New trip, new blog

Kath and I have just cycled to Auckland from Wellington, are flying to Spain (today!), and will cycle round in Europe for a while.

We have a new blog to chronicle this adventure: http://pulledalongbylunch.wordpress.com.

I won’t be updating this blog about the trip.

Andrew

Whanganui Rhiver Chanoe Fhun

Another year, another easter, another paddling trip on another Great Walk in another National Park. After the Abel Tasman last year, this is in danger of becoming a tradition. Pretty good tradition though! Like last year, four days of sunshine, beautiful surrounds and good fun.

Photos below stolen from Kirsten.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

It is all about mining national parks here in NZ at the moment, with the government keen to find some easy export dollars by digging up whatever can be found below our national parks and other highly-protected conservation land. This has generated a lot of debate, with most of it focused on the cost of any mining to the “clean and green” image of New Zealand, and any impact to our other export earnings (tourism and milk). I think this is a false argument, and I think it’s been generated by the environmental / conservation movements.

The value of this top-tier conservation land should nto be measured in dollar terms. The land, the trees, the rivers, the wildlife, all have some intrinsic value of being there. To say that this part of the Corramandel is worth this much, or the Western Paparoa ranges that much to the clean and green image, is incorrect. If we as a country keep our parks soley and cynically to make our export prices better, we’ll be found out very fast and will fail at it very quickly. There have already been articles in The Guardian and The Economist pointing out the degree of greenwash in Tourism New Zealand’s 100% pure branding, and this negative publicity will only continue as we continue not to practise what we preach with regards to our environmental purity. Especially if we view whatever environmental purity is left as having only a pure dollar value.

The problem for the conservation movements is that they started using the value of NZ’s clean and green image when trying to convince the rest of the country not to “develop” X, or to conserve Y. This is now being used by the government against them; the Prime Minister has just said essentially that we can get away with the recently-announced mining without excessive damage to our image. The value of the mining land is not in its part in New Zealand’s faux-greeen image, and it is a mistake from the conservationists to use this argument. It only encourages the current government and others to use it against them.

Where is our cycle lane?

This weekend a car driver ran a red light in Auckland into a group of about twenty cyclists. (Full story here.) The NZ Herald asked one of their usually-provocative “your views story” asking What can be done to make cycling in New Zealand safer? (here). Right now the first four comments effectively say “the cyclists got what they deserve”! WTF?

First is Deborah from Glendowie:

Processes are put in place for all users of the road to avoid risk. Cyclists need to be reminded that when riding on the road they need to follow the road code as any other motorist.

So they should have known the car would have run the stop sign and stopped for it?

Then SMR from Central Auckland, much less symapthetic:

If they think their arogance will win against a 2 tonne car, good luck to them.

Unless one of the new road rules is that might is right? Fritz from Auckland:

Make them sit a license test, like all other road users – maybe then they can pretend that it’s their “right” to ride on the roads.

Though presumably the driver had a license and that doesn’t seem to’ve helped much… Then Forrest from Remuera who admits the driver was wrong, just this time, but still doesn’t care:

This accident appears to be due to driver mishap but I have little sympathy for cyclists and their requests for more respect from motorists.

I cycle to work almost every day, and other times around town, and I think this is scary. This graffiti that used to be near my house (it has gone now) sums up a happy answer for everyone:

Destroy to save?

I just read of how a hydro scheme on the lower Waitaki is going to benefit the local ecology because part of the project is going to do some habitat restoration. (Read here on Voxy). Habitat restoration = good. But it is flawed logic to say that hydro scheme = good because it happens to come with habitat restoration, no?  If I give you a kick in the teeth and throw in a free lollipop, it doesn’t make the kick in the teeth good.

Similar free lollipop promises have been made in the Mokihinui river damning project applications. Read Meridian here – the dam is not just a dam, it comes with 16km of new tramping track free! Green Party and Forest and Bird appear unconvinced.

I understand that the economics don’t really match in my silly metaphor – a kick in the teeth can’t fund a lollipop like electricity generation can fund good stuff – but surely those damn projects shouldn’t get approved because they promise some relatively minor sweeteners.

Arg, feeling even less eloequent than usual now but I’m sure you understand what I’m trying to say.

Mokihinui at sunset, as seen from flickr