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 > The campaign to stop mining > Comments

The campaign to stop mining : Comments

By Jennifer Marohasy, published 15/11/2006

Environmentalists claims may be false, but they command the moral high ground and in so doing condemn the world’s poorest to a life of subsistence.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All
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.
Posted by dozer, Friday, 17 November 2006 4:07:42 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
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?
Posted by Liam, Tuesday, 21 November 2006 11:27:00 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
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.)
Posted by dozer, Thursday, 23 November 2006 2:54:07 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
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!
Posted by dickie, Thursday, 23 November 2006 8:13:14 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
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.
Posted by dozer, Thursday, 30 November 2006 11:13:00 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
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.
Posted by dickie, Thursday, 30 November 2006 12:46:14 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. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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