On Friday, I was surfing through Science Daily, one of my favourite websites, and stumbled upon an article that infuriated me.
The New Zealand government is planning on downgrading multiple conservation areas to allow mining of gold and silver, inevitably leading to the extinction of the oldest and most evolutionary distinct frog species in the world [1], as well as the destruction of unique flora and fauna of their country.
A large part of New Zealand's natural beauty is already being destroyed by fire, logging, and mining, and the government dares bring up this topic in a post-Avatar movie world? The NZ government even posted a Discussion Paper with an evaluation of the mining prospects and the environmental values of each proposed area, but came to the conclusion that they do not want to save the region.
According to Section 7.2 of the Discussion Paper, "the [Coromandel Peninsula] contains the headwaters and middle reaches of numerous waterways identified as nationally important for biodiversity..." If the waterways of the Peninsula are polluted from the miners, it would cause detrimental effects to areas downstream.
The paper admits that many species of plants and animals of the proposed areas are endangered, but the potential for mining still exists. The UN announced that 2010 is the year of biodiversity which was supposed to be a sign that government officials have decided to put a larger emphasis on the world's environmental issues. Clearly, this is not the case.
The government of New Zealand has posted an online submission form along with maps of the areas under proposal, information on the people of the region, and its economic value. I have sent my responses to the New Zealand government and truly hope that my values are aligned with the rest of the people of New Zealand. My responses to a majority of the questions are below.
I am hoping that all of my readers pass on this blog to everyone they know on Facebook, myspace, e-mail or anything. Please have your friends and family send their comments to the government to do something about this. The deadline for submission is Wednesday May 26 at 5 PM New Zealand time. That is Wednesday May 26 at 1 AM EST, or Wednesday May 26 at 5 AM UTC.
Q1 On the areas proposed for removal from Schedule 4: Section 7 of the discussion paper sets out the areas proposed for removal from Schedule 4. Do you think these areas should be removed from Schedule 4 so that applications for exploration and mining activity can be considered on a case-by-case basis? Yes or No? And why? (Your response may be in relation to any one or more of the areas discussed. Please clearly identify the area(s) to which your response relates.)
7.2 Sections of public conservation land on the Coromandel Peninsula --
I do not agree with any area being removed from Schedule 4, especially areas discussed in section 7.2. According to the Discussion Paper, this area is nationally important to the biodiversity of New Zealand, which is already being threatened by logging, mining, and fire. Additional mining or other operations would cause a detrimental effect that will ripple through the rest of the country.
Q2 On the areas proposed for addition to Schedule 4: Section 8 of the discussion paper sets out the areas proposed for addition to Schedule 4. Do you agree with the proposal to add these areas to Schedule 4? Yes or No? And why? (Your response may be in relation to any one or more of the areas discussed. Please clearly identify the area(s) to which your response relates.)
I have reviewed the list of 14 areas that have been proposed for conservation and agree that these areas should be included in Schedule 4.
Q3 On the assessment of areas: The assessment of areas covered by Schedule 4 and those proposed for addition is outlined in sections 7 and 8 of this document and Appendices 1 and 2. (a) What are your views on the assessment of the various values (conservation, cultural, tourism and recreation, mineral, other) of the land areas discussed?
The Discussion Paper creates a very fair and equal case for all of the various values, based on my understanding of the history. However, I feel the placement of mineral values being first in each section could create an empathetic effect to the value of the economy over the value of the environment. Whether this was intentional or not is another debate that I do not want to get into.
Q5 On a new contestable conservation fund: Section 9 describes a proposed contestable conservation fund the Government proposes to establish, which would be made up of a percentage of the money the Crown receives from minerals (except petroleum) from public conservation areas.
(a) A broad objective, to enhance conservation outcomes for New Zealand, is proposed for the fund. Do you agree with the proposed objective?
This is just a consolation prize if mining is allowed and is not what the people truly want. I will only agree with this conservation fund if the government makes the foolish mistake of allowing mining.
(c) An independent panel appointed by the Minister of Energy and Resources and the Minister of Conservation is proposed to run the fund. Do you think this is a good idea?
Absolutely not. The potential for a conflict of interest lies and if anger from citizens lingers, this would not be good for the next election.
Q7 On any other issues: Do you have any further suggestions or comments on what has been said in this document?
New Zealand's reputation as a green, environmentally-friendly country has already taken a hit over the past few years, and the removal of any area in Schedule 4 would be detrimental to the recovery of a positive reputation. Gold, silver, and any other commodity are non-renewable, therefore, has limited economic value and lifespan. Consider the lost tourism revenue if the reputation of New Zealand is tainted for decades.
We have seen many examples of natural resource mining and drilling in parts of Africa and other parts of Asia destroy the habitat of many species already threatened to extinction. Neither the people nor the governments have been able to share in the benefits of compromise.
We have seen examples where environmental conservation has generated more income than hunting and mining. In Japan, whale hunting was once a thriving industry, until they almost became extinct. Those who used to kill them for a living now run whale-watching tours and have achieved more economic and moral prosperity.
I would like to see New Zealand leaders place a larger emphasis on the country's environment. The economic benefits of mining are uncertain when world commodity prices are correcting. This action is can not be reversed.
Remember that we are now living in a post-Avatar culture, whose movie theme resembles very much the proposal of areas being removed from Schedule 4 for mining. If at least not for the benefit of the natural beauty of New Zealand, consider that the reputation of elected officials is at stake here.
No comments:
Post a Comment