Earlier this week, I had read in the NZ Herald of Shane Jones reportedly trumpeting the prospect of a nuclear energy policy being considered for adoption by NZ First at its Convention this weekend.
For several reasons, I found this somewhat surprising.
First and most obviously, because that would seem to contrast with the “Founding Principle”, still up on the Party’s website currently, declaring: “New Zealander’s [sic] desire for a non-nuclear future will be respected.”
But second, because if we look overseas – moves in favour of nuclear power often seem to be tacitly (or even expressly) opposed by fossil fuel interests; who then either marshal or manufacture mouthpieces and media-grabs to propel their favoured outcome, accordingly.
Which, if you’ve noticed, is usually (at least, for other matters) what Shane Jones seems to be found doing for said industry here – an effort that’s less ‘subtly seeded astro-turf’ and more ‘one-man mangrove swamp with a megaphone’ and accompanying dinner reservations.
So why would Jones all-of-a-sudden come out with a statement that New Zealand First is seemingly looking to put nuclear power here on the agenda?
It’s true that Jones has previously sought to push for what we might charitably describe as ‘novel’ remedification for our nation’s electricity difficulty – with the present “supercritical” geothermal drilling initiative (which an industry expert had characterized as “a technology that’s unproven internationally, let alone nationally”) being exhibit A.
Yet nuclear power is something fairly ‘sui generis’ when it comes to New Zealand politics and the public perspective. It has a ‘magic’ to it (‘black’, rather than ‘green’) which renders it customarily well outside the bounds of comfort for many … and with a particular emphasis against it from amidst our environmental movements.
For Jones to proffer a seemingly pro-nuclear generation policy smacks of (at least) one of two things.
Option A – he’s engaging in his apparent favourite sport, of Green-baiting; not simply in terms of the instant-uproar from such a quarter which adopting such a policy would induce (should NZ First choose to do so) – but also through seeking to force the pro-environmental voices of our politics into openly and overtly disavowing a technology being presented as of significant utility in countering climate change.
That is – a gambit aimed at snaring his frog-defending opponents into coming across as empty ‘virtue signallers’ upon a major issue from within their own home turf.
Considering his ongoing grandstanding antagonism about Jacinda – you can just imagine the twist he’d put on ‘climate change as our generation’s nuclear free moment’ for this. (I’m not saying any of the aforementioned as elements which I’d personally agree with – only that it would be the sort of rhetorical invective which would play ‘well’ for some of his intended audience)
And/Or
Option B – he’s preparing the ground (no pun initially intended) for something which could be potentially of more interest for his surreptitious taste in dinner partners. Something along the lines of opening up an opportunity for commercial mining of the uranium (and thorium) deposits to be found on the South Island’s West Coast.
Which, curiously, are featured in an NZ Petroleum & Minerals ‘Prospectivity Report’ for the region, apparently created on the 25th of June this year – the brochure in question advising prospective exploration and/or mining permit applicants as to the existence of “radiometric data show[ing] a dominance of Th[orium] and U[ranium] in some sand deposits along the coast”.
That there exist radioactive mineral deposits in the area is not exactly new information; it’s been acknowledged in GNS reports in the past, certainly.
However, there’s an obvious difference between their being mentioned within scientific survey cataloguing (and featuring, in the case of the 2019 GNS ‘Mineral Commodity Report’, stern disclaimer that for uranium, “there will be no production in the near future due to New Zealand’s [relevant regulation] which specifically does not allow prospecting, exploration and mining of the primary uranium and thorium minerals”) … and their being put forward amidst the (to quote the material) “significant exploration and mining opportunities” which NZPAM wishes to advertise as open to pursue.
That said, per current iteration for the ‘Minerals Programme (Minerals Programme for Minerals (Excluding Petroleum)’ ( 1.6 (3) ) : “Applications for permits for prospecting for, exploring for, and mining uranium and thorium minerals will ordinarily be declined”.
While this would still allow the Minister (guess who) to be able to make extra-ordinary approvals within this area (or, at least, try to) – rather than uranium mining, the main thing it would open up in practice would be an immediate fusillade of Judicial Review applications instead.
Hence, if he were serious about making such a thing happen, the Minister would need to push some small alteration for the relevant regulations (in this case, the aforementioned non-petroleum Minerals Programme – which, per s5(c) of the Crown Minerals Act 1991, he’s responsible for preparing, and per s16(1) can propose changes to) so as to properly secure permissibility.
Presumably, whilst loudly insisting upon a public purpose for which he did so.
Something along the lines of making possible a certain party’s ‘bold’ new proposal for provisioning our power market, perhaps.
The money spent buggering around would be better invested in more solar and wind and the batteries to go with that .Work could start next week because there are a lot of projects consented ,which the Government ,if they had the brains ,would give to anyone that wanted to fund those projects .Some were consented 10 years ago but have been sat on so they could be handed on to some other entity to get them built .A nuclear station would be a very long term project to get over the line and we would have had years of free sun and wind over those years or decade .
A lesson learned from the last general election in Australia was don’t mention nuclear, keep up the rhetoric, Jonesy. It will be a relief to say goodbye to you.
Absolutely NO NO NO to nuclear power. FGS someone stop this “runaway train”! Natural resources only cost us the means to set them up and redirect them. Why can’t the dickwits in this CoC stop all this distraction and corruption or has it now become second nature to them? What a pack of close-minded losers with so little brain between them. No wonder they are in serious strife now. And the two faced, corrupt Judith criticising Helen Clark is rich in the extreme. Helen has come out and told us her honest reasons for attending China’s WWII military victory parade. Key has done a Luxon and is hiding somewhere so Helen is copping most of the flak. Thanks Helen for your total honesty here. It only sends the wrong message if you are looking for something to bitch about. Do read Helen’s response, she has way more nous than most politicians – https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/571994/a-relief-not-to-meet-putin-or-kim-at-wwii-commemoration-in-china-helen-clark-says
We cant even successfully build late 19th century technology in the form of a tram line. How on earth could we even begin to consider building a nuclear power program here? Something even the originator of the technology is no longer capable of doing. Putting aside the nuclear legislation is it even sensible to consider this given the geological instability of our home?
And who is going to allow a Nuclear Power plant to be built ANYWHERE near them, their families, schools, farms or god forbid, water tables?
I have a dim view of the 80’s anti-nuclear and anti-apartheid (the last domestically) movements — they let in the economic Right. It was a comfortable time fundamentally, those cultural movements opened up the moment for the dumbfuck friends of the rich to take over. Though the layer of fat in our brains then could never have produced a resistance to those twots. Great politics for the people come from crisises, malheureusement.
Genetic Modification from the great Levinian independent journalist Hager in the norts was similar.
So, I have zero regard for anti- nuclear and anti-GM. It’s just a blank to me, a waste, a diversion. If it helps agst climate change build a nuclear reactor, if GM is ok grow it.
But all life in Earth is currently solar powered. What we need to do is show a little humility and respect for that. Not, bludgeon Life with our enthusiasm to sate our greed for junk marketed at us by terminally insane Greed-fleas. We must urgently become aware of them, then tactically ignore them. They, who urgently and greedily exploit that mysterious energy that surrounds us who’s only mandate is to get to ground as fast as possible is dangerous. Fuck! I gotta go! My favourite TV show’s on. OMG! An air fryer! And it’s only …………………………………….. clunk.
You know what you don’t have when you’re dead? Electricity.
When you get a fat, useless, oily old cunt like six-easy-figures Shane-O spouting luke warm, salt and sugar free cabbage water at us gape mouthed, blank minded stuff-wanters, we should know, that no good will come of it.
I don’t discount the fact that conservatives will cling to BAU and their status quo with the requisite derangement and delusion such as building a toxic radiation steam engine. The easiest thing we could do is limit immigration, re-nationalize our dams and reduce our energy consumption.
How is OpenStar coming along?