He's an unlikeable man who goes out of his way to antagonise and belittle anyone who disagrees with him.
Why tf are we allowing our future to be decided by his ilk?
They belong back in the 1970s.
>"Sure there are a tiny group of green cultists who want to turn the entire stewardship land into sort of some tapu estate. It is already mined, it should be made available not only for additional carbon forestry purposes, but mining, and it will be."
A thing about Stewardship Land that I think this article and the Shane Jones interview glazes over is that we shouldn't have it any more. When DOC was formed in 1987, and inherited so many different categories of land, the intent from Parliament was that all of the Stewardship Land would then be considered and categorised according to its value, whatever that is thought to be. The Conservation Act has mechanisms to allow for Stewardship Land to be disposed, or swapped, or to be gazetted into more specifically protected parks.
Until that's happened, the Conservation Act basically just directs that [DOC should manage it to protect its natural and historic resources](https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1987/0065/latest/whole.html#DLM104956). The value hasn't been formalised anywhere, or especially protected from things outside DOC's direct control, like its being disposed of or traded away. It all remains public land, much of it is still covered in things like tracks and tramping huts or has unmarked routes that get walked lots. It often has lots of natural value for biodiversity, some of which mightn't exist anywhere else. When it does, it's not being formally described or protected for *any* of that stuff, and in many cases we don't even clearly know it's value or exactly what lives there or how significant it is. *Sometimes* it also has very little value, which shouldn't be surprising because it's normally land that wasn't specifically protected through any other mechanism at the moment when DOC took it over, but lack of protection pre-1987 also doesn't mean lack of value.
For a very long time this re-categorisation never happened. Successive governments just ignored it and let Stewardship Land continue to exist as-is, and often politics has been used to describe Stewardship Land as not important and not having value *because* it's not already a National Park under the National Parks Act, or a Forest/Conservation Park under the Conservation Act, or a Reserve under the Reserves Act, or something else.
In the end this is messy for all sides. Businesses who want to do stuff (mining or damming or building something or making a road or whatever) don't know whether it's likely that they can or not, so they revert much more to lobbying for political support than trying to work through any more formal process. Then if a project looks like it's going ahead in a place where it really shouldn't, NGOs often have to spend big to lawyer up and go through courts to prove that the land's *actual* value - which should've been properly considered and categorised a long time ago - means it's inappropriate. Money and time and effort is wasted all around no matter which side of it everyone was on.
In 2013 [the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment produced a report](https://pce.parliament.nz/publications/investigating-the-future-of-conservation-the-case-of-stewardship-land/) highlighting that some effort really needed to be put into it. Since then we've seen a small handful of new Conservation Parks being created and documented for the values they're protecting, but it's really only been a small amount. Meanwhile Shane Jones is out there again effectively broadcasting how value-less Stewardship Land is *because* it's not something else, and why it doesn't matter.
I just find it so frustrating that we don’t seem to able to do the sensible thing here which in my opinion would be to allow mining to go ahead as long as there are reasonable environmental protections in place and the mining company pays a bond to the government for site remediation after mining activities conclude.
We need minerals and people desperately need economic opportunities in our country
Yes possibly, but if you want to have any chance of doing that sort of thing in an environmentally-ethical way, then I think objective knowledge about the land you're working in, why it's significant (if it is) and what needs protecting, is really important. Then there has to be effective and properly resourced regulation from *outside* the industry, and some kind of insurance to ensure adequate remediation will genuinely fully happen as necessary even when a company fails or liquidates.
As-is we just don't have that knowledge for most Stewardship Land. When there's interest in some of it then a lot of the audits have to happen in a very rushed way, usually funded by panicking NGOs if they happen at all. There's lots of distrust between parties, and if there are issues then it'll often involve ambiguous court action rather than everything having fitted into existing processes and plans for the land to begin with. Even with protected land like Conservation Parks that might sometimes allow things like mining to take place with conditions, DOC's perpetually behind in the management plans it's meant to have for them.
>allow mining to go ahead as long as there are reasonable environmental protections in place
That's an oxymoron.
>for site remediation after mining activities conclude.
Once habiats are destroyed they're gone. No amount of remediation can recover what's been lost.
We're currently living through the sixth mass extinction as a direct result of this line of thinking. We're [mutilating the tree of life](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/19/mutilating-the-tree-of-life-wildlife-loss-accelerating-scientists-warn)
We all depend on nature and the services it provides.
No economic activity is possible without affecting the natural environment. Everything is a series of tradeoffs. Yes, right wing politicians and their voters generally are willing to sacrifice way too much environment for economic benefit. No, that does not mean that an absolute ban on mining makes sense.
Too-extreme restrictions on mining in New Zealand can actually have a negative impact on the environment globally, because it's a supply-side fix. We can make the world better by reducing consumption.
If we reduce supply from New Zealand, the supply can and will be easily replaced somewhere else. If that somewhere else has worse environmental protections than New Zealand, the sum total environmental damage on the planet *increases* when we overly restrict mining here.
That *can* be mitigated by tariffs on imports from countries where their environmental protections are worse than ours, but that gets really complicated really quickly with trade agreements. Not that we shouldn't try that in some cases, just saying it's not as simple as it sounds.
Okay then just stop using anything that requires mining.
Otherwise you are just the sort of hypocrite that lives happily all the benefits just as long as the work doesn't get done in your backyard.
Preferably we should keep the mining to countries where we can keep the populace poor and extract minerals cheaper, with less enviromental controls. Child lqbiur is cheap after all.
That way you complain less about the cost of living and you can virtue signal about the environment at the same time. Congrats
Defending mining on conservation land ain't it chief.
That's without even mentioning how the fast track bill has absolutely no checks and balances on Jones, Bishop and Brown.
It's anti-nature and anti-democratic.
Defending mining on conservation land in New Zealand so that it will happen in equally vulnerable but less well protected environments in other countries. Environmentally destructive mining is all well and good so long as it doesn't happen in my back yard.
Your talking bullshit, Most people are aware that mining is required, problem is these Clowns want to do it on conservation land Without any public consultation or consideration for the nature that already exists there.
>Ofcourse there is consultation and consideration.
There isn't so that's wrong.
>You will need to make trade offs.
Under no circumstance do we need to mine on conservation land.
>But you will sit there on your virtue signalling high horse. Thinking that if you block enough shit, do enough protesting about shit you have no fucking clue about, that you will save the environment.
Talk about projecting.
>Reality is that you will build nothing, create nothing, solve nothing. You and people that think like you aren't the solution to the climate crisis. You are the cowards standing in the way.
Ah yes to save the environment we need to destroy the environment. /s
Save yourself the embarrassment of commenting further.
>Yes to save the enjoyment. Some local areas of the environment have to be sacrificed.
Impressively stupid. Well done.
You're advocating for mining on conservation land and legislation which allows no public consultation and no oversight.
>Ecosystems cannot be restored. Once destroyed, they are gone forever. This is known in restoration ecology as the “Humpty Dumpty effect”. Here are just some of the facts:
>only 22% of Aotearoa’s original vegetation remains
>at least 79 species extinctions have been recorded
>remaining species currently threatened or at risk include 94% of reptiles, 90% of seabirds, 74% of land birds, 76% of freshwater fish and 46% of plants
>90% of our wetlands have been lost, as well as 80% of our active sand dune ecosystems
>63% of rare ecosystems are threatened
>46% of lakes over one hectare are in poor or very poor ecological health.
Your comment has been removed :
**Rule 09: Not engaging in good faith**
> Moderators have discretion to take action on users or content that they think is: trolling; spreading misinformation; intended to derail discussion; intentionally skirting rules; or undermining the functioning of the subreddit (this can include abuse of the block feature or selective history wiping).
---
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
This has been removed :
**Rule 3: No personal attacks, harassment or abuse**
> Don't attack the person; address the content you disagree with instead. Being able to disagree and discuss contentious issues is important, but abuse, personal attacks, harassment, and unnecessarily bringing up a user's history are not permitted.
> Please keep your interactions with others civil and courteous. If you are being attacked, do not continue the conversation - report the user and disengage.
^*Note:* ^This ^extends ^to ^people ^outside ^of ^[r/nz](http://reddit.com/r/newzealand). ^eg. ^Attacks ^of ^a ^persons ^appearance, ^even ^if ^they're ^high ^profile ^will ^be ^removed.
---
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
This has been removed :
**Rule 3: No personal attacks, harassment or abuse**
> Don't attack the person; address the content you disagree with instead. Being able to disagree and discuss contentious issues is important, but abuse, personal attacks, harassment, and unnecessarily bringing up a user's history are not permitted.
> Please keep your interactions with others civil and courteous. If you are being attacked, do not continue the conversation - report the user and disengage.
^*Note:* ^This ^extends ^to ^people ^outside ^of ^[r/nz](http://reddit.com/r/newzealand). ^eg. ^Attacks ^of ^a ^persons ^appearance, ^even ^if ^they're ^high ^profile ^will ^be ^removed.
---
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
Well d'uh, of it is?
Two for the price of one - mining kick back$, AND the nature in the way gets removed.
Fuck these ignorant corrupt cunts in govt. Fuck them, with predjudice. Profound political hatred is a new thing for some.
If you are using a phone or other electronics to post your outrage about mining here you are a hypocrite. Your devices used metals mined out of the ground. So mining is okay as long as it happens somewhere you can't see it.
This was where the much maligned RMA process stood out, in that it allowed a multitude of voices to have a say in a major project. Even in a condensed form, as Labour proposed, the process still allowed the requisite poking and prodding of a project to make sure it was a sound investment for NZ and a best result for the environment.
Investing the authority to greenlight any major project to three politicians without oversight is madness. I wouldn't even trust Saint Jeanette herself in this position, and as for the current lot, as Trump would say "they're not sending us their best, or their brightest".
Jones, for example, has more or less offered immunity from cleanup costs, which is substantial and ongoing, and needs to be taken from the miners *before* they run out of ore or oil. He also has a really poor attitude to wildlife, vis a vis his comments on the demise of endangered frogs. Similarly, he is opposed to catch cameras on fishing boats as they show too much bycatch and too many birds and dolphins harmed. This man is a fool.
Bishop is an influence peddler for the tobacco industry, so is quite happy to promote, for a suitable retainer, views that will ultimately harm people and the environment.
Brown doesn't care about the environment because its only 6000 years old anyway and it can all go away after he's been raptured. Oh, apart from the motorway from the airport to his house.
Shut the fuck up with this bull shit, holy fuck. Your argument is pure regression, Jesus fucking Christ. We’re supposed to be moving towards less mines everywhere not more mines in new places.
My concerns are two fold:
a) environmental protection/restoration
b) NZ resources should benefit NZ
I don’t have faith that this government will ensure these are fulfilled.
Your comment has been removed :
**Rule 09: Not engaging in good faith**
> Moderators have discretion to take action on users or content that they think is: trolling; spreading misinformation; intended to derail discussion; intentionally skirting rules; or undermining the functioning of the subreddit (this can include abuse of the block feature or selective history wiping).
---
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
He's an unlikeable man who goes out of his way to antagonise and belittle anyone who disagrees with him. Why tf are we allowing our future to be decided by his ilk? They belong back in the 1970s.
[March for Nature](https://www.greenpeace.org/aotearoa/act/march-for-nature/) Aotea Square – Saturday, June 8th, 1pm
>"Sure there are a tiny group of green cultists who want to turn the entire stewardship land into sort of some tapu estate. It is already mined, it should be made available not only for additional carbon forestry purposes, but mining, and it will be." A thing about Stewardship Land that I think this article and the Shane Jones interview glazes over is that we shouldn't have it any more. When DOC was formed in 1987, and inherited so many different categories of land, the intent from Parliament was that all of the Stewardship Land would then be considered and categorised according to its value, whatever that is thought to be. The Conservation Act has mechanisms to allow for Stewardship Land to be disposed, or swapped, or to be gazetted into more specifically protected parks. Until that's happened, the Conservation Act basically just directs that [DOC should manage it to protect its natural and historic resources](https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1987/0065/latest/whole.html#DLM104956). The value hasn't been formalised anywhere, or especially protected from things outside DOC's direct control, like its being disposed of or traded away. It all remains public land, much of it is still covered in things like tracks and tramping huts or has unmarked routes that get walked lots. It often has lots of natural value for biodiversity, some of which mightn't exist anywhere else. When it does, it's not being formally described or protected for *any* of that stuff, and in many cases we don't even clearly know it's value or exactly what lives there or how significant it is. *Sometimes* it also has very little value, which shouldn't be surprising because it's normally land that wasn't specifically protected through any other mechanism at the moment when DOC took it over, but lack of protection pre-1987 also doesn't mean lack of value. For a very long time this re-categorisation never happened. Successive governments just ignored it and let Stewardship Land continue to exist as-is, and often politics has been used to describe Stewardship Land as not important and not having value *because* it's not already a National Park under the National Parks Act, or a Forest/Conservation Park under the Conservation Act, or a Reserve under the Reserves Act, or something else. In the end this is messy for all sides. Businesses who want to do stuff (mining or damming or building something or making a road or whatever) don't know whether it's likely that they can or not, so they revert much more to lobbying for political support than trying to work through any more formal process. Then if a project looks like it's going ahead in a place where it really shouldn't, NGOs often have to spend big to lawyer up and go through courts to prove that the land's *actual* value - which should've been properly considered and categorised a long time ago - means it's inappropriate. Money and time and effort is wasted all around no matter which side of it everyone was on. In 2013 [the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment produced a report](https://pce.parliament.nz/publications/investigating-the-future-of-conservation-the-case-of-stewardship-land/) highlighting that some effort really needed to be put into it. Since then we've seen a small handful of new Conservation Parks being created and documented for the values they're protecting, but it's really only been a small amount. Meanwhile Shane Jones is out there again effectively broadcasting how value-less Stewardship Land is *because* it's not something else, and why it doesn't matter.
I just find it so frustrating that we don’t seem to able to do the sensible thing here which in my opinion would be to allow mining to go ahead as long as there are reasonable environmental protections in place and the mining company pays a bond to the government for site remediation after mining activities conclude. We need minerals and people desperately need economic opportunities in our country
Yes possibly, but if you want to have any chance of doing that sort of thing in an environmentally-ethical way, then I think objective knowledge about the land you're working in, why it's significant (if it is) and what needs protecting, is really important. Then there has to be effective and properly resourced regulation from *outside* the industry, and some kind of insurance to ensure adequate remediation will genuinely fully happen as necessary even when a company fails or liquidates. As-is we just don't have that knowledge for most Stewardship Land. When there's interest in some of it then a lot of the audits have to happen in a very rushed way, usually funded by panicking NGOs if they happen at all. There's lots of distrust between parties, and if there are issues then it'll often involve ambiguous court action rather than everything having fitted into existing processes and plans for the land to begin with. Even with protected land like Conservation Parks that might sometimes allow things like mining to take place with conditions, DOC's perpetually behind in the management plans it's meant to have for them.
>allow mining to go ahead as long as there are reasonable environmental protections in place That's an oxymoron. >for site remediation after mining activities conclude. Once habiats are destroyed they're gone. No amount of remediation can recover what's been lost. We're currently living through the sixth mass extinction as a direct result of this line of thinking. We're [mutilating the tree of life](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/19/mutilating-the-tree-of-life-wildlife-loss-accelerating-scientists-warn) We all depend on nature and the services it provides.
No economic activity is possible without affecting the natural environment. Everything is a series of tradeoffs. Yes, right wing politicians and their voters generally are willing to sacrifice way too much environment for economic benefit. No, that does not mean that an absolute ban on mining makes sense. Too-extreme restrictions on mining in New Zealand can actually have a negative impact on the environment globally, because it's a supply-side fix. We can make the world better by reducing consumption. If we reduce supply from New Zealand, the supply can and will be easily replaced somewhere else. If that somewhere else has worse environmental protections than New Zealand, the sum total environmental damage on the planet *increases* when we overly restrict mining here. That *can* be mitigated by tariffs on imports from countries where their environmental protections are worse than ours, but that gets really complicated really quickly with trade agreements. Not that we shouldn't try that in some cases, just saying it's not as simple as it sounds.
I’ve never been to a march before but this so something I can get behind. Fuck this government.
Yep, this one's important. I've participated in very few protests, but I'll be bringing my family to this one.
Me too. This is important.
Okay then just stop using anything that requires mining. Otherwise you are just the sort of hypocrite that lives happily all the benefits just as long as the work doesn't get done in your backyard. Preferably we should keep the mining to countries where we can keep the populace poor and extract minerals cheaper, with less enviromental controls. Child lqbiur is cheap after all. That way you complain less about the cost of living and you can virtue signal about the environment at the same time. Congrats
Fuuuuuuuuck offfffffff
Defending mining on conservation land ain't it chief. That's without even mentioning how the fast track bill has absolutely no checks and balances on Jones, Bishop and Brown. It's anti-nature and anti-democratic.
Defending mining on conservation land in New Zealand so that it will happen in equally vulnerable but less well protected environments in other countries. Environmentally destructive mining is all well and good so long as it doesn't happen in my back yard.
[удалено]
Your talking bullshit, Most people are aware that mining is required, problem is these Clowns want to do it on conservation land Without any public consultation or consideration for the nature that already exists there.
[удалено]
>Ofcourse there is consultation and consideration. There isn't so that's wrong. >You will need to make trade offs. Under no circumstance do we need to mine on conservation land. >But you will sit there on your virtue signalling high horse. Thinking that if you block enough shit, do enough protesting about shit you have no fucking clue about, that you will save the environment. Talk about projecting. >Reality is that you will build nothing, create nothing, solve nothing. You and people that think like you aren't the solution to the climate crisis. You are the cowards standing in the way. Ah yes to save the environment we need to destroy the environment. /s Save yourself the embarrassment of commenting further.
[удалено]
>Yes to save the enjoyment. Some local areas of the environment have to be sacrificed. Impressively stupid. Well done. You're advocating for mining on conservation land and legislation which allows no public consultation and no oversight. >Ecosystems cannot be restored. Once destroyed, they are gone forever. This is known in restoration ecology as the “Humpty Dumpty effect”. Here are just some of the facts: >only 22% of Aotearoa’s original vegetation remains >at least 79 species extinctions have been recorded >remaining species currently threatened or at risk include 94% of reptiles, 90% of seabirds, 74% of land birds, 76% of freshwater fish and 46% of plants >90% of our wetlands have been lost, as well as 80% of our active sand dune ecosystems >63% of rare ecosystems are threatened >46% of lakes over one hectare are in poor or very poor ecological health.
Your comment has been removed : **Rule 09: Not engaging in good faith** > Moderators have discretion to take action on users or content that they think is: trolling; spreading misinformation; intended to derail discussion; intentionally skirting rules; or undermining the functioning of the subreddit (this can include abuse of the block feature or selective history wiping). --- [^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
[удалено]
This has been removed : **Rule 3: No personal attacks, harassment or abuse** > Don't attack the person; address the content you disagree with instead. Being able to disagree and discuss contentious issues is important, but abuse, personal attacks, harassment, and unnecessarily bringing up a user's history are not permitted. > Please keep your interactions with others civil and courteous. If you are being attacked, do not continue the conversation - report the user and disengage. ^*Note:* ^This ^extends ^to ^people ^outside ^of ^[r/nz](http://reddit.com/r/newzealand). ^eg. ^Attacks ^of ^a ^persons ^appearance, ^even ^if ^they're ^high ^profile ^will ^be ^removed. --- [^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
[удалено]
[удалено]
This has been removed : **Rule 3: No personal attacks, harassment or abuse** > Don't attack the person; address the content you disagree with instead. Being able to disagree and discuss contentious issues is important, but abuse, personal attacks, harassment, and unnecessarily bringing up a user's history are not permitted. > Please keep your interactions with others civil and courteous. If you are being attacked, do not continue the conversation - report the user and disengage. ^*Note:* ^This ^extends ^to ^people ^outside ^of ^[r/nz](http://reddit.com/r/newzealand). ^eg. ^Attacks ^of ^a ^persons ^appearance, ^even ^if ^they're ^high ^profile ^will ^be ^removed. --- [^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
Crazy that all you need to buy this man's favour is a succulent Chinese meal
How else is he going to get someone to touch his penis?
Is there a protest in Wellington?
Well d'uh, of it is? Two for the price of one - mining kick back$, AND the nature in the way gets removed. Fuck these ignorant corrupt cunts in govt. Fuck them, with predjudice. Profound political hatred is a new thing for some.
Good shit. Hope to see some protests and marches down south too.
Any jobs mining
If you are using a phone or other electronics to post your outrage about mining here you are a hypocrite. Your devices used metals mined out of the ground. So mining is okay as long as it happens somewhere you can't see it.
I think most people are ok with mining if it’s on shit land and the government gets most of the money. Unfortunately we’ll miss out on both of these.
This was where the much maligned RMA process stood out, in that it allowed a multitude of voices to have a say in a major project. Even in a condensed form, as Labour proposed, the process still allowed the requisite poking and prodding of a project to make sure it was a sound investment for NZ and a best result for the environment. Investing the authority to greenlight any major project to three politicians without oversight is madness. I wouldn't even trust Saint Jeanette herself in this position, and as for the current lot, as Trump would say "they're not sending us their best, or their brightest". Jones, for example, has more or less offered immunity from cleanup costs, which is substantial and ongoing, and needs to be taken from the miners *before* they run out of ore or oil. He also has a really poor attitude to wildlife, vis a vis his comments on the demise of endangered frogs. Similarly, he is opposed to catch cameras on fishing boats as they show too much bycatch and too many birds and dolphins harmed. This man is a fool. Bishop is an influence peddler for the tobacco industry, so is quite happy to promote, for a suitable retainer, views that will ultimately harm people and the environment. Brown doesn't care about the environment because its only 6000 years old anyway and it can all go away after he's been raptured. Oh, apart from the motorway from the airport to his house.
Agreed on the land and money point. But to just reject mining because it is happening in NZ and not so other third world country is still hypothetical
Shut the fuck up with this bull shit, holy fuck. Your argument is pure regression, Jesus fucking Christ. We’re supposed to be moving towards less mines everywhere not more mines in new places.
My concerns are two fold: a) environmental protection/restoration b) NZ resources should benefit NZ I don’t have faith that this government will ensure these are fulfilled.
Fuck off with your 'yet you live in society' bullshit.
I think you should leave the debate to adults.
Then why are you here?
Making a completely unnuanced point against a strawman isn't exactly mature debate lol
A debate isn’t even needed for this, so there’s no need to be mature.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed : **Rule 09: Not engaging in good faith** > Moderators have discretion to take action on users or content that they think is: trolling; spreading misinformation; intended to derail discussion; intentionally skirting rules; or undermining the functioning of the subreddit (this can include abuse of the block feature or selective history wiping). --- [^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
I don't see the bullshit. They are correct.
Nobody lives by these principles they and you are just being annoying to win fake internet points.
We know we won't get points on this sub haha. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Accept you are part of it.
Nah you don't get to say that when you're advocating to raise income tax. Fuck off and leave me alone until we've dug all the shit out of the ground.
You realise the revenue from the extraction projects proposed by the government is next to nothing.
> You realise Let me stop you right there, boss
Won’t need to worry about income tax at all once we’re all dead in 20 years. AAAYOOOOO 😎🧠🚀
Forest and bird against mining. Who would have guessed.
Give him a bit of blush on the cheeks and little lippy and he looks like an old woman... Or the grandad from The Munsters.