994
edits
Talk:New Zealand: Mining in Schedule 4 Conflict: Difference between revisions
Talk:New Zealand: Mining in Schedule 4 Conflict (view source)
Revision as of 16:40, 8 March 2011
, 16:40, 8 March 2011→Peer Review
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
By stating "[t]here are some positive steps associated with this decision" the article is already moving away from a neutral description of events and clearly takes sides by inferring that the proposal was mostly negative from the beginning. That is fine, but it should maybe be a clear statement of such. Currently, the opening opinion comes from the opposing Green camp only. | By stating "[t]here are some positive steps associated with this decision" the article is already moving away from a neutral description of events and clearly takes sides by inferring that the proposal was mostly negative from the beginning. That is fine, but it should maybe be a clear statement of such. Currently, the opening opinion comes from the opposing Green camp only. | ||
It would be good to state the size of the contestable conservation fund in relation to the potential alleged financial windfall to be gained from mining (billions of dollars). | |||
'''Conflict''' | |||
The economic argument made by the government could be clearer in regard to the alleged amount of financial benefit to the country (e.g. some claims were in the realm of $90 billion for a country with a population of 4 million). Did the government say whether it had a plan for how to use that money? Maybe briefly state the arguments it used to rebut claims made about irreversible environmental damage (e.g. "surgical mining"). Would it be possible to bullet point Gerry Brownlee's four principal arguments? | |||