El Salvador bans metal mining in world first(phys.org)
phys.org
El Salvador bans metal mining in world first
https://phys.org/news/2017-04-el-salvador-metal-world.html
125 comments
Probably less impact than poisoning their populace.
> Does anyone know what sort of impact this will have on their economy?
Pretty much zero. I live in El Salvador. The economy is fucked up since long time ago, and metal mining was unlikely to help in any way, specially when most of the profit derived from it was going to leave the country, and the percentage that would remain here was going to end up in the hands of corrupt government officials, in the form of bribes or funding for lobbying.
Pretty much zero. I live in El Salvador. The economy is fucked up since long time ago, and metal mining was unlikely to help in any way, specially when most of the profit derived from it was going to leave the country, and the percentage that would remain here was going to end up in the hands of corrupt government officials, in the form of bribes or funding for lobbying.
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.
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.
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-indi...
[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/magazine/sand-mining-indi...
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.
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.
The argument by itself is not moot, and the writer did not explicitly support an agenda.
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.
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.
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?
> 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?
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.
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.
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.
Op didnt state a fact, he made a somewhat cynical prediction, based on his belief that restriction of pollution generating activity leads to more pollution. Its only true if no one enforces the law, which can be easily done in this case. That is as clearly as i can explain why that seemed defeatist imho which I thought explained the downvotes.
I'm not trying to make implicit assumptions, that question was rhetorical and answered in the next sentence.
I'm not trying to make implicit assumptions, that question was rhetorical and answered in the next sentence.
> I'm not trying to make implicit assumptions, that question was rhetorical and answered in the next sentence.
Ok, so I'll guess you are assuming it is easy to detect and punish irregular mining then.
I agree and understand your point as how the increased propensity for illegal mining can be combated.
I think it was not exactly cynical, and that's coming from someone who supports El Salvador's action. We need clarification of all possible issues to understand how to act on them, but I guess at this point it's a difference on how each one of us took the statement.
That was a good discussion though.
Ok, so I'll guess you are assuming it is easy to detect and punish irregular mining then.
I agree and understand your point as how the increased propensity for illegal mining can be combated.
I think it was not exactly cynical, and that's coming from someone who supports El Salvador's action. We need clarification of all possible issues to understand how to act on them, but I guess at this point it's a difference on how each one of us took the statement.
That was a good discussion though.
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.
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.
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?
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
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
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.
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.
What about just properly absorbing the ban.
Does "proper mining" somehow police against illegal mining?
Does "proper mining" somehow police against illegal mining?
Ages ago, a buddy predicted we'd eventually just mine our own trash for precious metals. As opposed to recycling, I suppose. Call it "extreme recycling".
I wonder how close we are to that future.
I wonder how close we are to that future.
It's a reality. The nickel smelting operation in Norilsk, Russia is so polluting that you can mine the topsoil downwind of the smelter feasibly: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/12/world/europe/12norilsk.htm...
That is awesomely terrifying.
Visit a dump in any 3rd-world country. Mining garbage dumps already happens, and it is indeed extreme recycling. Absolutely every last bit of value is extracted from the trash. There are several good documentaries about this, will post links once back on desktop.
My buddy suggested that a feature civilization will discover a natural resource called plastic.
This is an important element of one of my favorite YA novels from my youth, The Ear, the Eye, and the Arm. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/633270.The_Ear_the_Eye_a...
More than half of US steel is made from scrap metal. Trash dumps are already being "mined" for stuff, as well.
We have been here for years. I knew a guy in Canada in the 90s who was getting gold out of electronics, and my facotry in Tucson AZ had a big operation down the street that exclusively employed ex cons to remove precious metals from discarded electronics.
Now I think there are probably way many more rare earths. Like neodymium from headphones and the odd USB device tossed directly into the garbage.
Gold is an obvious target, but there are probably larger quantities of other valuable metals to be had from recently accumulated trash.
Gold is an obvious target, but there are probably larger quantities of other valuable metals to be had from recently accumulated trash.
How dare El Salvador try to use facts to claim that these foreign companies mining their resources don't help their communities but only pollute it!
The anarcho capitalist solution is that the country should privatize their water supply so that outside companies can then legally buy up the lakes and pollute as much as they want! After all the companies will have paid people for it - the people only would have to live there :)
The anarcho capitalist solution is that the country should privatize their water supply so that outside companies can then legally buy up the lakes and pollute as much as they want! After all the companies will have paid people for it - the people only would have to live there :)
> The anarcho capitalist solution is that the country should privatize their water supply so that outside companies can then legally buy up the lakes and pollute as much as they want!
That's roughly what has been happening in several other Latin American countries. Bechtel being the usual suspect, they specialize at that kind of trick hand-in-hand with the World Bank.
That's roughly what has been happening in several other Latin American countries. Bechtel being the usual suspect, they specialize at that kind of trick hand-in-hand with the World Bank.
My father worked as a chemical process engineer for Bechtel stationed in a 3rd world country (we all lived there with him too) working on the public-works water treatment system for the nation's capital - from what I can tell, Bechtel did go in with honest intentions - but were stalled by local corruption and lack of political willpower.
How about Bolivia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochabamba_Water_War
"The World Bank said that "poor governments are often too plagued by local corruption and too ill equipped to, the World Bank stated that "no subsidies should be given to ameliorate the increase in water tariffs in Cochabamba". The New Yorker reported on the World Bank's motives, "Most of the poorest neighborhoods were not hooked up to the network, so state subsidies to the water utility went mainly to industries and middle-class neighborhoods; the poor paid far more for water of dubious purity from trucks and handcarts. In the World Bank's view, it was a city that was crying out for water privatization."
That sounds eerily like your comment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochabamba_Water_War
"The World Bank said that "poor governments are often too plagued by local corruption and too ill equipped to, the World Bank stated that "no subsidies should be given to ameliorate the increase in water tariffs in Cochabamba". The New Yorker reported on the World Bank's motives, "Most of the poorest neighborhoods were not hooked up to the network, so state subsidies to the water utility went mainly to industries and middle-class neighborhoods; the poor paid far more for water of dubious purity from trucks and handcarts. In the World Bank's view, it was a city that was crying out for water privatization."
That sounds eerily like your comment.
In _Collapse_, Jared Diamond makes the argument that almost all modern mining of metals would be economically unprofitable if all the negative externalities (i.e., cleanup costs) were taken into account.
I assume there's nuance to that you left out. Metal demand is inelastic. Prices would go up, demand would go down, but there would still be demand.
I suspect their head of state will die in a plane crash within a year. Either that or there will be a military coupe. Double your bets if any of those shut down were American mining companies.
And before you start saying I should take off my tin foil hat, look up the 1973 coupe in Chile, the Iranian Contras, United Fruit and the documentary Confessions of an Economic Hitman.
I hope El Salvador keeps mining banned. I really do. But the track record is that NATO countries tend to "fix" things when their interests are threatened.
And before you start saying I should take off my tin foil hat, look up the 1973 coupe in Chile, the Iranian Contras, United Fruit and the documentary Confessions of an Economic Hitman.
I hope El Salvador keeps mining banned. I really do. But the track record is that NATO countries tend to "fix" things when their interests are threatened.
NATO countries like Bulgaria, Croatia, Check Republic, and Denmark... where did that come from? If you mean UK, or the US, just say it.
What about Russia, China, Japan... even South Africa? I think one of them might have been involved in a coup, over through, or invasion in the last 40 years.
At least the sheep shippers of Togo are doing their part to subvert surveillance...
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/04/russi...
What about Russia, China, Japan... even South Africa? I think one of them might have been involved in a coup, over through, or invasion in the last 40 years.
At least the sheep shippers of Togo are doing their part to subvert surveillance...
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/04/russi...
All of your examples are from more than thirty years ago.
In the mean time, half of South America had pretty leftist governments and nothing happened.
In the mean time, half of South America had pretty leftist governments and nothing happened.
30 years is not long enough for everyone involved to be dead and no longer influential... and that doesn't even touch on whether the reason it happened is structural.
I'm not sure I understand your second point.
I'm not sure I understand your second point.
>30 years is not long enough for everyone involved to be dead and no longer influential... and that doesn't even touch on whether the reason it happened is structural.
Context matters. With the end of the cold war, the oligarchy doesn't get to use a threat to gather support. And a certain level of diversification of those economies have made the very powerful less power.
My second point is that half of South America had left wing government and there was no Coups. Things would have been very different for Lula or Correa in the 70's.
Context matters. With the end of the cold war, the oligarchy doesn't get to use a threat to gather support. And a certain level of diversification of those economies have made the very powerful less power.
My second point is that half of South America had left wing government and there was no Coups. Things would have been very different for Lula or Correa in the 70's.
errrr, a little history for you.
Coup attempt in Venezuala where Chavez was kidnapped and fly out of the country until the people came onto the streets. CIA implicated [1] [2]
Coup attempt in Ecuador a few years back Correa held [3]. Although am not aware of any covert involvement or evidence to imply. However, as is often the case with these Latin America issues, accusations are always laid at the US doorstop. But Correa did make the US leave their Manta based army base, did make anti US noise, did get close to Chavez and Ecuador is an oil producing country so it wouldn't be completely unreasonable to think so involvement based on past behaviour of the US..
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Venezuelan_coup_d%27%C3%A...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org
/wiki/The_Revolution_Will_Not_Be_Televised_(documentary) [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ecuador_crisis
Coup attempt in Venezuala where Chavez was kidnapped and fly out of the country until the people came onto the streets. CIA implicated [1] [2]
Coup attempt in Ecuador a few years back Correa held [3]. Although am not aware of any covert involvement or evidence to imply. However, as is often the case with these Latin America issues, accusations are always laid at the US doorstop. But Correa did make the US leave their Manta based army base, did make anti US noise, did get close to Chavez and Ecuador is an oil producing country so it wouldn't be completely unreasonable to think so involvement based on past behaviour of the US..
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Venezuelan_coup_d%27%C3%A...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org
/wiki/The_Revolution_Will_Not_Be_Televised_(documentary) [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ecuador_crisis
> 30 years is not long enough for everyone involved to be dead and no longer influential.
In Venezuela, it looks like slightly less than that was enough.
In Venezuela, it looks like slightly less than that was enough.
[deleted]
Maybe Latin American governments learned their lesson
While I'm sure you don't see it that way, your comment is true on many levels.
Leftists got better at "not being scary" to foreign and most importantly local interests. And for the most part, they delivered.
Basically the José Figueres Ferrer way.
Leftists got better at "not being scary" to foreign and most importantly local interests. And for the most part, they delivered.
Basically the José Figueres Ferrer way.
You mean, they assented to playing the role of client states and let foreign investors asset strip their economies?
I mean they actually improved delivered on major issue like education, social programs, wages and actually really improved the lives of their citizen.
Bolsa Familia surely lacks the romantism of the comprehensive agrarian reform but I like the fact that it has actually been done.
Bolsa Familia surely lacks the romantism of the comprehensive agrarian reform but I like the fact that it has actually been done.
> I mean they actually improved delivered on major issue like education, social programs, wages and actually really improved the lives of their citizen.
And it was for that reason the US left their governments unmolested?
And it was for that reason the US left their governments unmolested?
Nope.
But it sure does prove that those things can be done.
Contras were in this same Nicaragua... but they lost. And their current head of state is one of the leaders of the coalition that defeated them.
So if he was slated to die in a plane crash, I feel like it would have happened back in 1984.
So if he was slated to die in a plane crash, I feel like it would have happened back in 1984.
The history is accurate and maybe that would've happened 20 years ago. But I wonder if globalization + the internet have ended these secret coups. I really can't imagine a world in which the CIA overthrows an entire government without anyone leaking it or noticing.
I guess it's possible that the U.S. doesn't care about the backlash, but it wouldn't be a popular move.
I guess it's possible that the U.S. doesn't care about the backlash, but it wouldn't be a popular move.
Hate to nit pick, but it's not that it "would have happened", it's moreso the fact that it actually did happen. Repeatedly. Globalisation is largely a result of these hyper aggressive neo capitalist agendas. IMO some basic reading on Allen Dulles, the original director of the CIA should shed some light on the "company culture" that was at the heart of the organisation for so long, you could argue that culture changes, but IMO when the entire purpose of an organisation is subversion of international interests, I doubt their mission statement changes. Plus, there has been quite a lot of talk over recent years over the role of social media in propaganda distribution for clandestine operation purposes. Especially inside the intelligence community, they actively recognise it as one of the most effective weapons in the fight for public approval.
I think everyone noticed Iraq. You're right, that wasn't a secret coup. :P
I dont think so. See: Color revolutions and Arab spring.
CIA was also involved in the 2014 Ukraine coup.
The idea that the West removed Ben Ali and Mubarak is nuts.
Those were "their" sons of bitches.
Those were "their" sons of bitches.
Ukrain
This is interesting.
Blocking access to a resource would redirect efforts towards other activities.
Countries with abundance of resources or no restrictions to harvest them are not always more prosperous, as explained by the concept "resource course": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse
Blocking access to a resource would redirect efforts towards other activities.
Countries with abundance of resources or no restrictions to harvest them are not always more prosperous, as explained by the concept "resource course": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse
The problem here is that our technological society needs metals to operate. But getting those metals is making a big mess in less-developed places like this, for the benefit of the more-developed places.
So, the solution is simple: mine asteroids. No one cares about pollution in space.
So, the solution is simple: mine asteroids. No one cares about pollution in space.
It'll be interesting to see how fast banning the pollution results in water quality changes.
Likely not that fast. Waste piles and water flowing out of abandoned mines will continue to mess up water for many years after a mine closes.
Or how fast massive sudden un-employment results in riots. Fast change like this is bound to have side-effects.
> But mining accounts for a minimal portion of their economies and jobs, a recent study by various NGOs showed.
Which of course is great when you're sitting in your NGO provided air-conditioned office. But a few tens of thousands of miners might disagree with the definition of 'minimal'. For them it likely was all of their income.
I'm all for change like this but I would prefer a more gradual approach. Such as 'no new people are allowed to be hired for mining' or other more or less automatic mechanisms.
> But mining accounts for a minimal portion of their economies and jobs, a recent study by various NGOs showed.
Which of course is great when you're sitting in your NGO provided air-conditioned office. But a few tens of thousands of miners might disagree with the definition of 'minimal'. For them it likely was all of their income.
I'm all for change like this but I would prefer a more gradual approach. Such as 'no new people are allowed to be hired for mining' or other more or less automatic mechanisms.
It seems to be a bad deal to get a few thousand jobs at the cost of severe damage to the environment and public health, while all the money is shifted out of the country.
Agreed. But given the level of social security in El Salvador it will definitely cause some problems. The problem is the latter: all the money being removed from their economy (as well as the resources, the value of which is only going up). This goes for almost all resource rich countries South of the equator with the exception of Australia and New-Zealand.
Colonialism is far from over, it just wears a corporate suit these days.
Colonialism is far from over, it just wears a corporate suit these days.
The bill is finally coming in the mail for 90s globalism, a dilettante movement with no regard for the future and an eye on stock market profits, the question is who is going to pay for it [1].
It's going to happen again when people realize that making Snapchat one of the most valuable stocks will torpedo the whole market and will make Pets.com look like someone spilled their drink.
[1](I am American and can clearly see that we are the ones who should shoulder this blame, and under Trump the lower half will in one way or another)
It's going to happen again when people realize that making Snapchat one of the most valuable stocks will torpedo the whole market and will make Pets.com look like someone spilled their drink.
[1](I am American and can clearly see that we are the ones who should shoulder this blame, and under Trump the lower half will in one way or another)
A few thousands jobs at very poor and dangerous conditions. While the owners for the foreign companies that exploit the mines get 99% of the profits. Really bad deal.
The question, though, is: will even a bad deal prove to have been preferable to no deal?
Great question. Luckily we have examples by which to judge, e.g.: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/mar/08/usa-mining-lib...
> On Friday, May 8, 2009, W.R. Grace & Co. was acquitted of charges that it knowingly harmed the people of Libby, Montana. It was also acquitted of subsequently participating in any cover-up.
Christ, there really is no justice with these corps.
Christ, there really is no justice with these corps.
It took me about a minute of Googling to learn that they did do a gradual approach. They stopped issuing permits a decade ago, which led to a mining company trying (unsuccessfully) to sue them: https://www.iisd.org/itn/2009/08/31/el-salvador-government-c...
Nope. Mining companies in Central America are universally (removed: disliked) hated, and everyone knows that they exploit the country, environment and people while extracting all profits out of the country. Guatemala hasn't gone as far as El Salvador, but it's coming.
Like everywhere else there is mining. But how will they compensate the miners? I don't care one bit for the mining companies but those miners will have to eat somehow.
The economy in Central America is very different that the United States, especially around jobs. A lot of these mines are in rural, mountainous areas where the miners would otherwise be growing corn or working as day laborers on other farms. These aren't people that became destitute overnight, and in the long-term, it likely saved their lives.
> These aren't people that became destitute overnight, and in the long-term, it likely saved their lives.
That I totally believe. But the miners are not so stupid that they would not be doing day labor or growing corn if it compensated them in the same way.
That I totally believe. But the miners are not so stupid that they would not be doing day labor or growing corn if it compensated them in the same way.
Consider that a subsistence economy is largely lacking in currency, so jobs that pay cash are certainly more attractive that working your own corn field. But I've talked to a lot of people that work at the mines. They aren't attached to their jobs, but they'll do it while it (or they) are still around.
You make $2 a day working in a farm. I'll pay you $3 a day to poison the river that irrigates the farm.
Is the job I'm offering you a net gain for your community? It's certainly a net gain to you, and me...
Is the job I'm offering you a net gain for your community? It's certainly a net gain to you, and me...
Most likely small, artisanal illegal mines
FTA: "But mining accounts for a minimal portion of their economies and jobs, a recent study by various NGOs showed."
Yes, sorry I was still editing that. This is obviously the NGO's point of view which is different from the miners point of view.
Passing a law like this is no small feat; it probably had lots of support from the population countering all the corporate pressure against it.
Upon some research, seems like even the catholic church was in favour [1], which is what gave it the final push. I doubt this will cause problems to the level of starting riots; rioting against the government is one thing, but having your church and larger community against your cause definitely makes it lose momentum.
[1] http://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-america-latina-39451498
Upon some research, seems like even the catholic church was in favour [1], which is what gave it the final push. I doubt this will cause problems to the level of starting riots; rioting against the government is one thing, but having your church and larger community against your cause definitely makes it lose momentum.
[1] http://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-america-latina-39451498
Though El Salvador is no stranger to having popular governments overthrown by corporate interests.
Sure, the miners are going to be unhappy. But "massive" is not a subjective judgment; I trust the NGOs on the numbers, and if so the miners are not a large enough population that their firing is a threat to social order.
Re-employ them all to rehabilitate the land. Could take decades.
This becomes interesting. Many gemstones are also essentially metal ores. I wonder if this will affect gem and mineral mining/collecting in El Salvador, which does have a decent reputation in the mineral/gem/lapidary circle.
To the extent that gem finds are incident to bulk metal mining operations, it could decrease gem yield. But I'm not sure what the gems would be.
Stories on El Salvador's mining ban emphasize gold mining. I'm not sure what gems are found in coincidence with gold, except maybe quartz crystals in hydrothermal gold deposits.
Silver, copper, lead, zinc and titanium seem to be the other metals mined in El Salvador. Although there are collectable minerals associated with some of these (copper->azurite, malachite; lead->galena crystals), I can't immediately think of gemstones that occur in these metallic ores.
Stories on El Salvador's mining ban emphasize gold mining. I'm not sure what gems are found in coincidence with gold, except maybe quartz crystals in hydrothermal gold deposits.
Silver, copper, lead, zinc and titanium seem to be the other metals mined in El Salvador. Although there are collectable minerals associated with some of these (copper->azurite, malachite; lead->galena crystals), I can't immediately think of gemstones that occur in these metallic ores.
Rose quartz is a primary ore of Titanium. Asterated rose quartz comes from this area. If you have gold you likely have other heavy metals like iron in the area, which can lead to garnets. The calcium content in the area lends itself to making Epidote. Sphalerite is the primary ore of Zinc and also produces quite impressive gems. Then you'll have volcanic gem rock in the area, such as multi-colored obsidian.
Interesting, thanks.
[deleted]
really? I am from El Salvador and was completely unaware of this
All that volcanic activity makes for rich, rich gem and mineral deposits, of igneous and metamorphic types.
A lot of Canadian mining companies doing really dirty work in Central America. Makes me ashamed to be Canadian. Glad to see El Salvador assert their autonomy.
Not that I doubt it - heard similar tales in Chile - but do you have specific events in mind?
Thank you for the rare upvoted HN comment that makes me optimistic about humans
Too bad we (U.S.) are a a large economy, the only way we could survive and implement this policy is if we get to space and get good at mining asteroids.
Now let us hope all countries follow the suite and ban all metal mining right away.
So you're going to lead the way by stopping using any metal products, right?
Including your computer?
Including your computer?
The comment was sarcasm obviously directed towards people who are hailing this move.
Have they lost the plot? Has HN lost the plot in the comments supporting this.
Why not just ban science?
We need metals to live and prosper.
If it was really that minimal as per 'NGO' advise then the pollution would be minimal.
Why not just make companies pay fines if they polute? The government obviously doesn't kowtow to them?
Perhaps if their people weren't so poor you could excuse banning things like gold and diamond. But this (as the article tells it, I doubt it's close to the full story) is like going back to the middle ages.
Why not just ban science?
We need metals to live and prosper.
If it was really that minimal as per 'NGO' advise then the pollution would be minimal.
Why not just make companies pay fines if they polute? The government obviously doesn't kowtow to them?
Perhaps if their people weren't so poor you could excuse banning things like gold and diamond. But this (as the article tells it, I doubt it's close to the full story) is like going back to the middle ages.
So, you're ok if I open up a company in your town and dump mercury and tailings into the water your children drink?
I suggest that you visit or at least read about El Salvador or Guatemala. No insult intended, but your attitude is both ignorant and offensive.
I suggest that you visit or at least read about El Salvador or Guatemala. No insult intended, but your attitude is both ignorant and offensive.
We should call Discovery Channel, we found the lost ancestor of Hernan Cortes in OP
> We need metals to live and prosper.
Prosper maybe, but not live. You seem to simultaneously admit to knowing nothing about El Salvador or the "full story" yet regardless you have formed very strong opinions about how the citizens of El Salvador should be extracting resources for you and the rest of the world.
Prosper maybe, but not live. You seem to simultaneously admit to knowing nothing about El Salvador or the "full story" yet regardless you have formed very strong opinions about how the citizens of El Salvador should be extracting resources for you and the rest of the world.
At our population, yes, even to live. Electricity and heavy machinery is no longer a 'nice to have' when it comes to food and water for 7 billion.
#globalization
El Salvador is a small country with no pretenses of being self-sufficient. It doesn't matter how silly the local laws are.
El Salvador is a small country with no pretenses of being self-sufficient. It doesn't matter how silly the local laws are.
There's a limit to which resources you'd want/be able to be self-sufficient, you must make trade-offs.
Even big countries may lack some rare metals or fossil fuels.
Even big countries may lack some rare metals or fossil fuels.
El Salvador is not the world. They chose an extreme solution to try to ameliorate an immediate problem. Is it globally optimal? No. Does it need to be? No.
P.S. nobody seemed to give a shit for the years that mining interests have been poisoning local populations for profit across the globe. One side effect of this extreme measure will be more publicity for the issue of dirty mining in the developing world. And consequently perhaps a move toward mining companies being better actors due to increased pressure from governments and to avoid bad PR. And if that happens then El Salvador would be able to see it, begin to trust mining companies again, and maybe allow them back in. Until that happens though there's little advantage to them of continuing the status quo.
P.S. nobody seemed to give a shit for the years that mining interests have been poisoning local populations for profit across the globe. One side effect of this extreme measure will be more publicity for the issue of dirty mining in the developing world. And consequently perhaps a move toward mining companies being better actors due to increased pressure from governments and to avoid bad PR. And if that happens then El Salvador would be able to see it, begin to trust mining companies again, and maybe allow them back in. Until that happens though there's little advantage to them of continuing the status quo.
You're getting hammered but no-one's addressing your actual point, which is perfectly valid. If they keep using metals, they're not solving any environmental problems, they're merely trying to push them into someone else's back yard.
Rather than banning mining outright, they need to implement environmental controls to address the actual problem: Not metal extraction, but pollution.
Rather than banning mining outright, they need to implement environmental controls to address the actual problem: Not metal extraction, but pollution.
The ends don't justify the means. For example, we banned Nazi science of all forms. This kind of industry is less directly damaging but still overly so
> For example, we banned Nazi science of all forms.
Could you develop this point? Certainly not rocket science [0].
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip
Could you develop this point? Certainly not rocket science [0].
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip
Or nuclear weapons. Or the advertising industry, which inspired Goebbels, and later hired many of his assistants.
Not even human experimentation, which the US carried out until the 70s, at least. Using poor people, prisoners, etc.
Not even human experimentation, which the US carried out until the 70s, at least. Using poor people, prisoners, etc.
Some of the pollution is Mercury, they list the degree of pollution as 1000x permissible maxima when it comes to heavy metal pollution of that water.
This is appalling but who are 'they'? As we know, mercury is a potent neurotoxin.
We're justly concerned about this but but on the other hand Americans are told that mercury amalgam is perfectly safe when permanently lodged a few centimeters from the brain.
American Dental Association: "Dental amalgam is considered a safe, affordable and durable material that has been used to restore the teeth of more than 100 million Americans. It contains a mixture of metals such as silver, copper and tin, in addition to mercury, which binds these components into a hard, stable and safe substance. Dental amalgam has been studied and reviewed extensively, and has established a record of safety and effectiveness.".
So, are Denmark, Sweden and Norway ill-informed for banning it for medical and environmental reasons? My biochemistry tells me they're not.
https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Adviso...e/DentalProductsPanel...
We're justly concerned about this but but on the other hand Americans are told that mercury amalgam is perfectly safe when permanently lodged a few centimeters from the brain.
American Dental Association: "Dental amalgam is considered a safe, affordable and durable material that has been used to restore the teeth of more than 100 million Americans. It contains a mixture of metals such as silver, copper and tin, in addition to mercury, which binds these components into a hard, stable and safe substance. Dental amalgam has been studied and reviewed extensively, and has established a record of safety and effectiveness.".
So, are Denmark, Sweden and Norway ill-informed for banning it for medical and environmental reasons? My biochemistry tells me they're not.
https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Adviso...e/DentalProductsPanel...
> If it was really that minimal as per 'NGO' advise then the pollution would be minimal.
That's because most of the money leaves the country.
That's because most of the money leaves the country.
Does anyone know what sort of impact this will have on their economy?
[0]https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/mar/30/e...