Comments on: Mine Your Own Business, er… Interest

By: el Minero

el Minero — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:36:12 +0000

I don’t see why the debate of over cyanide. Its use is in accord with EU regulations and if you have ever been there, the area is destroyed from centuries of unregulated mining.
The mayor won on a pro mining platform. I guess the rich intellectuals can continue to bully the little guy. Stay poor in your beautiful village! Who cares if can’t drink the water, have no job, nor indoor plumbing, and your house is a shack that is falling apart.

By: el Minero

el Minero — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:35:29 +0000

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:07:59 +0000

The author of this piece, and for that matter everyone, needs to learn about informal logical fallacies. I am tired of the argument of “A was payed by group X to make B, there for B is not true”. This is what is known as a Circumstantial Ad Hominem argument. Meaning, it does not matter who payed for what, you must deal with the ideas presented and not to dismiss them off hand. Lets put it this way, if you can dismiss all studies payed for by “Industry” can the other side dismiss all studies paid for by environmental groups? If so what studies are left?

By: Andrey

Andrey — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 09:32:20 +0000

I’m from Bulgaria. We have similar problems with gold mining projects planning to involve cyanide extraction of gold. In two of cases, villages included in NATURA 2000 all local people are against. They simply do not believe to the big promises given by the companies. And they believe they still have other alterntaive related to tourism and biological production of food. A little bit different is situation in the other area, where there is working mine similar to Rosa Montana. One of the villages, directly profiting from the mine, is for enlarging the mine and involving cyanides in the processing. But the next village is completely against – they see only negatives and risk from pollution for them.
Otherwise the movie is obviously part of PR campaign and is not independent. As I know population in Rosa Montana initially was against the project, but the gold mining company is investing serious money to convince locals in the opposite.
Andrey, Sofia, Bulgaria

By: camus

camus — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:17:23 +0000

Is it even remotely possible that the Environmentalists might be wrong? After all, the current Global Warming hysteria originated from those same “experts” who adamently proclaimed an imminent Ice Age in the 1970s. There is overwhelming scientific and economic evidence that current society is light-years ahead, in every important respect, than at any other time in human history … read “The Sceptical Environmentalist – The Real State of the World” by Bjorn Lomborg. He’s just one of many educated and objective observers of the so-called “Global Warming” issue (Lomborg’s also an ex-Greenpeace activist). But, NO, the current Environmental Movement, so arroant and certain of the correctness of its cause, dismisses any and all discussion that even remotely challenges its self-serving political agenda. This is not just ant-democratic, it is close-minded demagogy and intellectual dishonesty of the worst kind. The greatest threat to any demagogue is the existence of people of free-will who are unafraid to use their intellect to weigh the merits of both sides of any issue. After all, if education is the process of turning an empty mind into an open mind, why are the Environmentalists so afraid of ideas that challenge their self-righteous orthodoxy?

By: David

David — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:07:19 +0000

A simple reality is that despite what you may believe about Laura’s questions and arguments, in order to have alternative development you need INVESTORS! So, where are they? So far, the only source of real money is the mining company.

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 21:06:12 +0000

Indeed – Greenpeace needs a serious makeover…

By: TSeeker

TSeeker — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:59:58 +0000

I think I might try and get my hand on it. If it has created this must controversy there must be some shred of truth in the film. I am a conservattive, but I want to help maitain a sustainable environment. However, as a conservative, I believe that the local authorities can and should make those decision. Environmental wacko’s like Greenpeace and such waste tons of fuel and wreck private property all in the name of their ideology. I think they have done far more to hurt the environment than any corporation, in my opinion

By: Donny

Donny — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 14:03:58 +0000

There’s a big difference between being a “rabid environmentalist” and having logical concerns about the mining industry – hardly an industry with a responsible record any way you measure it!

By: Fuzzy D

Fuzzy D — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 13:59:09 +0000

The best thing that’s been said so far in this discussion is what Laura said above. Greenpeace propaganda is bad, but so is this.

By: Chad

Chad — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 11:19:33 +0000

This film appears to be a devastating rebuke to rabid environmentalism. It hits enviros where they live – in the emotional rather than the intellectual realm. When you lose the battle for people’s emotions you’re in real trouble because that’s all you ever had.
The more intelligent among you will attack this movie through labeling it ‘anti-environment’ or by criticizing its funding. Of course, this has already begun. Those who respond with incoherent intellectual arguments (see above) will do environmentalism a huge disservice. There really is no compelling intellectual argument for *rabid* environmentalism, so I would advise you to focus on character assassination and intimidation. This has worked very well for the global warming crusade.

By: J.R.

J.R. — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 12:15:43 +0000

To those who have asked ‘why?’ some environmentalists treat those in less developed countries as ‘happy idiots’ (my words). It is purely about power. This attitude allows them to feel superior. I lived in a developing Eastern European country for five years and the place was rife with foreigners and this attitude. Those that “knew what was best for the locals” were really seeking power over the locals. This is not to say a mining company isn’t doing the same thing but at least they haven’t deluded themselves into thinking their only concern is the good of the people and environment.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 13:40:04 +0000

I saw the film at its DC screening last night at the National Geographic building. I saw the protesters there and had a good laugh about that. It’s always interesting to attend an event that is being protested.
Did you know that one of the major environmentalist organizations (I think it was Green Peace) actually wrote to National Geographic and tried to get them to ban the screening? I think it is interesting that these
“environmentalists” want to practice the politics of personal desctruction, discrimination, and censorship rather than engaging in a real and civil discussion of the relevant facts.
Why are they so afraid of this film as to try and squelch it from the beginning? Are they afraid that people might hear an alternative view?
How can they prove that 80% of people in Rosia Montana oppose the mining operation? Do they know that in the last elections there 90% of voters cast their ballot for pro-mining candidates?
Why do people who live lives of comfort in the West get to tell local people in foriegn lands how to live their lives? Why do we get to tell people in remote parts of Romania, Madagascar, and Chile how they shall live, what job they are entitled to, and what level of poverty they shall remain in? Why is it that we should tell them they must stay in their shacks without indoor plumbing? Why should we force them to keep using their outhouse in sub-freezing temperatures while we enjoy the privilege of indoor plumbing?
Do those who claim to be against mining support their claims by shunning all mined materials? Do they wear gold jewelry? If so, where do they think it came from? Do they ride in cars made with metal componants? Do they use electronic equipment? Do they travel in air planes?
Yes, they do? Well then what business have they telling the impoverished in the Third World that they may not?
The hypocracy of the radical environmentalist movement is utterly surreal.
Let me tell you something. Everyone, even conservatives, (yes, I said even conservatives) want a clean environment. No one wants trees eliminated, water and air polluted, and species wiped out. No one.
The fact is that mining can be done in a way that promotes growth, creates wealth, gets people out of poverty, and maintains a clean environment. Actually in the case of Rosia Montana the environment will probably be better off. The old state owned mines in the area operated for years with little or no environmental regulations. Rivers and lakes are already polluted. Soil is already degraded. A proper mining operation will stop those things from happening AND provide the funding to turn things around and reverse damage already done.
Any time an “environmentalist” group wants to shut down debate and censure the opposition we must all take a step back and ask why.

By: John Dinn

John Dinn — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 12:30:21 +0000

The director’s previous documentary is calle “Happy Hookers” in which he dispels the notion of a white slavery trade by insisting that none of these women are actually coerced into their situation.
Including the eight Eastern European hooker found in a bordello in Cambodia!
Now that is a country I would want to ply my trade if I were a prostitute!