avoid flooding. As observed by scholars, the Indus and Minoan civilizations’ “urban drainage systems were constructed with great care and that the objectives of the systems were to collect rainwater, prevent nuisance flooding, and convey wastes” (Burian & Edwards, n.d., p.2). Traditionally, drainage systems collect wastes and directly dispose them towards bodies of water. However, over the years, the wastes directed towards rivers, lakes and seas have evolved that it is already unsafe to dump urban waste directly towards waterways. With the advent of the industrial revolution, waterwastes did not only include human excrements, but also include hazardous chemicals and compounds from factories and industries that can seriously contaminate the bodies of water and could result in adverse environmental impacts. Even worse is the wastes that comes from mining industries. Mining industries, for instance, uses extremely hazardous chemicals in their operations such as cyanide, mercury and arsenic in large volumes. Furthermore, mining exposes natural elements buried under the earth’s surface that can cause environmental hazards. Hazardous elements and compounds such as lead, arsenic and sulfates, for instance, are exposed during mining operations and can contaminate bodies of water through runoffs. Such hazards are not found in the normal residential and commercial wastes. For the same reason, extra care is needed in handling mining wastes because of its extremely hazardous nature.
Common Trends of Waste Water Disposal in the Mining Industry
As wastes evolve because of the rise of industries, the techniques of collecting and disposing these wastes have also evolved. From the traditional water drainage network that washes directly into natural waterways, waste water is now directed towards water treatment facilities before they are dumped into rivers, lakes or oceans. Improved engineering materials such as PVC pipes, reinforced concrete and steel are among the frequently used materials in the construction of water drainage systems both in urban and mining applications. Mining wastes, for instance, can be routed through culvert pipes made of reinforced concrete with enough volume capacity. This waste water is then directed towards water treatment facilities. Good drainage practice suggests that the mining drainage system should be made from materials that prevent seepage. The purpose of which is to avoid contamination of underground water since mining wastewater contain toxic materials that are hazardous to the environment. Steel and PVC pipes may be used to transport waste water into treatment facilities, however, their volume capacity is limited and therefore, impractical for mining applications. Mining industries, for instance, uses the huge volume of water in ore processing and treatment. In order to effectively manage this huge amount of wastewater, most mining companies use specialized concrete structure with admixtures in order to prevent leakage while the water is en route to mining treatment facilities . Mining wastes in treatment ponds are often treated for their acidity before they are released into natural waterways. Two types of treatment are commonly used. One is the active treatment wherein mining industries use chemical and mechanical methods to filter and purify their effluent. The other is the passive treatment wherein the system uses only natural processes such as gravity and microorganisms for water treatment and purification. There are, however, mining industries that do not adhere to acceptable wastewater treatment practices. Examples of such are large scale mining operations wherein the construction of such drainage systems is not only costly, but also impractical. The mining of coal in the Appalachians, for instance, uses a method known as mountain top removal. Considerably a form of surface mining, this mining method, as its name suggests, paves off the entire summit of the mountain in order to expose the entire layer of coal at the top of the mountain. This mining method creates a lot of spoil. These spoils are carried by rainwater directly towards natural waterways without going through any wastewater treatment methods. By removing the mountain top, miners scrape off the mountain’s vegetation and exposes elements that may harm the environment and contaminate the surrounding bodies of water. In the process, this mining method also destroys headwater streams that feed the surrounding rivers and lakes (Villines, 2013, p.1).
Mining Practices outside North America
Newmont Mining Corporation is one of the major mining companies that operate in different locations outside of North America. The company is engaged in gold and copper mining activities. However, the company became controversial when in the year 2000, one of its trucks that carry mercury spilled its contents in one of the towns in Peru. The spill sent several people to the hospital while many got sick because of the toxic substance. The company also became controversial in Indonesia because of dumping wastes or tailings with high mercury levels at the Buyat Bay. Apparently, despite the major improvements in waste management, there are still a number of mining companies that are dumping their wastes directly into the natural bodies of water. Aside from Newmont, examples of mining companies that have been observed to dump their wastes on natural bodies of water are BHP Billiton, Barrick Gold, Freeport McMoRan, Goldcorp Inc., Newcrest Mining, Rio Tinto, Teck, Xstrata and Vale. Most of these mining companies are operating outside of North America and their practices are threatening not only the biodiversity of the country that hosts them, but also the lives of living organisms including human lives due to water contamination. Colombia, for instance, have experienced a mining boom because of the recently discovered minerals in its mountains. However, the economic advantages brought by the mining boom is also threatening its ecosystem and water supply as coal mining at the top of the Colombian Andes increases the risk of contamination of its fragile paramo ecosystem. The paramo is a region at the top of the Andes Mountain that acts as a water reservoir. According to experts, the paramo acts as a sponge, “holding water from rains during the winter and slowly releasing it into streams and rivers in the summer”. The paramos, according to experts, are only “two percent of Columbia’s land, but provide water to 70 percent of its population”. The paramos are the primary source of water for Colombians. Unfortunately, mining activities in the Andes is threatening this crucial water resource. One of the obvious reasons why mining companies continue to dump their wastes on natural bodies of water, especially in locations outside North America is the lax implementation of environmental policies (Xing & Kolstad, 2000, p. 21). It should be noted that most of these countries where the mining corporations operate have sound environmental policies. However, these policies are not imposed properly, primarily because of corruption in the government. People who enforce the law, for instance, are believed to be either bribed or has economic interests in the mining operations. Experts also believe that some of these countries deliberately make the implementation of environmental policies lax in order to attract foreign investors (Xing & Kolstad, 2000, p.1). The lax implementation of environmental policies has made these countries become pollution havens (Xing & Kolstad, 2000, p.1).
Adverse Environmental Impact of Water Contamination
In assessing the ethics of water-waste disposal of mining industries, it is important to determine the impact of water contamination to the environment. It is unarguable that water is abundant as it is found everywhere. In fact, 70% of the earth’s surface is covered with water . Unfortunately, only 10% of the world’s water resources are readily useable since the rest is found in the oceans and seas where it is in its salinized condition. Clean and potable water, on the other hand, is not readily available. It needs to be tapped from natural reservoirs such as rivers, lakes and the ground water table. The city of New York, for example, gets its water by impounding or damming the upstream rivers of Catskills and Delaware in order to create a water reservoir . The importance of clean water could not be undermined. In history, many American urban areas have experienced water problems due to pollution and contamination issues. The worst of such incidents was experienced in New York when the city was struck by an epidemic of the yellow fever in1795 due to ground water contamination . Proponents of the mining industry would argue that such water contamination problem is not an issue with the mining industries because mining industries often operates in locations that are far from urban dwellers. Most often, mining sites are located in remote locations far from residential and commercial areas so that it can be argued that their impact on human health is minimal and is, therefore, trivial and insignificant. However, a study of the impact of mining industries reveals that their wastes do not only impact their immediate vicinity, but when improperly managed, mining wastes can impact a large area. Consider, for example, the impact of the mining activities in the Andes Mountains of Colombia when it comes to contamination of water resources. Aside from disturbing the normal hydrologic cycle, mining in the Andes threatens to contaminate the ground water table of as well as the major rivers, lakes and seas in the region as contaminated waters from the mines is carried by precipitation. Contaminants such as cyanide, mercury, lead, iron, sodium, sulfate and arsenic can alter the quality of ground water, rivers, lakes and seas. Such contamination can destroy their aquatic resources and create a diverse impact to the biodiversity of the region. The environmental damage of mining wastes, specifically to natural bodies of water is difficult to quantify. Nevertheless, such environmental damage is irreversible. Moreover, it takes a very long time for nature to fully recover after the damage has been done.
The Mining Ethical Dilemma
Mining is one of the most important industries that support the industrial and technological development of the world. Many of the things that people enjoy today, for instance, would not be made without mining. Iron, which is the basic component of the steel used in making buildings, bridges, cars, phones, etc., is being mined. Copper and aluminum, which are used in making transmission lines, electrical wirings and electronic components, are also mined and so are silver, gold and platinum. Coal and even petroleum and natural gas, which supply the energy needs of the world, is analogous to being mined as they are drawn beneath the earth’s surface. The mining industry, therefore, is essential, especially in context of modern living. In contrast, the adverse environmental impact of mining is also enormous. Mining, at the very least, destroys vast areas of vegetation and disturbs the diversity of the environment. Moreover, it poses a risk of contamination of water resources, which can adversely impact the health of living organisms including humans. The positive and negative impact of mining, thereby, creates an ethical dilemma wherein people are made to choose between progresses and the preservation of the natural environment. Since the adverse impact towards the environment could not be totally avoided, would it be ethical to pursue mining at the expense of the environment? Or, should mining be abandoned in order to preserve the environment?
Ethical Theories
In resolving ethical dilemmas, philosophers use ethical theories as their framework of reasoning. Ethical theories, on the other hand, can be classified into two broad categories: the utilitarian perspective and the deontological perspective. The utilitarian perspective is an ethical theory, which posits that people should choose the action that provides the “the greatest good for the greatest number” of people (Eggleston, 2012, p. 452). Utilitarianism can be identified by its characteristics, which are “consequentialism, welfarism, individualism, aggregation, and maximization” (Eggleston, 2012, p. 452). Consequentialism is the thinking that the end justifies the means (Eggleston, 2012, p. 453). Utilitarians are more concerned about the outcome than the processes or methods used. Welfarism, on the other hand, determines the rightness or wrongness of an act in terms of well-being and happiness. Utilitarians, for instance, believe that if it is for the good of the majority or if it makes the majority happy, then the act is considered as ethical. Individualism, on the other hand, refers to the view that the good or welfare of the individual supersedes the good of organizations or institutions (Eggleston, 2012, p. 453). Utilitarians, for instance, believe that “the sources of value to be found in the world are individuals, such as persons and animals” (Eggleston, 2012, p. 453). Aggregation, as a characteristic of utilitarianism, is the view that “the value of a state of affairs is determined by summing or averaging the values associated with the individuals in that state of affair” (Eggleston, 2012, p. 453). Utilitarians, therefore, are concerned not only with numbers, but also with value. Lastly, the characteristic of maximization refers to the view that it is ethical to maximize goodness or to choose something that offers the greatest benefit (Eggleston, 2012, p. 453). In contrast with utilitarianism, the ethical theory of deontology posits that ethics should not be based on the consequences of an action, but rather with the intention of the action. One of the major proponents of deontology is the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. Human knowledge, for instance, is limited and fallible. For the same reason, the view that ethical decisions should be based only on foreseen consequences or on happiness is unreliable. For Kant, ethical decisions must be based not on a whim, but on what is intrinsically good (Hull, 1979, p.7). Kant, however, believes that only goodwill is intrinsically good (Hull, 1979, p.7). For the same reason, deontologists base the rightness or wrongness of their actions “wholly on its nature or motive, and not on its actual consequences or its intended consequences” (Hull, 1979, p.7). Ethical decisions based on deontology are, thereby, guided by establishing rules that are believed to be intrinsically right. Ethical decisions based on the principles of deontology are not influenced by the majority or the greatest good. For deontologist, ethics is a duty that needs to be done no matter what the consequences are. The principle of deontology is somehow similar to the golden rule, which states, do unto others what you want others to do unto you or do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you. For Kant, this golden rule is the ultimate test of what is morally right (Hull, 1979, p.8).
Analysis of the Mining Ethical Dilemma Using Ethical Theories
Under the utilitarian principle, in order to determine whether the waste water disposal of mining industries on bodies of water are ethical or not, the benefits and adverse impact of mining must be considered. Mining, for instance, provide economic benefits not only to the people that are employed and its shareholder, but also to the entire nation. Aside from the economic benefits, mining also supplies the needed raw materials for technological and industrial applications, which has universal benefits. On the other hand, mining effluent adversely impacts the quality of water within its vicinity, which can impact people that resides within the mining area as well as in neighboring areas. If the number of people that are negatively impacted by mining is weighed against the number of people that benefits from mining, it would appear that mining benefits more people as compared to those people that it negatively impacts. For the same reason, under the utilitarian perspective, mining as a whole, is ethical. The utilitarian point of view, however, does not consider the living organisms that are impacted by mining. The life of the trees as well as the organisms that thrive in a particular area impacted by mining is not considered in the utilitarian analysis. Does it mean that only human lives matter? Moreover, does it mean that it is okay to sacrifice the health and lives of the living organisms, including the people that lives in the vicinity of the mining facility for the sake of the benefits of the majority? There is a gut feel that such assumption is not right and most would agree that utilitarianism can be considered as an unsatisfactory ethical framework when it comes to justifying mining operations. On the other hand, if the ethical dilemma is viewed under the principles of deontology, then the motivation of the mining industry must first be established and analyzed whether such motivation is morally acceptable. In general, the mining industry is a business industry and is highly motivated by profit more than anything else. Although good business practice suggests that the industry must also adhere to social and environmental responsibilities, the primary reason why business entities such as the mining industry are created is for profit. The action of mining industries, therefore, is not totally motivated by goodwill, but rather by the desire to make a profit. Under deontology, such motivation is not inherently good and is, thereby, unethical. The government or regulatory bodies, on the other hand, are motivated by economy and progress and so under deontology, their decision could not be trusted upon that such decisions are free from bias. Deontology, however, provides a remedy and that is to view the dilemma by the golden rule. Consider that a person is one of those whose water supply is at risk of being contaminated, would that person allow mining industries to dispose their waste water near their water reservoirs? Evidently, the answer would be no. This perspective remains absolute even if other living organism aside from human beings are considered.
Conclusion
The mining industry offers many benefits and is an essential industry for progress. But behind its benefits are practices that threatens to adversely impact the environment. The disposal of mining wastes of natural bodies of water, for instance, increases the risk of contamination of water resources, which can place the health and well being of impacted living organisms, including humans, at risk. The benefits and disadvantages of mining create an ethical dilemma that is quite difficult to address. When such ethical dilemma is analyzed under the two major ethical theories of utilitarianism and deontology, it appears that the utilitarian perspective is unsatisfactory in establishing whether the practice of waste disposal is unethical or not. However, using the principles of deontology, it can be established that no one in his right frame of mind would want his water to be contaminated. This assumption must be true even when non-human organisms are considered. The practice of disposing mining wastes on natural bodies of water is, therefore, unethical as determined by the principles of deontology. Since it was determined that the dumping of mining wastes on natural bodies of water is unethical, sound business practice suggests that companies should stop this practice once and for all. Mining companies should utilize modern waste management technologies despite the costs in order to adhere to sound ethical principles. Regulatory bodies, on the other hand, should create policies that reflects the importance of environmental sustainability more than anything else. Furthermore, they should effectively implement their environmental policies in order to avoid being a polution haven of unethical mining companies.
References
Burian, S., & Edwards, F. (n.d.). Historical Perspectives of Urban Drainage . Retrieved March 2016, from http://unix.eng.ua.edu/: http://unix.eng.ua.edu/~rpitt/Class/International%20urban%20water%20systems/M1%20Burian%20paper.pdf
Eggleston, B. (2012). Utilitarianism. Retrieved March 2016, from http://www.benegg.net/publications/Eggleston_Utilitarianism.pdf
Fraser Institute. (2012). How is water managed and treated in mining? Retrieved March 2016, from http://www.miningfacts.org/: http://www.miningfacts.org/Environment/How-is-water-managed-and-treated-in-mining/
Friedman, M. (1970, September). The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits. Retrieved March 2016, from http://www.umich.edu/: http://www.umich.edu/~thecore/doc/Friedman.pdf
Gomez, S. (2016). Colombia bans coal mining in the páramos! Retrieved March 2016, from http://www.greenpeace.org/: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/colombia-bans-coal-mining-paramos-Andes/blog/55544/
Hooker, K. (2012, August). Waterproof Concrete. Retrieved March 2016, from http://www.concreteconstruction.net/: http://www.concreteconstruction.net/admixtures/waterproof-concrete.aspx
Hull, R. (1979). The Varieties of Ethical Theories. Retrieved March 2016, from http://www.richard-t-hull.com/: http://www.richard-t-hull.com/publications/varieties.pdf
Mattera, P. (2015). Newmont Mining. Retrieved March 2016, from http://www.corp-research.org/: http://www.corp-research.org/newmont
Morales, L. (2011). Fragile Páramo Ecosystem in Colombia Threatened by Coal and Gold Rush. Retrieved March 2016, from http://pulitzercenter.org/: http://pulitzercenter.org/articles/colombia-paramos-ecosystem-coal-gold-rush
Schertow, J. (2012). Troubled Waters: How Mine Waste is Poisoning our Oceans, Rivers and Lakes. Retrieved March 2016, from intercontinentalcry.org: https://intercontinentalcry.org/troubled-waters-how-mine-waste-is-poisoning-our-oceans-rivers-and-lakes/
Smith, D. (2008). THE ECONOMICS OF WATER: PART 7, NEW YORK INVENTS MUNICIPAL FINANCE. Retrieved March 2016, from http://affordablehousinginstitute.org/: http://affordablehousinginstitute.org/blogs/us/2008/04/the-economics-of-water-part-7-new-york-invents-municipal-finance.html
The City of New York. (2014). History of New York City's Water Supply System. Retrieved March 2016, from http://www.nyc.gov/: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/drinking_water/history.shtml
USGS. (2014, March). How much water is there on, in, and above the Earth? Retrieved March 2016, from http://water.usgs.gov/: http://water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html
Villines, J. (2013). USING GIS TO DELINEATE HEADWATER STREAM ORIGINS IN THE APPALACHIAN COAL-BELT REGION OF KENTUCKY. Retrieved March 2016, from http://uknowledge.uky.edu/: http://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=bae_etds
Xing, Y., & Kolstad, C. (2000). Do Lax Environmental Regulations Attract Foreign Investment? Retrieved March 2016, from http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/: http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~kolstad/laxenv8.pdf
