- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Thursday, March 25, 2010

National you are LYING about the valuation of mineral wealth, LYING about the return from mining and LYING about mining Great Barrier


Magazine joins clean, green NZ bashers
Critics say international ridicule of New Zealand's "100% Pure" brand has come home to roost with another scathing article in an influential international magazine. The publication of the article in the London-based Economist yesterday came as the Government was embarrassed by evidence that official figures touting the economic benefits of mining were too high. The article is headed: "A backlash to New Zealand's vow of purity." The magazine, with a global readership the size of New Zealand's population, says it is time for the country to find itself a more sustainable brand – "and soon". "The dilemma New Zealand faces is no different to that of other rich countries – how to balance economic growth with the need to address environmental degradation. "But it is particularly acute in a country so dependent on the export of commodities and landscape-driven tourism. The difference between New Zealand and other places is that New Zealand has actively sold itself as `100% Pure'." British newspaper The Guardian said in November that the clean green Kiwi brand amounted to a "shameless two fingers to the global community" in the face of a dirtier reality. In September, The New York Times ran a front-page story questioning the sustainability of the hoki fishery in New Zealand. It has also been revealed that a 1.3 million-strong American lobby group, the Sierra Club, wrote to Prime Minister John Key protesting against the mining proposals.

The mainstream media honeymoon is well and truly over with real scrutiny now on National's obvious lies over mining, (congratulations to Gordon Campbell for breaking this story on line at Scoop.co.nz) with TVNZ last night attacking National over the bullshit valuation of minerals which we now know have thrown together by a Mining lobbyist...

Brownlee overvalued Great Barrier claims
Energy Minister Gerry Brownlee has been forced to admit that the government has overstated the potential value of minerals on Great Barrier Island. ONE News discovered the true value is less than third of the billions Brownlee has been claiming, could be mined from the Hauraki Gulf island. The government has claimed that there is up to $4.3 billion worth of gold, silver and other minerals, waiting to be mined. But a report from Richard Barker, the geologist Brownlee's officials used to assess Great Barrier minerals resources, put the island's mineral value at $1.2 billion. That number is nowhere near what Brownlee has been claiming it is worth.

...aND TVNZ attacked the actual return we get from the Mining companies - A MERE 1% - that's all we are going to get 1%!!!!!

1%!!!!!

So the actual amount Gerry wants us to destroy our clean and green image for is 1%! I pointed out we would be unhappy with Gerry and his magic beans, so how happy are you folks?

As for the Great Barrier, it is the smokescreen mine I argued National would use to try and slip mining through around the rest of the country, they will allow Nikki Kaye to do her song and dance and retreat there to make the policy look 'moderate' and that they are 'listening'.

Look - National have LIED about the mineral valuation, they have LIED about the supposed wealth we will actually get back and they are LYING about mining Great Barrier - and while they lie about mining they are destroying our clean green image.

For the first time since National were elected, I get a real sense that many people who voted for John Key are now regretting that decision.

Chickens. Roost. Coming home to. Make a sentence.

11 Comments:

At 25/3/10 2:18 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As my wife said, everyone is now realising there shit but hey! who else ya gonna vote for! And they know it!

 
At 25/3/10 7:39 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well......you vote for the least worst option I guess. And next time you don't get hoodwinked by the Ra ra ra cheer leader change change change, can can can kaka ka!
Perhaps you vote for sustainability - just maybe

 
At 26/3/10 10:07 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Funny how none of this was a problem for when Labour approved 218 per­mits for min­ing inside Depart­ment of Con­ser­va­tion land between Decem­ber 1999 and Octo­ber 2008.

Where was you hanky twisting about destroying our clean green image then?

 
At 26/3/10 12:45 pm, Blogger Bomber said...

Name any one of those 218 mining permits that were for schedule 4 land please anon? Just name one of them, just one that was on schedule 4 conservation land please. Know why you can't? Because not one of those 218 mining permits were for schedule 4 conservation land anon.

That attack spin line to justify mining by National fails as Labour never permitted mining on schedule 4 land.

 
At 26/3/10 3:35 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Try this you know-it-all prick. Labour approved a per­mit in 2006 for min­ing gold, gar­nets and other gem­stones on 168.5 hectares of land at Hart Creek, inside Paparoa National Park. This was after they were advised NOT to use Schedule 4 land. So when Goff said this week if he’s elected, min­ing won’t hap­pen here, “no ifs, no buts, no maybes”, and “Oppor­tunis­tic would be tak­ing advan­tage of a sit­u­a­tion we didn’t believe in,” and "Labour has never agreed with pro­tected Sched­ule Four land being mined, and it will over­turn these deci­sions if it gets elected" then he is a lying hypocrite.
And what about For­est and Bird? Where was their integrity and hon­our when Labour was in gov­ern­ment for 9 years and 218 min­ing per­mits on Con­ser­va­tion land? (BTW is it Forest & Bird who pay you to write YOUR unsubstantiated bullshit spin because I couldn't see anyone else paying for it)

Cunt.Am.What.Lying.A.Hpocritical.I.And.
Make a sentence

 
At 26/3/10 6:25 pm, Blogger Bomber said...

Anon - why are you lying? WHY? Anon spins a pretty good line doesn't he folks? He suggests that 168.5 hectares of land at Hart Creek, inside Paparoa National Park had a permit under Labour so that must mean everything Labour has to say on mining is hypercritical

WRONG ANON!

At the time this was done, 2006, Paparoa National Park WAS NOT SCHEDULE 4 LAND! So Labour NEVER greenlighted any mining on schedule 4 land unlike National who want to mine the hell out of schedule 4 land.

Facts. Straight. Get. Your. Or. You'll. Like. A. Look. Cock.

Make a sentence anon.

 
At 26/3/10 7:52 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Labour approved a mining consent on land considered special enough to WARRANT Schedule Four status. It approved a permit in 2006 for mining gold, garnets and other gemstones on 168.5 hectares of land at Hart Creek, inside Paparoa National Park. They were advised not to include it in the Schedule Four status BUT THEY DID IT ANYWAY.

 
At 26/3/10 8:23 pm, Blogger Bomber said...

Ladies and gentlemen, you will note a massive change in tone from the anonymous National Party spin line merchant, at first it was...Try this you know-it-all prick. and (BTW is it Forest & Bird who pay you to write YOUR unsubstantiated bullshit spin because I couldn't see anyone else paying for it) but now it's Labour approved a mining consent on land considered special enough to WARRANT Schedule Four status. It approved a permit in 2006 for mining gold, garnets and other gemstones on 168.5 hectares of land at Hart Creek, inside Paparoa National Park. They were advised not to include it in the Schedule Four status BUT THEY DID IT ANYWAY. - however you want to spin it Anon, the 168.5 hectares of land at Hart Creek, inside Paparoa National Park WAS NOT SCHEDULE 4 LAND! You are trying to compare Labour greenlighting 168.5 hectares of land at Hart Creek, inside Paparoa National Park which WAS NOT SCHEDULE 4 LAND to National's plan to actually mine SCHEDULE 4 LAND.

Thank you for trying to create an apologist position to defend National mining schedule 4 land, but you will need something better than the 168.5 hectares of land at Hart Creek, inside Paparoa National Park.

 
At 26/3/10 10:17 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Troll just got burnt ...real bad..lol. Love ur work Bomber

 
At 26/3/10 10:38 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I still don't understand why you don't simply ignore the lying little prick. The intention is to spin, divert, be as counter-productive as is humanly possible.

But then again - give the little pratt enough rope (as we have already seen).
Were it not for the fact that I'm saying what I'm saying, he/she'd be back trying heris best to divert. Since heshe never did or could answer any of my questions posed in previous posts, I just take himmer as one of those little flees that you swat from time to time, and get on with things.
Black is white, white is black, disagreement for the sake of it.
No matter what you say (as we regularly see) the objective is to oppose. (I'm sure you have the IP addresses and times to prove it, so really - why bother with the aggravating little cunt - is it just so the rest of us can see what an imbecile the munter actually is. If so, there;'s already sfficient proof of this gubbamint not being up to it - there's even friction within emanating from those that have more than a couple of cells to rub together. They're actually busy wondering what the fuck the National Party has come to amd lamenting the good old days!
BTW - the little cunt referred to, as we know - is MALE.
And if there were ever the opportunity for same to front up and deliver, he'd woose out - which is why the anonymity.
Please: KEEP IT UP ANONYMOUS!

 
At 27/3/10 4:27 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fuck Bomber, your inattention to details just got you owned again.

The point is that Labour don't have any green creditials worth defending and for you to do so despite the factual evidence to the contrary simply fucks with the credibility of your message.

Face it

Key is a liar
Goff is a liar

 

Post a Comment

<< Home