|
to these numbers, metal mining would continue to provide only a small sliver of total Alaskan jobs and income. (pp. 3-4)
In the so-called "mining dependent" cities of Fairbanks and Juneau, metal mining is directly responsible for only about one and two percent of total jobs, respectively. (p. 5)
The very modest role of metal mining to Alaska's economy is often obscured by exaggerated estimates of metal mining's benefits built around double and triple counting or counting value that is not created in Alaska. Such exaggerated estimates of impacts ignore basic economic accounting rules established almost a century ago. (p. 6-7)
Because of its capital and land intensive nature and relatively modest use of labor, the payroll associated with Alaska metal mining represents only about 8 percent of the $1.1 billion value of metal mine production. (p. 7)
During the 1990s, while the real value of metal production in Alaska rose 83 percent, from about $600 million to $1.1 billion, metal mine payroll rose only 5 percent. (p. 8)
Although metal mining, because of its capital intensity, contributes significantly to local governments' property tax bases, its contribution to total local government revenues, including all revenue sources, is much smaller. The Fort Knox Mine contributes about one percent of the total revenues received by local governments in the Fairbanks-North Star Borough. The Greens Creek Mine contributes about one-half of one percent of the revenues received by local governments in the City and Borough of Juneau. (pp. 10-12)
Mine license taxes and production royalties on state-owned minerals yield only a few million dollars each to total state revenues that total almost $6 billion even without counting the revenue flows into the Permanent Fund. Together these two sources of revenue from metal mining contribute less than one-tenth of one percent of total Alaskan government revenues. (pp. 12-13)
Despite the high wages paid in metal mining, that industry is not usually associated with prosperous communities across the nation because a) metal commodity prices are unstable, causing instability in employment and payroll; b) the life of a contemporary metal mine tends to be relatively short, 5 to 15 years; c) the labor needs of metal mining operations are constantly falling as technological change displaces workers; and d) environmental damage associated with metal mining discourages people and businesses from locating near mining operations. (pp. 13-19)
Inadequate reclamation laws and reclamation bonding requirements can leave state governments with large reclamation financial obligations and near permanent damage to the natural environment. Both have negative economic impacts. (pp. 20-23)
The popular economic base approach to thinking about the Alaskan economy that focuses on the assumed special role of oil production and transportation, mining, other natural resource industries, manufacturing, and the federal government as key economic drivers is incomplete and inadequate. It cannot explain the ways in which the Alaskan economy has been changing. For instance, during the 1990s while employment in these key sectors declined 25 percent, employment in other sectors expanded 25 percent. While real income from these sectors declined 7 percent, income from other sectors expanded by 31 percent. The Alaskan economy is more diverse and resilient that the popular economic base view suggests. (pp. 23-26)
In Alaska, across the western United States, and in many regions of the nation, high quality natural landscapes have become an increasingly important source of local economic vitality. Because people care where they live and act on those preferences and economic activity follows those residential choices, the attractiveness of communities and landscapes has become an increasingly important part of a local area's economic base. To the extent that metal mining activities threaten this, they can undermine rather than enhance the local economic base. (pp. 26-30)
|
|
