7 ms·
>Perhaps the only tragedy greater than the criminal destruction of the environment and the lives of the people of the Congo by these companies is the fact that
by swebs 7y ago
>Perhaps the only tragedy greater than the criminal destruction of the environment and the lives of the people of the Congo by these companies is the fact that it would be a rounding error on their income statements to fix the problem.
Eh, I don't think giving more money to the third world mining companies is going to guarantee they're going to stop using child labor. The simplest and least risky decision for the tech companies is to simply stop buying Congolese cobalt. It's "blood diamonds" all over again.
- solidasparagus 7y agoPeople have tried that for Congolese coltan and the minerals just find their way over the borders to an 'acceptable' purchasing location.
- brutt 7y agoPoor execution.
- solidasparagus 7y agoLack of incentives for the Rwandan government to prevent it and no mechanism to verify the conflict-free origin of the minerals.
- steve-benjamins 7y agoI think the assumption is that ethical suppliers would be more expensive and that these companies have the margins to pay more.
- gwbas1c 7y ago> You see, two-thirds of the global supply of cobalt comes from the Congo. So already, right there, you cannot avoid Congolese cobalt.
- pnako 7y agoYou could ban/sanction Congolese cobalt; this would increase prices in the short run, while other producing countries adjust supply.
- soared 7y agoAdjusting the supply of cobalt in a country isn't something thats easily adjusted.
- pnako 7y agoWhy not? If half of the supply disappears overnight, prices will go through the roof, providing an incentive for current producers to increase output, by increasing effort in their existing mining operations, and more than likely by opening new operations.
- hanniabu 7y agoIf there are sanctions, wouldn't it be the demand being changed and not the supply?
- pnako 7y agoThe sanctions would presumably be about cobalt from the problematic regions, so it would not change demand. But the supply would have to adjust away from the sanctioned region(s) to meet the existing demand.
- Vinnl 7y agoI'm not sure how much that would help the people of Congo...
- saiya-jin 7y agoYes but more expensive suppliers might not be automatically more ethical. Just throwing money at the problem won't magically fix it on its own without some additional effort, probably just ends up as more fat bonuses at Glencore HQ
- lallysingh 7y agoIf you have a higher budget, you can shop around more. Nobody's assuming that they'd just tip their vendor.
- ptah 7y ago> third world mining companies Glencore headquarters is in Switzerland
- curiousgal 7y agoThis is what makes the parent comment insensitive; "they're just doing it to themselves"..
- ramblerman 7y agoInsensitive or not, both statements can be true at the same time. I.e. Africa is plagued by bad leadership and corruption, and the west is more than happy to take advantage of the situation.
- WilliamEdward 7y agoIn a lot of cases Africa's bad leadership is a direct result of the west's former colonial efforts there. Congo in particular suffered at the hands of Belgium. So this sentiment is incomplete.
- nradov 7y agoYes Belgium did horrible things in the Congo. But what's the solution now? Belgium no longer has much influence. Most of the perpetrators are dead and can no longer be held accountable.
- seamyb88 7y agoNooo don't blame people who look like me! (upvoted).
- pnako 7y agoCongo has been independent for 60 years. How long do you expect to hold Belgium responsible for whatever happens there?
- 7y ago
- Shivetya 7y agothe liability is with the mining company and national government of Congo. the companies purchasing products can indeed put pressure on both to improve the working conditions of miners but in the end as with nearly every human tragedy, it comes down to the government to take responsibility for its actions and inaction. nothing changes until the local government has to change it.
- rubbingalcohol 7y agoYou literally want to place the blame solely on a third world country for the deaths and disease of all these child laborers when it's our first world addiction to their resources driving the injustice in the first place? Who is in a better economic standing to improve this situation? Would you have no problem buying ivory, since it's the poacher who acted immorally, and you as the end consumer have no responsibility as to how it was supplied? I don't throw this word around lightly, but what we are enabling in the Congo is evil, and all so we can drive expensive electric cars and pretend like we're making the world better. It's pathetic.
- zaroth 7y ago[Edited]
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- pnako 7y agoHow is "addiction" to their resources driving injustices? I live in Australia, where we export plenty of minerals (including cobalt, incidentally). We don't have children working (and dying) in mines, AFAIK. So clearly it's not an issue of cobalt, it's a problem within the Congo.
- vorpalhex 7y agoThe thing with Ivory is that it was the traders, not the producers, making the money. You can ruin trader profitability by not trading with them. You can't convince Congo to stop using a child labor force with no protections by making them more broke - they'll just retask the labor force into different labor. We've seen this with diamonds.
- sjg007 7y agoNobody should be buying diamonds at this day in age...
- frockington1 7y agoWhy not? They look pretty, come in many shapes and sizes, and have industrial applications.