I’m in Perth at the moment, at the end of the Australian tour of a new documentary ‘Mine Your Own Business’. In the film, British journalist Phelim McAleer meets up with an unemployed 23-year-old Romanian miner Gheorge Lucian and together they explore a mine site in Rosia Montana before travelling together to Madagascar and Chile where environmental campaigining by western activists has prevented other mines going ahead. An underlying theme is that misguided environmental activism has stopped mining projects that would have brought jobs and opportunity to impoverished communities.
The film, produced by New Bera media in conjunction with the Moving Picture Institute in New York (a not for profit dedicated to advancing liberty through the medium of film), will go to film festivals next year and then hopefully into the cinemas. But this last week the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) sponsored the film’s Australian preview with one-off screenings in Melbourne, Hobart, Sydney and Perth.
After each screening there has been time for questions and discussion with Phelim and also Ann McElhinney, his partner and the film’s executive producer. In every city there have been some angry environmentalists in the audience letting us know that they disapproved of the documentary.
In Sydney a woman said that mining was a 200 year old technology that should be abandoned. Phelim followed up with comment that it was actually atleast a 2,000 year old activity and that mining technologies had changed and improved dramatically including over the last 20 years.
Ann followed on with comment that any one who lives in Sydney and is against mining is “living a lie”. She explained how mining provides the infrastructure and energy that we all use everyday.
Was the woman, who clearly stated as part of the discussion that she was “against mining”, living a lie or plain ignorant?
I know educated Australian women who are against logging, but use paper. I know women who are against mining, but couldn’t live without their gold jewellery. I know women who are against irrigation but expect an abundance of fruits, vegetables and affordable wine.
While in Sydney Phelim McAleer caught a bus, watched a movie and logged onto the internet. All activities that couldn’t happen without mining.
Here’s Phelim in front of the Sydney Harbor Bridge – another product of mining.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Thanks for organising the roadshow Jen. I quite enjoyed the movie, especially the perspectives of the Romanian locals. I did think Borat went a bit over the top though.
Whilst I appreciate your comments on ‘Windmills are not a solution to this drought’ in October, and agree on some points about the use of land and how it is being ‘mis managed, I have to wonder how you can not see the impact of increased carbon dioxide levels and increasing temperatures which influence climatic conditions such as drought, and relate it to global warming. Sure these are all natural occurences but it is the speed at which it is happening that is concerning. I have to ask also why it seems you have an issue that solar and wind energy options may potentially receive funding for people to use these technologies. Surely it is better than having to deal with nuclear waste, or further diminishing our natural resources for coal etc. From the beginning Australia was not designed or structured to deal with drought or floods or bush fires. Storm water still gets washed out to sea or down drains and not collected even if only for irrigation purposes. The suggestion to cut down trees in Perth to save water….well thats why we have a climate crisis. It is not a fashion statement to invest in renewable energy. It is a real start to investing in our childrens future who may face a bleak future if we dont start taking action now. It is not just about Australia, it is about the world and preserving whats left of the throw away society that has been created for convenience.
I wonder how all the indigenous people around the oktedi mine feel about this kind of pointless mining propaganda.
Sure, we know mining is useful, neccesary etc, but i think this is just a convenient attempt to sweep over the problem of the damage that mining operations often create.
Apart from PNG, two examples that immediately spring to mind are the damage being caused to aboriginal rock art, tens of thousands of years old in the NW of western australia – yet had this operation been carried out offshore (at more cost) we wouldnt be losing world heritage. And then of course the operators of the honeymoon uranium mine pumping radioactive tailings directly into the great artesian basin for how long?
Again, a skewed perspective.
Lets not worry about the piles of scrap metal going to waste or the piles of old paper rotting when there are plenty of ore bodies and old growth forests to log.
Melissa,
It’s hard to know where to begin.
1. “I have to wonder how you can not see the impact of increased carbon dioxide levels and increasing temperatures which influence climatic conditions such as drought, and relate it to global warming”
There is no evidence that increasing carbon dioxide levels (i) are causing significant warming, let alone (ii) responsible for the current drought.
And if, by “global warming”, you mean “human-caused global warming”, then that hasn’t yet been able to be discerned above the background of natural climate variation.
2. “Sure these are all natural occurences but it is the speed at which it is happening that is concerning”.
There is no evidence that the the late 20th century warming (which as yet has not extended into the 21st century) is unusual either in the rate at which it occurred nor in its 1998 peak magnitude. Similarly, there is no evidence for an increased incidence of droughts, cyclones etc. in Australia.
3. “I have to ask also why it seems you have an issue that solar and wind energy options may potentially receive funding for people to use these technologies”
No problems if it’s people’s own money. For instance, someone who lives in an isolated homestead may well want to install a solar or wind-powered generator, and there is an argument that taxpayers money should be used to help subsidise such instances.
But as base-load power generators, neither wind nor solar is remotely a serious option. Therefore, public money should not be spent on subsidising such ventures, and especially not on wind turbines which bid fair to be the most environmentally damaging of all sources of power.
4.”Surely it is better than having to deal with nuclear waste, or further diminishing our natural resources for coal etc.”
Dealing with nuclear waste is a solved technological issue. The remaining problem is socio-political, not scientific.
And though there’s nothing a priori wrong with depleting our coal resources a bit (cos there’s lots of them), if you’re worried about that then logic dictates that you should support clean, green, efficient nuclear power.
(5) “From the beginning Australia was not designed or structured to deal with drought or floods or bush fires”.
On the contrary, all the phenomena that you list were operating happily in Australia before the aborigines got here, never mind us Europeans. The Australian continent that you see today has been shaped by these and other natural forces. Perhaps not as pretty as New Zealand or Canada, but still with its own unique grandeur.
(6) “Storm water still gets washed out to sea or down drains and not collected even if only for irrigation purposes.”
Well, hooray, here’s something we can all agree on. Where this is a true description of affairs, and where it is also economically feasible, this is precisely the sort of potentially REAL environmental problem that should be attended to.
7. “The suggestion to cut down trees in Perth to save water….well thats why we have a climate crisis”.
There is no agreed evidence that we have even a climate problem, yet alone a crisis. This type of contrived, imaginary, environmental bogey man is the antithesis of the potentially real problems that you list in 6 above.
8. “It is not a fashion statement to invest in renewable energy. It is a real start to investing in our childrens future who may face a bleak future if we dont start taking action now”.
Would “conforming to a religion” perhaps be more accurate than “making a fashion statement”?
I look after my children by teaching them to respect life and the environment, to always be polite and considerate to others, to respect those human activities that generate wealth, and above all to respect education and the scientific method.
9. “It is not just about Australia, it is about the world and preserving whats left of the throw away society that has been created for convenience”.
Strange that. Most experienced commentators would say that that is precisely what society (or “civilisation” if you prefer) is – i.e. a human means of maximising comfort and convenience.
And me? I’m very happy that we have scientists clever enough to have developed modern electrical technology, engineers, architects and builders skilled enough to fashion it into coal, gas and nuclear fuelled power plants, and businessmen and entrepreneurs accomplished at managing the capital investment and financial aspects of such large commercial ventures.
Living in the tropics out of range of the sea breeze, there’s nothing I like more than being able to flick on the switch of the air conditioner when I get home on a hot evening. Strangely, my children seem to enjoy it to.
Cathy
Hi Cathy
On (1) Disagree with (i) but you know what I’d say. (ii) half disagree – I think we do have some mechanistic understanding
(2) 3/4 disagree – on cyclones – not more – less !! except north and NW – you might ask why?
droughts – hmmm – dunno few La Ninas and more El Ninos since 1976. This episode caps it off. You know what I’d say on the 1998 issue – so why bother.
(3) 3/4 agree on baseload – but doesn’t mean we can’t rethink the way we live
(4) 3/4 agree – waste a hazard but everything is to some extent
(5) totally agree – it’s an on/off environment. Our dams 2-3 times European – North American for same reliability
(6)half agree – but there are limits – fish spawning etc reliant on flushes
(7) Disagree – but can have a climate crisis naturally too without an AGW one. Natural variation is enough and we’re mal-adapted.
(8) Half agree
(9) 3/4 agree – but not unfettered carte blanche
So you see we might agree on more than you think. Hence my post !
Julian,
mining is useful, necessary etc?
Without mining you would not have civilisation.
I suspect that the Canadian Beaver would be put in goal for its dam building efforts in the wild according to the standard Green logic.
As for radioactive tailins, I hope not – all the radioactive stuff is supposed to be in the concentrates that the tailings are supposed to be free of. Perhaps come up with some facts?
Louis could be cured after drinking some mine water hey
Cathy: “It’s hard to know where to begin”. Try lots of detergent. Sorry I can’t resist such purity of tone.
Cathy,
Perhaps you could give us all your definition of what ‘base load’ power generation is, why you think it is the only form of power generation that should be subsidised, and why it is necessary for solar or wind power to be base load power generation to be of use?
I too found the film somewhat disappointing as I was lead to believe there would be more nude wrestling.
Here’s some unintended consequences of Kyoto
http://rwdb.blogspot.com/2006/11/unintended-consequence-of-world.html
;0)
Clearly, the woman was a standard garden variety metrocentric crock of the proverbial. This sort of pond life are incapable of obtaining a sense of well being from knowledge.
They save virtual planets on a daily basis and obtain a limited sense of belonging and satisfaction by consuming pills bought from strangers, comprising indeterminate ingredients, made by unknown and unqualified criminal elements and have no recourse for negligence.
They abhor the act of procreation but have the unbelievable gall to hold themselves out as the spokespeople and guardians of future generations.
Lets face it. You held an event in dropkick central and one of them showed up. Were you surprised?
Obviously the Sydney Harbour Bridge is a vivid example of the fascist oppressive regime that stopped the ferry business that operated there for over a century. We will not rest until the bridge steel is converted to oxide and returned to its rightful burial place in the Earth’s crust. How cold and heartless that the IPA would be defending the rights of metals versus people.
Someone expressing dissent?!…. at an IPA sponsored screening?!!…. What do they think Australia is, some sort of banana democracy?!!!… How VERY dare they!!!!!
:o)
Of course the greens play on this ignorance.
One of the greens ‘promises’ is to end all logging in water catchments. All land is a ‘water catchment’ of some sort.
Unless it doesn’t rain on that land. Ever. I expect the greens don’t have a problem with logging in deserts.
And of course the trees have the ability to grow back.
Similarily, play on words like ‘endangered’ or ‘pristine’ are often designed to play on a persons ignorance in combination with their emotions. This play on words is then delivered thru a simple format via mass media with little chance of thourough discussion or critique.
Unfortunately, this erroneous approach to ‘empowering’ people (voters) will prove to be one of the greatest environmental disasters in modern times, by the way it distorts our intellectual database.
The greatest ecological threats of feral wildfires and feral animals/plants become background issues in favor of ‘feel good’ or ‘attention grabbing’ issues. Eventually, the real is circumnavigated and overtaken by the surreal, as per the comparative issues of feral wildfire and logging in water catchments. “Natural’ climate change and human induced global warming.
The preceding management plans/methodology reflect this erroneous approach, delivering incorrect focus and intent, while the ‘real’ problems become bigger problems.
Yes stewie
Our PR driven environmental policies have succeeded admirably in making the perfect the enemy of the good.
stewie – I agree with you about the greatest threat being from feral wildfires and feral plants. I’m out of my depth here so I read more than post, but isn’t the spread of phytophora cinnamonii(sp?) by logging equipment a bit of a worry too?
In principal though the ‘natural’ environment is an artificial and often false construction. 40,000 years of occupation had a massive effect on the landscape and understanding and working with it for an agreed optimum return is the trick.
What form that return takes is where the contest lies.
When Stewie says “And of course the trees have the ability to grow back” I want to ask: how fast?
In the previous thread we had about 50 years for tropical regrowth. In Tasmania its well over a hundred years for a big hardwood tree. How much for a decent tree in outback NSW today?
From my own observations we completly over used our timber resource in the 50 years after ww2
For fact’s sake stewie, do ONLY the greens play on ignorance? Your last post is a great demonstration how you focus on the ‘facts’. eg “All land is a ‘water catchment’ of some sort.” Ok, a touch of sarcasm perhaps and a valid point in there, but you better be careful what you say if you’re gunna boast about sticking to the ‘facts’. Facts facts facts facts. My new mantra for my green spiritual club.
An international review of the film has this to say:
MYOB “is a welcome antidote to the increasingly one-sided, anti-development polemic one hears in debates over projects in the developing world. It investigates three mega mining projects in Romania, Madagascar and Chile. The film also manages to give the often environmentalist-led opposition to the projects enough space to argue their case, and as with Fenn, enough rope to hang themselves.”
for a ful review and other links go to http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2055/
Stewie is spot on that all logging, either native forest or plantations is conducted in water catchments. The green agenda has always been to stop all industrial logging and revert to cottage based arts and crafts, high quality furniture etc. They keep on changing the terminology but its still is the goal to get industry out of forestry.
Pinxi, sitting in lotus position states,
“but you better be careful what you say if you’re gunna boast about sticking to the ‘facts’”.
The Australian Conservation Foundation stated around 1989, when referring to logging in East Gippsland, that,
“If we do not stop logging at the current rate there will be no trees left in 10 years.” Facts?
At this point the ACF was close to membership collapse.
Kirner provided them with community funding worth around $250,000 (for ‘educational’ purposes) and ‘saved’ them.
Not long after that, one of their campaigns involved encouraging the public to get involved in choosing the color of the trams in Melbourne, as a community involvement type of thingy. Facts?
At around this time I was in touch with the ACF over the issue of eductor gold dredging (of which they were totally opposed) trying to reach a collaborative relationship. I tried to educate them with facts on the issue. It was impossible.
Oddly, they wouldn’t listen, however they did take everything that was presented to them and inverted the argument/fact to negative spin. Regardless.
When I later pointed out to them that they had not put a submission forward to the Parlimentary Inquiry into EGDing, with a wry smile I was told “They did not have the time” but “we did send a letter of thank you to the ALP (Kirner)”. Facts?
And also, after getting a little more aquainted with there water spokesman, I asked “when are you going to stop exaggerating so many of the issues you raise or elements within the issue because in the longer run it’s probably going to have the opposite effect on the environment? It’s obvious to me that you are doing this for publicity”
His reply was to acknowledge that a lot of their methodology revolved around ‘ramping up the threat’ and that, yes, we would stop it one day………..they haven’t. It’s got worse. (That was 1991).
Now Pinxi I’m just a redneck from the bush with a little life experience, whereis groups like the ACF have stuck their collective hands up to be an ‘official’ save our environment representative. So I would say you should get in contact with the ACF, understand their ‘duty of care’ compared to a redneck like myself and see if they (like myself) know everything.
Now Pinxi, I suppose you have to take my word (at this stage) for what I just typed (and I suggest you won’t) but it is a fact.
Pinky promise you won’t tell anybody though?