Mining spin: Govt try improve palatability of unpalatable plan

Written By: - Date published: 1:04 pm, April 24th, 2010 - 26 comments
Categories: Conservation, Environment, Mining - Tags:

The Government is trying to run a campaign to try and minimise public outcry of its plan to desecrate areas areas of our National Parks. By purposefully releasing its mad initial plan, Minister of Energy Gerry Brownlee hoped his second-choice would appear more palatable.

I have no doubt that this first plan to open up even more land was exactly what Brownlee wanted. It was only the likely public outcry that forced Cabinet to tell Gerry to back off and go back to the drawing board.

Now, with even the new mining plan proving unpopular, Brownlee is running around trying to prove it really isn’t that awful. He’s almost saying “See how in my first plan I wanted to mine all National Parks, now I just want to mine a couple of them“.

Mr Brownlee needs to recognise that just because you compare a crazy plan with a f**king mental plan, it doesn’t actually make the crazy plan any less crazy. And just because your f**king mental plan doesn’t get through the hoops, it doesn’t mean that you’re not a barking mad ideologue.

All our National Parks are special. And let’s be very clear here Mr Brownlee. You have no right to pick and choose to desecrate any of those special lands.

26 comments on “Mining spin: Govt try improve palatability of unpalatable plan ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Bill 1
    24 April 2010 at 2:14 pm

    “…that forced Cabinet to tell Gerry to back off…”

    But he’s saying that he told an unspecified ‘them‘ to ‘get real’ and that was when the 7000 hectares came back.

    As I was trying to articulate here, there is an invisible straw man being set up by the Nats whose purpose is to make them look like conservation estate good guys.

    edit Maybe better expressed as a TINA situation is being manufactured?

    Also, where does this idea come from that mining Stewart Island won’t draw massive opposition? Is that a N.Island perception perhaps?

    • Michael Foxglove 1.1
      24 April 2010 at 2:18 pm

      I think Brownlee is just lying about telling anyone to back off. Trying to pretend he’s not all “sexy-coal” Brownlee.

      • Bill 1.1.1
        24 April 2010 at 2:37 pm

        I can’t believe for a second that a cabinet minister would lie on such a matter.

        Because he is surely going to be made to name who it was he supposedly told to ‘get real’ (his words).

        And he’s going to be asked to explain whose directions they were acting under.

        And he’s going to be asked that if it is a case that they didn’t follow their directions, then why that would be.

        And so on.

        But he’s not going to be accused of lying and the whole matter passed over because that would be totally unfair to Gerry Boy.

        Right?

        • Ari 1.1.1.1
          25 April 2010 at 11:08 am

          Haha, yeah, the opposition will TOTALLY ask him. LOL

          And if they do, it’s not like any of the news outlets will air it.*rolls eyes*

  2. Outofbed 2
    24 April 2010 at 2:19 pm

    Been out collecting sigs easiest campaign ever!

  3. greenfly 3
    24 April 2010 at 2:42 pm

    Is he storing lumps of coal in those jowls?

  4. Outofbed 4
    24 April 2010 at 3:41 pm

    Sexy Coal with Lucy Lawless and Robyn Malcolm
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0oqeJ7a_hE&feature=player_embedded#!
    Bloody funny

    “hey Gerry say coal say coal”

    • TightyRighty 4.1
      24 April 2010 at 6:23 pm

      they are hardly experts, just fools with delusions of importance. celebrity doesn’t make a cause right, or even effective. bob geldofs recent unmasking comes to mind.

      • Michael Foxglove 4.1.1
        24 April 2010 at 8:11 pm

        Though surely everyone is entitled to an ideology TightyRighty? Or would you deny individuals have the capacity to make value judgements for themselves?

      • Ari 4.1.2
        25 April 2010 at 11:16 am

        Wait, experts matter now that we’re not talking about climate change?

        Oh wait, we ARE talking about climate change. Don’t worry, there are plenty of experts saying the same thing.

  5. Fisiani 5
    24 April 2010 at 8:32 pm

    If a surgical mine tunnel was drilled just outside then under a National Park then the surface would be pristine.
    If a surgical mine tunnel was drilled in a remote part of a National Park the it would be 99% pristine ie cosmetically pristine yet profitable.

    • lprent 5.1
      24 April 2010 at 8:35 pm

      Two words. Subsidence and groundwater. Look them up and figure out how daft and naive you sound.

      ‘Surgical’ mining simply isn’t possible because you can’t confine natural systems easily if at all. Everything affects everything else, usually in unexpected ways. The best approach to put considerable distance between land-uses

      • Armchair Critic 5.1.1
        24 April 2010 at 9:56 pm

        Three concepts – access roads, processing plants and tailings dams. All needed for mining, surgical or otherwise. All take more room than the access portal. All take longer to disappear, too.
        Surgical mining is a prelude to open cast. Prove the lode is there with an underground mine. Wait until the political environment is suitable, then threaten to pull out (job losses, ghost towns, reduced foreign investment etc.) unless an open cast permit is given. Might take ten or fifteen years or more, but that’s okay. Example at -37.601176S, 175.075808E.

  6. Fisiani 6
    24 April 2010 at 8:40 pm

    Two words
    Modern and mining

    • Cnr Joe 6.1
      25 April 2010 at 10:16 am

      Several words
      this isn’t like keyhole surgery to remove a cancer
      this idea to remove certain pieces of these areas is not going to make them better
      this is not a proposal to help
      it is about removing wealth and then what?
      another holiday home for Jonkey types perhaps in Greece?

  7. Jim Nald 7
    25 April 2010 at 9:00 am

    la la blah blah

    Key is letting Brownlee spin as deep as they would like to be mining

  8. prism 8
    25 April 2010 at 11:05 am

    Heard that Nelson had a demonstration against mining yesterday with hundreds of people turning up.

    • exbrethren 8.1
      26 April 2010 at 9:14 am

      Loads of people marched up Trafalgar Street, big turnout for Nelson. Plenty of tourists found out about the mining proposals and weren’t too impressed.

      Nick Smith had the guts to turn up and try and put the Nat Party spin, unfortunately this wasn’t compatible with his speech introducing the S4 legislation and wasn’t really taken seriously. Word is that he loathes the Brownlee scheme but is getting heavily leaned on. I guess his conservation principles aren’t strong enough for him to resign.

  9. Fisiani 9
    25 April 2010 at 11:21 am

    Heard that Nelson had tens of thousands of people not turn up.

    • Maynard J 9.1
      26 April 2010 at 9:02 am

      I held an anti-Fascist march yesterday. You didn’t turn up. Fascist.

    • felix 9.2
      26 April 2010 at 7:20 pm

      The Nelson Mail reports a crowd of close to 2000.

      That’s huge for Nelson – as nrt says that’s the equivalent of 10,000 in Wellington.

      Or even more vividly (for northeners) 50,000 in Auckland.

      But to Fisiani this means nothing. Probably blames the lubrul meeedia.

  10. Jim Nald 10
    25 April 2010 at 11:34 am

    Nats’ repulsive and cynical moves
    kindles coals that smoulder and fire
    in our chests
    A hundred thousand would weep
    than might laugh

Links to post

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.