No doubt the global mining corporations are spending big bucks to counter environmental concerns over mining. No doubt there a few unsubstantiated claims about the extent of damage, but on the whole poorly regulated mining operations have devastating effects on this poor planet Earth. I don't think, for one example, that the wrecking of the Fly River in PNG by BHP Billiton's OK Tedi mine was a figment of someone's over-heated imagination, though no doubt the companies will be paying people to cast doubt on all such realities by presenting them as dubious nonsense spouted by irresponsible greens. We have to ask, who writes in this vein and who pays them ?? If anyone is interested in documentary evidence about the appalling damage mining is doing to river systems round NSW, come to a free launch of the film "Rivers of Shame" at the Parliament House, Macquarie St, Theatre at 1 pm, Wed. November 29th. Judge for yourselves the escalating damage to water resources in a time of severe drought.

No need to wonder Kang, the Institute for Public Affairs is one of the busiest talk shops in Australia. They endlessly recycle the neoliberal 'consumer capitalism is good for you' dogma that Margaret Thatcher made famous, funded by the larger corporations (which in Aus has to include miners like Newmont - care to deny the IPA funded in part by Newmont, Ms Marohasy?)

If only Ms had a scrap of evidence that Western miners operating in Majority world nations have ever brought anything other than bulldozers, prostitution, STD's, drugs and a handful of Mcjobs. Mining corporations frequently fund brutal 'policing' operations against locals who don't respect mining licences signed far away by corrupt officials (funny how corruption is always the fault of the politicians, not the corporations who pay the bribes) or who complain about land, labour or enviro rights. Outsourcing the killing, either to business-friendly police & soldiers, paramilitaries, or the straightup mercenaries of Blackwater Sandline et al, does not absolve miners, their shareholders, or their highly paid apologists like Ms Marohasy.

Its no surprise to see the IPA jerk into life upon the release of this corporate propaganda, be interesting to time the films descent down the neoliberal digestive canal: the IPA today, The Australian tomorrow, Andrew Bolt by Monday?

Both the above posters are correct in their views, Chis Shaw's article wasn't disputed to any great extent by anyone if you recall.
Earth is like a block of cheese you can eat it until it runs out, then there is nothing left, which is what mining is doing to our planet, we will have nothing left for our grandchildren if we don't act now to end this lunacy.

It's great for company's like Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton, their C.E.O's and other executives grandchildren may well be able to afford a space flight to an inhabitable planet found in the future, sadly though for our grandchildren it will be more like the Mad Max senerio.

1,600 eminent scientists half of them Nobel prize winners signed a letter to the U.N titled "Warning to the World" in 1992 predicting exactly what we see today, force 5 cyclones in North Queensland, snow in Tasmania in October etc, and many more examples around the globe. The time to act is now, not next year or in 10 years - NOW.

All three posts above are correct in their views.

Yes, the IPA is a right wing think tank.

The other organisation the author heads is the front group The Australian Environment Foundation - do not confuse it with The Australian Conservation Foundation - which was recently established by high flyers and corporates to broadcast a conservative perspective on environmetnal issues.

Sometimes it pays to take a peek at the author's credentials before bothering to read the (very predictable) text.

People,

The points in the article are-

Have Enviromentalists lied in the above example. Yes so far.
Has this caused a man to be falsely imprisoned. Yes so far.
Was the mining legal. Sounds like it so far.

Therefore the NGOs are wrong so far. This could lead to the Environmental lobby losing their moral high ground and therefore possibly losing credibility in the face of a real disasters (the boy who cried wolf.

As for the film topic its is good for people to realise that there are human faces involved in the mining/industry in other countries wanting to survive in the world

Who exactly are these 'environmentalists' you claim lied, Pewee?

Marohasy's article talks about a NYT article and unnamed protesters in Indonesia - sorry, noone who works for the NYT could be counted as an environmentalist given its long pro-neoliberalism/pro-war bias. And i'll take the testimony of anyone willing to protest within rifle range of the TNI over that of highly paid PR flacks any day.

One man is falsely imprisoned? At least he hasn't been hung like Ken Saro Wiwa for fighting Shell or shot dead like the Indymedia journalist in Oaxaca last week. I see the Newmont exec's son has already got a campaigning website up, ah money is a great thing.

It might be 'legal', Pewee, (in one of the more corrupt countries in the region) for Newmont to dump all that toxic waste but that doesn't make it moral, just, or even very smart.

If only mining companies would stop wasting lying-money on the IPA and put the same funds into getting their act together, then greenies might give them a rest. Anyone thinking Marohasy's puff-piece has any basis in reality might want to check out the Mineral Policy Institute archives, they've been documenting dirty work by Aus miners for years.
http://www.mpi.org.au

As soon as Marohasy answers my question about Newmont funding the IPA (bad habit of skipping her homework this woman) i'll ask about water use at Lake Cowral mine. There, in worst-drought-in-a-millenia Western NSW, Barrick Gold is apparently paying $1 per 20 million litres of water. http://abc.net.au/news/items/200610/1766644.htm?nsw
See http://sydney.indymedia.org/node/39662 for unanswered questions from local farmers desperate about their plunging water table.

If Adelaide dies of thirst as NSW gold production grows, well thats just the wisdom of the market, eh Marohasy?

Jennifer you emerge from your burrow into the "light" which as usual, blinds you to reality.

You are now desperately using the plight of the poor, to increase the profits of the big end of town.

Most environmentalists have nothing to gain by speaking out and lots to lose. Most are not bent on closing down industry but call for proper regulation to reduce hazardous emissions.

Those who are pro-industry have everything to gain by ridiculing the environmentalists by using any sort of propaganda they can resort to.

Historically, the multinational mining companies don't give a hoot about the worker or the poor for that matter! They continue to bombard communities with their flyers insisting they are good corporate citizens!

Here's a few documented facts!

Silicosis from gold mining - operations continued with the full knowledge by governments and industry that this disease was killing workers

Asbestosis - Ops. continued with the full knowledge by governments and industry that this disease was killing workers

Regulation to cap lethal emissions: Almost non-existent and the industry is self-regulated

Australian Mining Company Esmeralda: Polluted the Somes River and the Tisza tributary to the Danube with 3.5million cubic metres of cyanide and then attempted to deny responsibility - buggar the poor!

Prosecution last year of uranium mining company where they supplied water for drinking and bathing to workers which exceeded the safe radiation level 400 times. Prosecuted twice last year.

Roxby Downs - the largest user of u/g water in the southern hemisphere

Roxby Downs - Helping themselves to millions of litres daily, free of charge from the Great Artesian Basin

BHP Nickel Ops: One smelter emits approx. 3,100,000 kilograms of SO2 in one month. Mulitiply that by 12 Jennifer! As for the other chemicals - God knows? They are not obliged to report on those.

Federal Product Stewardship (Waste Oil) Burning millions of this muck over communities knowing the health ramifications

Give us a break Jennifer and come up with some hard evidence next time you want to abuse public gullibility by tugging the heart strings of those who don't know any better!

And so, when I reach the bottom of this less-than-800-word 'article', there's a nice big colourful ad for exactly the same film the author is promoting made by the institution the author works for.

This is not an article. It's 100% advertisement.

>>complaint button<<

Kang, Liam, Shonga and Gecko would have to be the four horsemen of the apocalypse here. Give it a break fellas, your same old bigoted "dogs vomit" would embarrass most toilet walls. You provided nothing in the way of specific response to matters raised by the author and dished up the standard defamatory material.

Yes, mining in some countries takes place in a context of desperate poverty and endemic corruption, and the environmental outcomes match the safeguards in place. But communities, like individuals, need to ascend the hierarchy of needs through economic growth before environmental issues can take greater precedence.

That is not a value judgement. It is a simple statement of fact about human nature. They need a full stomach, safe housing and security before they will give a tinkers cuss about core environmental issues. And they need at least two generations of obscene overindulgence before they start adopting your kind of quasi-religious fetishes masquerading as 'environmental concern'.

But to imply, as you guys have, that mining is all bad and green ngo's are all good, and anyone raising contrary views are paid publicists, makes a pretty substantial case that you are either extraordinarily naieve or just plain stupid. A closed mind either way.

Ooooh! Watch out. It's a right wing think tank. Let's poo-pah everything this article says, and write off the movie as propoganda, because it comes from a right wing think tank. It's all lies, lies, horrible lies, from a horrible, lying, right wing think tank.

Good grief.

That's right, Perseus

Mining companies and governments are exploiting developing countries and are part of the "endemic corruption".

Why aren't technologically advanced mining companies adhering to ethical practices?

We no longer live in the 18th century Industrial Revolution era.

Enter the 21st century Perseus - the "Age of Enlightenment!

How unsurprising, the right wingers dozer & perseus don't bother to read other posts, just dive straight in with cliches and juvenalia.

I did challenge points in the rehashed press release that is Marohasys article, I don't think "mining is all bad", and the IPA ARE paid publicists! Its their core business for gods sake! MArohasy might still be silent on whether Newmont fund the IPA directly, but i'll bet my bike (made of mined metals) at least indirectly via the Minerals Council they do.

Perseus, the "can't save the environment till we're all rich" myth is just for the bloated true believers at the golf club. Rich countries have merely offshored their resource consumption & ecological stupidity to countries at the pointy end of the globalisation stick (what would we do without the IMF eh?).

Please guys, this isn't Tim Blairs or Andrew Bolts blog, a few lines of insults and cliches do not constitute a contribution to discussion.

Liam,

I make a point of reading every single post before I even think about making a comment.

I know, I was being deliberately provocative, and you are right to criticise me as I didn't exactly construct the world's greatest argument.

The point I was making was this. There is a strong tendency to view anything that comes from known right-wing organisations, individuals or companies as suspect. There is also a tendency, when it can be shown that those on the left have been deliberately misleading, (or in general are just plain wrong about something,) to rattle off a list of all the bad things done by the right.

In this particular case, the response to a revelation that unsubstantiated accusations were made by environmentalists against a mining company is to make a list of crimes committed by other mining companies. A list is not an argument.

It is a mistake to assume that all corporations are motivated solely by greed and profit. It is a mistake to assume that any means are justifiable to stop corporations conducting business. It is also important to remember that there is a serious deficiency with regard to accountability and transparency for NGO's on both sides of the political spectrum.

Dozer wrote :"It is a mistake to assume that all corporations are motivated solely by greed and profit."

Err, no, Corporations Law embeds the profit motivation, and greed is a relative, emotive and corny term i never use.

"It is a mistake to assume that any means are justifiable to stop corporations conducting business."

Who said it was? Putting words in my mouth again?

"It is also important to remember that there is a serious deficiency with regard to accountability and transparency for NGO's on both sides of the political spectrum.

So i take it you too are curious as to whether Newmont Mining has funded the IPA to clear its name via this valiant fowarded-press-release? Marohasy wont answer that question, but then she probably doesn't even read the press releases she copy-n-pastes.

ABC National's Counterpoint show is aping the IPAs promo as i type. Guess the ban on advertising had to go sometime but shouldn't they at least charge Newmont full price?

Liam,

Why do you think I'm only talking to you? A number of the posters on this thread are also on the Chris Shaw thread, and SHONGA even mentions Shaw on this thread. The Shaw article explicitly makes the connection between corporate greed and adverse impacts, whether it's war or environmental degradation.

Regarding my comment, "It is a mistake to assume that any means are justifiable to stop corporations conducting business." The article clearly outlined dirty tactics committed by environmentalist groups to put pressure on the mining company. Pewee makes the important point that such tactics undermine the credibility of further efforts to ensure responsible behaviour by mining companies.

This leads into the issue of NGO accountability- for all the attention given to MNC's, attention needs to be paid to the actions of NGO's representing a variety of interest groups. There is very little regulation of this sector. (Sorry I don't have a link, I'll have to go back over a few sources.)

Furthermore, environmental lobby groups have a history of presenting either bad science, or presenting scientific research in a biased, sensationalized, or out-of-context manner to advance their agenda. (I am not talking about global warming- that issue is just too big and there appears to be strong evidence supporting the theory.) They have done this in relation to pesticides and other cases. (Again I don't as yet have a link, but some will be provided.)

Dozer

I'll be interested to read your promised links where you allege that environmentalists' assertions are incorrect.

I received a faxed copy of an excerpt from today's Kalgoorlie Miner edition on the operations of Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines (Newmont/Barrick) where documented evidence revealed that during the year 2004/05, the company emitted 8 tonnes of mercury over the Goldfields' community of some 30 thousand residents: Part of the newspaper article stated:

"KCGM has captured 50 per cent of the mercury discharged from its Fimiston plant carbon kilns since an upgrade earlier this year. High mercury levels from the super pit operation were recorded at the Fimiston and the Gidgi roaster in June last year.

A $1.25 million scrubbing unit has since reduced emissions and a taskforce was continuing to investigate long-term engineering solutions".

One would assume that this company is endeavouring to be good corporate citizens, however, the Environment Minister (Judy Edwards) instructed the company not to operate when the wind was blowing towards Kalgoorlie-Boulder.

Shutting down a company when winds blow towards a community incurs an enormous loss of profits. What a pity this company had not installed a scrubber prior to enforcement. Rather, they continued with excessive emissions until they were forced to reduce them and therein lies the problem!

Excessive pollutant emissions are a daily occurrence in Australia. One shudders to think of the amount of pollution that is being dumped in third world countries where enforceable regulations are often non-existent and the zest for profits is paramount!

God what a lazy sod am I…

Green groups have a history of using Trojan Horses to push an anti-development agenda.

The following two links track the ongoing saga of the Preble mouse. It is an example of the “Abuses of the Endangered Species Act” to hinder development. I could give other examples but this one is a gem.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion_columnists/article/0,2777,DRMN_23972_4415643,00.html,

http://www.insidedenver.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5004352,00.html,

The following link is a report on health scares over the last 50 years. It demonstrates a pattern of environmental and consumer organizations which initiate concern over a particular product or substance- “In some cases a very small risk was exaggerated, or the risk was not compared to the benefits,” (p.5) which are then fuelled by modern mass media.

http://www.solvaymartorell.com/static/wma/pdf/4/7/4/3/facts.pdf

The following link to the Civil Society Observer has a number of articles. You don’t really have to read all or many of them, the point is that transparency and accountability (don’t you just love those two terms) of NGOs is an ongoing issue, and no less important than expecting similar standards for corporations and governments.

http://www.un-ngls.org/site/article.php3?id_article=119

Dickie,

You will notice that I don’t deny that mining companies have polluted the local environments. I agree that corporations should be held accountable for what they like to pass off as “negative externalities.” The point I made was that posters on this thread were following a familiar pattern- write off the information because it comes from a right wing think tank with vested interests, and peel off a list of all the bad things mining companies have ever done. They avoided engaging directly the assertions made in the article that environmental groups had falsely accused a mining company of polluting the environment, in order to further an anti-development agenda.

I have shown that environmental groups have a history of making bogus, exaggerated or distorted allegations to further this agenda. If the posters on this thread took as skeptical an attitude to the connections and agendas of environmental groups as they do toward right wing think tanks, they would develop a broader understanding of the complexity of the politics involved.

Dozer

Your argument that environmentalists distort the science is not convincing.

You clearly have a limited knowledge of the impact of commercial chemicals on the human body if you endorse the views of the authors under the thread "Solvaymartorell". These authors (who sniped at environmentalists' concerns) would now be the laughing stock of WHO and eminent scientists on the Basel Convention and the Stockholm Convention who over many years have researched the health effects of commercial chemicals on humans and animals and concluded that many are harmful and carcinogenic.

May I advise you that the Stockholm Convention experts concluded that a total of 12 persistent organic pollutants (POPS)must be eliminated to preserve human health. The authors you referred to audaciously criticised environmentalists who objected to the use of 2,4,5-T and other organchlorines which are included in the 12 POPS to be eliminated.

Malaria is on the increase in third world countries since DDT was banned, however, returning to the use of this chemical would simply be a quick fix - eradicate the mosquitoes but leave humans with insidious health problems from long-term exposure to DDT and then have manufacturers claim that the subsequent diseases are "not a result of exposure to DDT". Those affected in third world countries have little ability or opportunity to speak out when they succumb to the long-term ravages of exposure to DDT.

On the news only last night, an eminent doctor advised that food manufacturers are "entirely responsible for the high rate of blood pressure in young children". Manufacturers are force-feeding children high salt levels in food, which exceeds the concentrations in oceans! Are you suggesting that manufacturers are unaware of the ravages of excessive salt on human health? And do they care?

As I have previously claimed, Dozer, industry and governments appear to have little conscience when it comes to profits and environmentalists and others are fully entitled to express their concerns even if, as you claim, their science is occasionally skewed.

I worked for some years as the Health, Safety and Environment Manager at a large mine in East Africa that had 50 expatriate employees (some of them Ghanaian, but otherwise a mix of Australian, English, South African and French) and 2,500 local employees. I'm really struck by the misconceptions exemplified by the vitrolic comments of some of these armchair critics. This is particularly so when one talks about the flow of income into surrounding communities and in long-term training and professional development. Perhaps you could speak with some of the local people, especially those in professional and management positions, or for an independent view, perhaps the Ghanaian expatriates.

Just to give one example, while my professional background is in environmental science (and I could add comments about that), as Safety Manager I rigorously enforced the wearing of seat belts and this started a trend in the surrounding communities to do so. We set a record of 3.4million man hours "Lost time injury free", a statistic that many industries in developed countries would be proud to claim, and it was broken when a kitchen hand was seriously burned trying to light a BBQ at the celebration.