So I was pointed to John Roughans column in the herald this morning, by various people. A depressing read to say the least. It reminded me somewhat of Shane Jones weird-arsed (from my point of view) that we should be exploring mineral, oil and gas reserves and that we shouldn't be taken in by the greens rhetoric. Roughan on the other hand, suggests that science has "succumbed to environmental hubris" and because of that, no longer inspires.
Nature is what inspires, science is a tool with which we can see nature better. To dismiss what we see because it's unpleasant is dishonest. Which puts both of these opinions in the willfully ignorant or dishonest category.
If Jones and Roughan are aware of the damage that extraction and oil are doing to our environment, then we have dishonesty. It is in essence suggesting that whatever we do, the earth is big enough to handle it, . In one sense, this is correct. Though it completely ignores the question of whether we will survive alongside the earth or if we do, how difficult we will be making our descendants lives.
If they aren't aware of the damage that will result from their suggested course of action, then given the amount of evidence that suggests otherwise, you've got willful ignorance.
Either way Roughans column is so chock full of arrogance that it's just not funny. Remind me at some point, I'd like to expand on this one day.
I'd also note that I'm not against exploration for mineral wealth, provided it's not on schedule 4 land. It is technically possible to do it with a minimum of damage to the environment, it's not going to cause long term damage to the planet as a whole and we need it. Though my position is not set on this, I am interested in arguments against this position. Extracting carbon for fuel though is unnecessary and damaging.