Can an anti-mining stance be evil? It can. World Vision recently lent its support to a petition to stop release of mine tailings into rivers from the Ok Tedi (PNG) and Freeport (Indonesia) mines. These mines are in seismically unstable mountainous terrain where it is not possible to build safe tailings dams. Cessation of tailings release to rivers would mean both these mines would have to close. Both mines are the single largest taxpayers in their respective countries. Closure would have a massive adverse impact on the poorest of the poor nation-wide. World Vision does not have any expertise in tailings dams or tailings disposal. Why does World Vision use contributor funds to support actions which would hurt the poorest of the poor?

Siltstone I don't have any answers to your questions. Having been brought up in PNG I've been watching the Oktedi situation but, without going there to see for myself, am hesitant to venture an opinion.

But I find this article heartening. As in many questions it is the extremists (Mining bad: lets stop it all. Mining good: let's rape the planet)who usually carry the day and then lead from these positions.

It's encouraging to read of a person's personal and real struggle for both an ethical and a balanced stance in an industry where the issues are so flammable.

o.k., I know I'm an idealist in a world where many consider this to be a far greater crime than greed or corruption. But articles such as this lead me to have faith that maybe the gloom and doom phrophesisers aren't going to be proved completely right.

(Having said that however, I still admit to a little chink in all the sunshine and roses where a small voice whispers that articles like this would be a tremendous PR strategy in the hands of the unscrupulous.)

The anti-mining stance of the Catholic Church in the Philippines has two motivations: the church wishes to maintain its control over the Filipino people and it is easier to do this if the population is poor; and the church is responding to what it sees as weak government in the Philippines - in other words, it sees itself as the defacto government and hence has a moral obligation to provide leadership.

I can accept the second of these motivations far more readily than the first. Government at the national level is weak and, compared to Australia, corrupt. Leadership based upon Christian beliefs should be desirable in the absence of any other leadership - all other things being equal. However, the desire of the Catholic church to keep the population poor is totally inexcusable. When I was on a all-parliament, all party tour of Australian funded aid projects in the Philippines in 2003, the huge population growth combined with the many other problems facing the country were serious issues that demanded urgent responses. Instead, the Catholic church banned the use of condoms on moral grounds - using as one excuse the fact that they provide no protection against the AIDS virus! - thereby enforcing the continuation of one of the world's highest birth rates in a country that was already unsustainable in terms of human use of natural resources.

Well regulated mining will have far less impact on the Philippines than rampant population growth, so thank you for a perceptive article.