New Zealand is not so clean and green...

Remove all ads!

As many of you know, NZ has a reputation for being a clean, green, nuclear free type of place. And as many of you know from watching LOTR and other movies that it is indeed a very beautiful country. One of the primary reasons it has this beauty is its long isolation from mainland Gondwana, leading to a high level of endemic species, particularly angiosperms, as well as unique invertebrates, high levels of endemic flightless bird species, and the only surviving member (or members, could be two of them) of a very ancient reptile lineage that was once widespread globally, but is now restricted to just a few islands. This long isolation period also meant it was the last major land mass to be settled by humans, with humans living here for only around 600 years.

However, it isnt the way it seems. The government in power at the moment wants to mine national parks full of things found no where else in the world...no where else...and for what? Cash. Thats right, the government wants to rape the land to line their pockets.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/3488434/Mining-in-conservation-land-proposal

Is money worth the destruction of unique ecosystems and the organisms contained within them? Humans have already descimated the land in the brief time we have been here, and the clean, green image NZ portrays to the rest of the world is a sham, a lie. So you better visit before its all gone...

 

That depends on the type of mining being proposed. Remember, mining isn't the eco-devil. Strip mining is the eco-devil. Of course, that's the easiest and cheapest with today's technology, so it's the first choice, but if they ban that and only allow more eco-friendly forms of mining, it may not cause any problems.

 

Eco devil? Escuse me?! Speak about euphemisms.

I come from an area where they do really large scale open cast coal mining (using the largest machines on earth) in Germany. Big holes, and I don't like them. At least, we do something that can be called 'landscape reconstruction' - not reconstructing the actual landscape but reconstructing at least some landscape.

​

That is Bagger 287. It is 227m long, 95m high. It's weight is 14.000 t. It delivers 200.000 m³ coal per day, since 1976.

That is ecologically bad, carbon emissions aside, also because of then need to reduce the groundwater level from single digit metres by some trivial 700 metres, but at the very least ameliorated by reconstruction i.e. revegetation. The companies that do mountaintop removal mining in the US do about nothing after depleting a mountain top mine. The mountains are left destroyed. Strip mining leaves a f*cking wasteland, and that's the problem about it. It's not an eco-devil. It destroys, literally, national landscapes. It's a national disgrace, nothing less.

 

They used to do strip mine here, but they stopped before I can really recall. It was mostly for coal, for some reason the coal from the West Coast (of the South Island) is smokeless or has less smoke, which was handy in the days of WW1 so that the enemy could not see the smoke of ships from a distance. The areas that were mined here are still damaged, despite the ecological restoration attempts. In addition to mining NZ was descimated by commercial logging of native trees found no where else in the world, and vast tracts of the Westland area, plus others, are ruined beyond all recognition.

If the mining proposed here was for essential minerals that we need, I 'might' be able to let it slip if they did it surgically, as they are trying to claim they will be, but, the mining is not for minerals we need, but rather it is for minerals solely for export. This is just another attempt by the National Party (in power now) to fund their tax cuts for the rich.

A few years back the then government (Labour Party) was involved in mining in the same area of Westland that contained the very rare native snail species that are entirely carnivourous. Their radula had evolved from being a rasping tongue-like organ to being somewhat like a drill for drilling into their prey. Amazing creatures really. And, to justify their mining attempts, they paid people to go out onto the hills and valleys with gps and get all the snails to move them to another area...an area they did naturally occur in. This complete disregard for life sickens me.

Could be worse though, I admit, but I still think mining national parks full of endemic species is, in this day and age, unforgivable.

 

Ragusa, you thought eco-devil was a euphemism? Remember, I'm a Christian. To me, the Devil is the embodyment of all evil, the source of all corruption, and the Father of Lies. He wants to destroy not just all humanity, but all creation. Calling something an ecological devil isn't a euphemism to me. It's as bad as it gets. While mining in general definitely doesn't deserve the term, strip mining is as close to it's embodyment as anything can get short of nuking the landscape (and that's only worse in scale).

Landscape reconstruction is a small bandaid on a very large wound, but I guess it's better than leaving gaping scars of bare rock.

 

Ah, ok

 

So it's not an eco-devil, it's what an eco-devil wishes it could do ?

 

Talk of a personification of a concept that only exists in the minds of humans doesnt add anything to the discussion of whether or not a country should mine for cash at the expense of destroying or severely disrupting endemic species.

 

Nataraja,
I can't ever tell for sure whether I get NOG right, but speaking for myself, I can say that I agree with you and oppose mining. Relax.

 

Nataraja, my point was that it's an assumption that mining will do that. Are they talking about strip mining, or more modern, less drastic practices? If they're talking about strip mining, then like Ragusa, I'm all with you. If they're not, then I'd want to know more about what they are proposing. There are still other bad options out there, but there are also good ones.

 

They claim the mining will be done surgically with minimal disruption to the environment.

 

Well, that could mean anything, unfortunately.

 

It's tough to get a straight answer from anyone on this one, but I'm not a big fan of the proposals. For one thing, they're a one-off economic boost. Once the money has been made, it can't be made again, so I wonder if it even makes any sense from a pure financial stand point. As opposed to, say, a wind farm or tidal plant, which at least has the defence of being able to generate benefits indefinitely.

 

The government has certainly taken a lot of **** over it. So even if the government is supporting such a thing, I would say the average New Zealander prefers the more 'green, clean' approach when it comes to our national parks.

 

Is it **** from the average New Zealander, or from the news? There's a big difference, after all.

 

Basically the government is trying to pass policy to mine our national parks, and the average Kiwi person sees no need to mine our national parks, and the news reports this view accurately. The news here is not like the American news which seems to the average person here as being propaganda, it is rather liberal and voices the concerns, for the most part, of the average Kiwi person.