Hacker News Reader

Comment by r00fus | Hacker News Reader

It'll be interesting to see how fast banning the pollution results in water quality changes.

Likely not that fast. Waste piles and water flowing out of abandoned mines will continue to mess up water for many years after a mine closes.

Or how fast massive sudden un-employment results in riots. Fast change like this is bound to have side-effects.

> But mining accounts for a minimal portion of their economies and jobs, a recent study by various NGOs showed.

Which of course is great when you're sitting in your NGO provided air-conditioned office. But a few tens of thousands of miners might disagree with the definition of 'minimal'. For them it likely was all of their income.

I'm all for change like this but I would prefer a more gradual approach. Such as 'no new people are allowed to be hired for mining' or other more or less automatic mechanisms.

It seems to be a bad deal to get a few thousand jobs at the cost of severe damage to the environment and public health, while all the money is shifted out of the country.

Agreed. But given the level of social security in El Salvador it will definitely cause some problems. The problem is the latter: all the money being removed from their economy (as well as the resources, the value of which is only going up). This goes for almost all resource rich countries South of the equator with the exception of Australia and New-Zealand.

Colonialism is far from over, it just wears a corporate suit these days.

The bill is finally coming in the mail for 90s globalism, a dilettante movement with no regard for the future and an eye on stock market profits, the question is who is going to pay for it [1].

It's going to happen again when people realize that making Snapchat one of the most valuable stocks will torpedo the whole market and will make Pets.com look like someone spilled their drink.

[1](I am American and can clearly see that we are the ones who should shoulder this blame, and under Trump the lower half will in one way or another)

A few thousands jobs at very poor and dangerous conditions. While the owners for the foreign companies that exploit the mines get 99% of the profits. Really bad deal.

The question, though, is: will even a bad deal prove to have been preferable to no deal?

Great question. Luckily we have examples by which to judge, e.g.: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/mar/08/usa-mining-lib...

> On Friday, May 8, 2009, W.R. Grace & Co. was acquitted of charges that it knowingly harmed the people of Libby, Montana. It was also acquitted of subsequently participating in any cover-up.

Christ, there really is no justice with these corps.

It took me about a minute of Googling to learn that they did do a gradual approach. They stopped issuing permits a decade ago, which led to a mining company trying (unsuccessfully) to sue them: https://www.iisd.org/itn/2009/08/31/el-salvador-government-c...

Nope. Mining companies in Central America are universally (removed: disliked) hated, and everyone knows that they exploit the country, environment and people while extracting all profits out of the country. Guatemala hasn't gone as far as El Salvador, but it's coming.

Like everywhere else there is mining. But how will they compensate the miners? I don't care one bit for the mining companies but those miners will have to eat somehow.

The economy in Central America is very different that the United States, especially around jobs. A lot of these mines are in rural, mountainous areas where the miners would otherwise be growing corn or working as day laborers on other farms. These aren't people that became destitute overnight, and in the long-term, it likely saved their lives.

> These aren't people that became destitute overnight, and in the long-term, it likely saved their lives.

That I totally believe. But the miners are not so stupid that they would not be doing day labor or growing corn if it compensated them in the same way.

Consider that a subsistence economy is largely lacking in currency, so jobs that pay cash are certainly more attractive that working your own corn field. But I've talked to a lot of people that work at the mines. They aren't attached to their jobs, but they'll do it while it (or they) are still around.

You make $2 a day working in a farm. I'll pay you $3 a day to poison the river that irrigates the farm.

Is the job I'm offering you a net gain for your community? It's certainly a net gain to you, and me...

Most likely small, artisanal illegal mines

FTA: "But mining accounts for a minimal portion of their economies and jobs, a recent study by various NGOs showed."

Yes, sorry I was still editing that. This is obviously the NGO's point of view which is different from the miners point of view.

Passing a law like this is no small feat; it probably had lots of support from the population countering all the corporate pressure against it.

Upon some research, seems like even the catholic church was in favour [1], which is what gave it the final push. I doubt this will cause problems to the level of starting riots; rioting against the government is one thing, but having your church and larger community against your cause definitely makes it lose momentum.

[1] http://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-america-latina-39451498

Though El Salvador is no stranger to having popular governments overthrown by corporate interests.

Sure, the miners are going to be unhappy. But "massive" is not a subjective judgment; I trust the NGOs on the numbers, and if so the miners are not a large enough population that their firing is a threat to social order.

Re-employ them all to rehabilitate the land. Could take decades.

Who will pay?

They have lots of seized mining equipment to auction off.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com