4 ms·
A tailings pond 1 mile across instead of dumping the sludge into a river? I'm genuinely uncertain about what is supposed to outrage me, and the article's tone i
by cjensen 12y ago
A tailings pond 1 mile across instead of dumping the sludge into a river? I'm genuinely uncertain about what is supposed to outrage me, and the article's tone implies I should be outraged. It's problematic that it sounds like it produces lots of air pollution and the workers are probably exposed to nasty fumes, but I don't see how that is a new thing in China.
- anon4 12y agoTomorrow: This reporter was shocked to discover what happens with your garbage. They throw it in man-made heaps!
- rorykoehler 12y agoSure it could be worse but it could be far better too. Containing this kind of pollution needs to be set as a priority for the tech industry. The fact that companies like Apple, Google, Foxconn and Samsung among others are making grotesque amounts of money as this is happening simultaneously is truly disturbing. It would probably take only a fraction of their profits to at least partially yet substantially deal with this problem but instead future generations will be footed the bill.
- robryan 12y agoIsn't that the responsibility of the suppliers? Why should a customer of the suppliers also foot their bills to be more environmentally friendly.
- acveilleux 12y agoNo. The problem with making it "the responsibility of the supplier" is that we are both offloading responsibility and then unwilling to pay the price for the proper handling of the waste. So basically along with really low prices, the supplier is bundling a free absolution of our guilts along with their pollution! Ain't that grand.
- hueving 12y agoYes, it should be the responsibility of the supplier. That's how every other balanced system works in economics. You only have issues when there is moral hazard when someone is allowed to shirk their responsibility. Trying to have someone downstream make up for it is a fool's errand. In this case, the supplier should be required to put up collateral or purchase some kind of cleanup insurance for cleanup. i.e. there needs to be a basic regulation from the government on land granted to mining.
- rorykoehler 12y agoI would say it's the responsibility of everyone in the supply chain. Less pass the buck and more ownership.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- javert 12y agoLooks like we have already dealt with the problem by putting the waste into a giant lake. Earth is gigantic. This lake takes up maybe, what, .00001% of surface area? And is even less consequential by volume.
- XorNot 12y agoExactly - if this area is localized and isn't doing something like slowly polluting ground water, then I'm not entirely sure there's a problem here.
- rorykoehler 12y agoThe earth is not gigantic. It's tiny and it's also the only one we have. If this was an isolated case then maybe I would agree that it could be let slide but the effect humans are having on the environment is unprecedented and causing a mass extinction. There is no excuse for this kind of small mindedness. It would take very little effort to contain the waste in tanks until we figured out what to do with it.
- javert 12y agoThere is an excuse for this "small mindedness," it's that I think human well-being is strictly more important than the well-being of other organisms. And to think otherwise would be monstorous.
- rorykoehler 12y agoClearly human well-being is intrinsically linked with planetary well-being. We are part of the system not separate from it. We are screwing ourselves by screwing the planet.