Comments on: It’s not a competition

By: Spud

Spud — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 06:43:52 +0000

“But the decision as to whether the land belongs on schedule 4 or not is (or should be) totally independent of the mineral wealth under the land.” – That’s scary, I’ve heard stuff said to the effect that not all of the land in schedule 4 should be there.

I hope they don’t munt our national parks!

By: Gooner

Gooner — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 00:34:53 +0000

Doug, that article is prime evidence that the science is *NOT* settled and can never be settled thereby debunking the alarmists claim immediately.

By: Richard

Richard — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 23:37:06 +0000

I think there is the same attitude evident in National’s idea of opening up schedule 4 conservation land to mining.

They think that there is a trade-off between the conservation value and the exploitable mineral wealth of the land — if the mineral wealth is vast then that might trump the conservation value. Or so National would like to pretend.

But this is totally misunderstanding the assignment of land to schedule 4. Land is in schedule 4 because of its conservation value.

If the land ceases to have that conservation value, then sure it can be removed from schedule 4, and if it happens to also have mineral wealth it could be an idea to mine it. But the decision as to whether the land belongs on schedule 4 or not is (or should be) totally independent of the mineral wealth under the land.

By: TopCat

TopCat — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 21:52:04 +0000

FFS are now more closely aligned to ACT than National- if they stick to their head in the sand approach to climate change they will end up marginalising themselves.

By: Doug

Doug — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 20:45:36 +0000

What happened to global warming?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

By: DeepRed

DeepRed — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 20:38:26 +0000

I’d be interested to know what FedFarm & the usual suspects would do if the American Clean Energy & Security Act and the EU ETS backed them into a corner. I’d suspect a whole lot more than just sniping from the sidelines.

By: Gooner

Gooner — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 19:39:51 +0000

Why not? Because Oram is anti National and pro Labour. That is absolutely obvious.

By: John Dalley

John Dalley — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 08:54:14 +0000

And why not Gooner? I seriously despair about the short sightedness of Federated Farmers in not grasping the opportunities that are available.

By: Gooner

Gooner — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 08:46:52 +0000

I don’t think you can talk about prejudice within National and the farmers while quoting from an article by Rod Oram.

By: Spud

Spud — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 08:04:49 +0000

Those stories are heartening, I hope it’s the start of a trend.