Tiffany-Twisted

A few weeks back we told you about a “roadshow” put on by Save Bristol Bay, where they were caught astroturfing – using signed letters to Congress as the entry method for a raffle of expensive goods. One of the main sponsors of the event is Tiffany & Co. They’re not just sponsoring the event, they’re actively working to stop the proposed Pebble Mine in Alaska.

Myron Bell at PJMedia has the full story on their support for those opposing development of the site. In it, he notes:

If the “No Dirty Gold” campaign succeeds, one of the largest copper and gold discoveries in the world will not be mined.

The economic loss to Alaska will be staggering. Hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth will not be created. One thousand high-paying jobs that the mine would provide for at least thirty years (and probably for several more decades) will vanish.

Of course, that would be just the beginning. If “No Dirty Gold” succeeds in blocking the Pebble Mine, then they will be in a stronger position to block other proposed mines around the country.

Tiffany doesn’t care about destroying one thousand American mining jobs. What’s a thousand jobs compared to enhancing Tiffany’s environmental image with their fashionable customers? After all, it’s unlikely that any miner will ever be able to afford a $3800 gold bangle imprinted with the Tiffany logo.

However, when their own profits are threatened, the company takes a very different position. In an official 2010 letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Tiffany’s general counsel objected to an obscure provision in the Dodd-Frank banking reform bill that requires the company to certify that their jewelry does not contain any gold produced in or around the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The general counsel notes correctly that there is no way to determine where refined gold has been produced. Trying to comply with the so-called “conflict mineral” provision would be “impracticable and extremely costly.”

So they’ll work to prevent a new American mine, but at the same time don’t want their overseas supply chain scrutinized? That is Tiffany-twisted, without the pink champagne on ice…

Shortlink:

Posted by on November 4, 2011.
Filed under Business.
Kevin founded Wizbang in 2003. He still contributes occasionally and handles all the technical and design work for the site.

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • Anonymous

    Hey!  Maybe Gibson should chime in.

  • http://otisthehand.blogspot.com/ OTIS the hand

    No Dirty Communists.

  • Oysteria

    “The general counsel notes correctly that there is no way to determine where refined gold has been produced.”

    There’s a way to fix that.  Buy the gold from Alaska mines.  But that would make too much sense.

  • Anonymous

    ….  it’s unlikely that any miner will ever be able to afford a $3800 gold bangle …. 

    Yair, sure.

    Not with the poor miners’ wives having to work outside their homes.

    Driving 200-ton dump trucks.

    And making only around that much per week!

    The poor basta*ds! 

    • Anonymous

      I don’t know what your point is but you sound like a Class A Shitnozzle

  • Anonymous

    Why is it OK for them to part own a mine in Africa and not OK for gold to be mined in Alaska?  They have not protested the reopening of the local SC gold mine so what is their real beef?
    New York-headquartered luxury jeweler Tiffany & Co. is looking to increase its supply of rough diamond direct from the source, with the company’s chief executive Michael Kowalski telling the Financial Times the company would be ready to repeat a deal by which it lent $50 million to a mine in Sierra Leone for the right to buy its rough diamonds.

  • Pingback: 404 Not Found

  • Pingback: Environmental Hypocrisy: Blood Diamonds but ‘No Dirty Gold’ for Tiffany » Blue Star Chronicles