While mining sites are geologically determined and hence the typical environmental justice arguments may not be so easily applicable to this observation, the disproportionate impact of mining on indigenous people deserves further attention and understanding. Barbour estimated that activists had tacked an extra 15 cents onto the cost of producing every pound of refined metal in the United States. The Gulliver File was the product of collaborative efforts among some 90 groups around the world that are working on anti-mining activism many of whom have strong indigenous support even though the goals of indigenous communities are not often aligned with those of environmentalists. Almost a decade after the book's publication, mining activities on and around indigenous lands continue to grow while amicable and equitable agreements between indigenous communities and mining companies are still few and far between. Instead of applying generic political theories to this phenomenon, we need to understand the unique characteristics of both mining and indigenous communities in order to find a way forward.
Most mines have a lifetime of a few decades or less.
In other words, mining companies have tremendous leverage in their areas of operation because they are often the only source of stable employment and infrastructure development. Whether or not environmental and human rights concerns should be means to an end or ends in themselves is a timeless normative debate. The consequences of corporate behavior, however, can and should be evaluated on their own merits, without insinuation of motives. That being said, we must still recognize the historical conduct of mining companies on a global scale and not deny the offenses that have led to their contemporary caricature. Perhaps the most persistent negative image of mining companies emanates from the narratives of mining life in Southern Africa where the institution of Apartheid was too often used to the benefit of mining companies, and vice versa.