The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Does mining cost more than it's worth? > Comments

Does mining cost more than it's worth? : Comments

By Justin Glyn, published 13/2/2013

While mining is a source of great wealth for Australia, its socio-ecological benefits are mixed.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
Pathetic question, hopeless answer. For tens of thousands of years human tribes have wandered the surface of this planet, oblivious to the wealth beneath their feet, wealth which can only be realised through mining. They suffered famine, drought, floods, earthquakes, disease, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, bushfires, plague, you name it. Then came the slow revolution of discovering and utilising the infinite minerals and energy resources of this wonderful planet and universe in which we live. The industrial revolution resulted in an unprecedented increase of longevity in England and thence across the world. People lived longer. And they lived in better circumstances. That too few of these recipients of their better life and lifestyle appreciate the cause of their well-being is reflected in the nonsense of this article.
Posted by John McRobert, Wednesday, 13 February 2013 9:40:28 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"While mining is a source of great wealth for Australia, its socio-ecological benefits are mixed."

The benefits enormously exceed the costs. It is worrying that the author and so many people lack the ability to compare benefits and costs in proper perspective. To see costs and benefits in perspective, it often helps to 'book end' this issue, or put another way, consider the extreme cases.

First, consider the extreme of no mining. In that case, we'd still be in the stone age. No metals. No energy. Just think about it.

Now consider a less extreme case. Consider that we have mining for metals but not for fossil fuels for energy.

Fossil fuels have done enormous good for humanity AND FOR THE ENVIRONMENT.

That may need to be repeated for many readers: Fossil fuels have done enormous good for humanity AND FOR THE ENVIRONMENT.

This excellent recent report explains this clearly:
"Humanity Unbound: How Fossil Fuels Saved Humanity from Nature and Nature from Humanity"
http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/humanity-unbound-how-fossil-fuels-saved-humanity-nature-nature-humanity

As you read it consider what we need to do going forward if we want to sustain and further improve human well-being and minimise the effects of a larger and richer world population.

Clearly we need an energy source to replace fossil fuels. Any suggestions?
Posted by Peter Lang, Wednesday, 13 February 2013 9:45:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scratching around for some justification for his extreme position the author cites lead levels in children. That is a matter of concern, but rather than close down the mining industry and the vast wealth it generates, perhaps we can make an effort to fix the problem of high lead levels in that area (assuming the author''s information is correct)?

What other high social costs can the author point to
Posted by Curmudgeon, Wednesday, 13 February 2013 10:30:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...I think this a very opportune time to reconsider the benefits and dangers of mining to the welfare of Australians. Appropriate it is to mention too, the close (financial) connection of the Liberals to the magnates: In fact to be fair, also the “wisp” of suspicion at compliance and willingness to manipulation from the mining industry inside the ALP, and the possible implications of mining interests in the overthrow and replacement of an elected Prime Minister.

...Already the storm-clouds of discontent gather on the horizon as the election draws nearer. Are “Special Economic Zones” a future way for the mining industry; Under the Liberals I would consider such a move by Government a “slick-fix” to contentious issues such as the use of cheap foreign workers and tax avoidance schemes well suited to the “take-it-all” mentality of the "Gina" Rineharts of the mining industry.

...Maybe another “Hung Parliament” will be the best outcome for the beleaguered citizen on September 14th…Mmmm.
Posted by diver dan, Wednesday, 13 February 2013 11:33:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The idea that we have not being paying attention to the possible costs of mining, and that questioning those costs is “long overdue” is simply laughably. Our media, our politics and our parliament are regularly peppered with challenges to the benefits of mining. Perhaps the author missed ‘Dirty Business’, screened recently by SBS. Or the Commonwealth Government report on FIFO released this week. Or the debate about the MRRT. Or the campaigns against virtually every significant resource development in recent years. Or the fear-mongering about fracking.

Like most industries, mining generates both costs and benefits. But I think any objective study would show that the benefits overwhelmingly exceed the costs.

The benefits lie not only in the dollars that mining generates (wages, taxes, royalties and profits) but also in the products and lifestyles that mining makes possible. John McRoberts and Peter Lang make the point very clearly. Even in the stone age, the acquisition and processing of flint into tools marked the start of our development into modern humans
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 13 February 2013 3:47:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It must be time to point out once again that if the title of your article is a question, and the answer is 'No', then you probably shouldn't write it.
Posted by Jon J, Wednesday, 13 February 2013 9:18:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy