Difference between revisions of "Talk:Chem395:April 4 discussion"
(→Discussion) |
(→Discussion) |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| − | :To critique the London Declaration, I would have to say that the meeting in 2001 in London was the meeting of mining companies, financing and sponsors of the mining industry. The London declaration was a joint declaration which deals with sustainable mining. Radically different than what MMSD was about. It imposed beliefs about society and stated a few really important facts. | + | :To critique the London Declaration, I would have to say that the meeting in 2001 in London was the meeting of mining companies, financing and sponsors of the mining industry. The London declaration was a joint declaration which deals with sustainable mining. Radically different than what MMSD was about. It imposed beliefs about society and stated a few really important facts. They are more minerals from mines, better technology, better fixes for technology, sponsor mediated interaction. [[User:J-Fed|J-Fed]] 16:23, 4 April 2008 (EDT) |
| − | |||
==Footers== | ==Footers== | ||
[[Category:Chemistry 395]] | [[Category:Chemistry 395]] | ||
Revision as of 15:24, 4 April 2008
This will be the tenth in the discussion series. See Chem395:Unit_9 and the discussion topic for background.
Agenda
- What are the good and bad points about the "Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development" (MMSD) project?
- What are the good and bad points about the "London Declaration?"
- Try to resolve these viewpoints and suggest how the mining industry can become more sustainable.
Discussion
OK, I hope that you've all been able to read over the Andy Whitmore's paper, Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (2006) 309-314. (If it fails to load, type the author name and journal name into the search boxes). I'd like you to critique the "Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development" (MMSD) project. What is good about it? What is bad? Walkerma 16:03, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
- MMSD was good in the fact that it showed at least some initiative out of the mining industries to move towards a sustainable future. However as the four points of Whitmore's paper points out, the MMSD has some major flaws. In the end the article makes mining look like it's this horrible industry that is destroying the environment. An industry that is the opposite of sustainability. After reading this is almost makes me want to think that the only reason the mining industry started the MMSD project was to cover up the god awful things they were doing in the first place. Murphy44 16:11, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
- The good points are as follows: alternative and more innovative procedures for extracting, refining, and obtaining minerals and useful elements. The bad points are as follows:it takes time to refine products and decommission them. Elements and procedures are scarce and this makes it difficult to find people to hire, pay for and actually work to obtain the elements. MMSD takes land away from people (we talked about this and the link to poverty). J-Fed 16:15, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
- As Whitmore pointed out, if international mining co-operation becomes a standard it can help alleviate such problems and make it easier to obtain products. J-Fed 16:17, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
Now can you critique the London Declaration? Walkerma 16:18, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
- At the same time, he says that people will still lose their homes and land and the environment will be negatively affected. This is not good. J-Fed 16:18, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
- To critique the London Declaration, I would have to say that the meeting in 2001 in London was the meeting of mining companies, financing and sponsors of the mining industry. The London declaration was a joint declaration which deals with sustainable mining. Radically different than what MMSD was about. It imposed beliefs about society and stated a few really important facts. They are more minerals from mines, better technology, better fixes for technology, sponsor mediated interaction. J-Fed 16:23, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
