Talk:Chem395:April 4 discussion

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)

The London Declaration as Whitmore stated is not entirely true, it's more misleading than anything. It's goals appear to have whats best for the mining industry at it's core, not whats best for the environment. The London declaration seems like a tactic towards talking a big environmental agenda only to disregard almost all of the rules/regulations/standards set forth while in London. I agree very much with Whitmore when he talks about how we really don't need to continue to mine the minerals and metals that are either stockpiled or can be easily recycled. The other main point was one that I really enjoyed reading about and that was how technical fixes can solve almost any problem. This has been a myth of non-environmentalists for a long time and it was good to see a strong argument against this ridiculously foolish mindset. Murphy44 16:27, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

I don't completely agree. J-Fed 16:29, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Whitmore ends on a rather pessimistic note. Whitmore argues that the mining industry's record of social and environmental performance has been unsatisfactory, and continues – despite rhetoric around “sustainability” – to cause ecological problems while damaging the health and livelihoods of local people. He talks about the London Delclaration being un- successful. The Declaration stopped a set of myths, all based on the idea that mining is an essential part of economic development.Despite this, mining has many advantages that can be attained through greater intervention by governments, including the taxation of mining operations, more stringent fines for environmental damage, the encouragement of investment in other sectors, the requirement of environmental and social reporting, and frequent auditing.J-Fed 16:34, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Just to clarify: The London Declaration was put out by Mining And Communities (MAC), Whitmore's group. You can review the full text of it here. What are the good and points of this viewpoint? If you were the CEO of Rio Tinto Zinc, how would you pick holes in Whitmore's argument? Walkerma 16:35, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Excuse me, I'm sorry! I was talking about the critics of whitmore, not whitmore himself. My apologies! My computer is lagging a lot right now. We can't create those other renewable compounds yet, so I don't think it is such a good idea to stop production on them. It would put a lot of people out of work and this would be horrible for the economy. J-Fed 16:38, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Agreed, we can't just shut down an entire industry, and there are some ways to make mining more environmentally friendly. For example, avoid open pit/strip mines. Stick to strict regulation regarding what is allowed to be done with the till and make sure that leeching is adequately controlled. Murphy44 16:42, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

To poke holes in his argument one could say that its hard to stop mining certain compounds. A good point is that it creates standards for mining companies in the way they conduct or choose to mine (locations and minerals), J-Fed 16:40, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Yes, strict regulations are a must. Some scientists from the London Declaration also stated some of their viewpoints. Another example of the benefits of mining if its conducted correctly is by Abraham Kumah. He says that in Ghana with the gold mines mining actually helps the developing country. This can also be applied to other developing nations. James Richards says that governments could require royalties and taxes on waste generated and that the implementation of technologies should have incentives with it. Richards observes that minerals are, ultimately scarce and should be like "loans" not consumables.It's a rather interesting point. J-Fed 16:48, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

I like that point. It makes perfect sense to thing of anything that is considered a natural resource and harvested as a "loan" that needs to be paid back in full. If everyone thought of it that way our environment issues would be a thing of the past. Neat way to look at things. Murphy44 16:52, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

I'd like to point out that (IMHO) although Whitmore makes some excellent points, his arguments are very deceptive and perhaps disingenuous. Take this section: "According to the United Nations, the proportion of people living on less than $1 a day in mineral-exporting countries rose from 61% in 1981 to 82% in 1999 [18]. A study from Britain's Lancaster University concluded that mineral-driven, resource-rich countries were among the poorest economic performers between 1960 and 1993 [19]." Does this prove that mining makes a country poor, as the author implies? Or could this simply be that developed countries naturally need to import resources for their industries, whereas poor countries have no such industries. In other words - all they have to export are agricultural and mined materials, not cars and refigerators. I think when Whitmore tries to deceive the reader in this kind of way, it makes me trust him less. Walkerma 16:51, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Another example of collaboration between locals and companies is described by John Meech et al. on the Britannia Beach Sustainable Development Project. This project, (at an abandoned mine), had several components, such as a Remediation Fund companies who owned the original mine, an earth research project at the University of British Columbia, and a workshop for stakeholders to promote sustainability. It was actually successful and provided a good model of environmentally and socially responsible restoration. J-Fed 16:53, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

I have to agree, some of the things he undermines or words things is confusing (thats why I was confused!). J-Fed 16:53, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

I guess the main thing that I'd like to point out about this is that in order to contribute to a global project of mining sustainability needs to be provide pioneering research, education for society and developing nations, better/ new technologies, innovative efforts/ incentives and well-trained/educated mining professionals. J-Fed 16:56, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

OK, let's bring things to a conclusion. You've made at least a partial case for meaningful sustainable mining, but clearly the stakeholders here don't trust each other. How can we get these issues resolved, and save the planet? Walkerma 16:57, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Starting with the issue at hand and work towards getting some trust back between the stakeholders. This unfortunately could be a long and slow process. In the meantime get the companies on board to at least limit the number of new strip mines if not stop all surface mining altogether. This is a small step in the right direction. Murphy44 17:01, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Correct, the stakeholders don't trust each other. I believe that if a workshop where stakeholders cooperated to design a sustainable community at the site of interest would help. Also, the establishment of a multi-stakeholder body to monitor environmental impacts, and make decisions would create a standard, generate education and make everyone at least those who choose to be a part of it - agree with sustainability. J-Fed 17:00, 4 April 2008 (EDT)