Celebrating a loss
Solid Energy is in the news blaming protesters for its loss of $2.7 million dollars for the year. If only. Actually a lot of that loss came from costs associated with its legal requirement to move the threatened Powelliphanta Augustus snail. Remember that the Department of Conservation’s original recommendation to the Minister was that the snails should not be moved and that the mining should not even take place. Nonetheless, the 200,000 less tonnes of coal mined by Solid Energy represents a savings of about 400,000 tonnes of carbon emissions into the atmosphere - or $6 million worth of carbon credits. Nice work by the Save Happy Valley team.
Sadly Solid Energy still has plans to mine the Happy Valley coal they did not mine this last financial year.
Photo Credit: electro8 at Flickr
March 26th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
This is what the head of DoC (the department of conservation) said last year:
“I’m not suggesting that if the snail is sacrificed to maximize the profits from mining it will mean the end of civilization as we know it.
Al Morrison - Department of Conservation director general
March 26th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
“Mining company Solid Energy says environmental protest management has cost it millions, including $25 million in one dispute”
Yeah, thanks Greenies.
Remind us how New Zealand is supposed to pay for health-care, education, welfare and the pension, again?
March 26th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Solid Energy is an SOE, so there is no direct cost to the taxpayer, other than the loss of potential tax revenue on profits, BP.
And if they had been sensible enough to invest in developing renewable energy sources rather than digging up coal to contribute to pollution they wouldn’t have had to pay megabucks for “environmental protest management”.
More profits from that option, so more ability to pay tax to meet cost of health-care, education, welfare and the pension. Just another example of your “invisible hand” really, BP.
March 26th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
>>other than the loss of potential tax revenue on profits
That is a cost.
>>And if they had been sensible enough to invest in developing renewable energy sources
You’ve yet to produce a cost/benefit analysis to prove this.
>>More profits from that option
Hot air.
>>so more ability to pay tax to meet cost of health-care, education, welfare and the pension
More hot air.
March 26th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
BP, have you done a cost analysis that non-renewable energy is better? I don’t disagree with you that cost analysis is a great idea, but practically speaking, Treasury already does a lot of work and it only does this for the current government. If we’re going to expect every party to know the costs of all their policies, we’re going to need to spend a lot more- either on expanding Treasury or as donations to political parties so they can contract out this sort of thing.
March 26th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
You guys realise you’re missing Top Gear….
There are many studies showing the cost of alternative generation.
stuff.co.nz/4342184a13.html
“Banning non-renewable power from coal or gas fired stations potentially meant generators would have to turn to more expensive sources driving up prices”
Meanwhile, the Greens have yet to outline their alternative budget. How is this country supposed to pay the bills? What is their economic vision? Do they have one? Why do they avoid going into detail? Are they just as dishonest as the far right?
March 26th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Wouldn’t it be nice if companies could make a profit without destroying nationally significant wetlands, kiwi habitat, and iconic New Zealand landscapes?
Solid Energy are driving a species to extinction (yes, the snails they translocated aren’t doing very well) and they STILL can’t make a profit!
March 26th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Could that cadillac have been any uglier or bigger!?
‘alternative’ generation in NZ or just generally? Does that compare prices with Kyoto-priced fossil fuels or without? There are *many* renewable energy projects at various stages of resource consent in NZ, but I just have to find a comprehensive list, like what I saw in the damned newspaper but didn’t keep!
I was going to refer you to ZenTiger’s last post http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2007/02/09/stephen-colbert-vs-ipcc /#comment-39944
but I see you got there first.
The far right (ACT?) are dishonest??
March 26th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
I would just be patient BP, unless you think there is a ‘hidden agenda’ there and you want to start throwing that particular accusation around which I-am-damn-tired of!
March 26th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
3 posts…presumably all the renewable projects we have competed very well with coal or they wouldn’t have been built in the first place…Any reason why this can’t continue? (apart from NIMBY-ism)
March 26th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
>>Could that cadillac have been any uglier or bigger!?
It sucked, eh. Mind you, it is American.
But that’s nothing compared to the new Bentley concept car. Dear God.
>>The far right (ACT?) are dishonest??
Kinda thinking USA…..
March 26th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
BTW StephenR - I’m not a leftie, if that’s what you’re implying?
March 27th, 2008 at 8:30 am
I meant a hidden agenda on the part of the Greens, but yes, you are a bolshevist
March 27th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Heh heh