Phelim McAleer, environmentalist and former writer for the Financial Times, describes his new documentary and why he decided to make it:
Speakout: Environmentalists are new foes of some of the world’s poorest
Colorado’s miners have struggled long and hard for the right to organize and have safe working conditions.
Many have paid with their lives in this struggle.
Some were the victims of the poor safety standards that used to characterize the industry, while others died in bloody confrontations when mine owners were quick to hire private armies to confront troublesome workers.
As a liberal European journalist, I was familiar with these stories and also knew about how Europe’s miners faced similar battles to improve their working lives. These struggles meant that miners have always had a special status for us left-wingers. They were a superior breed who fought for themselves and the rights of all workers.
However in my more recent journalism, I have discovered there is a new threat to miners, their families and their wider communities.
This threat is not from cigar-sucking, champagne-swilling robber barons. Mining is now one of the most regulated businesses in the world. Banks will not lend to, insurance companies will not cover and governments will not give licenses to companies that want to open unsafe or polluting mines.
Instead I have discovered that the biggest threat to miners and their families comes from upper-class Western environmentalists.
The discovery has been particularly shocking because at heart I have always been an environmentalist. I want to protect the planet for future generations. I want to ensure that industry cleans up its messes and does more good than harm.
My admiration for environmentalists started to decline when I was lucky enough to be posted to Romania as a foreign correspondent for the Financial Times. There I covered a campaign by Western environmentalists against a proposed mine at Rosia Montana in the Transylvania region of the country.
It was the usual story. The environmentalists told how Gabriel Resources, a Canadian mining company, was going to pollute the environment and forcibly resettle locals before destroying a pristine wilderness.
But when I went to see the village for myself I found that almost everything the environmentalists were saying about the project was misleading, exaggerated or quite simply false.
Rosia Montana was already a heavily polluted village because of the 2,000 years of mining in the area. The mining company actually planned to clean up the existing mess.
And the locals, rather than being forcibly resettled as the environmentalists claimed, were queuing up to sell their decrepit houses to the company which was paying well over the market rate.
It was surprising that environmentalists would lie, but the most shocking part was yet to come. As I spoke to the Western environmentalists it quickly emerged that they wanted to stop the mine because they felt that development and prosperity will ruin the rural “idyllic” lifestyle of these happy peasants.
This “lifestyle” includes 70 percent unemployment, two-thirds of the people having no running water and using an outhouse in winters where the temperature can plummet to 20 degrees below zero centigrade.
One environmentalist (foreign of course) tried to persuade me that villagers actually preferred riding a horse and cart to driving a car.
Of course the Rosia Montana villagers wanted a modern life - just like the rest of us. They wanted indoor bathrooms and the good schools and medical care that the large investment would bring.
When I left the Financial Times, the plight of these villagers never really left me. I have come across a lot of tragedies and hard-luck stories as a journalist, but I had never covered a situation where the solution to poverty is being opposed by educated Westerners who think that people really are “poor but happy.”
When a representative of Gabriel Resources asked me to write a brochure about the project I declined, but I did suggest that if they did not interfere editorially I would make a documentary.
I gathered up extra funding and the documentary Mine Your Own Business premieres Tuesday at the Denver Gold Forum at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Denver. The film will shock and upset those who, like myself, unquestioningly believed environmentalists were a force for good in the world.
For Mine your Own Business I started looking beyond Romania and found a similar pattern in very different villages in Africa and South America.
It is sad that my fellow left-wingers and environmentalists who often come from the most developed countries are now so opposed to development.
However, it is not sad but tragic that the real losers in this clash of cultures are some of the poorest people on the planet.
The full article can be found here. The website for the movie, along with a trailer, can be found here. I encourage those of you who have an innocent view of environmentalists to buy the movie, and see for yourself the ugly side of environmentalism.
Dang, that reminds me of so many mining towns that have been mining for over 2000 years here in Colorado.
If these people have been living in squalor for 2000 years, isn’t that enough time for them to improve their own situation? Why should we blame environmentalists for their state? All sides of any issue are capable of making mistakes, but I am not going to change my environmental outlook on one example in a remote village in Romania.
If these people have been living in squalor for 2000 years, isn’t that enough time for them to improve their own situation?
Well you can blame the USSR for this - not only did they control Romania, but they also drained much of what little scarce resources they had and forced them to pay war reparations. This is without mentioning the human rights violations done to the Romanians by the USSR, whether they are camps, torture, deportation or just plain murder.
Why should we blame environmentalists for their state?
Their only hope in escaping poverty remains with the one tool shown to work over and over again, free trade. Environmentalists are blocking free trade, a free trade that the people of Romania are requesting, thereby denying them their autonomy.
This isn’t meant to be the end all discussion on environmentalism, this is just yet one of many examples of how when dealing with underdeveloped countries, the trade off seems to be between economic growth vs. the environment. And let’s remember, in underdeveloped countries economic growth means basic things like life expectancy, jobs (any jobs), health, clothing, basic nutrition etc. When you’re at that level, the environment becomes alot less important (which is why environmentalism tends to be more concentrated in higher income countries…rich people can afford to be environmentalist).
So by your standards, unethical behavior is acceptable as long as economic progress is gained? Why stop at trashing the environment when we reinstate slavery with Romanian children?
I actually have family in Romania and believe me, it isn’t that bad of a place. No doubt, there is a ton of poverty but it is not unlike Mexico… life isn’t easy but with hard work most people get along ok. Things are slowly improving and in a generation or two Romanians will be on par with at least the same level most EU countries are at if they continue in the same direction. The mining industry is not the future and a few village landowners unable to turn a nice profit by selling off their land isn’t going to make a difference in the long run. Having natural resources protected and ensuring a clean environment for future generations will, however.
I’m particularly sensitive to environmental issues because I grew up in a neighborhood that became a superfund site. A large lead smelter polluted the surrounding area and resulted in high rates of cancer especially amongst children. I lost a few of my friends early on to cancer that was largely thought to be a side-effect, not to mention my own family and neighbors experienced other health issues including a higher than normal rate of miscarriages and stillbirths. Sure, that factory may have created a few jobs and put a bit of money into the local economy but we never saw much of it. We just carried the burden while a small group of businessmen quietly walked away with the profits.
So by your standards, unethical behavior is acceptable as long as economic progress is gained?
But there are many ‘unethical’ behaviors here - or do you not think low child mortality, low standard of living, and an almost zero job growth is not unethical? The question isn’t unethical behavior vs. ethical behavior, the question is reducing the total amount of unethical behavior, with environmental damage, low job growth, low standard of living, low child mortality, etc…being unethical behaviors.
As far as Romania goes, here are some more stats on the area in question:
So tell me, are 70% of the population really just lazy people who don’t want to “get along ok”? Because unemployment that high tells me its things outside of their control.
I sympathize with your experiences growing up, but there are two sides to that same coin. Sure, in some circumstances the environment - and community - takes a heavy toll for the economic benefit of a few…but there are also areas where the communities well being (often in terms of child mortality, life expectancy, standard of living etc) takes a heavy toll for little to no environmental gain.
This example seems to be the latter…and with Romanians themselves requesting the mining company to come, the solution seems even clearer - let them in.