You are here

mining

Six Egregious Examples of Parent Rio Tinto’s Rights Violations Worldwide

By Dina Gilio-Whitaker - Indian Country Today, July 24, 2015

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are not the official position of the IWW (or even the IWW’s EUC) and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone but the author’s.

As opposition to the land-exchange deal that gave control of the Apache sacred site of Oak Flat to Resolution Copper Mining intensifies, a protest march has passed through New York City and arrived in Washington.

The land swap, slipped into the National Defense Authorization Bill in December 2014, could still be repealed, if a countermeasure introduced by Rep. Raúl Grijalva takes hold.

Resolution Copper Mining, beneficiary of the last-minute measure, is owned by Rio Tinto Group and BHP Billiton. Both parents have dismal human rights and environmental records. The subsidiary’s website recites such values as “accountability, respect, teamwork and integrity.” Front and center is its Native American Engagement campaign, which among other things provides scholarships to Native youth. (Sound familiar? Think Dan Snyder’s Original Americans Foundation).

But what do we really know about the company behind the project? 

“Rio Tinto has an established record of respect and partnership with the indigenous people who are connected to the land where we operate,” claimed Project Director Andrew Taplin to San Carlos Apache Tribal Chairman Terry Rambler in a March 2014  letter inviting him to meet with a Rio Tinto executive.

Rambler, however, has said that the tribe is against engaging with the mining behemoth, especially regarding public lands.

“They asked to meet with us, but as a council we decided that our relationship and our trust responsibility lies with the federal government,” he told Indian Country Today Media Network in a recent interview. “And this is public land with the U.S. Department of Agriculture—it’s Tonto National Forest.”

In its corporate handbook, Rio Tinto professes to “support and respect human rights consistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and actively seek to ensure we are not complicit in human rights abuses committed by others” and “respect the diversity of indigenous peoples, acknowledging the unique and important interests that they have in the land, waters and environment as well as their history, culture and traditional ways.”

A closer look, however, reveals that Rio Tinto, which owns 55 percent of Resolution Copper, has a long history of colluding with governments that undermine the rights of workers and indigenous peoples in order to exploit resources. That those resources often exist in indigenous territories means that Indigenous Peoples are subject to a sort of double jeopardy in which they are expected to form a labor pool, and further expected to be happy to be employed in the ripping up of their ancestral lands.

With $47 billion in revenues generated in 2014 alone and $83 billion in assets, Rio Tinto is considered one of the top three largest mining companies in the world, according to Statista.com. Rio Tinto mines many types of ore, including iron, bauxite, gold, diamonds, uranium, copper, coal and aluminum. Although based in Australia and London, Rio Tinto operates on six continents and works hard to project an image of environmental sustainability and social responsibility.

Rio Tinto claims to abide by the Global Reporting Initiative, a voluntary set of standards used by more than 6,000 companies internationally. The international labor rights group IndustriAll Global Union found, however, that just 60 percent of Rio Tinto’s sustainability claims were accurate in the social, environment, governance and economic categories. A study conducted by the group revealed that Rio Tinto had excluded controversial projects and community stakeholders from its claims, thus skewing the data.

In short, accounts of Rio Tinto’s unethical business practices could (and has) filled volumes. Here we list some of the most egregious, notorious transgressions against both Indigenous Peoples and labor rights—and often, both—worldwide.

Caterpilliar Steals More Mining Jobs

By Nick Mullins - The Thoughtful Coal Miner, July 17, 2015

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are not the official position of the IWW (or even the IWW’s EUC) and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone but the author’s.

Web editor's note: - Caterpillar are also known union busters.

(Caption from Coal Age Magazine image, pictured right):  Alpha Coal West Works with Cat to Develop a Better Dipper

The cut line for the (image) from Coal Age should read…

“Alpha Coal West Works with Cat to Eliminate More Coal Mining Jobs Through Increased Mechanization”

Tell me again why everyone still believes coal companies are job creators?

At various times through my blogging, I have pointed out that coal companies are legally bound to make a profit for their shareholders. Even staunch conservatives argue “What’s the point of a business that isn’t out to make money?” So why do people’s understanding of the coal business fall short of overhead reduction in the form of job elimination?

Coal miner’s must realize that there is a difference between a “War on Coal” and a “War on Coal Miners.” The companies, who miners believe to be their closest ally, are continuously trying to gain more productivity from their workers while cutting as much overhead as possible. Perhaps it’s time coal miners and their families realized the truth behind coal’s motivations and began fighting for themselves and the future of their children.

I for one would love to see what Appalachians can do on their own without the coal industry telling everyone what they should be doing.

Testimony of unsustainability: The experience of the International Articulation of those affected by Vale

By Maíra Sertã Mansur and Gabriel Strautman - World Rainforest Movement, July 10, 2015

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are not the official position of the IWW (or even the IWW’s EUC) and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone but the author’s.

Currently, the mining sector is one of the main engines of the world´s economic system. In several countries, expropriation cases from native populations are recurrent, including loss of territory, disintegration of community solidarity bonds, pollution of territories and water sources, exploitation of workers, and criminalization of groups who dare to withstand large corporations.

One of the largest icons of this expropriating model in mining is the Brazilian company Vale S.A., previously Vale do Rio Doce and privatized in 1997 (1). Vale S.A. is the largest mining company in Brazil and comes  third in the global ranking of mining industries. Vale is the world leader in iron ore production and the second largest producer of nickel, but also plays a crucial role in the production of manganese, copper, coal, iron “pellets”, ferroalloys and some fertilizers. With activities in about 30 countries on the five continents, the multinational operates an integrated chain from mining, logistics (ore transportation through railways to ports), energy (production to meet its own energy demand that is enormous) and steel production (transformation of iron ore into steel). Each stage of this chain causes severe social and environmental impacts.

In the face of this context of global action by a large multinational, a global articulation of people affected by Vale was needed to ensure and strengthen resistance to the violation of their rights. Therefore, the International Articulation of those affected by Vale was born in 2010, bringing together diverse groups such as trade unionists, environmentalists, NGOs, community-based associations, religious groups and academics from eight countries where the company operates. The main objective is to contribute to strengthening community alliances, promoting strategies to address the social and environmental impacts related to the extractive mining industry, especially those related to Vale S.A.

Over recent decades, criticism of the social and environmental impacts of the mining industry has secured an important space in the international political debate. Countless facts and data submitted by civil society in many countries helped to consolidate the fact that there is no mining without disaster and, from the companies point of view, this meant not only a risk to their reputation and business, but also to the survival of the mining sector as a whole. To anticipate such risk, Vale, as well as major companies in the sector, strive to convey to the public an image of being companies that respect the environment and affected communities,  and presenting this image under the name of sustainability strategy.

Nevertheless, arrogantly, Vale has become used to ignoring or giving no satisfactory answers when accused and sued by residents of affected communities, social movements and trade union representatives around the world, and avoids taking responsibility by resorting to legal, economic and political trickery to evade requirements and demands of impacted groups.

Evo Morales Greenlights TIPNIS Road, Oil and Gas Extraction in Bolivia’s National Parks

By Emily Achtenberg - Upside Down World, June 29, 2015

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are not the official position of the IWW (or even the IWW’s EUC) and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone but the author’s.

On May 20, Bolivian President Evo Morales issued Supreme Decree 2366, opening up Bolivia’s national parks—which are protected under the Constitution as ecological reserves—to oil and gas extraction. Just two weeks later, Morales proclaimed that his on-again, off-again plan to build a highway through the TIPNIS national park and indigenous territory in the Bolivian Amazon will finally be realized.

The coincidence of these announcements was not lost on TIPNIS road opponents, who have long suspected that the advancement of oil and gas interests is a major impetus behind the road. Within the TIPNIS, four areas covering 30% of the park’s territory are subject to long-standing hydrocarbons concessions. The Securé block is virtually adjacent to the proposed road.

In fact, 11 of Bolivia’s 22 national park reserves are overlapped by existing gas and oil concessions to transnationals like Brazil’s Petrobras, Spain’s Repsol, and France’s Total.  Since the “nationalization” of hydrocarbons in 2006, these companies have operated through joint ventures with YPFB, the state energy company.

Like the TIPNIS, many of these reserves are collectively titled to indigenous groups who have inhabited them for centuries, relying on their ancestral lands for subsistence.  In some cases, hydrocarbons concessions cover 70-90% of the park’s territory. These parks could become virtually extinct once the contracts are operational.

While the land area conceded to gas and oil companies in Bolivia has vastly expanded under Morales—up from 7.2 million acres in 2007 to 59.3 million in 2012—activity in the national parks has been largely paralyzed due to the lack of a coherent regulatory framework for extraction—until now. Under the new Supreme Decree, permits for hydrocarbons extraction can be granted under existing or new contracts, as long as the company promises to mitigate any adverse environmental impacts, and contributes 1% of its investment towards poverty reduction and economic development in the affected area.

Critics say these measures won’t begin to compensate for the true costs of hydrocarbons exploitation, especially since the environmental and parks agencies responsible for administering them are strongly biased towards extraction. According to Jorge Campanini of the non-profit research organization CEDIB, Supreme Decree 2366 will be a "terminal sentence” for protected areas already under assault from illegal mining, deforestation, and land invasions by coca-growers.

Morales’s twin announcements highlight a central challenge and contradiction for the  MAS (Movement Towards Socialism) government, which has relied heavily on oil and gas extraction to finance its successful redistributive programs. This strategy has increasingly put Morales at odds with indigenous, environmental, and other civil society organizations who argue that extractivism destroys nature and communities, perpetuates dependence on transnationals, and obscures the need to develop a sustainable economic model for the future.

In contrast, the MAS government defends its extractivist and developmentalist policies as a necessary means to alleviate poverty in the present, and to create the resources for a post-extractive economy that will transition towards “communitarian socialism.”  Political scientist George Gray Molina has noted that the Bolivian government’s effective take of hydrocarbons taxes and royalties, at 72%, is among the highest in Latin America.[1]

These contrasting visions crystallized in 2011-12 around the TIPNIS controversy, the most divisive conflict of Morales’s nine-year tenure. The protracted dispute ruptured the alliance of indigenous, campesino, and urban social movements that originally brought Morales to power in 2005.

Postcards to Wales

By Striking Heart - Striking Heart, February 3, 2015

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are not the official position of the IWW (or even the IWW’s EUC) and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone but the author’s.

The ways we know each other and ourselves are transformed through collective struggles. Sometimes we manage to exceed and push beyond what is anticipated. The bonds formed between Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners and mining communities in South Wales are one such example. Matthew Warchus’s film Pride got us thinking about what notion of ‘pride’ might be required to combat climate change through a struggle around the conditions of contemporary work. We see that labour struggles of the 20th century were accompanied by a discourse of pride in being a worker – for some, in being a miner. We ask, how might our collective nostalgia for labour movements remembered in terms of the pride to be labour be unsettled by the catastrophic threat posed by our enduring reliance on coal mining?

Juxtaposing reflections on our families’ histories in the Taff Bargoed and Cynon valleys with the contemporary political and economic situation in Australia, we ask whether there is another path for communities that rely on wages/welfare today. What possibilities are arising for our generation, a generation that must challenge catastrophic environmental destruction? Is it possible that we might not need to sacrifice our well-being, our environment and the futures of others to satisfy our immediate material needs and desires?

We propose that we can be proud of mining communities’ battles to defend their livelihoods by clarifying these as struggles for dignity, sustainability and for community control over community interests. These characteristics will be essential in ongoing efforts to put an end to mining. To this we would add that a major battleground for our time is the struggle to collectively work less!

Mining Memories

As two Welsh-Australian women who were children in the 1980s and for whom Sydney is mostly home, there isn’t much we can contribute to a personalised analysis of the battles against pit closures. There are, however, some links to be drawn between the experiences of our ancestors and the conditions we face in contemporary Australia.

We know that in Wales the pits sustained life by providing relatively well-paid jobs, and sites around which strong communities were built and where our families flourished. But they also took life, sometimes quickly and brutally, sometimes by slowly chipping away. Emphysema and other lung conditions affected our grandparents’ and parents’ generation. Many people would not live beyond their fifties due to over-work and poor health and safety conditions. Injuries were commonplace in the hazardous underground mines and for children playing in the towns around the coalfields. Claire’s Dad remembers,

‘There wasn’t much in the way of health and safety! If we were going up the mountain, we used to hitch a ride on the coal trams. There was a rope that winched them up and we’d jump on that. I don’t know how many of us got hurt doing it. We also used to play on the bridge over the train tracks. The game was to be on top of the bridge as the coal train passed, shooting smoke up as it went. We came back covered in soot, black from head to foot.’

Despite some of the horrors and misery of the daily grind, we feel a longing for the courage of those communities that fought against the pit closures. We understand that a way of life was at stake during the struggles in the 1980s. Much of what has been lost in the last few decades relates to the breaking down of that culture, as well as the very real consequences of inter-generational under-employment and poverty. This acknowledged, one of the starkest examples of the contradictions inherent in the fight to keep the pits open is found in many people’s hopes that their children would not have to work in them. ‘No one wanted their children to go down the mines but there weren’t many other options in the Valleys. It was down the pits or to the army,’ says Claire’s Dad. The less common narrative of the struggle to against pit closures is the struggle for better lives, lives extricable from work.

Protests against Peru’s Tia Maria Mine and International Solidarity

By James Jordan - People's World, June 11, 2015

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are not the official position of the IWW (or even the IWW’s EUC) and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone but the author’s.

What does it take to stop a transnational corporate giant in its tracks when it threatens workers, farmers and communities? The people of Arequipa, Peru have an answer.

Unionists, rural workers, popular movements, and environmentalists are coming together in this region of southern Peru to halt the proposed Tia Maria copper mine. The mine project belongs to Southern Copper Corporation, a subsidiary of Grupo Mexico.

Mine opponents are demanding respect for workers rights, community democracy and involvement in development decisions and protection for the ecosystem and rural farmers. Tia Maria would be a large pit mine projected to have a 20 year life span. Protesters are concerned about the likelihood of contamination of the region's water supply.

The federal government has declared martial law and sent troops into the region. It has also called for a 60-day pause in mine development.

Police forces are under contract with Southern Copper to protect the mine, which places in question their commitment to public safety. So far three protesters have been killed in demonstrations against the mine, and more than 200 have been wounded.

Peru's Tia Maria Mining Conflict: Another Mega Imposition

By Lynda Sullivan - Upside Down World, June 10, 2015

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are not the official position of the IWW (or even the IWW’s EUC) and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone but the author’s.

Peru has been rocked once again by a social conflict which pits the government, looking out for the economic interests of a multinational corporation, against its people. The Tia Maria Mine, an open-pit project of Southern Copper Corporation, controlled by Grupo Mexico, is the latest attempted imposition of a destructive mega-project by big business on rural communities in the interior of the country. To date, the conflict has claimed eight lives: four in 2011 and four more since April of this year. The affected communities have been on an indefinite strike since March 23rd and, as a response, President Ollanta Humala has called a state of emergency, permitting the Armed Forces and the National Police to violate the constitutional rights of the local population in the hope that repression will breed consent. However, the threatened farmers say that they will fight to the end, and the company, making use of the red carpet set down by the Peruvian state, also does not appear to be giving up on its 1.4 billion dollar investment anytime soon.

The conflict dates back to 2009, when the company first produced its Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Tia Maria, a copper extraction project hoping to mine 120 thousand tons of copper cathodes per year during its 18 year life span. It would be situated in the district of Cocachacra, though its effects would also reach the districts of Punta del Bombón, Deán Valdivia and Mejía, regions all belonging to the province of Islay, in the department of Arequipa. The most sensitive and threatened area is the Tambo Valley, which is considered the 'larder' of the Arequipa region, and wider afield. Ninety-seven percent of its agricultural produce and eighty-eight percent of its fishing catch goes to feeding the south of the country. The valley employs more than 15 thousand families and produces a profit of around 320 million soles a year (roughly $100 million) [1].

Tia Maria would consist of two open pits; the largest of which, La Tapada, would be situated just 2.4 km from the Tambo Valley. The second, sharing the name of Tia Maria, would be just 1 km further [2]. The subterranean waters that are connected to the Tambo River would pass just 250 meters from the open pits. The communities along the Tambo Valley, on seeing the project’s dangerous proximity to their fertile lands, formed the Tambo Valley Defense Front, a platform on which to project their voice. In October 2009 the Defense Front lead a popular consultation in the districts of Cocachacra, Punta del Bombón and Deán Valdivia, resulting in an overwhelming rejection of the project with 93.4% voting against it [3].

Replace Hazelwood Primer

By David Spratt - Climate Action Moreland, June 2015

Hazelwood Power Station (HPS) was built between 1964 and 1971, and comprises 1542 megawatt (MW) of capacity over eight generators. It was privatised by the Victorian Liberal Party Kennett government in 1996 for $2.35 billion.If HPS had stayed in public hands, it would likely have been decommissioned in 2005, but in 2004 the Bracks Labor government extended its operations till 2031, allowing Hazelwood to move a road and a river to access 43 million tonnes of brown coal deposits in a realignment of the mining licence boundaries. The owners have a 30-year mining licence due for renewal in 2026.HPS and the land on which it operates are owned by the Hazelwood Power Partnership. Since 7 June 2013, the four partners have been subsidiaries of International Power (Australia) Holdings Pty Ltd. This company is in turn jointly owned by subsidiaries of Engie (formerly GDF Suez SA) (72 per cent ownership) and Mitsui & Co Ltd (28 per cent ownership). Engie is a global energy company with corporate headquarters in France. Mitsui & Co Ltd is a global trading company with corporate headquarters in Japan.Currently HPS produces more than 10,000 gigawatt hours (GWh) of energy annually and is supplied with up to 18 million tonnes of coal each year from the adjacent Hazelwood mine, releasing around 16 million tonnes of greenhouse gases annually. Today HPS provides approximately 21 per cent of Victoria’s baseline electricity supply.

The Victorian Government has expressed a desire (though it does not yet have a policy) for a significant expansion of renewable energy in Victoria. This has widespread community support and must be done quickly and at a large scale because climate change is already dangerous. Scientists warn that two degrees Celsius of warming could occur in just two decades, so preserving a safe climate and a healthy future requires rapid de-carbonisation.

Expanding renewable energy requires coal-generating capacity to be removed from the market because oversupply is crowding out and preventing new investment. The Australian energy market operator says there are about eight gigawatts of surplus generating capacity across the national market, equivalent to five Hazelwood power stations. This includes up to 2.2 gigawatts of brown coal generation that is no longer required in Victoria in 2015, which is greater than Hazelwood’s capacity. Power companies have been lobbying government for capacity to be reduced, and senior Victorian energy department bureaucrats are aware of the need to close coal power stations in order to roll out renewables.

The Victorian Government has committed to being a leader on climate change. Closing down excess coal generation is a key test of the government’s climate credentials. Coal-fired power stations are the world’s largest source of planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions. Victoria cannot make the necessary emissions reductions without addressing the operations of Hazelwood and/or Yallourn power stations.

Hazelwood power station is old, unsafe and dirty. Based on emissions intensity, it is the third-dirtiest coal power station in the world and the dirtiest in Australia, releasing around 16 million tonnes of greenhouse gases annually, almost three per cent of total Australian greenhouse emissions. The Hazelwood majority owner, Engie (formerly GDF Suez), owns the third-most polluting coal-power station fleet in the world. The full – health and carbon pollution – social costs of Hazelwood totalling $900 million per year are borne by the community, rather than the plant’s owners.

A steady stream of local jobs can be created in the Latrobe Valley with the rehabilitation of mines and decommissioning of plant, which will require a significant workforce stretching well over a decade. The Latrobe Valley needs a strong jobs package and an economic transition plan and new industries because the move from coal to clean wind and solar renewable energy is now both urgent and inevitable.

Hazelwood power station and mine are a health hazard to local residents, exemplified by the autumn 2014 mine fire. The owners of Hazelwood have abused their social licence and forfeited the right to profit from a power station that is now a major health hazard – both to local people and to all peoples who face the uncertainties of living in a hotter and more extreme climate.

In July 2010, the Victorian Labor government promised to start shutting Hazelwood and passed climate legislation providing the reserve power to regulate emissions from existing brown coal-fired generators. Restoring the government’s capacity to regulate emissions would be complementary to actions being taken by other governments, including in the United States and Europe.

Read the report (PDF).

EcoUnionist News #49

Compiled by x344543 - IWW Environmental Unionism Caucus, May 26, 2015 (Image: Judi Bari stands defiant outside of the Oakland Federal Building, ca: 1996).

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are not the official position of the IWW (or even the IWW’s EUC) and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone but the author’s.

Special Note: Due to the recent (voluntarily, fortunately) location of this site's main administrator, some of these stories are a little delayed. We apologize for any delay in timely reporting. Bear with us; we're all working class volunteers. ;-)

The following news items feature issues, discussions, campaigns, or information potentially relevant to green unionists:

Lead Stories:

An Injury to One is an Injury to All:

Gulf South Rising:

Carbon Bubble:

Just Transition:

1267-Watch:

Other News:

For more green news, please visit our news feeds section on ecology.iww.org; Twitter #IWWEUC

EcoUnionist News #48

Compiled by x344543 - IWW Environmental Unionism Caucus, April 20, 2015

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are not the official position of the IWW (or even the IWW’s EUC) and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone but the author’s.

The following news items feature issues, discussions, campaigns, or information potentially relevant to green unionists:

Lead Stories:

May Day:

An Injury to One is an Injury to All:

Carbon Bubble:

Just Transition:

1267-Watch:

Bread and Roses:

Other News:

For more green news, please visit our news feeds section on ecology.iww.org; Twitter #IWWEUC

Pages

The Fine Print I:

Disclaimer: The views expressed on this site are not the official position of the IWW (or even the IWW’s EUC) unless otherwise indicated and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone but the author’s, nor should it be assumed that any of these authors automatically support the IWW or endorse any of its positions.

Further: the inclusion of a link on our site (other than the link to the main IWW site) does not imply endorsement by or an alliance with the IWW. These sites have been chosen by our members due to their perceived relevance to the IWW EUC and are included here for informational purposes only. If you have any suggestions or comments on any of the links included (or not included) above, please contact us.

The Fine Print II:

Fair Use Notice: The material on this site is provided for educational and informational purposes. It may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of scientific, environmental, economic, social justice and human rights issues etc.

It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in using the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The information on this site does not constitute legal or technical advice.