Isoman copper mine (hypothetical case study)/There are certain obstacles...
...I am part of the informed public, maybe publisher of a magazine. I cannot decide at all but have an influence on the public opinion and, as we know, in a little while there are (hopefully democratic) elections. I think we should not make the same mistake again so many countries made in the past: Hoping for fast money and short term development (what do you think will happen when the copper mines are empty? Everybody who pleads for the copper mines has to answer this question (!!!)) going the easy but wrong way. Of course I know we need development...
Jule
Jule, ... still one thing maybe you can answer: Whats the point of leaving resources underground?
I try to answer your question (What if the copper mine is empty?): 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. ... companies can also be obliged to recultivate the land once mining is done...
Henning
@ Henning and everybody else,
“What’s the point of leaving resources underground?“
The point is about intergenerational justice. Why do “you“ have the right to make decisions for future generations? How can you weight up the needs of a global company right now against future needs of the local population you don’t even know about? If you build these mines maybe (but probably not) the ecosystem could be restored one day- but if you uses the raw material it is gone forever. It will not regrow. What is the concept of sustainability all about? Don’t use more of a resource right now as it grows in the same time. Future generations should find the same prerequisites we found right now.
...Why should we use these raw materials for development (I don‘t think there would be any development- but that was the goal) if the people could have a better and more sustainable development without building the copper-mines? Why???
Jule
"Intergenerational justice" is a powerful word. If you say that the current generation (us) has no right to mine that place, then which next generation has? Can you pick a date? When is it appropriate?
I know what you are saying is based on a very noble idea but if mankind was fixed only on the idea of leaving the planet virtually untouched ("Don’t use more of a resource right now as it grows in the same time.") then people would have never left the stone age. Actually when I think about it, mankind would be extinct by now, because iron and bronze mining would have been forbidden (no swords and spears) and wild animals killed everybody back then ;)
... what do you mean with actors being equally powerful? Are you talking about industrialists vs. working class? If you were referring to that then I seriously doubt that the distribution of power is worse today than it was back then.
Also when I was proposing to build the mine I mentioned an "economic agenda" which referred to a model in which the local population participates from the profit made. What you are doing is presupposition. 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 but the internal politics of these states are...
Looking forward to your reply! Henning
@Henning
-„"Intergenerational justice" is a powerful word. If you say that the current generation (us) has no right to mine that place, then which next generation has? Can you pick a date? When is it appropriate?““-
No of course I cannot pick a date - it is more an ethical question about non-regrowing resources. As well I cannot tell you which generation has the right to use these resources- but from my point of view there should be a development to an economy using renewable resources. I know this argument is very common, but I really belief in this: We have the responsibility for the next generations finding the same natural/ resource preconditions we found…
And of course I do not think since „back in the stone age“ people should leave the nature untouched- of course not. But right now in Europe we need twice the space and resources we have for our lifestyle. There’s a reason why the idea of sustainability came up in the last 20 years.
...I think in the last fundamental point we just have different opinions: I don’t say that the involvement of a global company always has negative consequences for the other side (not always ;-)- but when there is such a huge difference in power between these two parties (there are enough examples when the yearly profit of the company is higher than the GDP of the country) you cannot say that it is just the failure of the internal politics - without any responsibility for the situation of the involved company. In fact a global company is more interested in their own profit then in the development of a foreign country - and then there is the question with the unequal power of the participants again....
But probably we agree that we have different opinions in fundamental points