Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: roo_ster on July 25, 2011, 08:48:25 AM
-
http://www.davidmcelroy.org/?p=1586
...Ronnie Bryant wasn’t there to talk about that particular mine. As a mine operator in a nearby area, he was attending the meeting to listen to what residents and government officials were saying. He listened to close to two hours of people trashing companies of all types and blaming pollution for random cases of cancer in their families. Several speakers clearly believe that all of the cancer and other deaths they see in their families and communities must be caused by pollution. Why? Who knows? Maybe just because it makes for an emotional story to blame big bad business. It’s hard to say.
Mine owner up & says, "I quit." I can't say I blame him.
-
Interesting read. As the businessman himself mentions, the amount of money changing hands and employment that 'could have been' might make some of these people think twice about doing things that drive away these businesses.
-
He can't quit. The Commerce Clause says that quitting will effect interstate commerce, so he can't quit.
Some from some alphabet agency will soon be busting down his door, and carrying him off in chains to sit in his offife and fill out forms to hire all those unwashed masses yearning to be washed with his money.
Anybody wanna give me odds against this scenario?
stay safe.
-
He can't quit. The Commerce Clause says that quitting will effect interstate commerce, so he can't quit.
Some from some alphabet agency will soon be busting down his door, and carrying him off in chains to sit in his offife and fill out forms to hire all those unwashed masses yearning to be washed with his money.
Anybody wanna give me odds against this scenario?
stay safe.
If he were running an emergency room, it is not quite that bad, but it is getting close.
-
same story plays out all over its why an owner is entitled to a decent profit. he really earns/deserves it.
west va 30 years ago a guy started helping "special needs folks" what they called the retarded back then. he trained em to work at making shoes. picked em up in a bus trained em fed and paid them. all was well till he got too sucessful. and the union found out. they had him investigated and shut down. can't have him competing with the union shops
-
How dare people complain about mines polluting their groundwater and causing cancer - don't they know there's no individual or property right to be free from other people's contaminating activities?
The founding fathers wouldn't have sat around complaining about poison in their groundwater - they'd have just said "there is no right to stop people from polluting your property!" and moved on
-
How dare people complain about mines polluting their groundwater and causing cancer - don't they know there's no individual or property right to be free from other people's contaminating activities?
The odds of anybody in that room, except for the mine operator, having any idea what the current rules and regulations, and what the potential (realistic) problems are is minimal.
You get a lot of people showing up to these meetings just looking out for their own interests without any idea as to what's really going on. And they love to whine. Been there, done that.
When we were in front of the board to build a new greenhouse we had this. A woman showed up to express concern about her well going dry if we built in her area. On the surface it sounds like a valid concern. Greenhouses use water. We tried to explain that we'll have a total of three wells, not one of which will be capable of pumping any more water than a standard residential well. One will be used for plant material, the other will be backup, and the third will only be used for drinking water as that will have to be certified by the health department for human consumption. Plus we were planning on using city water for the whole thing anyway so there's no need for any concern.
Oh, and there was already a well on the plot of land that the previous farmer used to irrigate his 105 acres of crops with. So, the water usage was already there.
What was left unstated is that we'd personally have felt horrible if we dried up the water source, plus we'd lose $X million in live plant material if that ever happened, so we're gonna made frog damned sure that never happens.
Alas, she showed up to the next meeting with the same concerns expecting the township to do something about a potential problem that nobody thinks is real. But, it was real to her.
Now, I don't really blame her. It's a valid concern when you don't have all the facts in front of you. Why she came back, I don't know. Perhaps I'm not remembering us giving a proper public explanation in front of her. It is very possible. Or she might just not have trusted us, and that's fine too. I harbor no ill-will against her either way. She was worried about her home and I respect that.
But, that's just one person. We had others with nonsense objections too. It wears on you, and this was just trying to build a darned greenhouse! It's not exactly much of a potentially earth-raping adventure compared to a mining operation. I can only imagine the BS this guy heard spewed.
With having said all that, do you have any specific objections to that proposed mining project De Selby? Actual knowledge of how the mine would work, what the environmental impact would be, etc.? Or are you just making a knee jerk response?
-
Of course none of those complaining people ever use any of the modern products made possible by various mining operations. ;/
-
Of course none of those complaining people ever use any of the modern products made possible by various mining operations. ;/
Of course not!
And then they get on the 'net and whine about the evil mega-corps on their Microsoft powered Dell computer communicating through a Cisco router to a network owned by Time Warner that connects to AT&T's backbone and let everybody know how the evil corporations are ruining our lives! All they do is TAKE TAKE TAKE. Evil bastards.
I'd elaborate more but I just got a message on my Motorola made phone powered by Google's Android OS via the Verizon Wireless system about the latest incident of corporate eviltude. TTYL and LOL!!!
-
And then they get on the 'net and whine about the evil mega-corps on their Microsoft powered Dell computer communicating through a Cisco router to a network owned by Time Warner that connects to AT&T's backbone and let everybody know how the evil corporations are ruining our lives! All they do is TAKE TAKE TAKE. Evil bastards.
You left out the fact that all this is powered by coal-based electricity.
-
You left out the fact that all this is powered by coal-based electricity.
Oh no - all of mine comes from bird-killing windmills :angel: =D
-
thank you Rooster, awesome!
-
With having said all that, do you have any specific objections to that proposed mining project De Selby? Actual knowledge of how the mine would work, what the environmental impact would be, etc.? Or are you just making a knee jerk response?
The point was about the right to object (even based on irrational arguments) because of the property rights involved. That's what the free market would demand - you can't force someone to let you dump pollution in their space. You can only ask for their agreement and have them accept it on their terms.
I find it interesting that the concept of property goes right out the window when it comes to development/corporate interests with the "free market" crowd. Suddenly, the relative stupidity of people's arguments about their water or their soil or the air that crosses their land matters very much, and their property rights take a back seat to sensible development.
Try to apply that principle to the mine itself (ie, it may be silly to have a mine that only profits one group of shareholders while poisoning the entire county), and you'll find the free market principles revived. Like magic.
-
The point was about the right to object (even based on irrational arguments) because of the property rights involved. That's what the free market would demand - you can't force someone to let you dump pollution in their space. You can only ask for their agreement and have them accept it on their terms.
I find it interesting that the concept of property goes right out the window when it comes to development/corporate interests with the "free market" crowd. Suddenly, the relative stupidity of people's arguments about their water or their soil or the air that crosses their land matters very much, and their property rights take a back seat to sensible development.
Try to apply that principle to the mine itself (ie, it may be silly to have a mine that only profits one group of shareholders while poisoning the entire county), and you'll find the free market principles revived. Like magic.
What you're not getting is that those who objected are doing so without much basis or fact to go on. Free market private property decisions are useless without jobs to earn a living in.
-
The point was about the right to object (even based on irrational arguments) because of the property rights involved. That's what the free market would demand - you can't force someone to let you dump pollution in their space. You can only ask for their agreement and have them accept it on their terms.
I find it interesting that the concept of property goes right out the window when it comes to development/corporate interests with the "free market" crowd. Suddenly, the relative stupidity of people's arguments about their water or their soil or the air that crosses their land matters very much, and their property rights take a back seat to sensible development.
Try to apply that principle to the mine itself (ie, it may be silly to have a mine that only profits one group of shareholders while poisoning the entire county), and you'll find the free market principles revived. Like magic.
And it's right to be concerned about shared resources and externalities.
However, I rarely hear those concerns as to how to protect those resources and prevent externalities during times of public debate. Instead what is heard is opposition to the business opening at all. Not mitigation of externalities, not concerns for how it can be set up so as to protect shared resource, but to prevent the use of the private property of someone else.
-
The point was about the right to object (even based on irrational arguments) because of the property rights involved. That's what the free market would demand - you can't force someone to let you dump pollution in their space. You can only ask for their agreement and have them accept it on their terms.
I find it interesting that the concept of property goes right out the window when it comes to development/corporate interests with the "free market" crowd. Suddenly, the relative stupidity of people's arguments about their water or their soil or the air that crosses their land matters very much, and their property rights take a back seat to sensible development.
Try to apply that principle to the mine itself (ie, it may be silly to have a mine that only profits one group of shareholders while poisoning the entire county), and you'll find the free market principles revived. Like magic.
1. You make the assumption in the first paragraph that anyone would be dumping pollution. You have no idea what they are doing or will do. You know nothing about the environmental controls in place at the mines or what pollution actually occurs.
2. In the 2nd paragraph, you make no mention of the property and ownership rights of the "corporate interests". Those people you are talking about probably happily sold their mineral rights to the "corporate interest" then complain when they want to mine them.
3. In your 3rd paragraph, you again assume the mine will "poison the entire county" with no basis for making that assumption. "Like magic" I guess.
I have no problem with basic environmental controls to limit pollution and require proper disposal of waste. However, a big portion of the requirements are "fees" and excessive paperwork that do nothing to limit pollution or control releases of pollutants.
-
De Selby does have a point.
It is not unreasonable for people to object to things like this - given how often it has turned out that a company / an individuals promise not to pollute (or that the mine is safe to work in) ends up being worthless, and how difficult it is to get any kind of compensation off them as a result. After all, you can only fool so many people for a certain amount of time.
-
De Selby does have a point.
It is not unreasonable for people to object to things like this - given how often it has turned out that a company / an individuals promise not to pollute (or that the mine is safe to work in) ends up being worthless, and how difficult it is to get any kind of compensation off them as a result. After all, you can only fool so many people for a certain amount of time.
Ok. How often does that happen?
-
People getting screwed by companies, or De Selby having a valid point?
The first, not a statistically significant amount when compared to the number of transaction between folks and business, but enough that it's worth keeping in mind and protecting against when dealing with large companies.
The second, not a statistically significant amount when compared to his total post count, but often enough it's till worth reading and thinking about his posts.
-
Ok. How often does that happen?
How often to mining concerns pollute? Quite often:
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2011/01/hope_coal_fined_for_pollution.html
If its "how often do they pollute and then screw everyone over", well thats less common - but the impact that such events have (in terms of bad PR) is usually that much greater than it would be if they admitted fault at once and made restitution.
-
How often to mining concerns pollute? Quite often:
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2011/01/hope_coal_fined_for_pollution.html
If its "how often do they pollute and then screw everyone over", well thats less common - but the impact that such events have (in terms of bad PR) is usually that much greater than it would be if they admitted fault at once and made restitution.
Anecdote != data.
-
Whether the pollution caused is harmful is one thing; that it happens is beyond any reasonable dispute.
If property is so sacred and people shouldn't be forced to ingest/consume things they don't want to, why should they have to prove that those pollutants are harmful?
Yes, there is an obvious economic benefit to ignoring people's irrational complaints, but how does that square with market ideology? And, as Agricola points out, it is entirely reasonable for people to worry about this without having a scientific understanding of what happens.
Digging metals out of the ground causes pollution, always has, and does so over large areas. Arguing the specifics of how harmful that is won't change it. But that's not really the issue, at least, if youre committed to property rights.
-
If the pollution always happens, and is beyond reasonable dispute, then I would argue that the people accepted it when they sold their mineral rights to the mine. After all, what did they think was going to happen when the mine bought them?
I would also point out that, barring a catastrophe, almost all the mining pollution caused these days is confined to property the mine either owns, or has bought the rights to, precisly because of the property rights argument you are proposing.
-
I was going to post earlier, then got tied up in something else. Rather than argue the same points, I'll instead point to a timely column last night by Victor Davis Hanson about a closely related subject.
The column is here (http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson072511.html).
It seems like the mine in question is guilty until proven innocent, which, of course, can never happen.
-
Assuming this community is anything like the (former) coal mining communities I'm familiar with, the people there have no desire to leave the area yet have no economic prospects. Their dying town only exists at all because of a few basic legal service industries and illicit drug production, all of which are all fed from the top by social security, welfare, and to a far lesser extent the meager savings of a few elderly folks.
Fighting off the potential for gainful employment and significant business investment is a luxury they can afford only because most don't work anyway, and the few that do rely on their services being paid for using redistributed taxes instead of earned wages.
I'm not up in arms that people have the option to oppose a new mine that might contaminate their land. However I'm not at all happy that our entitlement system is set up in such a way that entire regions parasitically feeding from the public trough becomes perpetually more attractive than a significant chance at a return to prosperity through commercial development.
-
Oh no - all of mine comes from bird-killing windmills :angel: =D
I am proud to say that mine comes from salmon-grinding hydroelectric dams!
-
Mine comes from a nuclear reactor that turns sparrows into pterodactyls, and allows me to use a glass of tap water as a flashlight.
-
Mine comes from a nuclear reactor that turns sparrows into pterodactyls, and allows me to use a glass of tap water as a flashlight.
I used to get my power from one of those - when I worked at such a place - but I moved and now I'm pretty sure my local power purveyor burns dirty black rocks to push electrons through the wires.
I could be wrong, though, they might be burning petroleum derivatives of some kind.
-
When it comes to mines and mining companies, it does behoove one to give their requests the ol' hairy eyeball. I did a bit of digging using links from Rooster's article and kept following links from there. It looks like they want to operate a strip mine.
The EPA and the mining company say it can be done safely. Saying it can and actually doing it are two different things. Mining companies have a history of acting in their own best interests to the detriment of the communities they operate within. Even when they do things right, their mines can be detrimental to the locale.
Not an exhaustive list, but just a couple examples I found with a quick google search:
Slurry impoundment flood: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Creek_Flood
Revisting The Appalachian Coalfield: http://www.deepdownfilm.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=86%3Arevisiting-the-appalachian-coalfield&catid=43%3Ageneral&Itemid=87
There are more than 713 coal refuse impoundments in the United States, most in West Virginia and Kentucky. In 1972 the bulkhead of one such coal waste lake broke, releasing millions of gallons of black, poisonous slurry down Buffalo Creek Hollow, killing 125 people, injuring more than 1,000, and leaving 4,000 homeless. On October 11, 2000, in Inez, Martin County, Kentucky, a Massey Energy coal impoundment broke through the ground, flooding a worked-out mine below and pouring 250 million gallons of slurry into the Tug Fork of the Big Sandy River. The river flooded over its banks, covering backyards and local roads, ruining property, killing the fish, and contaminating community water supplies for 30 miles. More than 900 feet in height and permitted to hold more than 8 billion gallons of coal slurry, the Brushy Fork impoundment near the town of Whitesville has been listed as a "high hazard potential" by the Mine Safety and Health Administration.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to mine or that the protesters don't have ulterior motives, but I'm not sure I'd side with the Mine based on what I saw in that article.
Chris
-
I grew up in Illinois across the Illinois river from an area that had been strip mined.
You should see it, hundreds of duck ponds/lakes full of hunting and fishing. Boy, they RAVAGED that land.
-
I grew up in Illinois across the Illinois river from an area that had been strip mined.
You should see it, hundreds of duck ponds/lakes full of hunting and fishing. Boy, they RAVAGED that land.
You're lucky. I've seen places that didn't get that treatment. The point is, folks should be wary of mining operations. The jobs are needed, the coal is needed, but the damage done *can* be permanent. A little money isn't much solace if your house is washed away or sinks into the ground or your drinking water is poisoned by chemicals leaching from impoundment ponds. It never hurts to ask questions and make sure the appropriate controls (with negative feedback mechanisms if said controls aren't utilized) are in place.
But I'm just a patchouli-smelling tree hugger that way.
Chris
-
First, I am not saying we should not be wary. I was thinking of raft of people mentioned in the OP who were universally blaming the mine for every bad thing their lives with no proof and everyone in the room who isn't an idiot knows it is BS. Those people should be told to sit down and shut up until they have something useful to say. Stuff like that wastes time which should be spent dealing with the actual pollution issues.
I work in chemical plants. I do think the environmental enforcement and permitting process is a good thing. I do think people should pay attention. In this industry at least, things have improved a very great deal in the last 30 or 40 years as air permitting and spill control and clean up have improved a great deal.
-
I am proud to say that mine comes from salmon-grinding hydroelectric dams!
At least you don;t have to eat your salmon paste raw.