First a Gold Rush, Then the Lawyers
By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD
Published: June 25, 2011
SAN ISIDRO, El Salvador — When a Central American gold rush brought a Canadian mining company here a few years ago, the company promised to stake a claim that would be as green as the lush hills.
Lisette Lemus for The New York Times
Salvadorans who rely on the waters of the Rio Lempa for their farms blamed Pacific Rim's exploration work for drying up a tributary near the mining site. The company's chief executive said river water was used only briefly.
Lisette Lemus for The New York Times
“We raised the bar for environmental protection,” said Tom Shrake, chief executive of Pacific Rim.
Lisette Lemus for The New York Times
“We don’t believe what they say,” said Francisco Pineda, a farmer who has led protests against the mine.
The copious amounts of water needed would come only from the rain, not from the nearby Rio Lempa that is this country’s lifeline, the company said. Cyanide, a toxic chemical used to extract gold embedded in rocks, would be dispersed naturally, dried by sunlight in vast double-lined pools. Several hundred jobs could be created here, in one of the country’s poorest regions.
“No other mine in North America has gone to this level of environmental protection,” said Tom Shrake, the chief executive of the Canadian company, Pacific Rim, which is seeking to tap a vein that it says could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
But when the government of El Salvador, facing mounting public concern over the consequences of mining, failed to grant the company the final permit it needed, Pacific Rim sought to extract a different kind of green: $77 million from the nation’s treasury as compensation for lost profits.
Pacific Rim is suing the Salvadoran government in an international investment court, one of scores of cases in recent years in which frustrated oil, gas and mining investors, using provisions of trade agreements, have sought to recoup losses from mostly developing countries.
Pacific Rim has cited as a precedent a landmark case from Mexico in 2000 in which the government was sued under the North American Free Trade Agreement and forced to pay a California company, Metalclad, $15.6 million in damages. The company sued after it said local authorities had thwarted its efforts to build a hazardous waste treatment plant despite assurances from the Mexican government that it would get the needed permits.
Since then, environmental advocates say, corporations have increasingly taken nations to court under regional trade agreements.
One of the biggest payouts occurred last year, when an arbitration panel awarded Chevron $700 million in a dispute with Ecuador over what it considered a delay in settling lawsuits over oil contracts, even as the company lost a much larger environmental ruling in Ecuador’s own judicial system. In another example, a Malaysian firm, MTD Equity, used provisions of an investment treaty between Malaysia and Chile to win a $10.8 million case against Chile in 2004 over a residential and commercial development that government authorities ended up opposing.
The Pacific Rim case, now before a World Bank court in Washington, is the first of its kind to come under the Central America Free Trade Agreement that was approved in 2005, all sides in the dispute say.
Though the company went to court to ensure the level playing field for foreign businesses that it says the treaty guarantees, the case has angered Salvadoran officials, who consider it an attack on the sovereignty of a nation still struggling to fortify its institutions nearly 20 years after a brutal civil war.
“They are using the tribunal to dictate El Salvador’s environmental policies,” said Marcos Orellana, a lawyer for the Center for International Environmental Law in Washington, which has filed a brief supporting El Salvador.
In the court hearing the case, the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, Latin American governments make up 9 percent of the court’s 155 members but about 55 percent of the cases, according to the Institute for Policy Studies, a left-leaning research group in Washington.
The imbalance of cases in the region arises both from the bounty of natural resources there and political candidates who are making good on campaign promises to rein in foreign corporations or more closely examine their projects, the institute said.
With gold prices at record highs, companies are scouring the earth for every last deposit, and a run of new mines in Central America, particularly in Guatemala and Honduras, as well as a legacy of contamination from old ones is making the region a focal point for the fight.
“Past experience with mining companies has demonstrated to us that the country has been, in the past, not very careful in verifying that these projects were developed within acceptable parameters for the environment and our water resources,” said El Salvador’s attorney general, Benjamín Pleités Mazzini.
Pacific Rim began exploring an existing mine just north of San Isidro at El Dorado in 2002 and eventually discovered a new, potentially lucrative vein. Right-leaning governments initially appeared on course to grant the mine final approval but stalled amid signs that public sentiment was turning against the project.
By 2005, community members who rely on tributaries of the Rio Lempa for their farms complained that the water was drying up during the exploration phase. Mr. Shrake said that river water was used only briefly and that the company’s activities did not account for the problem. The left-leaning government now in power has refused to sign off on the project.
Because Canada is not a party to Cafta, Pacific Rim filed suit in 2009 through a United States subsidiary.
Conflict has shadowed the case. Heated demonstrations have occurred, as both sides claim they have the will of the people. Pacific Rim says some of its employees have been threatened, while those on the other side say several mining opponents have been killed or gone missing in the past few years. This month, the body of a university student who disappeared while posting antimining fliers was found.
Local investigators have chalked up the cases to common crime in a region with its share of gang and other violence, but residents say the episodes have not been thoroughly investigated and hearken back to the darkest chapters of the war.
“People are worried about the lack of capacity to monitor these mines,” said Andrés McKinley, former El Salvador director for Oxfam America, the nongovernmental organization that has taken the lead in organizing opposition to mining here. “People need jobs, but not jobs at any cost.”
El Salvador’s environment, he said, is fragile. It has the second-worst deforestation in the hemisphere, after Haiti, and 96 percent of its surface water is contaminated, mostly with agricultural and industrial runoff, he said.
“Can this country sustain an industry in mining?” Mr. McKinley said.
It appears El Salvador, the only country in Central America to experience a decline in foreign investment last year, was preparing to answer yes. It has issued 29 licenses for mining exploration since 1999.
But Mr. Pleités, the attorney general, suggested new permits would not be issued until investors, environmental groups, outside experts and others came together to write a plan to more closely regulate the industry.
Mr. Shrake countered that the government stands to scare off investors if it cannot even approve a project as environmentally clean as Pacific Rim has sought to make it.
“We raised the bar for environmental protection,” he said, touring the remnants of the ranch where the gold would be tapped.
Neto Mendez Murillo, 49, a driver for Pacific Rim, said he and other local residents are counting on the final approval of the mine for badly needed jobs. The only options for work now, he said, are low-paying jobs in the corn, bean and sugar cane fields, or in the United States.
“We are waiting for the gold jobs to change our lives,” he said.
But Francisco Pineda, a farmer who has led raucous protests against the mine, jumping on machinery at one rally, said he doubted the company could contain all the cyanide it would use.
“We don’t believe what they say,” he said. “The river is too important for us, and they already tampered with it. We are fighting for survival here.”
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
New York Times Article
The Wrong Inequality
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: October 31, 2011
We live in a polarizing society, so perhaps it’s inevitable that our experience of inequality should be polarized, too.
In the first place, there is what you might call Blue Inequality. This is the kind experienced in New York City, Los Angeles, Boston, San Francisco, Seattle, Dallas, Houston and the District of Columbia. In these places, you see the top 1 percent of earners zooming upward, amassing more income and wealth. The economists Jon Bakija, Adam Cole and Bradley Heim have done the most authoritative research on who these top 1 percenters are.
Roughly 31 percent started or manage nonfinancial businesses. About 16 percent are doctors, 14 percent are in finance, 8 percent are lawyers, 5 percent are engineers and about 2 percent are in sports, entertainment or the media.
If you live in or around these big cities, you see stores and entire neighborhoods catering to the top 1 percent. You see a shift in social norms. Up until 1970 or so, a chief executive would have been embarrassed to take home more than $20 million. But now there is no shame, and top compensation zooms upward.
You also see the superstar effect that economists have noticed in the income data. Within each profession, the top performers are now paid much better than the merely good or average performers.
If you live in these big cities, you see people similar to yourself, who may have gone to the same college, who are earning much more while benefiting from low tax rates, wielding disproportionate political power, gaining in prestige and contributing seemingly little to the social good. That is the experience of Blue Inequality.
Then there is what you might call Red Inequality. This is the kind experienced in Scranton, Des Moines, Naperville, Macon, Fresno, and almost everywhere else. In these places, the crucial inequality is not between the top 1 percent and the bottom 99 percent. It’s between those with a college degree and those without. Over the past several decades, the economic benefits of education have steadily risen. In 1979, the average college graduate made 38 percent more than the average high school graduate, according to the Fed chairman, Ben Bernanke. Now the average college graduate makes more than 75 percent more.
Moreover, college graduates have become good at passing down advantages to their children. If you are born with parents who are college graduates, your odds of getting through college are excellent. If you are born to high school grads, your odds are terrible.
In fact, the income differentials understate the chasm between college and high school grads. In the 1970s, high school and college grads had very similar family structures. Today, college grads are much more likely to get married, they are much less likely to get divorced and they are much, much less likely to have a child out of wedlock.
Today, college grads are much less likely to smoke than high school grads, they are less likely to be obese, they are more likely to be active in their communities, they have much more social trust, they speak many more words to their children at home.
Some research suggests that college grads have much bigger friendship networks than high school grads. The social divide is even starker than the income divide.
These two forms of inequality exist in modern America. They are related but different. Over the past few months, attention has shifted almost exclusively to Blue Inequality.
That’s because the protesters and media people who cover them tend to live in or near the big cities, where the top 1 percent is so evident. That’s because the liberal arts majors like to express their disdain for the shallow business and finance majors who make all the money. That’s because it is easier to talk about the inequality of stock options than it is to talk about inequalities of family structure, child rearing patterns and educational attainment. That’s because many people are wedded to the notion that our problems are caused by an oppressive privileged class that perpetually keeps its boot stomped on the neck of the common man.
But the fact is that Red Inequality is much more important. The zooming wealth of the top 1 percent is a problem, but it’s not nearly as big a problem as the tens of millions of Americans who have dropped out of high school or college. It’s not nearly as big a problem as the 40 percent of children who are born out of wedlock. It’s not nearly as big a problem as the nation’s stagnant human capital, its stagnant social mobility and the disorganized social fabric for the bottom 50 percent.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/opinion/brooks-the-wrong-inequality.html
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: October 31, 2011
We live in a polarizing society, so perhaps it’s inevitable that our experience of inequality should be polarized, too.
In the first place, there is what you might call Blue Inequality. This is the kind experienced in New York City, Los Angeles, Boston, San Francisco, Seattle, Dallas, Houston and the District of Columbia. In these places, you see the top 1 percent of earners zooming upward, amassing more income and wealth. The economists Jon Bakija, Adam Cole and Bradley Heim have done the most authoritative research on who these top 1 percenters are.
Roughly 31 percent started or manage nonfinancial businesses. About 16 percent are doctors, 14 percent are in finance, 8 percent are lawyers, 5 percent are engineers and about 2 percent are in sports, entertainment or the media.
If you live in or around these big cities, you see stores and entire neighborhoods catering to the top 1 percent. You see a shift in social norms. Up until 1970 or so, a chief executive would have been embarrassed to take home more than $20 million. But now there is no shame, and top compensation zooms upward.
You also see the superstar effect that economists have noticed in the income data. Within each profession, the top performers are now paid much better than the merely good or average performers.
If you live in these big cities, you see people similar to yourself, who may have gone to the same college, who are earning much more while benefiting from low tax rates, wielding disproportionate political power, gaining in prestige and contributing seemingly little to the social good. That is the experience of Blue Inequality.
Then there is what you might call Red Inequality. This is the kind experienced in Scranton, Des Moines, Naperville, Macon, Fresno, and almost everywhere else. In these places, the crucial inequality is not between the top 1 percent and the bottom 99 percent. It’s between those with a college degree and those without. Over the past several decades, the economic benefits of education have steadily risen. In 1979, the average college graduate made 38 percent more than the average high school graduate, according to the Fed chairman, Ben Bernanke. Now the average college graduate makes more than 75 percent more.
Moreover, college graduates have become good at passing down advantages to their children. If you are born with parents who are college graduates, your odds of getting through college are excellent. If you are born to high school grads, your odds are terrible.
In fact, the income differentials understate the chasm between college and high school grads. In the 1970s, high school and college grads had very similar family structures. Today, college grads are much more likely to get married, they are much less likely to get divorced and they are much, much less likely to have a child out of wedlock.
Today, college grads are much less likely to smoke than high school grads, they are less likely to be obese, they are more likely to be active in their communities, they have much more social trust, they speak many more words to their children at home.
Some research suggests that college grads have much bigger friendship networks than high school grads. The social divide is even starker than the income divide.
These two forms of inequality exist in modern America. They are related but different. Over the past few months, attention has shifted almost exclusively to Blue Inequality.
That’s because the protesters and media people who cover them tend to live in or near the big cities, where the top 1 percent is so evident. That’s because the liberal arts majors like to express their disdain for the shallow business and finance majors who make all the money. That’s because it is easier to talk about the inequality of stock options than it is to talk about inequalities of family structure, child rearing patterns and educational attainment. That’s because many people are wedded to the notion that our problems are caused by an oppressive privileged class that perpetually keeps its boot stomped on the neck of the common man.
But the fact is that Red Inequality is much more important. The zooming wealth of the top 1 percent is a problem, but it’s not nearly as big a problem as the tens of millions of Americans who have dropped out of high school or college. It’s not nearly as big a problem as the 40 percent of children who are born out of wedlock. It’s not nearly as big a problem as the nation’s stagnant human capital, its stagnant social mobility and the disorganized social fabric for the bottom 50 percent.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/opinion/brooks-the-wrong-inequality.html
Monday, February 7, 2011
Crash
What motivates the actions of specific characters in Crash in terms of prejudice, respect, and justice? Describe at least two characters. How might that character learn to interact differently?
When watching the film Crash , the character that stood out the most to me was officer Ryan (Matt Dillon). I believe this character has been racist all his life and with his job as a police officer he abuses his power and does not know how to seperate his personal life to his work life . He has no respect for any of the characters in which he encounters with . This is clearly shown when he pulls over the african american director without any validity to why he is pulling him over .Moments before he pulls over the couple, he finds himself frustrated with an african american woman who is not giving him his way ( which i am sure he is not used to) regarding his fathers health . because of his frustration he takes it out on the couple by abusing his police powers and sexually assaulting the directors wife, he is a prime example of racial prejudice .
Another example of this can be seen in one of the first scenes of the movie concering the white man and the "middle eastern " man . This goes back to stereotyping people based on looks . The owner of the shop makes not only racist comments towards the man but also makes sexist comments towards the daughter . i believe this was based out of anger ,frustration and fear because of the events from 9/11 no respect was shown and in the owners mind no justice was made when it came down to the terrorist . Overall with these two characters there was no respect ,and justice. These characters let their anger and frustration get the worst out of them .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)