Monday, 26 September 2005

We've got the power

Resource consent has been granted to convert the mothballed Marsden B power station to run on coal. Stuff story here.

No news as yet as to how long it took to gain the consent, nor how much it cost, but there were "almost 16o conditions" attached to the 35-year consent, and an appeal promised by those opposing the consent -- which naturally includes both Greenpeace and the Green Party, presumably unhappy at the derelict plant being recycled for productive use, or indeed any sign of productive enterprise at all. Northland Regional Council says "the restrictions are some of the toughest ever imposed in Australasia," and they say that like it's a good thing. (I've quoted before Ayn Rand's observation on the injustice of the productive have to ask permission from the unproductive in order to produce, and it seems time to do so once again.)

I've also noted before the restrictions on industry arising from the RMA's strangling of new power-stations, and the warning from the Electricity Networks Association (ENA) that the principal objective of having enough power to meet demand is steadily being eroded. "It's very hard to invest in coal [because of Kyoto], nuclear's a sort of four letter word...hydro is suddenly becoming too hard...what's left?...we can't do everything on windpower," warned Alan Jenkins from the ENA a few months back. Industry is the country's lifeblood, and if there's no power, there's no industry.

Solar, wind and microgrids won't cut it, at least not as long as every project from little to large gets caught up in the maw of the RMA. You'd think that, just once, there'd be some voices celebrating some productivity instead of trying to stamp on it.


  1. "the productive have to ask permission from the unproductive in order to produce" ?


    "the profitable have to ask permission from the non-profitable in order to pollute".

    Damned straight they do.

  2. The RMA isn't the mechanism for that, Sam, as I've argued here numerous times.

    There's a rake of articles down there on the right hand sidebar that argue that common law protection of property rights (via for example the mechanisms of nuisabce and trespass) is the only just way to establish who is polluting whom, and what to do about it -- and common law does it without all the central planning regime we now have in place.

    Have a wee look at these ones in particular:

    It's time to drive a stake through the heart of the RMA [PDF article]
    Cue Card Libertarianism -- Pollution
    Cue Card Libertarianism -- Common Law
    Coromandel mining exposes "a clash of values"--Tanczos
    "What nuisance?" And who came to it?


  3. Thanks for the information. I'll be sure to read it and digest it before posting further on the topic.


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.