Isoman copper mine (hypothetical case study)/Other similar cases
...Of course I know we need development: But we could make it on a progressive way: using both concepts I introduced here and becoming a worldwide-known shining example for successful, sustainable development.
Jule
...The extraction of resources, if properly conducted (with an economic agenda in mind) will increase the wealth of the population and bolster the economic developement. From the lignite mining in Germany you can see that companies can also be obliged to recultivate the land once mining is done.
To remain in Germany: What do you think happened if you had asked a German in the Ruhr area 200 years ago the question "What happens when the lignite reserves are used up?". If people back then had never started mining then Germany would have never seen the sort of industrial evolution that happened up to this day (and the lignite reserves are still large even now).
I'm trying to get the point across that resource extraction is one of the backbones of wealth in an industrial society.
Henning
...But you cannot compare this example to the copper mines in this fictional story. It was a different time and different actors (actors were almost equal powerful).
But that’s not the way it works today when there’s on the one hand a huge global company and on the other hand a small country. Please be honest: You don’t believe there will be real development for the local population. The government and the population will be depending on this company. There are so many examples for this: The Catoca-Mine for diamonds in Angola, gold mining in Ghana (gold is the most important export-product of Ghana) and Gécamines for copper and cobalt in the Congo. Every time there was a poor, undeveloped country with raw material on the one side and a huge global company interested in this raw materials on the other side. And today? There is no development of these countries through the mines. On the contrary!!! By the way do you know the movie: Let’s make money? I recommend everybody to watch it.
Jule
...You assume that the involvement of a global corporation in a developing country involves negative consequences for the local population. However, the involvement itself is not the problem (very good examples you mentioned) but the internal politics of these states are. All those states you mentioned reached their independence in the decolonisation that followed WW2. However for a long time they were quite content with selling their resources in exchange for cash and weapons to finance genocidal campaigns against neighbours and other ethnics. I would recommend if you read about the history of Rhodesia if you will, it might give you a different perspective.
Also looking at Norway and recently Australia, you can find good examples of how resource exploitation is used to improve national budget.
Finally copper is largely recyclable. The International Copper Association claims that 80% of copper EVER mined is still in use today. Read more here: http://www.copperinfo.com/environment/recycling.html
Henning
...„Germany 200 years ago“: I was not talking about the industrialists vs. working class when I was talking about almost equally powerful. Probably I should have said: Not such a huge gap between the involved parties. First I think it is not appropriate to compare these two situations. Because in the case study you can nominate precisely at least one involved party: the company - it will have only benefits out of the deal. On the other side you have well yes the local population, the government and so on - and there are as we see a wide range of benefits and negative impacts. “Back in the days” there were on both sides more parties involved - and it is as well harder to tell the results for them. But and that is the main point - the profit on the one side at least stayed in the country. But - you already named it-: The long-term result was the development of an upper and a working class. Because the money stayed it the country - there was a development for the society and indirectly for the working class as well. For our case study this would mean: There will be a (further) development in a global upper class and a working class. But the benefit for the working class (= through development for the society) would fail to appear because there is a foreign company - their profits would not stay near to the copper mine. Probably this wasn’t very clear big grin I still think it is hard to compare these two examples...
Jule
Jule, I'm fully with you when it comes to a developement towards an economy using renewables. It is a good thing that e.g. the German governments aim is to produce 50% of its electricity out of renewable energy sources by 2050. However the economies as they have been (large proportions of it not being en par with sustainability) have provided western countries with peace and prosperity - both values which are also worthy of being passed on to generations yet to come.
With Asian and South-American economies on the rise this "peace and prosperity" thing will face certain challenges in the decades to come. I feel that your attitude (while of course being very balanced) of not liking conventional extraction and production methods might lead to a situation where large portions of industrial societies will seriously decline. Education and research, however, can produce more valuable answers to the questions of today than the abandonment of current methods.
Henning
...Jule, I think it is not naive to think that mining would bring prosperity into the country. Usually it does - creates jobs for the locals and finances flow in there too. For instance your first example Angola - there were extreme conditions of civil war in the country, so it's not very usual situation.
Josef
Great multiple perspectives being shown here. And the different opinions expressed are all valid. Once again the issue involves trade-offs - protecting the environment and traditional ways of life versus economic development. As more food for thought, consider also the issue of the so-called "curse of natural resources", i.e. abundant resources in poor nations doesn't necessarily lead to industrial/economic development, albeit for reasons that Henning has already alluded to.
You have already mentioned some real life examples of resource extraction and its consequences in poor countries like Angola, Ghana, Congo and Zimbabwe (Rhodesia?!), but I would encourage you to look at real world examples in the actual Pacific area. Papua New Guinea provides a very good example of what happens when a country attempts to develops its hitherto virgin resources (specifically forests and minerals). You could begin, for example, by looking at the OK Tedi Mine.
See also Minerals in Conflict.
Andrew
...For me, it would be very interesting to apply all these results and aspects e.g. to the diamond mining in Sierra Leone, since it stresses the external factors, which we can't know about the Isoman Province. How can a country, with the biggest diamond resources of Africa be the least developed country of the world? (Yes, I do know about the civil war, corruption etc. - but isn't it interesting to see how the benefits of resources can be wasted since the mines are in foreign hands of global players, too?) We should, besides our enthusiasm not forget, that giving the own resources into foreign hands is not a guarantee for growth. Why not wait 5 years? The copper demand and the copper resources won't decrease. Why not investing in education and after a couple of years mining without the influence of international players? Just an idea which came to my mind right now. So I need to correct myself. Provided that there are enough funds to invest in education and sustainable infrastructure, I would prefer Isoman Province mines itself. If there is additional need of knowledge, experts from abroad can still be employed.
Svea