• Sonori@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 days ago

    Of course there is an alternative, as the article is arguing implicitly, you ban mining and other unsightly industrial activities in rich areas with strong environmental and safety laws, and outsource it to poor nations without the political leverage to strongly regulate mining companies. This objectively results in far, far more environmental damage, but that environmental damage is contained to highly populated areas full of poor people you don’t have to think about.

    I really wish more environmentalists were pushing for potentially environmentally hazardous processes to be moved to areas with strong regulation and environmental protection laws, instead of just pushing them onto poor people, but unfortunately a lot of people seem to be so (purposely) disconnected from the industrial processes necessary to make everything from wind turbines and trains down to the food that appears on the shelves that they view the mining and manufacturing of these things as completely unconnected to these things themselves appearing in their lives.

    • countrypunk@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      That’s a very good point. It’s pretty damn sad at how disconnected many of us are to the processes that get us everyday things.

    • Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      Fucking preach. Very good point about pushing mining impact into “more friendly” regulatory environments.

      The disconnect is baffling in a lot of industries.