In the Economist's own words: "a very rough comparison is possible" which they then turn into a speculative headline ("may") and a bold statement that the comparison is correct "taking nickel from rainforests destroys 30 times more..." after the article specifically states it is incomplete.
What a bunch of tools. We shouldn't be listening to management consultant speak when it comes to underwater ecosystems. Not a single scientist quoted in the article. Disclosures from the company taken as truth and "very transparent". To think I used to look to this magazine for journalism.
Again: the whole article is premised on "deforestation bad, destroying marine ecosystems okay or less bad" based on... what? The mining company's assessment? Absolute rubbish. How much was this writer paid by the company?
What a bunch of tools. We shouldn't be listening to management consultant speak when it comes to underwater ecosystems. Not a single scientist quoted in the article. Disclosures from the company taken as truth and "very transparent". To think I used to look to this magazine for journalism.
Again: the whole article is premised on "deforestation bad, destroying marine ecosystems okay or less bad" based on... what? The mining company's assessment? Absolute rubbish. How much was this writer paid by the company?