pike river pikers
Jeanette has raised some fairly large questions regarding the share offer of one Pike River Coal Company. They have, suprisingly, denied it.
Having them tout their low environmental impact is a bit rich. Far from having a “minimal environmental impact�, the PRCC’s greenhouse gas emissions are a massive contribution to the most significant environmental crisis we face.
This blog has some interesting (and scathing) info on it.
Pike River Pamphlet- the advertising in question….
Bookmark to:
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:40 am
If the demand for Pike River coking coal only exists because the mine exists then what you say is entirely true and there will be a phenominal increase in carbon emmissions.. However if Pike River is meeting existing demands and displacing coking coal from other mines then it is the nett difference between emmissions from production, transport and final consumption from the Pike River mine and whichever mine would otherwise have met the demand for coking coal. If the nett difference is positive then Pike River will have contributed to reducing the global warming threat.
If the same carbon charges are levied on coal worldwide then Pike River investors will need to know whether Pike River coking coal has lower carbon emmissions per unit of energy than coal from other mines as this should determine whether carbon charges have a positive or negative impact.
While it would be nice if coal consumption could be eliminated overnight this is unlikely to happen. Therefore the baby steps approach needs to be used. Substitute cleaner energy (gas or hydro-electric) where possible, reduce the amount of steel used in appliances, buildings etc, stop trying to keep ahead of the Joneses. And using coal with the highest joules per kg of carbon instead of lower grade coal is similar to using gas appliances instead of electric appliance powered from a gas power station.
July 3rd, 2007 at 9:50 am
Geologist Murry Cave warned about this being a risky investment a couple of months back, citing environmental risks and geological hazards, as well as over-confident production predictions.
“Nobody in New Zealand has yet managed to mine in underground the type of tonnages of coal Pike River is anticipating,” he said.
See: http://westernleader.co.nz/thepress/4076117a6430.html
July 3rd, 2007 at 10:56 am
has anyone discussed the light-green/dark green divide/schism lately..?
http://whoar.co.nz/2007/light-green-vs-darkdeep-greenthe-green-party-i deological-divide-spills-into-the-mainstream/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 12th, 2007 at 3:05 am
phil, has anyone discussed the light-green/dark green divide/schism lately..?
Since everybody seems to have ignored this question i’ll throw my tuppence worth in.
First up, the article you link to focuses on Cosmo-green. This is basicly fake-tan for trendies, the dedicated followers of fashion. I don’t think this actually any shade of green. That is just airheads talking to other airheads.
The final paragraphs of the article provide reasons for optimism. Rather than there being a light-green/dark green divide/schism we may actually be seeing a pincer movement outflanking the “enemy” (mindless consumerism). There are good military reasons for attacking an enemy from the side rather than head-on but they are probably not a very good analogy except that you get a higher hit rate from the side than from the front, especially sine you need to be able to take out the Robert Joneses of the corporate world if you want to really succeed with an environmental revolution. And the way to do that is with every manifestation of people power. That means through the ballot box and through the cheque book. So there are vital roles for both the light greens and the dark greens. It is the people who will save the environment and they don’t all think the same as you or me any individual blogger at frogblog. So every possible tactic has to be employed. But it is absolutely critical that the light greens and dark greens understand what each others tactics are and that they are, in effect, rounding up the same flock and moving them to safety. Their doesn’t need to be a formal structure to allow this to happen, just an informal recognition of the other shade is working towards the same goal from a different direction. A small change by the many can be as useful as a big change by the few.
The last paragraph in that article says that focus groups have revealed that the “eco-aisle really is an entry point to green politics. The researchers seemed to be surprised that “consumers” didn’t stop at being green consumes but actually became green citizens and, in many cases, green activists.
regards,
kevyn