Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Apparently trees are more important than people, as environmentalists set fire to Greek gold mine   (bbc.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Fail, Geography of Greece, Greek, gold mining, mining, petrol bombs, parliamentary debate, administrative court, flammable liquids  
•       •       •

7976 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Feb 2013 at 1:42 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



155 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-02-17 11:56:53 AM  
Mining companies don't give a damn about people either.

The latest mining technique invlves destructions of mountain tops... And they don't even try to do a restoration when it's over.
 
2013-02-17 12:04:16 PM  
Subby, let me know when you can eat gold.
 
2013-02-17 12:05:24 PM  
People need trees in order to have their carbon dioxide recycled back into breathable oxygen.  People need gold like they need another hole in the head.
 
2013-02-17 12:11:03 PM  
Glenn Beck lied to me?
 
2013-02-17 12:24:28 PM  
Trees are more important than people. A tree is never critical. A tree will always be your friend. A tree will hold still for sex.
 
2013-02-17 12:53:07 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: People need trees in order to have their carbon dioxide recycled back into breathable oxygen.  People need gold like they need another hole in the head.


I'd say I need gold a little bit more than a hole in the head, let alone another hole in the head. Gold would allow me, if it was a lot, to become a wealthy individual, and I could go around stepping on the little people. It'd be their fault too, for being little and in my way.
 
2013-02-17 12:59:14 PM  
Lead, mercury, and arsenic are good for you citizen! Rich people who don't live nearby need more shiny rocks!
 
2013-02-17 01:33:27 PM  

Slaxl: The My Little Pony Killer: People need trees in order to have their carbon dioxide recycled back into breathable oxygen.  People need gold like they need another hole in the head.

I'd say I need gold a little bit more than a hole in the head, let alone another hole in the head. Gold would allow me, if it was a lot, to become a wealthy individual, and I could go around stepping on the little people. It'd be their fault too, for being little and in my way.


But I thought you were already incredibly wealthy, Mr Romney.
 
2013-02-17 01:47:49 PM  

2wolves: Subby, let me know when you can eat gold.


Subby:

www.bible-topten.com
 
2013-02-17 01:47:49 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: People need trees in order to have their carbon dioxide recycled back into breathable oxygen.  People need gold like they need another hole in the head.




But how will I get my next iProduct at Walsmart?
 
2013-02-17 01:49:44 PM  

Slaxl: The My Little Pony Killer: People need trees in order to have their carbon dioxide recycled back into breathable oxygen.  People need gold like they need another hole in the head. I'd say I need gold a little bit more than a hole in the head, let alone another hole in the head. Gold would allow me, if it was a lot, to become a wealthy individual, and I could go around stepping on the little people. It'd be their fault too, for being little and in my way.


I'd buy Fark.com from Drew and reboot FarkTV.
 
2013-02-17 01:51:06 PM  
So is this about the time the hippies show up to fark? seriously... a gold mine operation would bring jobs to the area. Greece has been suffering from high unemployment for quite some time now and they need those jobs.

If you are so against mining, be sure to abandon your vehicle and get off the computer. those components inside of them were brought to you by mining.
 
2013-02-17 01:51:10 PM  
I wonder what archaeological sites they're going to trash for this.
 
2013-02-17 01:53:49 PM  
Um, don't we have a 195B$ asteroid we can privately 3D mine?
 
2013-02-17 01:56:14 PM  

St_Francis_P: Trees are more important than people. A tree is never critical. A tree will always be your friend. A tree will hold still for sex.


A tree will not bite me and throw me in the basement.
 
2013-02-17 01:56:24 PM  
Depends on the person and the tree, really.
 
2013-02-17 01:58:59 PM  
These folks are unmoved by the lure of jobs and money, preferring unemployment and poverty rather than risk potential environmental damage that might occur in the future.  At least they're sticking by their principles.
 
2013-02-17 01:59:15 PM  

gravebayne2: So is this about the time the hippies show up to fark? seriously... a gold mine operation would bring jobs to the area. Greece has been suffering from high unemployment for quite some time now and they need those jobs.

If you are so against mining, be sure to abandon your vehicle and get off the computer. those components inside of them were brought to you by mining.


If it wasn't grown, it had to be mined.
 
2013-02-17 01:59:48 PM  

gravebayne2: If you are so against mining, be sure to abandon your vehicle and get off the computer. those components inside of them were brought to you by mining.


Hmm, oxygen, or my computer. Tough choice.
 
2013-02-17 02:00:44 PM  
Liberals are funny and sad at the same time...
 
2013-02-17 02:01:29 PM  
You need gold for electronics. My smartphone is worth more than some Greek babby
 
2013-02-17 02:02:20 PM  

2wolves: Subby, let me know when you can eat gold.


Not subby, but here. You didn't specify that it had to have any nutritional value.
 
2013-02-17 02:02:38 PM  
Subsistence living is how everyone who is not me should live.
 
2013-02-17 02:03:52 PM  
JohnAnnArbor:

If it wasn't grown, it had to be mined.

It's simple, if it jiggles it's fat.
 
2013-02-17 02:04:27 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: Hmm, oxygen, or my computer. Tough choice.


As you're apparently still breathing and you've got a computer, you may have noticed that environmentalism is predicated on the fallacy of the false dilemma.
 
2013-02-17 02:04:36 PM  

drjekel_mrhyde: You need gold for electronics. My smartphone is worth more than some Greek babby


But with technology, we'll find something else!
 
2013-02-17 02:04:48 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Slaxl: The My Little Pony Killer: People need trees in order to have their carbon dioxide recycled back into breathable oxygen.  People need gold like they need another hole in the head. I'd say I need gold a little bit more than a hole in the head, let alone another hole in the head. Gold would allow me, if it was a lot, to become a wealthy individual, and I could go around stepping on the little people. It'd be their fault too, for being little and in my way.

I'd buy Fark.com from Drew and reboot FarkTV.


You monster!
 
2013-02-17 02:05:52 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Slaxl: The My Little Pony Killer: People need trees in order to have their carbon dioxide recycled back into breathable oxygen.  People need gold like they need another hole in the head. I'd say I need gold a little bit more than a hole in the head, let alone another hole in the head. Gold would allow me, if it was a lot, to become a wealthy individual, and I could go around stepping on the little people. It'd be their fault too, for being little and in my way.

I'd buy Fark.com from Drew and reboot FarkTV.


You monster.
 
2013-02-17 02:05:59 PM  
There are crack houses that are less harmful to people than gold mines, and people set fire to them all of the time.

/didn't read article
//not on crack
 
2013-02-17 02:06:28 PM  
whoa
 
2013-02-17 02:06:58 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: gravebayne2: If you are so against mining, be sure to abandon your vehicle and get off the computer. those components inside of them were brought to you by mining.

Hmm, oxygen, or my computer. Tough choice.


well apparently you chose your computer.
 
2013-02-17 02:08:31 PM  
Well as mining waste for gold is really toxic I can understand. How about they release the type of mining they are going to do.
 
2013-02-17 02:10:50 PM  
Trees ARE more important than people. EVERYONE knows that.
 
2013-02-17 02:12:54 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: Um, don't we have a 195B$ asteroid we can privately 3D mine?


We never see you in serious science threads anymore. You're really better than threadshiatting unrelated topics.There are other trolls for that.
 
2013-02-17 02:15:39 PM  

St_Francis_P: Trees are more important than people. A tree is never critical. A tree will always be your friend. A tree will hold still for sex.


www.tabloidprodigy.com
 
2013-02-17 02:15:59 PM  

St_Francis_P: Trees are more important than people. A tree is never critical. A tree will always be your friend. A tree will hold still for sex.


This is why the aspen quake
 
2013-02-17 02:17:32 PM  
I love how it has to be one or the other.  Is it a big deal to require companies to be a good steward of the land?  Is it a big deal for people to calm the fark down about every single tree and see that modern society needs to do certain things to be, you know, a modern society?
 
2013-02-17 02:17:33 PM  
they farked with the wrong lorax
 
2013-02-17 02:18:37 PM  
Trees?  This is about not hiring union labor.  You don't hire union, you have problems.

Good union, they put the blame on hippies.

/I don't know nothin' about burning equipment, but I know a guy who can have you up and running by tuesday.
 
2013-02-17 02:20:52 PM  
I'm sure burning all that equipment was good for the environment.
 
2013-02-17 02:22:19 PM  

St_Francis_P: Trees are more important than people. A tree is never critical. A tree will always be your friend. A tree will hold still for sex.


That sounds knotty.
 
2013-02-17 02:23:52 PM  
Bingham Canyon Mine
liberals see this as crime against humanity.
normal people understand it is the most productive use of remote and otherwise unusable land imaginable and it allows us to enjoy the high standard of living and low mortality rates we are accustomed to without giving up very much at all.
this mine has employed thousands of people every year (at times up to 10,000 just in direct mining) for 140 years.
after hundreds of years of operation, it still supplies 15% of u.s. demand for copper (about 50% of copper comes from recycling, so around 30% of demand for new copper in the u.s. comes from these 1900 acres that only a handful of people would have otherwise ever even stepped foot on).
over it's life it has produced 217 billion in copper, gold, and molybdenum.
that's $114 million per acre in materials needed to create a modern society.

www.usmra.com

they'd prefer it and mines like it never existed and therefore the electrification of the united states and the world as we know it never took place.

you can't expect rational thought get good governance out of ideological zealots.
 
2013-02-17 02:27:10 PM  
Trees' of course are more important than anything you've ever produced Subby.

/dumb submitter
 
2013-02-17 02:31:48 PM  
Mining companies value human life above all things.

Environmentalists care for nothing but murder murder murder.
 
2013-02-17 02:34:57 PM  

Kibbler: Mining companies value human life above all things.

Environmentalists care for nothing but murder murder murder.


I also frequent freerepublic.com
 
2013-02-17 02:35:11 PM  

Kibbler: Mining companies value human life above all things.


Not sure if serious.

Either way, funny'd.

Kibbler: Environmentalists care for nothing but murder murder murder.


The extremists really screw up what is a legitimate concern.
 
2013-02-17 02:39:30 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: People need trees in order to have their carbon dioxide recycled back into breathable oxygen.  People need gold like they need another hole in the head.


By extension to that, we can always use more trees for more oxygen production, habitat development, and occasional fuel source.

We need more people for...hmm...exactly nothing.
 
2013-02-17 02:43:53 PM  

Carousel Beast: Quantum Apostrophe: Um, don't we have a 195B$ asteroid we can privately 3D mine?

We never see you in serious science threads anymore. You're really better than threadshiatting unrelated topics.There are other trolls for that.


There aren't any serious science threads on here. Just the Mutual Sci-Fi Masturbatory Juvenile Fantasy Admiration Society. How's the Mars condo coming along? Any privately mined asteroid minerals at your house yet? Planned your private 5 minute "space" trip in a cramped tin can?
 
2013-02-17 02:44:46 PM  
If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? Maybe, if they screamed all the time for no reason.
 
2013-02-17 02:49:21 PM  

2wolves: Subby, let me know when you can eat gold.


You can. It's merely a technicality...

The most famous case of Shuar "insolence" occurred in 1599, when the Spanish governor of Maca demanded a gold tax from local Indians to fund a celebration of the coronation of Philip III. The night before the tax was due, Shuar armies slaughtered every adult male in the Spanish hamlets and surrounded the governor's home. They tied the governor to his bed and used a bone to push freshly melted gold down his throat, laughing and demanding to know if he had finally sated his thirst.
http://www.salon.com/2013/02/10/to_get_the_gold_they_will_h ave_to_kill _every_one_of_us/
 
2013-02-17 02:49:47 PM  
Greco-terrorists?
 
2013-02-17 02:50:53 PM  

Hack Patooey: Is it a big deal to require companies to be a good steward of the land?


Apparently, yes.
 
2013-02-17 02:51:31 PM  
Trees are necessary to our existence.....gold has neat qualities but is not a necessity.
 
2013-02-17 02:52:54 PM  

Mrbogey: As you're apparently still breathing and you've got a computer, you may have noticed that environmentalism is predicated on the fallacy of the false dilemma.


Could say the same about your gold fears, considering we can make it in labs now.
 
2013-02-17 02:55:43 PM  

Agent Smiths Laugh: The My Little Pony Killer: People need trees in order to have their carbon dioxide recycled back into breathable oxygen.  People need gold like they need another hole in the head.

By extension to that, we can always use more trees for more oxygen production, habitat development, and occasional fuel source.

We need more people for...hmm...exactly nothing.


If you feel that strongly about your position, you could always find a high bridge or building and take the jump.
Show us the strength of your convictions.
 
2013-02-17 02:55:44 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: Mrbogey: As you're apparently still breathing and you've got a computer, you may have noticed that environmentalism is predicated on the fallacy of the false dilemma.

Could say the same about your gold fears, considering we can make it in labs now.


I can never tell if you're serious, or completely misunderstand or misrepresent what you claim. What do you mean "make" gold in a lab? Like, start with lead and transmute it? Or what?
 
2013-02-17 02:59:05 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: J. Frank Parnell: Mrbogey: As you're apparently still breathing and you've got a computer, you may have noticed that environmentalism is predicated on the fallacy of the false dilemma.

Could say the same about your gold fears, considering we can make it in labs now.

I can never tell if you're serious, or completely misunderstand or misrepresent what you claim. What do you mean "make" gold in a lab? Like, start with lead and transmute it? Or what?




Perhaps he practices the art of alchemy.
 
2013-02-17 03:01:19 PM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Agent Smiths Laugh: The My Little Pony Killer: People need trees in order to have their carbon dioxide recycled back into breathable oxygen.  People need gold like they need another hole in the head.

By extension to that, we can always use more trees for more oxygen production, habitat development, and occasional fuel source.

We need more people for...hmm...exactly nothing.

If you feel that strongly about your position, you could always find a high bridge or building and take the jump.
Show us the strength of your convictions.


He's one of the necessary humans and is obviously only referring to the poor and unfortunate that can't contribute the same beautiful insight that he has provided us today.
 
2013-02-17 03:02:23 PM  

relcec: Bingham Canyon Mine
liberals see this as crime against humanity.
normal people understand it is the most productive use of remote and otherwise unusable land imaginable and it allows us to enjoy the high standard of living and low mortality rates we are accustomed to without giving up very much at all.
this mine has employed thousands of people every year (at times up to 10,000 just in direct mining) for 140 years.
after hundreds of years of operation, it still supplies 15% of u.s. demand for copper (about 50% of copper comes from recycling, so around 30% of demand for new copper in the u.s. comes from these 1900 acres that only a handful of people would have otherwise ever even stepped foot on).
over it's life it has produced 217 billion in copper, gold, and molybdenum.
that's $114 million per acre in materials needed to create a modern society.

[www.usmra.com image 500x354]

they'd prefer it and mines like it never existed and therefore the electrification of the united states and the world as we know it never took place.

you can't expect rational thought get good governance out of ideological zealots.


So your point is that since mines like this exist, we should obviously build them in every possible location on earth?  No that wasn't your point?  Then you aren't making any sense, as we weren't talking about a remote mine.

Are you just too ignorant to understand the actual controversy?
 
2013-02-17 03:02:29 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: J. Frank Parnell: Mrbogey: As you're apparently still breathing and you've got a computer, you may have noticed that environmentalism is predicated on the fallacy of the false dilemma.

Could say the same about your gold fears, considering we can make it in labs now.

I can never tell if you're serious, or completely misunderstand or misrepresent what you claim. What do you mean "make" gold in a lab? Like, start with lead and transmute it? Or what?


We've been able to do that for a while, but it's far cheaper to just dig it out of a hole in the ground.

When gold hits 10B/ounce, then we can start making it.
 
2013-02-17 03:04:36 PM  
Fark the earth.  That biatch has tried more than once to kill me.  If somebody else wants coont punch the biatch I'm all for it.  Even better if that same person is kicking a bunch of socialists when they're down.
 
2013-02-17 03:08:25 PM  

relcec: Bingham Canyon Mine
liberals see this as crime against humanity.
normal people understand it is the most productive use of remote and otherwise unusable land imaginable and it allows us to enjoy the high standard of living and low mortality rates we are accustomed to without giving up very much at all.
this mine has employed thousands of people every year (at times up to 10,000 just in direct mining) for 140 years.
after hundreds of years of operation, it still supplies 15% of u.s. demand for copper (about 50% of copper comes from recycling, so around 30% of demand for new copper in the u.s. comes from these 1900 acres that only a handful of people would have otherwise ever even stepped foot on).
over it's life it has produced 217 billion in copper, gold, and molybdenum.
that's $114 million per acre in materials needed to create a modern society.

[www.usmra.com image 500x354]

they'd prefer it and mines like it never existed and therefore the electrification of the united states and the world as we know it never took place.

you can't expect rational thought get good governance out of ideological zealots.


That'sa mighty nice straw man you have there.
 
2013-02-17 03:09:17 PM  

GilRuiz1: These folks are unmoved by the lure of jobs and money, preferring unemployment and poverty rather than risk potential environmental damage that might occur in the future.  At least they're sticking by their principles.



Because they would have to get jobs otherwise
 
2013-02-17 03:10:19 PM  

relcec: Bingham Canyon Mine
liberals see this as crime against humanity.


www.theinternational.org

Difference is Greece is a major holiday destination for the rest of Europe. Would you holiday here?
 
2013-02-17 03:13:13 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: Could say the same about your gold fears, considering we can make it in labs now.


Yea, you go and create gold in a lab. I'll create oxygen. The first to make it at the lowest cost wins.

Again, false dilemma. You can have a gold mine without destroying the ability to live.

Environmentalism is how a personal coward can become a communal hero. Decry the extravagance of their own lifestyle while pitying the poverty of others. Demanding something be done while offering to do nothing.
 
2013-02-17 03:13:17 PM  

jamspoon: relcec: Bingham Canyon Mine
liberals see this as crime against humanity.

[www.theinternational.org image 620x465]

Difference is Greece is a major holiday destination for the rest of Europe. Would you holiday here?


No one vacations where they are building the mine, your argument is stupid.
 
2013-02-17 03:17:59 PM  

Mister Peejay: We've been able to do that for a while, but it's far cheaper to just dig it out of a hole in the ground.


Yes, but a few atoms at a time, won't exactly crater the gold market anytime soon. Maybe he meant we can 3D print gold?
 
2013-02-17 03:19:07 PM  

jamspoon: relcec: Bingham Canyon Mine
liberals see this as crime against humanity.

[www.theinternational.org image 620x465]

Difference is Greece is a major holiday destination for the rest of Europe. Would you holiday here?


I'd film a Doctor Who episode there.
 
2013-02-17 03:24:20 PM  
So in a country where no one pays their taxes, where everyone expects government handouts, and where they riot when the government is forced to cut freebies because they are broke, it turns out they also don't like anything that might provide jobs and much needed tax revenue?  Color me shocked.
 
2013-02-17 03:28:49 PM  

OgreMagi: So in a country where no one pays their taxes, where everyone expects government handouts, and where they riot when the government is forced to cut freebies because they are broke, it turns out they also don't like anything that might provide jobs and much needed tax revenue?  Color me shocked.


I wouldn't oversimplify it like that.

The real question that needs to be asked is if this would negatively impact the tourism industry that already exists there, and if it does, does the jobs/revenue the gold mine will bring make up for the revenue that would be loss in the tourism industry.
 
2013-02-17 03:30:15 PM  

2wolves: Subby, let me know when you can eat gold.


The weird part is that most of the gold produced is destined never to be "used".  It will most likely be dug up to be smelted into a 0.999 brick under the careful watch of armed security, and then locked on a shelf in a cold, dark vault for the same sort of eternal stasis it enjoyed in the ground.

There it will do nothing but exist.  It will likely never be eaten or worn or refined into electronics plating.  For security reasons, there will surely be tight controls and only a handful of inventory people are brought in to swear to its mere existence in the first place.

I understand the economy and all.  I'm just seeing some Hitchhiker's Guide perverse weirdness in destroying an area for a commodity no one actually uses.
 
2013-02-17 03:32:15 PM  
darp LIBRAL
hurrrrrrrrrhurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
 
2013-02-17 03:35:58 PM  

Oznog: There it will do nothing but exist.  It will likely never be eaten or worn or refined into electronics plating.  For security reasons, there will surely be tight controls and only a handful of inventory people are brought in to swear to its mere existence in the first place.

I understand the economy and all.  I'm just seeing some Hitchhiker's Guide perverse weirdness in destroying an area for a commodity no one actually uses.



So while it is sitting in those vaults, is no one using it for anything?  Seems like a waste.  Why bother to dig it up in the first place?
 
2013-02-17 03:36:14 PM  

Mister Peejay: We've been able to do that for a while, but it's far cheaper to just dig it out of a hole in the ground.


Interestingly, the very first people to do it back in 2007 claimed they could make tonnes of gold cheaply and relatively fast, but as you'll notice most of the articles have since been removed from the internet. Must just be a coincidence, because conspiracies never happen.
 
2013-02-17 03:40:15 PM  

JohnAnnArbor: gravebayne2: So is this about the time the hippies show up to fark? seriously... a gold mine operation would bring jobs to the area. Greece has been suffering from high unemployment for quite some time now and they need those jobs.

If you are so against mining, be sure to abandon your vehicle and get off the computer. those components inside of them were brought to you by mining.

If it wasn't grown, it had to be mined.


So why don't you mine your yard?
 
2013-02-17 03:42:05 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: Mister Peejay: We've been able to do that for a while, but it's far cheaper to just dig it out of a hole in the ground.

Interestingly, the very first people to do it back in 2007 claimed they could make tonnes of gold cheaply and relatively fast, but as you'll notice most of the articles have since been removed from the internet. Must just be a coincidence, because conspiracies never happen.


I also note with tinfoil-hatted interest that there has been a huge smear campaign against the author of that article.  Google searches for more of Mr. Ben Dover's articles only gets pornography and facetious commentary.
 
2013-02-17 03:44:46 PM  

Hack Patooey: I love how it has to be one or the other.  Is it a big deal to require companies to be a good steward of the land?  Is it a big deal for people to calm the fark down about every single tree and see that modern society needs to do certain things to be, you know, a modern society?


This. I HATE these choices. Would you prefer poverty and unemployment, or a landscape ruined by industrial waste? I want neither! Isn't there another choice?
 
2013-02-17 03:45:11 PM  

gadian: Depends on the person and the tree, really.


ecx.images-amazon.com
 
2013-02-17 03:50:23 PM  

OgreMagi: So in a country where no one pays their taxes, where everyone expects government handouts, and where they riot when the government is forced to cut freebies because they are broke, it turns out they also don't like anything that might provide jobs and much needed tax revenue?  Color me shocked.


they (some) also abandon children with birth defects (deaf etc...) in institutions and don't visit them, ever, to hide potentially flawed genes from other families they might want to marry into. sort of like spartans throwing weak children off the cliffs or something?
 
2013-02-17 03:57:50 PM  
You can print money, but you can't make more trees.

Good for the environmentalists.  The mining company was probably avoiding taxes and replacing equipment will net more jobs.
 
2013-02-17 03:59:05 PM  
WOW there has to be a 24K joke buried in there somewhere.
 
2013-02-17 04:01:38 PM  

Old enough to know better: Hack Patooey: I love how it has to be one or the other.  Is it a big deal to require companies to be a good steward of the land?  Is it a big deal for people to calm the fark down about every single tree and see that modern society needs to do certain things to be, you know, a modern society?

This. I HATE these choices. Would you prefer poverty and unemployment, or a landscape ruined by industrial waste? I want neither! Isn't there another choice?


Nope, its either one extreme or the other, THERE SHALL BE NO MIDDLE GROUND!!!

/at least that seems to be the concensus on Fark
 
2013-02-17 04:01:49 PM  

super_grass: You can print money, but you can't make more trees.



Yeah, cause once a tree is gone another can never grow back. Stupid argument is stupid.
 
2013-02-17 04:03:02 PM  
I think that the world would do better without man than it would without trees, so yeah, in a sense, trees are more important than people.

:-D
 
2013-02-17 04:08:31 PM  

iaazathot: you can't expect rational thought get good governance out of ideological zealots.

That's a mighty nice straw man you have there.



most of these dimwits would prefer open pit mining and mountain top removal (by far the most efficient mining possible), never mind mining that just requires cutting down trees, never existed and would ban it if given the opportunity to the detriment of the entire human population.

Frank Parnell: Hmm, oxygen, or my computer. Tough choice.

Darth_Lukecash [TotalFark]: Mining companies don't give a damn about people either. The latest mining technique invlves destructions of mountain tops... And they don't even try to do a restoration when it's over.

Herr Docktor Heinrich Wisenheimer [TotalFark]: Lead, mercury, and arsenic are good for you citizen! Rich people who don't live nearby need more shiny rocks!

The My Little Pony Killer: People need trees in order to have their carbon dioxide recycled back into breathable oxygen.  People need gold like they need another hole in the head.

2wolves: Subby, let me know when you can eat gold.

that's no strawman, it's how many think around here.
there's no question of cost versus benefit or possible mitigation strategies. just pure unadulterated froth and nonsense from a bunch of childish zealots.
/tell me the turth, wouldn't you yourself actually rather Bingham Canyon Mine never existed. doesn't it actually look like a terrible scar on the bosom of mother earth rather than am efficient and necessary extraction of resources in the name of technological and human progress to you?
 
2013-02-17 04:09:58 PM  

super_grass: You can print money, but you can't make more trees.

Good for the environmentalists.  The mining company was probably avoiding taxes and replacing equipment will net more jobs.

 
2013-02-17 04:12:29 PM  

relcec: iaazathot: you can't expect rational thought get good governance out of ideological zealots.

That's a mighty nice straw man you have there.


most of these dimwits would prefer open pit mining and mountain top removal (by far the most efficient mining possible), never mind mining that just requires cutting down trees, never existed and would ban it if given the opportunity to the detriment of the entire human population.

Frank Parnell: Hmm, oxygen, or my computer. Tough choice.

Darth_Lukecash [TotalFark]: Mining companies don't give a damn about people either. The latest mining technique invlves destructions of mountain tops... And they don't even try to do a restoration when it's over.

Herr Docktor Heinrich Wisenheimer [TotalFark]: Lead, mercury, and arsenic are good for you citizen! Rich people who don't live nearby need more shiny rocks!

The My Little Pony Killer: People need trees in order to have their carbon dioxide recycled back into breathable oxygen.  People need gold like they need another hole in the head.

2wolves: Subby, let me know when you can eat gold.

that's no strawman, it's how many think around here.
there's no question of cost versus benefit or possible mitigation strategies. just pure unadulterated froth and nonsense from a bunch of childish zealots.
/tell me the turth, wouldn't you yourself actually rather Bingham Canyon Mine never existed. doesn't it actually look like a terrible scar on the bosom of mother earth rather than am efficient and necessary extraction of resources in the name of technological and human progress to you?


It is ugly as sin but it does serve its purpose.

That being said, I vote for a middle ground in which the mining can be done without causing too much harm and damage to the environment.

Guess that's a crazy thing to ask for.
 
2013-02-17 04:16:03 PM  
Trees provide me oxygen.

People compete with me for resources.

The choice is clear.
 
2013-02-17 04:31:26 PM  
It's obvious subby's mom was raped by a tree.
 
2013-02-17 04:36:26 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: Mining companies don't give a damn about people either.

The latest mining technique invlves destructions of mountain tops... And they don't even try to do a restoration when it's over.


mountain tops are people too!

With that said:

Apparently trees are more important than people

Yeah, sometimes.
 
2013-02-17 04:39:20 PM  

Mrtraveler01: that's no strawman, it's how many think around here.
there's no question of cost versus benefit or possible mitigation strategies. just pure unadulterated froth and nonsense from a bunch of childish zealots.
/tell me the turth, wouldn't you yourself actually rather Bingham Canyon Mine never existed. doesn't it actually look like a terrible scar on the bosom of mother earth rather than am efficient and necessary extraction of resources in the name of technological and human progress to you?

It is ugly as sin but it does serve its purpose.

That being said, I vote for a middle ground in which the mining can be done without causing too much harm and damage to the environment.

Guess that's a crazy thing to ask for.


of course.
there should be a cost benefit analysis that takes into consideration the value to society of obtaining essential resources cheaply as well as the potential environmental problems likely to be created, the actual utility of leaving the natural landscape completely unaltered, plus a requirement for the mining crop to institute a reclamation program at some point in the distant future.

but you can't expect a reasonable outcome if you let these environmental zealots to spew their nonsense unchecked.
 
2013-02-17 04:40:35 PM  

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? Maybe, if they screamed all the time for no reason.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PE5f561Y1x4
 
2013-02-17 04:43:58 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: People need trees in order to have their carbon dioxide recycled back into breathable oxygen.  People need gold like they need another hole in the head.


Gold is used in more than jewelry. It's a valuable component in electronics.
 
2013-02-17 04:49:51 PM  

gravebayne2: So is this about the time the hippies show up to fark? seriously... a gold mine operation would bring jobs to the area. Greece has been suffering from high unemployment for quite some time now and they need those jobs.

If you are so against mining, be sure to abandon your vehicle and get off the computer. those components inside of them were brought to you by mining.


It's cute how you think international corporations always follow through on their job promises to locals.
 
2013-02-17 04:51:02 PM  

Mrbogey: J. Frank Parnell: Hmm, oxygen, or my computer. Tough choice.

As you're apparently still breathing and you've got a computer, you may have noticed that environmentalism is predicated on the fallacy of the false dilemma.


As is the industrialist's converse position, that mining operations can't be held to any environmental standards whatsoever.
 
2013-02-17 04:52:54 PM  

relcec: Bingham Canyon Mine
liberals see this as crime against humanity.
normal people understand it is the most productive use of remote and otherwise unusable land imaginable and it allows us to enjoy the high standard of living and low mortality rates we are accustomed to without giving up very much at all.
this mine has employed thousands of people every year (at times up to 10,000 just in direct mining) for 140 years.
after hundreds of years of operation, it still supplies 15% of u.s. demand for copper (about 50% of copper comes from recycling, so around 30% of demand for new copper in the u.s. comes from these 1900 acres that only a handful of people would have otherwise ever even stepped foot on).
over it's life it has produced 217 billion in copper, gold, and molybdenum.
that's $114 million per acre in materials needed to create a modern society.

[www.usmra.com image 500x354]

they'd prefer it and mines like it never existed and therefore the electrification of the united states and the world as we know it never took place.

you can't expect rational thought get good governance out of ideological zealots.


Like free marketeers, who have no problem with mine tailings getting into OTHER people's water supply?
 
2013-02-17 04:57:13 PM  

Mrbogey: J. Frank Parnell: Could say the same about your gold fears, considering we can make it in labs now.

Yea, you go and create gold in a lab. I'll create oxygen. The first to make it at the lowest cost wins.

Again, false dilemma. You can have a gold mine without destroying the ability to live.

Environmentalism is how a personal coward can become a communal hero. Decry the extravagance of their own lifestyle while pitying the poverty of others. Demanding something be done while offering to do nothing.


Shilling for industry for free on the internet is how an unethical person can behave immorally, yet not be directly rewarded.

Sweeping generalizations are fun!
 
2013-02-17 04:58:46 PM  

PunGent: you can't expect rational thought get good governance out of ideological zealots.

Like free marketeers, who have no problem with mine tailings getting into OTHER people's water supply?


now that you mention it, I have noticed all my conservative friends appear to love ground water contamination.
so you are just saving me from the people that would asphyxiate me with coal smoke and poison my water if it weren't for heroes like you supporting the obstruction of every development of land imaginable.
I've changed my mind, thank you for your service to humanity.
 
2013-02-17 05:40:54 PM  

Kahabut: relcec: Bingham Canyon Mine
liberals see this as crime against humanity.
normal people understand it is the most productive use of remote and otherwise unusable land imaginable and it allows us to enjoy the high standard of living and low mortality rates we are accustomed to without giving up very much at all.
this mine has employed thousands of people every year (at times up to 10,000 just in direct mining) for 140 years.
after hundreds of years of operation, it still supplies 15% of u.s. demand for copper (about 50% of copper comes from recycling, so around 30% of demand for new copper in the u.s. comes from these 1900 acres that only a handful of people would have otherwise ever even stepped foot on).
over it's life it has produced 217 billion in copper, gold, and molybdenum.
that's $114 million per acre in materials needed to create a modern society.

[www.usmra.com image 500x354]

they'd prefer it and mines like it never existed and therefore the electrification of the united states and the world as we know it never took place.

you can't expect rational thought get good governance out of ideological zealots.

So your point is that since mines like this exist, we should obviously build them in every possible location on earth?  No that wasn't your point?  Then you aren't making any sense, as we weren't talking about a remote mine.

Are you just too ignorant to understand the actual controversy?


Give the man some credit. He made a whole post without biatching about foreigners.
 
2013-02-17 05:58:16 PM  

PunGent: As is the industrialist's converse position, that mining operations can't be held to any environmental standards whatsoever.


And there's the strawman.

super_grass: You can print money, but you can't make more trees.

Good for the environmentalists.  The mining company was probably avoiding taxes and replacing equipment will net more jobs.


Is this a parody? Is this Poe's Law coming out for a test drive?
 
2013-02-17 06:42:32 PM  

GilRuiz1: Oznog: There it will do nothing but exist.  It will likely never be eaten or worn or refined into electronics plating.  For security reasons, there will surely be tight controls and only a handful of inventory people are brought in to swear to its mere existence in the first place.

I understand the economy and all.  I'm just seeing some Hitchhiker's Guide perverse weirdness in destroying an area for a commodity no one actually uses.


So while it is sitting in those vaults, is no one using it for anything?  Seems like a waste.  Why bother to dig it up in the first place?


It's used to REPRESENT value.  It doesn't have an actual use to justify its value.  Electronics mfg gets all it needs (and it doesn't need a whole lot).  Jewelry could always use more, except ironically it's too expensive to make more jewelry with.  But at $1600/oz, fewer people are interested in rings, chains, and earring of the stuff.  Not enough demand to consume the supply, and consequently its value is in hoarding.  Whereas, say, copper stock is consumed by its applications basically as it's made, much of our gold stores come from years, even generations ago, without ever being used for any application.  It is kind of economically perverse.

People talk about it like it's "hard currency" because it has inherent value, but that's not really the case, it doesn't have an application that drives its value and it's primarily valued at the level it is because other people say it's valuable, which is little different than fiat money except for one feature- we can't get much more of it very fast.  We can, however, rip up parts of our biosphere to get more of this prized element, thus generating new wealth- but again, it probably won't ever do anything but sit in a cold, dark, secure vault forever.  That is the purpose for which we value it.
 
2013-02-17 06:45:20 PM  

GilRuiz1: These folks are unmoved by the lure of jobs and money, preferring unemployment and poverty rather than risk potential environmental damage that might occur in the future.  At least they're sticking by their principles.


It would be kinda awesome if it turns out that they were Greenpeace activists from Northern Europe.

---

The article mentions fears that the mine would damage tourism. I can't comment on that, but I am sure firebombing stuff you don't like ain't helping tourism either.
 
2013-02-17 06:52:05 PM  

Oznog: 2wolves: Subby, let me know when you can eat gold.

The weird part is that most of the gold produced is destined never to be "used".  It will most likely be dug up to be smelted into a 0.999 brick under the careful watch of armed security, and then locked on a shelf in a cold, dark vault for the same sort of eternal stasis it enjoyed in the ground.

There it will do nothing but exist.  It will likely never be eaten or worn or refined into electronics plating.  For security reasons, there will surely be tight controls and only a handful of inventory people are brought in to swear to its mere existence in the first place.

I understand the economy and all.  I'm just seeing some Hitchhiker's Guide perverse weirdness in destroying an area for a commodity no one actually uses.


You could always go for a more valuable mineral like Plutonium instead at ~$4,000 per gram. However stacking it in a vault like we do with gold probably wouldn't be such a good idea...
 
2013-02-17 06:52:43 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: Mining companies don't give a damn about people either.

The latest mining technique invlves destructions of mountain tops... And they don't even try to do a restoration when it's over.



Mountains are people too my friends.
 
2013-02-17 07:02:22 PM  
Critics, however, say the mining operation will destroy forests in the area, contaminate groundwater and pollute the air with chemical substances like lead, mercury and arsenic.

So instead, let's set everything on fire! The environmental destruction from fighting the fire and the cleanup efforts will surely do no lasting harm! Plus all the damaged equipment that has to be hauled off and scrapped (and dumped in a landfill), that's not going to hurt anything, right?

You've got the "acting locally" down, but your "thinking globally" needs some serious work.
 
2013-02-17 07:18:55 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org

Inconsolable.
 
2013-02-17 07:57:23 PM  
I don't know why they just didn't send a few knights to camp near the entrance of the mine and massacre the peons as they approach or exit.

/Warcraft 2 reference many of you won't get
 
2013-02-17 08:25:48 PM  
FTFA: "The attackers used petrol bombs and flammable liquid to set fire to machinery, vehicles and containers, police told the Associated Press. "

Well, it's certainly a good thing that burning machinery, vehicles, and containers doesn't release anything toxic into the environment. Oh, wait. This is like those morons who burned down a Hummer dealership "for the environment" and caused more environmental damage than all the Hummers ever sold from that dealership would have. Nice job, "environmentalists". Good to know you only care about the environment when it's trendy or cool and not, you know, for real.
 
2013-02-17 08:39:14 PM  

jamspoon: relcec: Bingham Canyon Mine
liberals see this as crime against humanity.

[www.theinternational.org image 620x465]

Difference is Greece is a major holiday destination for the rest of Europe. Would you holiday here?


Stick a nice 10 story (or more) hotel up on the rim with a spa, a nice big pool, and a little museum on the history of mining. Offer tour packages with a chance to keep a chunk of ore you pull out with a pickaxe. Stick a rotating restaurant at the  top of the hotel so diners can get a constant contrast between the mining operation and the normal mountains. Add a ski run down the normal mountain side even if it requires creative landscaping. People WILL show up for it.
 
2013-02-17 08:42:50 PM  
still using wood timbers in mine shafts. Who knew?
 
2013-02-17 08:52:22 PM  
I consider myself an environmentalist and I have no problem calling out extremists for vandalizing and destroying property. They're hurting their own cause.  However, that doesn't mean their underlying concerns about the effects of a mining operation on the environment aren't legitimate.

Mrtraveler01: Old enough to know better: Hack Patooey: I love how it has to be one or the other.  Is it a big deal to require companies to be a good steward of the land?  Is it a big deal for people to calm the fark down about every single tree and see that modern society needs to do certain things to be, you know, a modern society?

This. I HATE these choices. Would you prefer poverty and unemployment, or a landscape ruined by industrial waste? I want neither! Isn't there another choice?

Nope, its either one extreme or the other, THERE SHALL BE NO MIDDLE GROUND!!!

/at least that seems to be the concensus on Fark


Yes, sadly, it does seem like no one is in the middle.  I want jobs and resources, but I don't want to live in a cesspool either.
 
2013-02-17 08:53:37 PM  

Hacker_X: jamspoon: relcec: Bingham Canyon Mine
liberals see this as crime against humanity.

[www.theinternational.org image 620x465]

Difference is Greece is a major holiday destination for the rest of Europe. Would you holiday here?

Stick a nice 10 story (or more) hotel up on the rim with a spa, a nice big pool, and a little museum on the history of mining. Offer tour packages with a chance to keep a chunk of ore you pull out with a pickaxe. Stick a rotating restaurant at the  top of the hotel so diners can get a constant contrast between the mining operation and the normal mountains. Add a ski run down the normal mountain side even if it requires creative landscaping. People WILL show up for it.


Did you just invent the mining equivalent of hipster do it yourself berry picking?
 
2013-02-17 08:54:50 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: Mining companies don't give a damn about people either.


Sure they do.  Without people, there wouldn't be much of a market for their commodity, amiright?
 
2013-02-17 08:59:03 PM  

Baryogenesis: I want jobs and resources, but I don't want to live in a cesspool either.


For the most part, the miners are also starting to catch on to this.  in many circumstances, the only way that mines get public support is to ensure that they do things in an environmentally sensible manner and that they deliver on these promises.  For most of the hard rock mines that I am familiar with, they do a pretty decent job at being an environmental steward.  Yes there are some very bad apples out there and they do tend to tarnish the industry as a whole.
 
2013-02-17 09:27:30 PM  

Mrbogey: As you're apparently still breathing and you've got a computer, you may have noticed that environmentalism is predicated on the fallacy of the false dilemma.


"False dilemma."
Ironic you should say this, given the hyperbole in the headline.
 
2013-02-17 09:28:10 PM  

untaken_name: FTFA: "The attackers used petrol bombs and flammable liquid to set fire to machinery, vehicles and containers, police told the Associated Press. "

Well, it's certainly a good thing that burning machinery, vehicles, and containers doesn't release anything toxic into the environment. Oh, wait. This is like those morons who burned down a Hummer dealership "for the environment" and caused more environmental damage than all the Hummers ever sold from that dealership would have. Nice job, "environmentalists". Good to know you only care about the environment when it's trendy or cool and not, you know, for real.


I already said that.

I put these cretins right next to those animal-rights "activists" in Britain some time back, who decided to release 3000 ranch mink into a region full of endangered songbirds and native amphibians without bothering to notice that mink mostly live on birds' eggs and frogs. (Or that ranch-bred mink would mostly die if there was nobody to bring them food anyway) People like that aren't really about saving the environment. They're just vandals who want an excuse.
 
2013-02-17 09:48:59 PM  

Hickory-smoked: Mrbogey: As you're apparently still breathing and you've got a computer, you may have noticed that environmentalism is predicated on the fallacy of the false dilemma.

"False dilemma."
Ironic you should say this, given the hyperbole in the headline.


The headline would be a simplification of the argument. As evidenced by the responses in the thread, there are many who support shutting down mines solely because they assert this dilemma.
 
2013-02-17 09:59:37 PM  

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: It's obvious subby's mom was raped by a tree.

static.neatorama.com
 
2013-02-17 10:13:35 PM  

Gyrfalcon: I already said that.


Yeah, but you hadn't when I started my post. Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez.
 
2013-02-18 03:10:33 AM  

Mrbogey: Hickory-smoked: Mrbogey: As you're apparently still breathing and you've got a computer, you may have noticed that environmentalism is predicated on the fallacy of the false dilemma.

"False dilemma."
Ironic you should say this, given the hyperbole in the headline.

The headline would be a simplification of the argument. As evidenced by the responses in the thread, there are many who support shutting down mines solely because they assert this dilemma.


A properly run mining operation should not cause permanent damage to the groundwater and ecology. This position is not the same as saying "trees are more important than people."

False dilemma.
 
2013-02-18 04:51:31 AM  

Baryogenesis: I want jobs and resources, but I don't want to live in a cesspool either.


How about neither? Does having no jobs, no resources, and living in a cesspool anyway sound good?

/trick question, you don't get any say in the matter
//just remember, you have nobody to blame for it but yourself... but don't let that stop you from blaming someone else anyway
///after all, if we didn't keep blaming, banning, and even killing the tiny minority with the skills necessary to lift civilization out of poverty, they would create inequality, and nobody wants that
 
2013-02-18 07:17:21 AM  

relcec: PunGent: you can't expect rational thought get good governance out of ideological zealots.

Like free marketeers, who have no problem with mine tailings getting into OTHER people's water supply?

now that you mention it, I have noticed all my conservative friends appear to love ground water contamination.
so you are just saving me from the people that would asphyxiate me with coal smoke and poison my water if it weren't for heroes like you supporting the obstruction of every development of land imaginable.
I've changed my mind, thank you for your service to humanity.


Heh...I own stock in extraction industries.

I just don't see the need to pretend mining and manufacturing are absolutely, 100% good for the environment.
 
2013-02-18 07:18:52 AM  

Mrbogey: PunGent: As is the industrialist's converse position, that mining operations can't be held to any environmental standards whatsoever.

And there's the strawman.

super_grass: You can print money, but you can't make more trees.

Good for the environmentalists.  The mining company was probably avoiding taxes and replacing equipment will net more jobs.

Is this a parody? Is this Poe's Law coming out for a test drive?


Rephrasing YOUR quote is a strawman?

Nice self-pwnage there :)
 
2013-02-18 08:55:35 AM  
Wait, Greeks are blaming this on environmentalists? In a nation where normal people have become rioting anarchists because of the intense austerity measures basically forced onto them from Germany? It was most likely their own workers pissed off, or out-of-work ones pissed at the ones who were working.
 
2013-02-18 10:48:04 AM  

PunGent: I just don't see the need to pretend mining and manufacturing are absolutely, 100% good for the environment.


It is not a question about what is 100% good for the environment.  You can agrue that anything humans do is detrimental to the environment.  The question is really about cost (both monetar and environmental) vs. benifit.
 
2013-02-18 11:56:46 AM  

HeadLever: PunGent: I just don't see the need to pretend mining and manufacturing are absolutely, 100% good for the environment.

It is not a question about what is 100% good for the environment.  You can agrue that anything humans do is detrimental to the environment.  The question is really about cost (both monetar and environmental) vs. benifit.


Yep...and one of the things we consistently do is fail to account for externalities in our behavior; ie, we don't do that calculation right.

Our ecosystem is one of those things you won't miss until its gone...but 99% of government incentives favor trashing the environment, despite how much Randian wingnuts like to point to the 1% of regulations and funding that are "killing our jobs".

Don't believe me?  do the math yourself.
 
2013-02-18 12:33:33 PM  

PunGent: Yep...and one of the things we consistently do is fail to account for externalities in our behavior; ie, we don't do that calculation right.



It is just not that, but the fact that many of these costs are subjective.  How do you quantify aesthetic properties or a risk to a water body? For some, these are more important than any benefit.

Our ecosystem is one of those things you won't miss until its gone...but 99% of government incentives favor trashing the environment, despite how much Randian wingnuts like to point to the 1% of regulations and funding that are "killing our jobs".

Mining does not have to destroy the ecosystem.  It is typically an isolated disturbance where many impacts can be mitigated.  In fact, most current mining practices keep the disturbances to a pretty good minimum.  Again, in the hard rock mining industry that I am familiar with, you see more wildlife within the mine site than you typically do in the National Forests.  Many game animals eventually figure out the areas where no hunting is allowed.

Oh, and I want some backkup on the 99% number.  Pretty sure that this is pulled from your arse.  Environmental regulations are an additional cost on these buisnesses.  Overall it is good practice that I agree with, but the fact remains that some places/companies cannot afford these additional protections.  Do they kill jobs?  yes in the technical sense.  However, if a mine cannot afford the practices to protect the environment, it should not be in operation.

Don't believe me?  do the math yourself.

First, back up you 99% claim.  I'll be interested to see it.
 
2013-02-18 01:28:08 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: Mister Peejay: We've been able to do that for a while, but it's far cheaper to just dig it out of a hole in the ground.

Interestingly, the very first people to do it back in 2007 claimed they could make tonnes of gold cheaply and relatively fast, but as you'll notice most of the articles have since been removed from the internet. Must just be a coincidence, because conspiracies never happen.


You should check out more of Stu Pidasso's research, it's really amazing!
 
2013-02-18 02:25:08 PM  

HeadLever: PunGent: Yep...and one of the things we consistently do is fail to account for externalities in our behavior; ie, we don't do that calculation right.


It is just not that, but the fact that many of these costs are subjective.  How do you quantify aesthetic properties or a risk to a water body? For some, these are more important than any benefit.

Our ecosystem is one of those things you won't miss until its gone...but 99% of government incentives favor trashing the environment, despite how much Randian wingnuts like to point to the 1% of regulations and funding that are "killing our jobs".

Mining does not have to destroy the ecosystem.  It is typically an isolated disturbance where many impacts can be mitigated.  In fact, most current mining practices keep the disturbances to a pretty good minimum.  Again, in the hard rock mining industry that I am familiar with, you see more wildlife within the mine site than you typically do in the National Forests.  Many game animals eventually figure out the areas where no hunting is allowed.


Correction:  mining doesn't HAVE to destroy the ecosystem.

Well, except mountaintop removal...that one's pretty tough to tidy up.

Problem is, the regs allow...and even encourage...companies to "keep a mine open" so they don't have to mitigate.

So you'll see these played out strip mines, with one bulldozer moving for an hour on alternate Tuesdays, just so the holding company can say it's "active", and they don't have to bother replanting the topcover.

Afa costs, google; I ain't your research assistant.

If you're one of those retards who think "environmentalists run everything", no amount of facts will change your mind anyway.
 
2013-02-18 02:29:35 PM  

HeadLever: How do you quantify aesthetic properties or a risk to a water body?


Aesthetics are one thing, but risks are certainly quantifiable.  But then you knew that didn't you, and are just being deliberately obtuse yet again as it suits your greater narrative. 

If our mining technique doesn't have at least some idea of the odds of x, y, or z types of environmental damage occuring and costs of cleaning it up combined with the damages it causes, then they shouldn't be in the business at all.  You can take your pick, either the mining company is woefully unprepared to take on this task (and thus we shouldn't put anything at risk in order to achieve the goal of getting more jewelry available to the world) or it is absolutely a quantifiable risk.
 
2013-02-18 02:43:18 PM  

PunGent: Problem is, the regs allow...and even encourage...companies to "keep a mine open" so they don't have to mitigate.


I think you are confusing mitigation with reclamation.  Two different topics.  Mitigation does not have to take place after a mine is closed.

Afa costs, google; I ain't your research assistant.

Otherwise know as "I can't back up my own assertion'.  Pretty much figured.

If you're one of those retards who think "environmentalists run everything", no amount of facts will change your mind anyway.

Nope, but nice try at the strawman.  I'll give you an E for effort.
 
2013-02-18 02:52:18 PM  

Smackledorfer: Aesthetics are one thing, but risks are certainly quantifiable.


Depends upon what the stated risk would be.  Some are very quantifable and some are not. Things like the risk of groundwater contamination just outside the mine property would be one thing.  The risk to drinking water that comes from various sources and various areas for a city 60 milles downstream is completely different.  There are no real way to quantify this type of risk.


If our mining technique doesn't have at least some idea of the odds of x, y, or z types of environmental damage occuring and costs of cleaning it up combined with the damages it causes, then they shouldn't be in the business at all.

To a point, yes.  However, as stated above, not all of these risks are able to be quantified with the technology (or budget) we currently have.

You can take your pick, either the mining company is woefully unprepared to take on this task (and thus we shouldn't put anything at risk in order to achieve the goal of getting more jewelry available to the world) or it is absolutely a quantifiable risk.

Again, this is a false dichotomy born out of the assumption that all risks are able to be quantified adequately.  For the 3rd time, that is not always the case.
 
2013-02-18 03:05:45 PM  

PunGent: If you're one of those retards who think "environmentalists run everything", no amount of facts will change your mind anyway.


And to pick on this argument just a little bit more, you have to realize that there are different camps of environmentalism.  On one side of the spectrum, tou have the true environmentallis that spend their time actively involved in mitigation, reclaimation and other projects to improve the environment and then on the other spectrum you have the BANANA/NIMBY folks that really don't care about the environment as a whole.  Just like the dichotomy within the mining industry, you have those that recognize that this industry it is a benifit/cost analysis and that mines are not necessarily evil entities.  On the other hand you have ideologes that are driven by greed and will suck it up for all it is worth and the truth be damned.
 
2013-02-18 03:54:14 PM  

HeadLever: Smackledorfer: Aesthetics are one thing, but risks are certainly quantifiable.

Depends upon what the stated risk would be.  Some are very quantifable and some are not. Things like the risk of groundwater contamination just outside the mine property would be one thing.  The risk to drinking water that comes from various sources and various areas for a city 60 milles downstream is completely different.  There are no real way to quantify this type of risk.


If our mining technique doesn't have at least some idea of the odds of x, y, or z types of environmental damage occuring and costs of cleaning it up combined with the damages it causes, then they shouldn't be in the business at all.

To a point, yes.  However, as stated above, not all of these risks are able to be quantified with the technology (or budget) we currently have.

You can take your pick, either the mining company is woefully unprepared to take on this task (and thus we shouldn't put anything at risk in order to achieve the goal of getting more jewelry available to the world) or it is absolutely a quantifiable risk.

Again, this is a false dichotomy born out of the assumption that all risks are able to be quantified adequately.  For the 3rd time, that is not always the case.


Alright, how about this dichotomy: either these companies who claim to know the risk of their business are liars, or they don't know it.

Maybe you are right, maybe they don't have an accurate ability to assess risk and collateral damage caused by their industry.  The industry can't have it both ways.  Either the moment fracking began they knew how safe it was, or after decades of strip mining they still can't perform an accurate risk assessment.

You say my dichotomy was false, but you want it both ways: you want to credit the industry with being capable while defending their practices giving them an up-front pass to have at it despite the concerns of environmentalists.  Then you want to fall back on "well shiat, nobody could really be sure what could happen".

Meanwhile you are biatching at pungent for a lack of citations and you have zero of your own to back up any of your claims.
 
2013-02-18 04:12:20 PM  

Smackledorfer: Alright, how about this dichotomy: either these companies who claim to know the risk of their business are liars, or they don't know it.


No one knows every risk.  No one pretends to. In fact the term risk is implies some uncertainty. even though some are much easier to predict and/or guard against.  Every set of risks for each site is completely different from others.  Pretending that everything is the same is not sound engineering practice and wouldn't fly from either a professional engineering or a regulatory standpoint.

The industry can't have it both ways.

Sure they can.  They can only do the best as allowed with current technology and information available in order to meet current environmental regulations.  When it comes down to it, it is the environmental regulator's call to determine if these risks are adeqately addressed.  That does not mean that they will never become an issue.  Only that the probability is within acceptable limits or that the impacts can be adequatly mitigated.

giving them an up-front pass to have at it.

Strawman argument.  Where did I do that?

Meanwhile you are biatching at pungent for a lack of citations and you have zero of your own to back up any of your claims.

What claim do you want me to back up?  I was never asked until now.
 
2013-02-18 04:16:05 PM  

HeadLever: PunGent: Problem is, the regs allow...and even encourage...companies to "keep a mine open" so they don't have to mitigate.

I think you are confusing mitigation with reclamation.  Two different topics.  Mitigation does not have to take place after a mine is closed.


Which is part of the problem, isn't it?

Since yer too lazy or dishonest to google, here's a starter for ya:

http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/eacd459aaeabd8ce8525766200639 df 1/67968c8324fd233b8525777d000cbcfb!OpenDocument
 
2013-02-18 04:43:15 PM  

HeadLever: No one knows every risk.


No one is saying they know everything 100%.  You spoke of quantifying risk to a body of water as if it could not be done and lumped it in with aesthetics.  I pointed out that you  absolutelycan measure potential risk and that any decent mining company should have good and reliable measurements of potential collateral damage. Then you went all wishy washy on me, painting me as saying they can 100% know everything all the time or some such rubbish.

HeadLever: Where did I do that?


When you said they can't quantify it? Unless your "how do you quantify risk to a water body" you literally meant it as a real question of how do mining companies perform this assessment.  If that is the case, I suggest you seek the specifics somewhere other than fark. I assumed, and maybe this is making an ass out of myself, that you were implying it cannot be assessed with accuracy.

Are there risks that cannot be foreseen? Yes. 
Do we have a clear history of mining companies (among all sorts of other industry) give two shiats about the environment, not even keeping up with regulations, often flat out lying about the damage they cause until it is too late and they've lined their pockets with cash? Hell yes.

Yet your starting point here is "most mining companies are great, care about people, and are looking out for us. If we find out later shiat went south, it was simply unable to be calculated or hey, its just aesthetic".  I'm sorry, but pretending that pollution of ground water is an aesthetic thing like it is only in the mind of the beholder whether or not it is damaging is flat out ridiculous.
 
2013-02-18 04:52:50 PM  

PunGent: Which is part of the problem, isn't it?


Part of the problem that you can mitigate problems while the mine is open?  Not in the least.

Reclamation is something that is done after a mine is done with disturbing that area.  If a mine may again operate in said area, you don't want to reclaim it as you will be undoing all the work you just did.  If mines are going to be staying in buisness at all, they will tend to want to stay away from wasting money like this.  This seems to be pretty straightforward to me.

Since yer too lazy or dishonest to google, here's a starter for ya:

There was nothing in there that could support you 99% assertion.  It only talked about a small handful of incentives. In addition, it appears that from the info in the article you just posted that many of these subsides have gone away for mining/oil.  From your link:

1)Percentage depletion allowances for petroleum and other minerals, for example, allow companies to write off arbitrary percentage reductions in mineral deposits that result from their operations as expenses. The value of these allowances for the oil and gas industries was estimated at more than $2 billion annually from 1980 to 1982. Its value has since decreased to insignificant levels.

2)Percentage depletion allowances for other minerals were worth over $500 million annually for much of the early 1980s. These allowances, however, fell in value after the 1986 Tax Reform Act.

Yes some of these industries recieve subsidies (actaully, they are more tax breaks than subsidies, but that is another discussion), but they are far from the only ones.  Many industries recieve these same breaks.  For eveyone one of these subsides in this article, I could show a handful of environmenal regulations that mining is subject to and that has the purpose to protect land, water and air.

Ultimatly, responsible mining has its place in society.  We should be very carefult not to simply delegate it to 3rd world countries where environmental and saftey regulations are not existent.
 
2013-02-18 05:09:17 PM  

Smackledorfer: No one is saying they know everything 100%.


Smackledorfer: Alright, how about this dichotomy: either these companies who claim to know the risk of their business are liars, or they don't know it.

You spoke of quantifying risk to a body of water as if it could not be done and lumped it in with aesthetics.


No, my point was that it was tough to quantify from a cost stanpoint and is most often subjective.  I did not make any point about quantifying the risk itself.  Here is my quote:It is just not that, but the fact that many of these costs are subjective.  How do you quantify aesthetic properties or a risk to a water body?   Here I am disussing how to quantify it into monetary terms so that it can be compared to the benifit.  I never said that the risk could not necessarily be quantified but just that the associated cost was very subjective.

Of course you can quantify both aesthetics and risks in many ways.  From a monetary or cost standpoint, it can be very difficult and very subjective.

When you said they can't quantify it? Unless your "how do you quantify risk to a water body" you literally meant it as a real question of how do mining companies perform this assessment.

Then you have not been understanding my point.  See above
 
2013-02-18 06:54:26 PM  

Smackledorfer: Yet your starting point here is "most mining companies are great, care about people, and are looking out for us.


Another strawman argument   Color me shocked.  Is it really that hard for you to post a point that is not saturated in hyperbole?  If you really want to know about how I feel about this, maybe try to understand my point here:

For most of the hard rock mines that I am familiar with, they do a pretty decent job at being an environmental steward.  Yes there are some very bad apples out there and they do tend to tarnish the industry as a whole.

Or here:

Just like the dichotomy within the mining industry, you have those that recognize that this industry it is a benifit/cost analysis and that mines are not necessarily evil entities.  On the other hand you have ideologes that are driven by greed and will suck it up for all it is worth and the truth be damned.

/some folks need to quit being so obtuse
 
2013-02-18 07:10:09 PM  

Smackledorfer: Do we have a clear history of mining companies (among all sorts of other industry) give two shiats about the environment, not even keeping up with regulations, often flat out lying about the damage they cause until it is too late and they've lined their pockets with cash? Hell yes.


And here you are falling into the trap of only seeing mines through the lens of the media.  You never hear about the mines that keep up on their permits and do a good job.  You don't hear about the donations, scholarships and other community services they often provide.  You only hear about the ones that really screw up or screw the environment/employees over.
 
2013-02-18 11:02:46 PM  

PunGent: Rephrasing YOUR quote is a strawman?

Nice self-pwnage there :)


You didn't rephrase my quote. You made up a whole new quote and argument. It was dumb.

Hickory-smoked: A properly run mining operation should not cause permanent damage to the groundwater and ecology. This position is not the same as saying "trees are more important than people."


The people who support this are saying "Good. Trees are more important than people". They're in this thread.
 
2013-02-19 02:50:18 AM  

Mrbogey: PunGent: Rephrasing YOUR quote is a strawman?

Nice self-pwnage there :)

You didn't rephrase my quote. You made up a whole new quote and argument. It was dumb.

Hickory-smoked: A properly run mining operation should not cause permanent damage to the groundwater and ecology. This position is not the same as saying "trees are more important than people."

The people who support this are saying "Good. Trees are more important than people". They're in this thread.


Look closer.
 
2013-02-19 03:22:35 AM  
It might be true that 99 percent of mines may be environmentally resposible. But that 1% can do a fark ton of damage.
 
2013-02-19 06:22:22 AM  

HeadLever: PunGent: Which is part of the problem, isn't it?

Part of the problem that you can mitigate problems while the mine is open?  Not in the least.

Reclamation is something that is done after a mine is done with disturbing that area.  If a mine may again operate in said area, you don't want to reclaim it as you will be undoing all the work you just did.  If mines are going to be staying in buisness at all, they will tend to want to stay away from wasting money like this.  This seems to be pretty straightforward to me.

Since yer too lazy or dishonest to google, here's a starter for ya:

There was nothing in there that could support you 99% assertion.  It only talked about a small handful of incentives. In addition, it appears that from the info in the article you just posted that many of these subsides have gone away for mining/oil.  From your link:

1)Percentage depletion allowances for petroleum and other minerals, for example, allow companies to write off arbitrary percentage reductions in mineral deposits that result from their operations as expenses. The value of these allowances for the oil and gas industries was estimated at more than $2 billion annually from 1980 to 1982. Its value has since decreased to insignificant levels.

2)Percentage depletion allowances for other minerals were worth over $500 million annually for much of the early 1980s. These allowances, however, fell in value after the 1986 Tax Reform Act.

Yes some of these industries recieve subsidies (actaully, they are more tax breaks than subsidies, but that is another discussion), but they are far from the only ones.  Many industries recieve these same breaks.  For eveyone one of these subsides in this article, I could show a handful of environmenal regulations that mining is subject to and that has the purpose to protect land, water and air.

Ultimatly, responsible mining has its place in society.  We should be very carefult not to simply delegate it to 3rd world countries where environmental a ...


$2 billion is a small handful?  and that was just one link, first thing up.  Whatever, shill.

Hope you're getting paid for all your hard work.

"The most difficult thing in the world is getting a man to understand something when his paycheck depends on NOT understanding it."
 
2013-02-19 06:24:32 AM  

HeadLever: Smackledorfer: Alright, how about this dichotomy: either these companies who claim to know the risk of their business are liars, or they don't know it.

No one knows every risk.  No one pretends to. In fact the term risk is implies some uncertainty. even though some are much easier to predict and/or guard against.  Every set of risks for each site is completely different from others.  Pretending that everything is the same is not sound engineering practice and wouldn't fly from either a professional engineering or a regulatory standpoint.

The industry can't have it both ways.

Sure they can.  They can only do the best as allowed with current technology and information available in order to meet current environmental regulations.


Except when they don't.   Google regulatory capture...of course, since you're too lazy too look up anything else...
 
2013-02-19 06:28:31 AM  

HeadLever: PunGent: If you're one of those retards who think "environmentalists run everything", no amount of facts will change your mind anyway.

And to pick on this argument just a little bit more, you have to realize that there are different camps of environmentalism.  On one side of the spectrum, tou have the true environmentallis that spend their time actively involved in mitigation, reclaimation and other projects to improve the environment and then on the other spectrum you have the BANANA/NIMBY folks that really don't care about the environment as a whole.  Just like the dichotomy within the mining industry, you have those that recognize that this industry it is a benifit/cost analysis and that mines are not necessarily evil entities.  On the other hand you have ideologes that are driven by greed and will suck it up for all it is worth and the truth be damned.


Now that statement, I largely agree with.

I think where we mainly disagree is in the relative proportions of the two sub-populations.

We've all heard from the "fracking can do no harm" folks here, ad nauseum...but not the recent article about the company dumping used frack water straight into the local water supply.

Turns out the company had more than 100 violations, so it's not like this is a NEW problem.

As Old Enough posted, one mine/company can do a LOT of damage.

One environmentalist?  not so much.
 
2013-02-19 11:11:57 AM  

PunGent: $2 billion is a small handful?


Which has since been reduced to 'insiginificant levels'.  Did you happen to read the next sentence?  I find it interesting that you cherry pick out what you want to see without understanding the context that these items are no longer in effect.  Shill indeed.

Hope you're getting paid for all your hard work.

I was thinking the same thing about you.
 
2013-02-19 11:13:36 AM  

PunGent: Except when they don't.


What they can do is not indicative of whay they do or do not act upon.  I have already addressed this upthread.
 
2013-02-19 11:20:12 AM  

PunGent: We've all heard from the "fracking can do no harm" folks here, ad nauseum...


Where?  This seems to be another strawman agument.  You seem to be really good at those as you and Smackledorfer are the only ones that brought this up.  However, for addressing the actual points I have made; not so much.

I hope you are not addressing this to be something simliar to my argument, because this has nothing to do with any point that I have made.  In fact, I have been pretty clear that I belive that we need to guard against these types of environmental pollution issues.  As I have already stated, some of these companies are less than reputable when it comes to these issues.  They need to be held accountable.
 
2013-02-19 02:03:03 PM  

HeadLever: PunGent: $2 billion is a small handful?

Which has since been reduced to 'insiginificant levels'.  Did you happen to read the next sentence?  I find it interesting that you cherry pick out what you want to see without understanding the context that these items are no longer in effect.  Shill indeed.

Hope you're getting paid for all your hard work.

I was thinking the same thing about you.


As I mentioned, I own extraction and energy stocks...they've done quite well by me, since the Gulf War.

I just don't see the need to pretend they're GOOD for the environment, unlike some industry cheerleaders.
 
2013-02-19 05:45:27 PM  

PunGent: I just don't see the need to pretend they're GOOD for the environment, unlike some industry cheerleaders.


Good.  Me neither.

I do like to see them do what they can to minimize and mitigate impacts, though.  I think that most would agree with that.
 
2013-02-19 07:19:22 PM  

foxyshadis: Wait, Greeks are blaming this on environmentalists? In a nation where normal people have become rioting anarchists because of the intense austerity measures basically forced onto them from Germany? It was most likely their own workers pissed off, or out-of-work ones pissed at the ones who were working.


It was forced because the Germans are sicking sick and tired of paying for Greece's fiscal mismanagment.  Tax evasion in Greece is on the level of a national sport.   Everybody wants something for free, but no one wants to pay for it and and there's that added fun of their habit of rioting when they are told "no, you can't have another cookie".
 
2013-02-19 08:47:47 PM  

OgreMagi: foxyshadis: Wait, Greeks are blaming this on environmentalists? In a nation where normal people have become rioting anarchists because of the intense austerity measures basically forced onto them from Germany? It was most likely their own workers pissed off, or out-of-work ones pissed at the ones who were working.

It was forced because the Germans are sicking sick and tired of paying for Greece's fiscal mismanagment.  Tax evasion in Greece is on the level of a national sport.   Everybody wants something for free, but no one wants to pay for it and and there's that added fun of their habit of rioting when they are told "no, you can't have another cookie".


Oh, I don't dispute that. It just seems odd to blame it on a boogeyman when the whole country is so angry.
 
2013-02-20 05:25:56 AM  

foxyshadis: OgreMagi: foxyshadis: Wait, Greeks are blaming this on environmentalists? In a nation where normal people have become rioting anarchists because of the intense austerity measures basically forced onto them from Germany? It was most likely their own workers pissed off, or out-of-work ones pissed at the ones who were working.

It was forced because the Germans are sicking sick and tired of paying for Greece's fiscal mismanagment.  Tax evasion in Greece is on the level of a national sport.   Everybody wants something for free, but no one wants to pay for it and and there's that added fun of their habit of rioting when they are told "no, you can't have another cookie".

Oh, I don't dispute that. It just seems odd to blame it on a boogeyman when the whole country is so angry.


Everyone in Greece can and has been wrong before, even violently so. Popularity doesn't change reality.

/well, except the reality of whether you get murdered tomorrow for having one goat while your neighbor has none
//remember the story of the genie and the goat, and how the guy that wished his neighbor's goat would die, instead of wishing for a million goats for himself, is seen as the selfless hero of the story in the Mediterranean
 
Displayed 155 of 155 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report