I think your argument oversimplifies a very complicated issue into "money bad, nature good". I'm not interested in explaining why that argument is bad - I think it's blatantly obvious to anyone who cares why it is so - but what I do hope to convince you of is the importance of facts and details if we wish to make any intelligent contribution to politics.

Your post goes on at length about the abstract harms done by mining to hypothetical people who live near that hypothetical mining site, but the problem is laid out entirely in the abstract. Now, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with abstraction - abstraction makes it easier to see the big picture and to see patterns emerge over time - but to focus entirely on the abstract can blind us to the details and the facts of the matter.

Suppose we could find the actual bill that was signed on this captioned picture; could we comb through the bill to find offending provisions which would harm any specific town or village? If so, we could help them launch a judicial review claim over that provision and prevent damage from being done. We could write to our representatives to tell them about that specific provision which we object to, and give more concrete reasons than vague-sounding soundbites about how we oppose "the rape of the Earth" or "dirty corporations".

Fundamentally, the point I am making is that captioned images and abstract memetics which you cite sound good only if you don't think about it too much. I want this forum to be centered around informative discussion rather than the brutish, simple repetition of a "capitalism bad" narrative.