No more hypocritical than mining companies who say they are helping the poor. Nice piece of propaganda, but doesn't convince anyone with critical thinking skills that the enormous profits being made by mining companies are largely being handed over to poor communities.

Doesn't make me think any mine is environmentally friendly either. Just look at the ugly scar left on the landscape when any mine is shut down-the land is usually rendered a toxic unusable wasteland and mining companies have no obligation to clean up the mess. It's vandalism and they say activists are the bad guys for pointing this out. The Berkeley Pit in Montana is just one of many examples of mining companies which abandoned a mess.

Everything you use on a daily basis is made out of lots of materials. Where do you think most of them come from? Mining! Yes it leaves scars on the landscape but so do cities, airports, you name it. The mining plans conform to European standards and are much cleaner than the old cold war mine that's still there.
Greenpeace et al. claim they want to make a nice tourist place out if it. Not happening, there's not much to see there except for places ruined by old mining practices.

Of course the mining company is only serving it's own interests, but it does need miners and they happen to live there. They also pay a mine tax to the country in question which helps the economy of the country (if it's not a corrupt country).

I worked in the NGO sphere and yes it's true that there is alot of hypocrisy and double standards followed within these kinds of organizations.

But you must remember also that these are usually various splintered citizen groups fighting against a corporation that has a singular aim. We never possessed the financial, logistical or even at times organizational power to really mount anything large against a company/corporation that has millions of dollars riding on a certain project. Who as shown above can just make a video to make us all look like hippy fools.

What happened here probably is what always happens when you character assassinate a good cause, you pick the fringe elements and make it seem like they represent the whole movement. There are lots of environmental groups that volunteer, but usually a few corporations working for their own self interest.

When dealing with cases in the Third World it's even worse, because the company can argue that it's providing employment and such, when in reality had the environmental presence not been there they really wouldn't give a damn about health and safety standards because that would let them reap more profits. A countries laws become laughable when a goverment tries to appease for foreign direct investment such as this.

Companies can rationalize any activity using economics, but their standards aren't cross border. I mean look at what shoe and clothing companies did in Asia before it was discovered they all used child labor, long hours, and minimal pay. And if they complained to a journalist or anyone they could face being fired.

A corporation or a company doesn't have humanistic qualities written into it, they possess a profit motive, which at times over rides even the most basic of human impulses.

Here is the wikipedia article on it, don't forget to check the Talk section cause there is some controversy.

In this case it isn't small NGO's, it's Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth etc. These are big propaganda machines that do a lot of lobbying and against these projects. It's their spokespeople who you see character assassinate themselves in this documentary. You can find the documentary in the torrent scene.

It's really hard to judge who is right and wrong in this case, but my past research into Greenpeace and some environmental movements makes me weary.

Expired in Queue - 4 day limit.