Hacker News Reader

> The only way to prevent it is to raise the standard of living in these African countries so that no one would consider taking a mining job there in their current form.

South african miners in 2012 tried to raise their standard of living from 500usd to 1500usd per month; 47 people died[0] and I don't think any real change took place; sad.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marikana_killings

> The only way to prevent it is to raise the standard of living in these African countries so that no one would consider taking a mining job there in their current form.

I just don’t agree with that. There are many ways to improve this situation. Apple has done a lot to improve their supply chains and the conditions workers work there. As far as I know, Apple has gotten completely rid of child labor for their products because of its high standards. If more companies would take that stance, there would a lot less child labor in total. Although I believe Apple made a pretty big difference because of its size.

Furthermore, the government should regulat how imported goods and raw materials should be mined. They should have clear guidelines what is allowed and what is not for raw materials. There should not be a loophole for the supply chain. Every company chooses their supply chain and is thus responsible. If every company suddenly demands that their supply chain will not employ children and use safer techniques in their mines, the supply chain will make sure demands are met.

Employing such regulations is not unheard of either. The US government already is pretty strict about bribery in foreign countries, so they should be able to place similar regulations. Enforcing such a regulation can be hard but it is possible. If companies cheat, they will get chaught eventuall and if they are fined appropriately, it should not be worth the risk.

Even getting right and left wing people to vote for that should be easy. The right wing can use that regulation to keep the mines in the country and protect jobs, and the left wing can say it is better for the environment and humanity this way. The real problem are lobbies, though. There are a lot of companies which would suffer from that a lot and they are willing to spend a lot of money on lobbing. Maybe Apple, combined with Tesla and other environmental responsible companies can make a difference.

Just hoping that the standard in another countries suddenly improves a lot is not enough. We have no control over that country and many thing can prevent that. Furthermore, this just shifts the mining to another country and it will continue there. By applying regulations which set standards how materials can be mined, including requiring a living wage for that country, Afria has a good way to raise their overall standard.

Sure but the best way to get government to enact regulations is to have citizens who want the government to enact such regulations. And the best way to get citizens to care is to raise their standard of living.

Studies have found that caring seems to start at about a GDP per capita of $10K or so.

I meant that western government (US, and Europe) enact such regulations for imported goods.

> And the best way to get citizens to care is to raise their standard of living.

As in other countries should raise their standard of living? Or internally?

Would you share those studies?

Seems intuitive that there is a minimum threshold of confort for political participation

Both minimum and maximum levels of comfort (bread & circuses).

> is to have citizens who want the government to enact such regulations

The depends on the size of the coalition that the government's power depends on. If the government needs the support 25% of voting citizens (a majority of legislators, each elected by a majority of constituents), then the citizens can likely pruessure their government to do something.

If the government's power depends on 300 high-ranking administrators and military officers, then it would be stupid of a ruler to enact such legislation. Doing so would reduce the amount of money flowing into government coffers and would threaten their ability to lavishly reward the generals. That could lead to a coup and to the death of the ruler.

The problem with this stance in regaurds to mining of minerals and other commodities, is that they are commodities. Apple not buying say coltan from an african conflict zone does very little to move the needle on price or demand for the products of said places, because commodies are fundamentally fungible. Unless every company/nation chooses to do the same, its like trying to divide up and keep track of water molecules in a cup, the reduced demand from apple is filled by firms that would have otherwise bought from the suppliers that apple is using instead.

> Places like Cobalt, the tar sands in Alberta, or Siberian nuclear test sites are basically uninhabitable without shipping food and fuel in from afar, so it doesn't bother me that they're ecological disasters.

Those things have destroyed enormous watersheds though. A lot of the largest rivers and lakes in Canada are now highly polluted to the point where it's not safe to eat the fish.

There are literally places in Canada that are so remote that no one has ever been there, but so polluted they are uninhabitable.

That's the key thing here - everything's connected. You can rarely contain pollution well enough that you can say 'yeah let's revisit that in 100 years, it'll be fine'.

Often these places that are polluted are really only diluted as the waste moves from one central location to wherever watersheds take it, destroying life as it goes. This is the problem. The tar sands are an ecological disaster! They are not contained.

Mining is currently threatening Lake Superior watersheds -- both on the Michigan and the Minnesotan shores. I don't have as much information about the Canadian shore and watersheds.

It's also threatening the Boundary Waters of Minnesota/Canada -- a famed nature-intense recreation area.

In many of these projects, companies want to mine lower grade sulfate ores. This creates a tremendous problem of acidification, which leaches all sorts of things and especially heavy metals from the tailings. Things that disperse into the environment and never go away. And that, history demonstrates, are practically impossible to contain.

Mitigation plans are written on 50 and some magical 500 year plans. Neither of which suffice with respect to the continuing presence of the toxic byproduct. Not to mention, that most companies don't even survive the lesser timeframe, and that they have always chosen to spend money on lawyers to evade their obligations rather than on cleanup costs -- until coerced, and if there are even any non-disbursed company funds left to pay for same.

I think our next generation energy resources development is essential. But along with it should come 100% recycling of the metals and as much other involved materials, as possible.

Governments should also insist on pro-actively funded mitigation trusts that exist separate from both company and government and cannot be "raided" by other for other expenditures.

How that competes with extra-territorial, natural resource poisoning competition? Well, that's a corner that the U.S. and Canada, among many others, have well painted themselves into.

P.S. I forgot to mention Wisconsin, sharing the south shore with Michigan. A proposed mine there threatened (threatens -- have they really given up?) the Bad River Reservation including the Reservation's wild rice beds. And if you think "what's a little wild rice?", well, aside from treaty obligations (are we really going to continue to break those?), consider it a harbinger of broader impact, as well as taking away self-sufficiency and cultural heritage from a chronically, coercively disadvantaged population.

And consider that, long term, the environment holds much more opportunity -- including essential health -- than a mine that will ruin same while exporting most of its economic gains outside the community.

>> A lot of the largest rivers and lakes in Canada are now highly polluted to the point where it's not safe to eat the fish.

Here are the six longest rivers in Canada. Please indicate which are so polluted that they are unsafe to fish from because of pollution from mining or oil extraction:

1. Mackenzie River

2. Yukon River

3. St. Lawrence River

4. Nelson River

5. Slave River

6. Columbia River

Hint: none of them.

I'd also like to know more about these uninhabitable places that no one has ever been to.

I was talking about pollution in remote areas in general, not specifically about mining or oil. But this article about mercury from hydroelectric dams in Canada is a good example, where many Innuit now have elevated levels of mercury so can no longer eat the fish, which had been their main food source for thousands of years:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/world/canada/clean-energy...

Sounds like your talking about Elliot Lake. (I'm in Sudbury).

After the boom, Elliot Lake rebranded itself as a retirement community with some measure of success. It hilarious to see the cost of housing there. A 3 bed, 2 bath house built in the 70's goes for $75K. But good luck trying to sell it.

That being said, I like the town. A lake in the middle of town with a natural beach, hiking, bike, cross country ski trails at your doorstop. Minutes away from great fishing, hunting, ATV'ing.. Its an outdoor persons paradise. I have a recurring dream of doing a startup, and attracting tech workers to the area. Imagine the money you could save while I enjoying a very high standard of living. Granted, those attracted to the idea would be 'seasoned', as the lack of access to major events would be a big negative for some.

In the meantime, I'll stay in Sudbury, making 60% of what I should be making, but enjoying the outdoors at my doorstep.

" Its an outdoor persons paradise. "

For 5 months out of the year. Unless you enjoy cold weather outdoor activity as well.

(Grew up in Sudbury, tried to leave the cold for good, ended up back in Ontario but further south.)

LOL. You'll be back. Sudbury is a blackhole. Nobody escapes :D

But you have a very valid point. I like winter, the seasons, but winter itself, up here, is very long and can be quite harsh. The flipside is, we tend to stay inside with our appliances and get work done.

> I have a recurring dream of doing a startup, and attracting tech workers to the area.

I've had the same idea but for Maine. There are all these old, closed-down lumber and paper mills right near the ocean, islands, lakes, and mountains. I would love to bring a startup there to so I could do interesting work and have such close proximity to an awesome outdoor environment.

I've worked with some people in Massachusetts who chose it for exactly those reasons. There are plenty of tech companies in the suburban areas around Boston, and the parks are (supposedly) fantastic.

Young people move out to the sticks in many industries, especially at the start of their careers (for example, teachers, doctors, nurses, and police often have to start out in small communities to build experience). I don't think age is going to be the limiting factor in attracting workers. I know lots of young people in technical fields with a similar view: they hate the expense of the city, but there is no way for them to move out to rural communities and still do the same type of work.

The limiting factors, I think, are more (1) lack of VC interest in funding something where the company is going to be based in the middle of nowhere, and (2) the lack of job security for tech workers who choose to live somewhere like that.

On the first point, VCs are very attached to the orbit of their cities. Silicon Valley is of course the big innovation centre, but basically any city above around 250k people now has at least a small tech industry with affiliated venture capital firms. Unfortunately, I can't see VCs interested in something where if they want to go see their investment they have to go get on a plane, then rent a car, and drive a couple of hours. So, any successful rural tech startup is going to need to be at least partially bootstrapped.

The second point is the inherent risk in moving somewhere like that for a job, especially a job as volatile as a tech startup. You move out there, buy a house, maybe start a family - and then the company folds or downsizes. You basically have no choice at that point but to uproot and move, leaving all your friends and your home behind.

Of course, you could also maybe spin this as a positive point: the "company man" is considered dead these days, especially so in high tech. Nobody sticks around anymore, there's very little loyalty on both the part of the employer and employee. However, in an environment where you're literally the only tech employer in town, you would probably get employees who actually stuck with the company and stayed committed.