[swebs]

>Perhaps the only tragedy greater than the criminal destruction of the environment and the lives of the people of the Congo by these companies is the fact that it would be a rounding error on their income statements to fix the problem.

Eh, I don't think giving more money to the third world mining companies is going to guarantee they're going to stop using child labor. The simplest and least risky decision for the tech companies is to simply stop buying Congolese cobalt. It's "blood diamonds" all over again.

[steve-benjamins]

I think the assumption is that ethical suppliers would be more expensive and that these companies have the margins to pay more.

[gwbas1c]

> You see, two-thirds of the global supply of cobalt comes from the Congo. So already, right there, you cannot avoid Congolese cobalt.

[pnako]

You could ban/sanction Congolese cobalt; this would increase prices in the short run, while other producing countries adjust supply.

[soared]

Adjusting the supply of cobalt in a country isn't something thats easily adjusted.

[pnako]

Why not? If half of the supply disappears overnight, prices will go through the roof, providing an incentive for current producers to increase output, by increasing effort in their existing mining operations, and more than likely by opening new operations.

[hanniabu]

If there are sanctions, wouldn't it be the demand being changed and not the supply?

[Vinnl]

I'm not sure how much that would help the people of Congo...

[saiya-jin]

Yes but more expensive suppliers might not be automatically more ethical. Just throwing money at the problem won't magically fix it on its own without some additional effort, probably just ends up as more fat bonuses at Glencore HQ

[lallysingh]

If you have a higher budget, you can shop around more. Nobody's assuming that they'd just tip their vendor.

[Shivetya]

the liability is with the mining company and national government of Congo. the companies purchasing products can indeed put pressure on both to improve the working conditions of miners but in the end as with nearly every human tragedy, it comes down to the government to take responsibility for its actions and inaction. nothing changes until the local government has to change it.

[rubbingalcohol]

You literally want to place the blame solely on a third world country for the deaths and disease of all these child laborers when it's our first world addiction to their resources driving the injustice in the first place? Who is in a better economic standing to improve this situation?

Would you have no problem buying ivory, since it's the poacher who acted immorally, and you as the end consumer have no responsibility as to how it was supplied?

I don't throw this word around lightly, but what we are enabling in the Congo is evil, and all so we can drive expensive electric cars and pretend like we're making the world better. It's pathetic.

[vorpalhex]

The thing with Ivory is that it was the traders, not the producers, making the money. You can ruin trader profitability by not trading with them. You can't convince Congo to stop using a child labor force with no protections by making them more broke - they'll just retask the labor force into different labor. We've seen this with diamonds.

[pnako]

How is "addiction" to their resources driving injustices? I live in Australia, where we export plenty of minerals (including cobalt, incidentally). We don't have children working (and dying) in mines, AFAIK.

So clearly it's not an issue of cobalt, it's a problem within the Congo.

[zaroth]

[Edited]

[shkkmo]

> nothing changes until the local government has to change it.

Yes, the US government could pass laws and start fining companies that use child labor is their supply chain. You better bet that losing access to the world's largest consumer economy would force the mining companies to change their practices.

You can choose to absolve yourself of responsibility for the actions of these mining companies, but our collective purchasing choices definitely have a direct causal effect on these types of abuses.

> the liability is with the mining company and national government of Congo.

Asserting that liability can only rest with a single party is simple minded.

[WilliamEdward]

Ok but they definitely should put pressure on the government by not buying their unethical produce.

[gedy]

Challenge is "supply chain laundering" that obfuscates sources. Everything being made in China complicates the enforcement too.

[ptah]

> third world mining companies

Glencore headquarters is in Switzerland

[dopamean]

And they have third world mining operations.

[logfromblammo]

The hyphen to the rescue!

"third-world mining operation": a mining operation that is also a third-world operation.

VS

"third-world-mining operation": an operation for mining of the third world

VS

"third-world third-world-mining operation": a third-world operation for mining of the third world

VS

"first-world third-world-mining operation": a company headquartered in CH that mines in the deep backcountry of the DRC.

[dopamean]

lol thank you.

[auiya]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katanga_Mining

[curiousgal]

This is what makes the parent comment insensitive; "they're just doing it to themselves"..

[ramblerman]

Insensitive or not, both statements can be true at the same time. I.e. Africa is plagued by bad leadership and corruption, and the west is more than happy to take advantage of the situation.

[curiousgal]

That's not really my point. Jumping to the fact that corruption plagues Africa immediately is what makes the comment insensitive.

[vorpalhex]

You're right, they should couch the truth in at least a paragraph of explainer text.

[dmix]

Got to cover all of the bases in case someone gets offended. Can't have that happening in these trying times!

[WilliamEdward]

In a lot of cases Africa's bad leadership is a direct result of the west's former colonial efforts there. Congo in particular suffered at the hands of Belgium. So this sentiment is incomplete.

[nradov]

Yes Belgium did horrible things in the Congo. But what's the solution now? Belgium no longer has much influence. Most of the perpetrators are dead and can no longer be held accountable.

[pnako]

Congo has been independent for 60 years. How long do you expect to hold Belgium responsible for whatever happens there?

[logfromblammo]

20 years after to completely own its institutions.

40 years after to completely own its politics.

60 years after to completely own its crime and corruption.

So yeah, about now is when Belgium is entirely off the hook. If they still feel involved from colonialist guilt-trips, that's their own problem. It's time for homegrown domestic scapegoats.

[TheCoelacanth]

It would be absurd to write-off Belgium's responsibility so quickly. The current Prime Minister was a teenager when Belgium left. His upbringing and primary schooling were all under Belgian rule. The same is true of most people involved in governing the country.

[roboys]

Africa is still colonized, so this idea that they picked "bad leaders" is comical. I would expect the owner of Glencore have more say in the next leader in some of these countries than the actual population.

Time to stop blaming the victims of crimes Europeans have been committing for 2-3+ centuries? now...

[ptah]

exactly! colonial powers only pulled out of africa once they figured out how to continue extracting and exploiting without the overheads of having to also administer their former colonies

[sjg007]

Nobody should be buying diamonds at this day in age...

[frockington1]

Why not? They look pretty, come in many shapes and sizes, and have industrial applications.

[solidasparagus]

People have tried that for Congolese coltan and the minerals just find their way over the borders to an 'acceptable' purchasing location.

[brutt]

Poor execution.

[solidasparagus]

Lack of incentives for the Rwandan government to prevent it and no mechanism to verify the conflict-free origin of the minerals.