Dogmatix
Active Member
I think there are a few issues here with these arguments.
Mining in general is destructive. We're taking mostly finite resources and relocating them, often overseas. This is point number one, depletion of finite resources.
Point number two is this idea of compensation for depleting finite resources. Some propose a super profits tax in order to compensate. But who does the extra money go to? Through taxation it is the Government, and 'theoretically' through the Government to the people.
However... point two does not solve point one.
There are many ways to solve point one, for instance restricting mining tenements, perhaps even constructing a 'sustainable mining' plan for the entire country so that mining is done more gradually. This could count for all finite assets, even PMs, energy, etc.
Point two is a socio-political issue. Are we communists? Capitalists? Socialists? What are we? Is it right to demand monetary compensation right now for a problem that will affect future generations? Will the Government save and invest this money so that it can buy resources back at sometime in the future if it had to, or simply just to benefit the future generations in another way? (um, hell no, they'll spend it like water).
No wonder the issue is so damned contentious. You've got both sides of the argument trying to solve the problem of sustainability with 'free markets' vs 'compensation'. Free markets obviously don't work, they'll take every ounce, drop or joule if they can make a profit from it. And compensation doesn't work as it hampers legitimate mining organisations in uncompetitive ways.
Unfortunately... we'll never get sustainability. The capitalist model of 'growth growth growth' means that we crave capital investment, more profits, bigger mining industries, terminal prosperity...
We can also think of these arguments as short-term vs long-term. The 'free markets' argument is short-term thinking. We'll be okay tomorrow, next year, next decade, maybe longer. The 'compensation' argument is long-term thinking with little consideration to the pointlessness of Government taxation and spending.
No-one is right, no-one is even close. But the real solution won't be implemented due to human greed. So what now?
Mining in general is destructive. We're taking mostly finite resources and relocating them, often overseas. This is point number one, depletion of finite resources.
Point number two is this idea of compensation for depleting finite resources. Some propose a super profits tax in order to compensate. But who does the extra money go to? Through taxation it is the Government, and 'theoretically' through the Government to the people.
However... point two does not solve point one.
There are many ways to solve point one, for instance restricting mining tenements, perhaps even constructing a 'sustainable mining' plan for the entire country so that mining is done more gradually. This could count for all finite assets, even PMs, energy, etc.
Point two is a socio-political issue. Are we communists? Capitalists? Socialists? What are we? Is it right to demand monetary compensation right now for a problem that will affect future generations? Will the Government save and invest this money so that it can buy resources back at sometime in the future if it had to, or simply just to benefit the future generations in another way? (um, hell no, they'll spend it like water).
No wonder the issue is so damned contentious. You've got both sides of the argument trying to solve the problem of sustainability with 'free markets' vs 'compensation'. Free markets obviously don't work, they'll take every ounce, drop or joule if they can make a profit from it. And compensation doesn't work as it hampers legitimate mining organisations in uncompetitive ways.
Unfortunately... we'll never get sustainability. The capitalist model of 'growth growth growth' means that we crave capital investment, more profits, bigger mining industries, terminal prosperity...
We can also think of these arguments as short-term vs long-term. The 'free markets' argument is short-term thinking. We'll be okay tomorrow, next year, next decade, maybe longer. The 'compensation' argument is long-term thinking with little consideration to the pointlessness of Government taxation and spending.
No-one is right, no-one is even close. But the real solution won't be implemented due to human greed. So what now?