Page 1 of 1

#1 Environmentalists new foes of some of the world's poorest

Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:18 pm
by frigidmagi
RockyMountainNews
Colorado's miners have struggled long and hard for the right to organize and have safe working conditions.

Many have paid with their lives in this struggle.

Some were the victims of the poor safety standards that used to characterize the industry, while others died in bloody confrontations when mine owners were quick to hire private armies to confront troublesome workers.

As a liberal European journalist, I was familiar with these stories and also knew about how Europe's miners faced similar battles to improve their working lives. These struggles meant that miners have always had a special status for us left-wingers. They were a superior breed who fought for themselves and the rights of all workers.

However in my more recent journalism, I have discovered there is a new threat to miners, their families and their wider communities.

This threat is not from cigar-sucking, champagne-swilling robber barons. Mining is now one of the most regulated businesses in the world. Banks will not lend to, insurance companies will not cover and governments will not give licenses to companies that want to open unsafe or polluting mines.

Instead I have discovered that the biggest threat to miners and their families comes from upper-class Western environmentalists.

The discovery has been particularly shocking because at heart I have always been an environmentalist. I want to protect the planet for future generations. I want to ensure that industry cleans up its messes and does more good than harm.

My admiration for environmentalists started to decline when I was lucky enough to be posted to Romania as a foreign correspondent for the Financial Times. There I covered a campaign by Western environmentalists against a proposed mine at Rosia Montana in the Transylvania region of the country.

It was the usual story. The environmentalists told how Gabriel Resources, a Canadian mining company, was going to pollute the environment and forcibly resettle locals before destroying a pristine wilderness.

But when I went to see the village for myself I found that almost everything the environmentalists were saying about the project was misleading, exaggerated or quite simply false.

Rosia Montana was already a heavily polluted village because of the 2,000 years of mining in the area. The mining company actually planned to clean up the existing mess.

And the locals, rather than being forcibly resettled as the environmentalists claimed, were queuing up to sell their decrepit houses to the company which was paying well over the market rate.

It was surprising that environmentalists would lie, but the most shocking part was yet to come. As I spoke to the Western environmentalists it quickly emerged that they wanted to stop the mine because they felt that development and prosperity will ruin the rural "idyllic" lifestyle of these happy peasants.

This "lifestyle" includes 70 percent unemployment, two-thirds of the people having no running water and using an outhouse in winters where the temperature can plummet to 20 degrees below zero centigrade.

One environmentalist (foreign of course) tried to persuade me that villagers actually preferred riding a horse and cart to driving a car.

Of course the Rosia Montana villagers wanted a modern life - just like the rest of us. They wanted indoor bathrooms and the good schools and medical care that the large investment would bring.

When I left the Financial Times, the plight of these villagers never really left me. I have come across a lot of tragedies and hard-luck stories as a journalist, but I had never covered a situation where the solution to poverty is being opposed by educated Westerners who think that people really are "poor but happy."

When a representative of Gabriel Resources asked me to write a brochure about the project I declined, but I did suggest that if they did not interfere editorially I would make a documentary.

I gathered up extra funding and the documentary Mine Your Own Business premieres Tuesday at the Denver Gold Forum at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Denver. The film will shock and upset those who, like myself, unquestioningly believed environmentalists were a force for good in the world.

For Mine your Own Business I started looking beyond Romania and found a similar pattern in very different villages in Africa and South America.

It is sad that my fellow left-wingers and environmentalists who often come from the most developed countries are now so opposed to development.

However, it is not sad but tragic that the real losers in this clash of cultures are some of the poorest people on the planet.
An interesting read I thought.

#2

Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 11:17 pm
by Stofsk
I find it interesting as well. But depressingly unsurprising.

#3

Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 7:13 am
by Josh
What Stofsk said. Environmentalism is depressingly laden with idiots and romantics with no comprehension of what they're advocating. Personally, I take elevation of the human condition to be the overall philosophical priority, and maintenance of our habitat definitely falls into it. What annoys is shit like this and Matrix-esque 'humanity is a virus' pseudo-philosophy that infests the movement.

#4

Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:03 am
by Stofsk
Petrosjko wrote:What Stofsk said. Environmentalism is depressingly laden with idiots and romantics with no comprehension of what they're advocating. Personally, I take elevation of the human condition to be the overall philosophical priority, and maintenance of our habitat definitely falls into it. What annoys is shit like this and Matrix-esque 'humanity is a virus' pseudo-philosophy that infests the movement.
I truly wonder if these people actually know what they advocate is a disaster for human progress. Some environmentalists know what they're talking about, others don't, but one thing the article said is so totally true: the ones who seem to head the environmentalist movement or make up perhaps a large part of the grass roots support for the movement happen to be wealthy, upper class or upper-middle class people. The... romantic idea that the poor are actually happy to be that way is the kind of condescending mentality only a rich person could hold.

#5

Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 10:47 am
by Josh
Stofsk wrote:I truly wonder if these people actually know what they advocate is a disaster for human progress. Some environmentalists know what they're talking about, others don't, but one thing the article said is so totally true: the ones who seem to head the environmentalist movement or make up perhaps a large part of the grass roots support for the movement happen to be wealthy, upper class or upper-middle class people. The... romantic idea that the poor are actually happy to be that way is the kind of condescending mentality only a rich person could hold.
I think that like most advocacy group management, they really don't give a fuck about life outside their political sphere, and it's all about winning the fights, scooping the publicity, and garnering the financial support.

#6

Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 3:56 pm
by Comrade Tortoise
Petrosjko wrote:
Stofsk wrote:I truly wonder if these people actually know what they advocate is a disaster for human progress. Some environmentalists know what they're talking about, others don't, but one thing the article said is so totally true: the ones who seem to head the environmentalist movement or make up perhaps a large part of the grass roots support for the movement happen to be wealthy, upper class or upper-middle class people. The... romantic idea that the poor are actually happy to be that way is the kind of condescending mentality only a rich person could hold.
I think that like most advocacy group management, they really don't give a fuck about life outside their political sphere, and it's all about winning the fights, scooping the publicity, and garnering the financial support.
As opposed to actually doing what is right and good, even for their own cause. Eventually, they lose all sight of what they are really fighting for and descend into an 'us vs them' mentality, and react in a knee jerk manner to anything that can even loosely be conneted to something opposed to their interests, even when it really isnt.

This applies to all organized political groups BTW. It is not problem intrinsic to one side or the other, or one which is more predominant one one side of the political spectrum than the other.

I am waiting for someone to prove me right

#7

Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 4:19 pm
by Batman
Kinda like the vs debate, only in the real world.
It's a pity, really, because the environment can sure use some protection.
Not for it's own sake, nature can shrug off anything we can throw at it so far, but for ours.
What's with the green crowd's apparent inability to think things through?

#8

Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:29 am
by Josh
Well, part of it is precisely that, the pseudo-religious Mother Nature crap. People anthromorphize nature as if it has some sort of intelligence or scheme about what it does, then intellectually divorce us from that scheme, thus making human existance 'unnatural'.

I tried to explain it once to a friend who thought along those lines, but ultimately, it's a faith like any other. I was telling her that growing up in the desert doesn't give you a lot of illusions about the beneficence of nature, because everything out here is busy trying to bite, poke, stab, or poison you in some form or fashion. You can admire the beauty of it, but it's hard to romanticize an ecosystem that is so blatantly at war with itself.

#9

Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:03 am
by frigidmagi
Growing up in tornado alley is much the same. If you do not believe in the wraith of God when you get here, you will after a storm season. Hard to believe in nature being kind and pretty when it comes along to tear apart your town every now and again.