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
intentional misuse of “damn”? quite fitting I must say.
Have you been following the Nevis hearing process? The old man has been involved with his F&G connections
http://www.fishandgame.org.nz/Site/Regions/Otago/fishingNews/June2009.aspx
Ah yes, my humble pun. Cheap but apt, no?
No I’d only vaugely heard about that one. Good work though, your old man. The celbrity.
Just read the article… I’m a member of Forest and Bird and Federated Mountain Clubs so it’s good to hear that I’m being represented anyway.
hey look,the dam is not going to happen apparently:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3030670/Brownlee-spills-on-Mokihinui-hydro-electricity-project