Why would new development be more risky than existing ones?

Energy Minister Phil Heatley gave some interesting numbers during his speech to the National Party conference at the weekend:

In Taranaki tourism earns $124 million a year and provides 1838 jobs.  Resource exploration earns $2.5 billion a year and provides 5,090 jobs.

Don’t tell the doom merchants but that resource exploration is from oil wells at sea and it’s not endangering the environment.

He also spoke about the Marsden Point refinery which earns large amounts of export dollars for us.

Don’t spoil the doom merchants’ story but last year there was only one environmental incident there – a pot of paint fell off a wharfe.

The doom merchants would have us believe we can’t drill or mine here because of the environmental dangers.

But we’re already doing it with no problems.

Why would new developments be any more risky than existing ones?

2 Responses to Why would new development be more risky than existing ones?

  1. Gravedodger says:

    When New Zealand citizens are driving to the weekly political meeting in their brightly painted Green carts and wiping the Horse sh*t off their shoes before entering the hemp tent, someone might just produce a copy of that post Hp and the new age tree huggers will say sheesh we dogged a bullet there.

    What a shame so many died from starvation and poverty related disease but the much smaller population is soo much better for the planet.

    Btw what will they make the green paint from, oh well I guess that rustic natural wood look will fit in nicely with the homespun clothes and felt slippers.

    Like

  2. Viv K says:

    “Why would new development be more risky than existing ones?”
    Have you not heard of climate change and ocean acidification?
    Our descendents are far more likely to be starving if we ruin the climate and kill off ocean life by blindly ignoring the consequences of continued expansion of fossil fuel use.

    Like

Leave a comment