The word “jobs” is now being used as justification for just about everything. The latest abuse of the innocent-sounding “jobs” is its use as a rationale for passing a bill that would restructure the mining permit approval process in Wisconsin. Part of the reason for the attention surrounding this bill is that Gogebic Taconite, a mining firm, has put a $1.5 billion mining project in Iron and Ashland counties on hold until the current mining regulations are changed. By shortening the permit application process and weakening the appeals procedure, this bill poses a very serious threat to the environment and those who depend on the land and water for their livelihood.

In public policy, there is often a trade-off between economic growth – “jobs” – and protecting the environment. For example, the simple act of constructing a store or house, which surely isn’t controversial, is clearly allowing economic growth to take precedence over the environment. On the other hand, the jury is still out on whether the benefits of nuclear energy outweigh the potential environmental costs. So let’s take a look at the new mining bill within this context. There’s no debate as to whether the mine will immediately create jobs. A mine without miners isn’t much use to anybody. So it’s a no-brainer, right? Let’s give Gogebic Taconite what its wants, streamline the mining permit process, and create jobs!

Or not. Sure, it would create jobs. But there’s more to life than jobs. How much is one job really worth? Is it worth tearing up land? Is it worth polluting water sources? Or threatening the livelihood of indigenous people? In some cases, the answer is “yes” to most people. It’s pretty na?ve to say that mines should never be built. After all, where would civilization be without mines? But in this case, I would argue that the benefits aren’t worth the costs. By cutting the permit review period from a minimum of two and a half years to a mere 360 days, the bill would make it much more difficult for regulators to do a thorough job of investigating the possible consequences of a mine. Additionally, the bill would remove the hearing process, which is used if a challenger contests the permit. As if this weren’t enough, it will also ease restrictions on mining in wetlands.

Besides the environmental impact, it’s also worth looking at how useful mining actually is in terms of economic growth. As is the case with any extractive industry, there’s only so much you can take before it runs out. A mine will create some jobs now, which is a good thing, especially when unemployment is high, but those jobs won’t last forever. So while opening more mines will provide some short-term economic growth, anyone that tells you harvesting natural resources is a recipe for long-term growth is lying.

Upon further research, it’s not entirely surprising that the legislation is so favorable to mining companies like Gogebic Taconite. The five Republican legislators who wrote most of the bill consulted with Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, a business lobbying group, as well as Gogebic Taconite itself. On its own, that isn’t a bad thing. It’s impossible for lawmakers to be experts on every subject, so it makes sense to get input from experts when crafting legislation. However, notably absent from the process were any environmental or conservation groups, which suggests that the bill may put the interests of mining firms above the interests of the environment.

In hard economic times, it’s tempting to throw the environment out the window and just try to spur economic growth. But where should the line be drawn? We could just go ahead and eliminate all environmental regulations. Business would boom! Until all the clean air and water ran out. As the Cree proverb says: “Only after the last tree has been cut down; only after the last fish has been caught; only after the last river has been poisoned; only then will you realize that money cannot be eaten.” When making a public policy decision, especially one involving the environment, it is imperative that the decision be analyzed from a cost-benefit perspective. In the case of this mining bill and Gogebic Taconite’s proposed mine, the costs outweigh the benefits.

Joe Timmerman ([email protected]) is a freshman majoring in math and economics.

A previous version of this article referred to the mining project as being located in the fictional county of “Ashwood.” It has been updated instead to “Ashland.”