831
edits
Isoman copper mine (hypothetical case study)/Other similar cases: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Isoman copper mine (hypothetical case study)/Other similar cases (view source)
Revision as of 21:24, 29 August 2017
, 21:24, 29 August 2017no edit summary
Jana Dlouha (talk | contribs) (Created page with '...Of course I know we need development: But we could make it on a progressive way: using both concepts I introduced [http://www.slideshare.net/WorldResources/yasuni-itt-initiati…') |
No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
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 | 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 | Henning | ||
| Line 40: | Line 50: | ||
Svea | Svea | ||
[[Category:Isoman copper mine]] | |||