National’s Gerry Brownlee made a video clip last year which he entitled “Sexy Coal”. The mind boggles at Gerry being the poster boy for anything, but he’s certainly trying for “Mr Lignite 2009″.
Coal is the biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the world after oil, but National want more of it.
Gerry confirmed in his speech to the mineral industry on Wednesday that he wants to help the industry mine more of it – including in National Parks!
Mining is currently banned in National Parks. Elsewher on the DOC estate it is not prohibited – indeed a miner can apply for permission to mine on other DOC land without a public hearing, unlike someone appliying for a tourism concession. So when he says National is looking at loosening up mining including in National Parks, he means it. Maybe because National is in the title he thinks they own them.
This is the third action to promote the use of coal that Gerry has pursued since the election.
Straight after the election Gerry had a hand in changing the boundaries of the new Otiaki conservation park. He excluded the main stem of the main river in the park (the Manuherikia) so as to leave all of the lignite reserves outside the park boundary. Most of the lignite was outside the park anyway, but Gerry thought small proportion of lignite inside the proposed park more more important than the river.
Then he revoked the restrictions on more base-load coal fired electricity generation – despite the fact that we are blessed with amonst the cheapest renewable electricity options in the world – we have lots of geothermal and wind already consented and cost competitive.
Now its mining in parks. Although he’s now trying to down play the lignite angle now, the ODT reported that he specifically talked up the coal in parks angle in his speech.
I’m not opposed to all mining. I use steel and aluminium, wear a gold ring. I’m not in the camp that says all mining is bad. But mining in National Parks? For lignite! What is he on?
Maybe Mr Lignite has never walked more than a hundred metres from his car, but hopefully he’s seen a few photos. Does he really think a lignite mine would fit in? They don’t come small. Maybe someone can load some links to those big mines in Australia, or the ferris wheel-like diggers they use in Germany.
Is this part of the Minister of Toryism’s support for the 100% Pure campaign? Perhaps the Nats are trying to justify their pathetically small greenhoue gas reduction target.
Perhaps Sexy Coal Brownlee wants to star in “The Age of Stupid – 2″
Surely he can’t be that stupid
What an earth does he think the public reaction in gong to be ?
Or is it just plain arrogance ?
Well he will have a fight on his hands that’s for sure
Lets hope the Labour party hold the Nats to account on this one
That’s disgraceful – he’s going to turn our beautiful country into a wasteland. Now how are we supposed to meet our greenhouse emissions targets with that?
Good post David.
But I wonder whether we should put all the blame on “Sexy Coal” Brownlee… It is after all his boss – the Minister of Tourism, John Key, who’s letting Brownlee run rampant across our national parks.
Allowing mining in national parks is absolutely absurd from a Prime Minister who has staked his integrity on the 100% pure image.
Time for John Key to front up. If he continues on like this, NZ’s image as a tourist destination could be ruined forever. I wonder if he’d pass the portfolio on to someone else if that were the case – I heard it wasn’t his first preference anyway.
I see why National said a respectable target of 40% is not ‘practical or achievable’, especially if you have lignite on your agenda.
Maybe someone can load some links to those big mines in Australia, or the ferris wheel-like diggers they use in Germany
Have you seen what happens to the land in Germany after the coal is extracted by those ferris wheel-like diggers?
It is restored to a condition better than it was before – that’s what happens.
On the other hand I assume you are familiar with the blue lake at St Bathan’s – what goes through your mind when you see it?
John Key is Minister of Tourism – surely he can see that mining in National Parks will jeopardise the 100% Pure New Zealand brand. If the brand is in danger, then so too is the Tourism Industry.
Groser is Minister of Conservation – surely he can see that mining in National Parks will jeopardise conservation areas.
Isn’t the aim of a Minister to enhance their portfolios not jeopardise them?
if all mined coal is sent to china it wont touch our emission targets under the old labour scheme and uou know that mr parker. so why was coal mineing good when you were in charge but not now. the real issue is wether it should occur on doc land. because we have so much crown land a few hectares here and there dosnt matter
The fact that National have Minister of CONSERVATION is an absurdity. Surely they should ditch the pretence and change the name to Minister Who Will Open Up Protected Land to Overseas Mining Interests?
Well, it is the 25th anniversary of ’1984′.
We have a Minister of Conservation who is advocating Destruction.
A Minister of Tourism who is Turning Those Pesky Tourists Away.
And a renewed High Country Hijack. Those dedicated conservationists at the High Country Accord really have the bit between their teeth now.
“What an earth does he think the public reaction in gong to be ?”
67% in favour according to the Herald poll
A Herald poll is not all too dissimilar to a Kiwiblog poll Patrick.
This is a pretty damn disgraceful proposition from Brownlee – and I agree it’s odd to get so excited over lignite. Don’t we have masses of lignite outside the conservation estate anyway? Isn’t it a pretty horribly dirty coal to try and do anything with?
I must add that Labour haven’t exactly covered themselves with glory over issues like this in the past though. Happy Valley anyone?
sexy writing style there Mr P. keep this up!
Got any proof of that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Iron_hydroxide_precipitate_in_stream.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Tagebau_Garzweiler_Panorama_2005.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining#Environmental_impacts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_coal
The whole issue smacks of calculation to me.
I don’t think Brownlee is serious or honest; he’s trailing his coat so that other changes made (eg to high country leasehold etc etc) are overshadowed by extreme (kneejerk?) responses as per this post. To which he can say– “we are only reviewing the situation” and ….”mining is already going on in some mining in some parts of the conservation estate already, and it happened under labour.”
David Parker said:
Then he revoked the restrictions on more base-load coal fired electricity generation – despite the fact that we are blessed with amonst the cheapest renewable electricity options in the world – we have lots of geothermal and wind already consented and cost competitive.
Then why are we paying power bills of gargantuan proportions? The idea of a 40% reduction is all well and good if you are some suit living it up in Wellington being paid squillions to do sfa, but to someone who lives in a cold part of the country that has to pay extortionate heating bills then the 40% reduction seems a lot less like a good idea.
I say mine the coal. Mine that coal and build huge coal burning power stations until my monthly bill drops to $100.00.
Labour did effectively nothing to bring down power prices. High power prices are a national shame. New Zealand’s poorest and most vulnerable people will end up paying the price for a 40% reduction. Who is Labour supposed to represent?
The only good thing about Brownlee and Groser’s stance is that early on they have shown their hand which must give you guys lots of time to make this an election issue. This is a classic reason why you should never vote for Tories.
Draco T Bastard;
Espenhain opencast mine, opened by Nazi’s, worked to death by Communists and rehabilitated by Capitalists
No, it wasn’t.
It was rehabilitated by the taxpayers and that’s only one.
Taking natural fauna, destroying it and then turning it into a waterpark is not rehabilitation Andrei. And more to the point, it’s not conservation. DOC land is DOC land for a reason, to protect New Zealand’s unique ecosystems. I don’t want to see it destroyed for what is, in the end, short term gain.
andrei,
Please stop telling the truth, the screaming lunatics don’t like it.
Those miners rubbing their hands in delight about the chance to have another go at the public DOC lands have short memories of the old mining waste dumps that were never properly cleaned up. Mount Te Aroha is one such – left with a great jelly of hevy metal oxides and toxins behind inadequate containment. The Monowai mine on the Coromandel still oozing those same toxins decades after the last mining, and now almost certanly on the agenda for reopening with gold at $950 and oz.Time for Gerry and Tim to be taken around the wastelands. Stockton should be on the itinerary.
I hear Farms are poring out huge amounts of waste too, we should just ban those. While we are at it Hydro dams have a huge impact on the environment into which they are introduced, knock em down.
I understand the Nats polled this one into the ground, no pun intended, before big Jezza opened his well worn mouth. The idea must sound pretty attractive to the everyday punter, just dig up the wealth and spread it around? Works for other countries, why not us? With enough soothing safeguards, sounds like a winner for the government? When will Labour realise that the public never bought their utopian ‘first in the world’ carbon neutral future, and get real about what matters to everyday folks in their everyday lives?
@Geek – I agree that there are some farmers that do terrible damage to our environment! Hydro can be damaging too. So why make the country worse by adding another destructive element?
I am more saying there are ways to do things in a manner that is far less damaging to the environment. As you say not all farmers are destructive and some Hydro dams are well positioned so that they have minimal impat.
None of these should be summaruily dismissed because they can be harmful as they have positive impacts as well. Likewise if a less damaging form of mining can be found surely the benifits it can bring to the economy need to be weiged so an informed decision can be made.
To oft people try to shout things down based on hystericle ideal because they want to avoid finding a working compramise and great opertunities are missed.
Then Jennifer, maybe they’ll listen when they’re told that whatever damage is done, it will be the New Zealand taxpayer who will pay for it in the long term. What exactly does the taxpayer get from this coal excavation by overseas interests? Do we get cheap coal to ruin our lungs again? Do we get huge manpower wages from employment on this or do the Ferris wheel diggers do the work of thousands while New Zealanders remain scrabbling in the dirt for casual jobs at a place designated by this government’s Murray McCully make-work minister.
Key, Brownlee and Groser went to the rugby in Sydney as a cover. Have they signed the contracts for Australia to own our conservation estate already?
What worries me is that they have not yet regurgitated all their dead rats.
How on earth can anyone support a weird idea like this? Even if you’re like ACT and don’t believe in climate change, surely you can realise that coal will eventually run out so it’s smarter to invest in power supplies that won’t.
KiwiBlog raised a very interesting point on this:
“Really Phil Goff needs to stop opposing everything that happened under Labour, just because National may do them also.
First we had him attacking a tertiary funding cap that his Government put in place in 2007.
Now we have him saying:
Labour leader Phil Goff said mining conservation land went against the 100% Pure New Zealand brand
The Pike River mine is on conservation land, adjacent to and in the Paparoa National Park. It was approved by the Government in 2004. And who was Government then?
So once again Phil attacks the Government for merely thinking about doing something that happened under his Government.
This is not the way to build up credibility.”
Jum “What exactly does New Zealand get…” this is the whole crux. People like your self seem too completly ignore that there is something here to be thought about. Instead you just spout off retoric about strip mines and lignite without ever wanting to hear what the benifits may be.
No one wants to see huge strip mine cutting swathes through national parks. It is typical green scare mongering to yell that this is the only option.
Eco Nazi’s are always more than willing to push for a gient wind mill to throb away in someone elses back yard, or to flood a recreational fishermans stream to build a hydro dam because it suits their simplistic view of +carbon here and -carbon there. Never willing to actually discuss or compromise.