5 ms·

At first glance, I think this measure makes a lot of sense - profits from mines mostly leave the country. That being said, I'd expect this will lead to a surge

At first glance, I think this measure makes a lot of sense - profits from mines mostly leave the country. That being said, I'd expect this will lead to a surge in illegal mining operations, which will likely be a lot more environmentally hazardous.

badosu 9y ago
I don't understand why you'd be downvoted, this is feasible: see the illegal sand mining operations in India for instance [0]. [0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/magazine/sand-mining-india-how-to-steal-a-river.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/magazine/sand-mining-indi...
- thatcat 9y ago
  Some people might see it as sort of a defeatist stance to take. Is it harder to detect illegal mine or to regulate all mining? Seems they would be easy to find from satallite images.
  - badosu 9y ago
    Wouldn't a stance be to use the argument above to support a set of (in)actions? The argument by itself is not moot, and the writer did not explicitly support an agenda.
    - thatcat 9y ago
      It implies (correctly) that the legislation will lead to more problems. That the comment doesn't suggest action is the form of defeatism I was refering to. Defeatists don't normally call for inaction they just present all the problems that action leads to promote inaction.
      - badosu 9y ago
        I understand what you mean, but I think you're putting more meaning to it than it has. > Defeatists don't normally call for inaction they just present all the problems that action leads to promote inaction. Suppose someone called for prohibition again as an action to reduce the incidence of alcohol-related car accidents and domestic abuse. You have the information that this leads to a lot of money flowing into the hands of criminals. How is stating that defeatism?
        y4mi 9y ago
        they're not outlawing metal, they're outlawing mining. you don't do mining for fun, nor does anyone get the urge to suddenly mine something. outlawing alcohol was/is pretty useless because pretty much everyone and their mother wants to drink some alcohol every so often.
        thatcat 9y ago
        Not really fair to compare common social activity to industrial pollution. The context of the comment is why it is defeatist, we're in a world with cheaper sensors than ever. Environmental pollution regulation enforcement is therefore cheaper than ever. Stating that "people will just illegally mine which will pollute more" makes it seem like legislation paradoxically leads to more pollution, when regulating this behavior is an easier problem to solve than ever.
        badosu 9y ago
        I can't agree that if you can detect illegal activity you invariably will act against it efficiently, one of the examples from the top of my head is the Amazon Deforestation. You're conflating a simple statement that presents factual information to a mindset. One in fact can use that information to try influencing people to be scared™. However that is not always the case, and people can for example offer an alternative. The case in point is not that I agree or not with the passing of the law, but that passing it may have unintended consequences, so that you need to account for that. The analogy was intended to be used as a context for a debate against decision makers using factual data, the fact that it's mining or liquor does not make difference. It was devised to counter-attack your understanding that just by warning of something bad if you do something else you're being defeatist. > Some people might see it as sort of a defeatist stance to take. Is it harder to detect illegal mine or to regulate all mining? Since you're assuming something implicit in our discussion maybe you can answer the question yourself.
mmsimanga 9y ago
Good point. Something similar is happening in Zimbabwe my home country. Mining wasn't banned but mining companies left the country because the laws being passed made it difficult for outside companies to operate. The result is that a lot of illegal mining is now taking place so much so that the government was forced to acknowledge it by issuing gold/mineral selling licenses. In the past the government issued mining certificates, miners sold the minerals. So the question is where is the gold coming from?
anovikov 9y ago
Illegal mining was the most common way of mining coal in Ukraine, and probably was the main reason behind strife there. So illegal mining boom which is a lot more hazardous and a lot more dangerous for miners is very likely if normal one is banned. You don't solve these problems as easily. To really fix it, a way to produce minerals in economically safe and preferably, sustainable way (like, filtering out of ocean water) is needed.
- ant6n 9y ago
  What about just properly absorbing the ban. Does "proper mining" somehow police against illegal mining?
senorjazz 9y ago
perhaps yes and perhaps no. Not entirely the same, but when you look at the contamination caused by chevron in the Ecuadorian amazon, billions upon billions of waste knowingly dumped into the land and the rivers due to the power of the company and lack of power of the state back then. It was simple more profitable to do this, so they did. A problem for most developing countries, especially when the company is backed by a much more powerful country. Compare that to small scale illegal miners. The scale at which they can pollute is a lot less and localised. Yes they damage, but do not have the potential to damage as the large corporations. Ideally, legal mining / oil extraction would be heavily regulated and monitored to avoid (minimise) contamination. But in remote areas of developing countries, the profit at stake is too corrupting to "both" sides. It is all too easy to see the developing country as being the corrupt partner (which it is) but many forget the corruption of the powerful side who set up the corruption in the first place. A chicken and egg situation. Was the country corrupted before, or was it made corrupt by the offer of money to chase bigger profit

badosu 9y ago

I don't understand why you'd be downvoted, this is feasible: see the illegal sand mining operations in India for instance [0]. [0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/magazine/sand-mining-india-how-to-steal-a-river.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/magazine/sand-mining-indi...

thatcat 9y ago
Some people might see it as sort of a defeatist stance to take. Is it harder to detect illegal mine or to regulate all mining? Seems they would be easy to find from satallite images.
- badosu 9y ago
  Wouldn't a stance be to use the argument above to support a set of (in)actions? The argument by itself is not moot, and the writer did not explicitly support an agenda.
  - thatcat 9y ago
    It implies (correctly) that the legislation will lead to more problems. That the comment doesn't suggest action is the form of defeatism I was refering to. Defeatists don't normally call for inaction they just present all the problems that action leads to promote inaction.
    - badosu 9y ago
      I understand what you mean, but I think you're putting more meaning to it than it has. > Defeatists don't normally call for inaction they just present all the problems that action leads to promote inaction. Suppose someone called for prohibition again as an action to reduce the incidence of alcohol-related car accidents and domestic abuse. You have the information that this leads to a lot of money flowing into the hands of criminals. How is stating that defeatism?
      - y4mi 9y ago
        they're not outlawing metal, they're outlawing mining. you don't do mining for fun, nor does anyone get the urge to suddenly mine something. outlawing alcohol was/is pretty useless because pretty much everyone and their mother wants to drink some alcohol every so often.
      - thatcat 9y ago
        Not really fair to compare common social activity to industrial pollution. The context of the comment is why it is defeatist, we're in a world with cheaper sensors than ever. Environmental pollution regulation enforcement is therefore cheaper than ever. Stating that "people will just illegally mine which will pollute more" makes it seem like legislation paradoxically leads to more pollution, when regulating this behavior is an easier problem to solve than ever.
        badosu 9y ago
        I can't agree that if you can detect illegal activity you invariably will act against it efficiently, one of the examples from the top of my head is the Amazon Deforestation. You're conflating a simple statement that presents factual information to a mindset. One in fact can use that information to try influencing people to be scared™. However that is not always the case, and people can for example offer an alternative. The case in point is not that I agree or not with the passing of the law, but that passing it may have unintended consequences, so that you need to account for that. The analogy was intended to be used as a context for a debate against decision makers using factual data, the fact that it's mining or liquor does not make difference. It was devised to counter-attack your understanding that just by warning of something bad if you do something else you're being defeatist. > Some people might see it as sort of a defeatist stance to take. Is it harder to detect illegal mine or to regulate all mining? Since you're assuming something implicit in our discussion maybe you can answer the question yourself.

mmsimanga 9y ago

Good point. Something similar is happening in Zimbabwe my home country. Mining wasn't banned but mining companies left the country because the laws being passed made it difficult for outside companies to operate. The result is that a lot of illegal mining is now taking place so much so that the government was forced to acknowledge it by issuing gold/mineral selling licenses. In the past the government issued mining certificates, miners sold the minerals. So the question is where is the gold coming from?

anovikov 9y ago

Illegal mining was the most common way of mining coal in Ukraine, and probably was the main reason behind strife there. So illegal mining boom which is a lot more hazardous and a lot more dangerous for miners is very likely if normal one is banned. You don't solve these problems as easily. To really fix it, a way to produce minerals in economically safe and preferably, sustainable way (like, filtering out of ocean water) is needed.

ant6n 9y ago
What about just properly absorbing the ban. Does "proper mining" somehow police against illegal mining?

senorjazz 9y ago

perhaps yes and perhaps no. Not entirely the same, but when you look at the contamination caused by chevron in the Ecuadorian amazon, billions upon billions of waste knowingly dumped into the land and the rivers due to the power of the company and lack of power of the state back then. It was simple more profitable to do this, so they did. A problem for most developing countries, especially when the company is backed by a much more powerful country. Compare that to small scale illegal miners. The scale at which they can pollute is a lot less and localised. Yes they damage, but do not have the potential to damage as the large corporations. Ideally, legal mining / oil extraction would be heavily regulated and monitored to avoid (minimise) contamination. But in remote areas of developing countries, the profit at stake is too corrupting to "both" sides. It is all too easy to see the developing country as being the corrupt partner (which it is) but many forget the corruption of the powerful side who set up the corruption in the first place. A chicken and egg situation. Was the country corrupted before, or was it made corrupt by the offer of money to chase bigger profit