copper mining那篇。求拍，有拍必回！万分感谢！

elvesUID: 2418830

141

The environmental impact of copper mining

The following appeared in a newsletter distributed at a recent
political rally.

"Over the past year, the Consolidated Copper Company (CCC) has purchased over one million square miles of land in the tropical nation of West Fredonia. Mining copper on this land will inevitably result in pollution and environmental disaster, since West Fredonia is home to several endangered animal species. But such disaster can be prevented if consumers simply refuse to purchase products that are made with CCC's copper until the company abandons its mining plans."

去年，Consolidated Copper Company(CCC)在热带国家West Fredonia购买了上百万平方英里的土地。在这些地方采矿将会不可避免地导致污染和环境灾害，因为West Fredonia是很多濒危物种的栖居地。但如果消费者简单地拒绝购买用CCC所生产的铜而制造的产品，直到CCC放弃它的采矿计划就可以避免这种灾害。

--------------------------------------------------------

The author of this excerpt of newsletter intended to talk me over his idea of resisting the sales of one million square miles land to Consolidated Copper Company. However, this argument is not at all persuasive to me for its lack and misapplication of certain logical interconnections.

First, on saying that the endangered animals living in WF are under threats because of the utilization of the purchased land, the author assumes that the animals happens to live within the mining area. However, the author failed to give such evidence. It is very likely that there are no endangered animals living in the land sold. Or perhaps the land only constitutes a relatively small portion of the territory that the habitants of animals will not be severely affected. Without addressing the spatial relationship between the habitants and the purchased land, it is too haste to conclude that the sales may incur animate vulnerability.

Second, even if there are animals living in the exploited area, it still lacks proof to indicate that the animals will die out because of pollution. The author draws the conclusion without noting any theoretical or statistical evidence to substantiate the possibility of pollution brought by CCC. Given the technology level we human have achieved, it is feasible to mine the copper while leave the animals living safely aside. Thus, the assumption that pollution would serve to the extinction of the animals is suspectable.

Third, even if the copper mining actually brings about the pollution and put the animals in a hazardous circumstance, the author's recommendation of boycott is irrational, if not unrealistic, at best. Refusal to buy CCC made copper products requires the consumers’ identification of the source of origin where the product comes from. In a world that is highly globalized, this proposal obviously exceeds the ability of average individuals. Without the customers be involved in, the resistance is inevitably impossible.

Therefore, the author needs to prove that the endangered animal lives right within the area sold to CCC and further CCC’s operation will pollute the environment so as to menace the animals. Also necessary would be any information about how the boycott would be enforced in order to achieve the goal. This argument is conclusive only when the logics are tightly interlinked.