I feel it is important to write submissions that make the four Environment Commissioners on the panel consider Kiwi culture.
We are a people who generally oppose potential environmental damage - we ban nuclear warships; we stop mining in the Coromandel; and we halt logging on the West Coast.
We are embarrassed by the few mining operations we have left, and we generally work to restore our environment rather than inventing new ways to damage it.
Remember that the commissioners are humans who care about the environment, too, but they can only consider issues that we put in front of them.
Some of the points I am putting in my submission are:
-Kiwi culture favours environmental restoration. We are a people who are proud to say "No" to mining companies, native loggers, nuclear warships and the like.
-We have a clean, green reputation internationally which would be enhanced by saying "No" to this proposal. This is likely to benefit our tourist industry.
-Declining this application would set a national and international precedent, potentially reducing the risk of seafloor mining around the globe.
-The World Bank cautions against seabed mining.
-Our oceans are in poor health. We need to be working on environmental restoration, not developing new ways to harm the environment.
-Toxic concentrations of copper would be released from the ground during this mining operation.
-The effect of this project on the migration of whales and dolphins along our coast is unknown.
-The risks of increased sedimentation from the proposed mine on the reefs off Patea have not been tested and are therefore unknown.
-To be more confident about the risks, Trans Tasman Resources would need to undertake a controlled trial of the mining operation in New Zealand conditions of, say, one month duration, with testing of the effects by an independent body. This would be more prudent than attempting to stop them if adverse effects are detected once the application has been proved, which could be blocked by legal action.
-The Precautionary Principle of the Law of the Sea requires governments to act to prevent the operation if there is risk of harm to the environment. The burden of proof lies with the miner to prove there is no harm.
-If the New Zealand Government does not apply the Precautionary Principle it will be liable for costs of environmental repair.
-The cost in insuring ourselves against this environmental damage needs to be added to the cost/benefit analysis.
-In Whanganui we are experiencing the environmental and financial costs of experimental techniques and discharges over consented levels in our wastewater plant. Therefore, I have little confidence that New Zealand legislation is able to protect us against the financial and environmental risks from this proposed mine.
-The stated job creation from this project is overstated.
-The New Zealand Government gets 5 per cent of the profits from mining after all the capital and establishments costs have been recovered. Why are we giving away this valuable resource? Most of the profits will go to foreign investors.
Please fill in a submission online (or on paper if you prefer). Tick the box asking to make an oral submission. They carry a lot of weight with the commissioners.
- Dr Chris Cresswell is a Whanganui medical professional. He is a member of the Green Party of Aotearoa and a financial supporter of Kiwis Against Seabed Mining.
