Comments on: Too precious to mine

By: Spud

Spud — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 04:38:17 +0000

I have an idea, let them mine our national parks, and then in the tunnels they make we can put our cows to live underground in their own filth, cos goodness knows that we can’t let cows out in the rain, it might make their meat soggy.

Then we can show the tourists how the Lord of the Rings REALLY ended.

By: Hendrik

Hendrik — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 03:37:42 +0000

The point with gold mining is that it adds almost nothing to the quality of life enjoyed by the public at large. Oil and power are priced according to their utilitarian/economic value, fluctuating with supply and demand, and directly add somerthing to everyones quality of life. Gold’s value is an accident of history, and most of it is simply re-buried in government reserve vaults in other parts of the world.

The utilitarian economic value of gold, based on supply/demand (ie jewelry, some electronics, catalytic converters etc) would possibly be less than silver or some other semi-precious metals.

Furthermore the value of mining to our overall economy is minute. In 2008 royalties were a whopping $3,920,000 (inc GST apparently, and no I havn’t missed a digit!). Overall mining contributes $1.8b to the national economy, much of which is spent on imported oil, plant, machinery and expertise. Compare this to the tourism industry which generates around $21b, most of which stays in the country, is spread up and down the country, and is infinately sustainable in a way that extractive industry is not.

Are we so niave as to damage some of our most iconic natural areas and take on environmental costs for generations to come
for the benefit of a few individuals and foreign powers?

I can’t help but draw a parallell with primitive tribes, in which a few individuals swap swathes of land for beads and beer, and a few generations later wondering how they got into such a mess!

Those guys must be laughing all the way to the bank with our ‘free for removal’ gold.

By: Armchair Critic

Armchair Critic — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 06:33:01 +0000

jabba – I reckon your questions might be a topic for another post – this one is about whether mining in national parks would be acceptable. I think it is unacceptable.
As to your question, there are plenty of places that are appropriate for 1 to 5, and 7. Being a fan of distributed generation, I think most of NZ is suitable for small scale power plants. I probably don’t need to tell you that there are planning processes that determine whether a location and landuse is acceptable, on an individual basis. Most of the time these processes come up with outcomes that I agree with.
I don’t think there is anywhere in New Zealand that is suitable for nuclear power.

By: jabba

jabba — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 01:56:29 +0000

spud is the only one on this post and indeed on any other medium who has made a suggestion .. even if he may have been joking.
Carol .. can you give an answer to my questions as I’m dying to know what Labour think about our power, fuel, roading etc requirements for the future?.

By: greenie

greenie — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 22:33:42 +0000

Hi people can join the ‘coromandel watchdog’ ‘ Hands off Mt Aspiring NP ‘(national park)or ‘no mining in national parks’ facebook groups for updates.

By: Gooner

Gooner — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 09:28:17 +0000

I wasn’t being the spelling police, just thought you might want to correct it.

By: rjs131

rjs131 — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 06:30:00 +0000

I wonder how much consideration they will place on National consistently and convincingly winning the electorate vote in Coromandel in general elections??

By: Carol Beaumont

Carol Beaumont — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 05:53:40 +0000

Thanks Gooner. I have corrected Delahunty and Brownlee.

By: Spud

Spud — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 04:41:56 +0000

Oooh, Wind turbines at sewage treatment plants

By: Spud

Spud — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 04:39:27 +0000

HI J, abba Wave generators at ugly beaches, the unswimable ones etc.