The report projects New Zealand’s future energy supply, demand, prices and greenhouse gas emissions but the major challenges identified in it are at odds with the Governments  ‘drill it, mine’  fossil-fuel-focused Energy Strategy.

The report acknowledges oil prices will be up, greenhouse gas emissions from energy will be up a staggering 40-50% on 1990 levels by 2030 and transport will continue to be oil dependant. This is a huge economic and environmental threat. It beggars belief that the Government continues to borrow billions to pour on uneconomic motorways when the report itself says ‘Historical travel data indicates that personal road travel is already near saturation, with little additional per capita travel likely.’ This scare money could be better spent preparing us for oil and carbon constrained world.

New Zealand’s dependence on imported oil is a huge strategic worry and should be the subject of an urgent inquiry. However unlike many governments, militaries and businesses that are planning to reduce their dependence on oil our Government won’t even plan to start planning. We have so many options in New Zealand from energy efficiency, 90%+ renewable electricity production, better public transport, walking and cycling to increase resiliency, reduce emissions and benefit the economy.

At the household level the report also says people will continue to struggle with energy bills because the price of electricity will remain higher than inflation for the next 18 years.

There is some good news in the report including promising renewable electricity production and New Zealand’s energy intensity is forecast to improve 21 per cent by 2030 however many of the challenges forecast in the report will just worsen given the Government’s Energy Strategy.

Yesterday I took apart my bike and crammed it into the small rental car of a friend attending the festival. We drove back to Dunedin airport, where incredibly helpful people gave us materials to pack up the bike. Upon arrival in Wellington, I unpacked it, put it back together (with the assistance of friends I ran into in the baggage claim), and cycled back around the bays. I was slightly surprised and very proud that it worked properly!  A half hour bike ride now seems impossibly short.

The festival itself was a great success. Sunday was a community open day in the town of Mataura, where I (and hopefully quite a few locals) learned a great deal. The star of the weekend was a fifth generation Queensland farmer named Sid Plant, who has direct experience of a mine moving in and destroying a farming community. His community of 64 families has dwindled to 11, as the noise, dust, and other negative impacts of the mine have driven people to sell off and move out. He said the land would take at least a million years to return to its pre-mined state. His story was poignant, and actually brought tears to my eyes as he played a song written about the sad fate of his town Acland.

We are up against something big. The powerful corporate interests that stand to make a lot of money from selling fossil fuels, especially as liquid fuels and fertiliser become more expensive, have money and influence on their side. Local and central government tend to be optimistic and enthusiastic about the potential to increase growth, and reluctant or unable to challenge the proposals. The public are busy trying to make ends meet and raise their families. They usually just want to avoid conflict, and would like to trust in the professional competence of those proposing the mine and/or those charged with regulating activities. Given the financial challenges facing many families, survival of their nearest and dearest is paramount, and they may not feel they have the luxury of protecting an abstract entity called The Environment.

For decades the argument has been that there is a trade-off between prosperity and environmental protection. It was right there in the answers to the poll on the Southland Times website yesterday. It essentially asked: Do you agree with the protestors that coal mining will be bad for the environment, or do you think we should go ahead because it will make us rich? When it is posed as this kind of dichotomy, it is easy for people to believe the Government’s rhetoric about a ‘balanced’ approach — just a little more environmental degradation for a little more economic growth won’t hurt us.

The green paradigm shift is the recognition that we don’t have to trade off our health and well-being for a little more economic growth. All the additional fossil fuels we burn from now on will only make it harder for us to transition to an economy that is not dependent on fossil fuels, and will worsen climate change. We have the opportunity to do things differently, and in a way that benefits us all.

It may not be good for mining companies, who have a mindless and ethic-free imperative to return a profit by doing the same old thing. But companies are not people. The people working for mining companies can do something different, and possibly much more enjoyable. We need government and regulation to step in and create the incentive for new activities that won’t result in catastrophic climate change, that won’t threaten our essential farmland, and that will build up (rather than destroy) our communities.

We must start with education and outreach, listening and learning. The more people involved in the conversation, the more robust our collective decisions about the future of our economy will be. As someone said at a closing meeting of the festival, a tiny flame as been kindled in the community of Mataura. I look forward to watching it grow.

This is how the story begins.

So I decided to take the train from Picton to Christchurch, a journey that can be arranged in conjunction with the Interislander ferry from Wellington. And to my pleasant surprise, the two modes are quite well integrated. It’s only a 4minute walk off the ferry to the train station, and you can arrange to have your luggage transferred for you upon check-in the ferry terminal.

Bicycle facilities on the ferry are sorely lacking, and I am hard pressed to understand why. You pay extra to bring a bike, and there is plenty of room for a nice rack in a clean and well lit area, which would hardly cost much. I was told to walk to the end of the car storage area, with no instruction how or where I should secure my bike. I saw another bike already tethered to some sort of railing ensconcing barrels of what appeared to be motor oil. The ground was wet and oily, and there were a few random ropes that I used to tie my bike to a filthy railing.

My beautiful bicycle was treated better on the train, which has quite new and very comfortable carriages. The luggage operator expertly secured my bike with a small, new bungee cord to one of the luggage racks. But there isn’t much room for growth in bike/train tourism as they would not easily be able to accommodate more than a few at one time.

The Picton-Christchurch rail service is lovely and efficient, with some of the most stunning views of the Kaikoura coast. I highly recommend taking this train. At about 5 hours, it competes well with driving for time, and is far more comfortable than a car, as you can read, move around, and enjoy the gorgeous scenery.

The only problem with the alternative journey from Wellington to Christchurch is it’s comparable in price to flying, if not more expensive, even though it takes far longer. How could that be? Surely an airplane is more expensive to buy and operate than a small train, and one would expect the ferry to be more cost effective for passengers only.

I suspect the answer lies in the relatively low demand for rail, which may have roots in unintentional subsidies to other modes, and the asset stripping that occurred when the rail line was privatised. I’m also curious about subsidies or initial state investment that enabled airports to get up and running, though that merits more research in the NZ context.

If externalities such as climate pollution are included, the ferry and train could become more attractive, despite the longer journey. As demand for these slower but lower carbon modes increased, there would be more opportunities for services (making it more convenient), fixed costs could be distributed over a larger pool of consumers, we would see potentially more competition with the ferries, and consequently relative prices may fall, or at least have more variation as airline tickets do.

What do you think?

Arriving in Christchuch I was a short ride from Riccarton, where I am staying — a neighbouhood well endowed with bike shops, outdoor gear outlets, and cheap tasty Vietnamese food. Everything a girl could dream of, except the surplus of big empty car parks behind the shops of course.

All in all, it was a great day and journey. I have some photos to illustrate the post, but I may have to upload them later.

Now I just hope the wind stays a nor’easter or dies down, or it’s going to be a hard slog to Ashburton tomorrow!

Next Post: Day 2 — The windy Canterbury Plains

As the new transport spokesperson, I decided to take a bit of time during the summer holiday to travel to the festival in the most climate-friendly means possible. I’ll be leaving by ferry from Wellington on Saturday morning, catching the train to Christchurch, and then embarking on a 550km journey by bicycle on Sunday 15 January.

The point of this trip isn’t to be morally superior — as an MP and a person who loves to explore the world, I have a big carbon footprint due to air travel. But I believe that we must work and live within the flawed system we’ve got and try to improve it. That doesn’t mean giving up travel altogether. We make changes where we can. The most crucial thing is to advocate for infrastructure and policy changes that will make it possible and practical for people to travel by means that are better for the climate, for their health, and for the economy.

For some decades the green movement has emphasised personal action, which is an important part of responding to climate change. But what is becoming ever clearer is that massive change is needed at an infrastructure level to enable people to make changes to their lifestyle. This is especially true in transport.

Local and central government policy and funding has made it much cheaper, easier and more convenient to travel by personal car around our towns and cities, and to travel around the country by plane as our passenger rail services have languished. Meanwhile, it has become much less convenient, less safe, sometimes more expensive, and sometimes impossible to travel by train, bus, or on foot or by bicycle.

Ironically, councils and government agencies will sometimes urge people to get out of their cars — whether to combat congestion, obesity or climate change — as though it was the fault of individuals that our infrastructure makes it much harder to travel by means other than a car or plane.

We don’t always have the luxury to travel by foot or cycle, especially long distances. My hope is that I can use this trip to draw attention to the opportunities we have to make it easier for New Zealanders to travel in ways that are better for the climate and our health, and to share some of the pleasure of traveling slowly over land and water.

Here’s my draft itinerary. I’ll be blogging the journey each day. Let me know if I’m coming your way and you’d like to meet up or cycle some of the way with me!

Jan 14th: Wellington to Christchurch on ferry and train
Jan 15th: Chch to Ashburton 85km
Jan 16th: to Timaru 80km
Jan 17th: to Oamaru 80km
Jan 18th: to Waikouaiti (outside Dunedin) 80-100km
Jan 19th: to Waihola (or Balclutha)via Dunedin 40-80km
Jan 20th: to Gore 80-110km

Jan 21 – 22 Coal in the Hole festival in Mataura

Total journey approx. 550km by bicycle
Over 1000 km total ferry+train+bicycle

Next post: Cycling to Southland – Day 1 (the easy part)

In response, we have agreed to retain disarmament as a separate portfolio.

The intention was not to downplay disarmament as a political priority.  The aim was to develop some clarity between the full number of component issues within the total policy.

These are, among others: climate change, ozone depletion, biodiversity, population, sustainability, trade and investment, debt relief, collective security, control of weaponry, cultural dialogue, strengthening global governance, and strengthening international law.

Of these, climate change and trade had been separated, while disarmament (actually the broader concept of control of weaponry) had been folded in, because of its strong causal connection to collective security.

Strictly, each of these twelve, above, can be seen as component policy issues within global affairs, interacting causally.  But there is a political logic in highlighting disarmament, not least since the 1987 nuclear-free legislation created a ministerial portfolio of disarmament.

There is a touch of irony in all this.  As a NZ diplomat in the ‘80s, I did my PhD on nuclear weapon-free zones, deputised to Chris Beeby on the NZ delegation negotiating the South Pacific zone, was sent to our UN mission in Geneva to defend our policy against all-comers in the Conference on Disarmament. Later I was commissioned by UNIDIR to author the first book in a series on security and disarmament – Security Concepts of States: New Zealand (Taylor & Francis, New York, 1989).

On substance, the Green policy, as outlined on the website, outstrips both National and Labour in promoting disarmament, and particularly nuclear disarmament.  But that can be explored, in terms of healthy democratic debate, in Parliament and outside, in the coming months and years.

As I have indicated in e-mail correspondence, I am happy, actually keen, to meet with groups around the country, and discuss our disarmament – and general global affairs – policy with everyone, with a view to exploring how we can translate a vision of a more stable and safer world, into reality.

Ka kite te anō.

This is a new development that builds upon, and refines, the previous foreign affairs portfolio.  It focuses on the same reality, but from a different, updated, worldview.

From the mid-17^th to mid-20^th centuries, the nation-state emerged, waxed, and waned as the principal political unit in what theorists call the Westphalian age.

With the United Nations, however, the sovereign state has been joined by the individual as an entity under international law – initially through the universalisation of human rights, more recently through international criminal law. From Göring and Hess to Milosevic and Karadzic.

Also since the mid-20^th century, we have been confronting problems that are truly global in character and impact – weapons of mass destruction, ozone depletion and climate change.

And since the late 20^th century, we have acquired a global consciousness, through deep-space exploration and moon-shots of Earth, along with a planetary interconnectedness through the ITC revolution.

We are today in the post-Westphalian age – a fast and dynamic transformation towards a global society of some form.  Ours is a transitional age, in which the international community of states is now joined by a global community of peoples. The global civil society ranges alongside the global corporate sector, acting as the not-so-still voice of conscience in our changing world.

In this unfolding scenario, nations have become integrated in myriad ways into the global scene.  A country’s attitude towards the world and its actions are now less a matter of foreign policy – ‘us’ v. ‘them’; more a matter of ‘us’ as part of the broader ‘us’.

We are now an integral part of the global community.  What we do and say – our policies towards, not ‘the world’, but ‘the rest of the world of which we are a part’, is the subject of global affairs.

Within this new paradigm we do not seek to maximise a competitive national advantage to excess, indifferent to the consequences elsewhere.  We collaborate in identifying the global challenges before humanity. We agree on the global solutions, and then we agree on our legitimate national interests, and then we carry them out.

It is a matter of global responsibility. This is not moral handwringing – it is an imperative of collective survival. Our global responsibilities and our national interests become one and the same.

Thus, a country’s portfolio for dealing with the rest of the world is most appropriately described now, not as foreign policy, but as ‘global affairs’.

The Green Party will henceforth pursue this approach in the Parliament, in the country, and around the world.

Yesterday he delivered our country’s main speech to the UN climate change conference – the 17^th meeting of the parties to the UN Framework Convention.

“I would like to acknowledge”, he begins, “and thank our gracious hosts, South Africa, and assure the Parties present that New Zealand is, as always, committed to playing a constructive role in these negotiations”.

The Parties stare back, unblinking.

Mr Groser, engaged in so many critical global issues elsewhere, has reached Durban in the final days of the conference.  The Parties, for the previous week, had been struggling to find a global solution to humanity’s biggest challenge.

In the land of our gracious hosts, New Zealand has won another Fossil of the Day award. We have one-upped ourselves since last week’s 2^nd place, taking 1^st place for trying to gain from the Kyoto 2^nd period without the need to be bound by it.

Global carbon emissions are at their highest, and temperature trends continue upwards.

Independent of his hosts, Minister Groser opined this week that we are the ‘only idiots doing anything’, and that a call for a legally binding deal by 2015, while understandable, ‘may not be realistic’.

The mirror on the wall has myriad images of idiocy.

Are we being catatonic here, stupid, devious, or simply dilatory? Either way, will the outcome be different?

Is this the deflating gasp of the outgoing Government of the 49^th NZ Parliament collapsing, as it did in Copenhagen when it was fresh and, relatively, young?

Minister Groser, employing his endearingly flirtatious trade vernacular, called for a ‘roadmap, or a process, to negotiate a more coherent long-term deal which ends this mosaic of different bits into a single comprehensive treaty’.

In fact, we have had, since Rio, Kyoto, Marrakech and Bali, a framework convention, an international treaty, a roadmap, and an international plan. What we need from Durban, in the wake of Copenhagen and Cancun, is decisive action. The people require this of their representatives, including New Zealand.

I call upon Minister Groser to use Durban to bolster New Zealand’s domestic climate change policy, and strengthen commitment to mitigation, in the presence of his hosts.

He is free to borrow from my humble plea. Call for an unconditional commitment by New Zealand for national carbon emission reductions, domestic without offsets, of 33% by 2020 and 90% by 2050. Make this call, irrelevant of what other State Parties choose to do.

Start the 50^th Parliament as a Government willing to lead the debate and action on climate change. Renounce the position of ACT, recycled coalition partner, comprised of its climate change denial and self-indulgent opposition to the emissions trading scheme.  Be part of a leading triumvirate of NZ leaders fit for history – Messrs, Key, Smith and Groser.

Your gracious hosts will thank you.  That is to say, the New Zealand voters of 2014.  And 2024.

Because, New Zealand is now at risk from rising sea level.  The IPCC has highlighted our vulnerability, expecting that the projected rise will make it riskier to live here over the next century. Niwa scientist James Renwick points out that this could be a problem, given that 12 of our 15 major centres are on the coast.

My own report in response to the Canterbury earthquakes highlights the need for resilience against inevitable sea-level rise. Christchurch is now predisposed to flooding. The chance of more extreme weather events, more often, must be considered when planning the rebuild.

The Earthquake Recovery Minister, Mr Brownlee, is yet to comment on sea-level rise and the impacts of climate change on our future city.  He is especially dynamically engaged in the demolition of the inner city.

When Minister Groser tears himself away from his gracious hosts and returns home, he could do worse than turn the local triumvirate into a quartet.  Local, national, global interests – they are all one and the same.

Asset sales, tax reform, benefits, superannuation, debt, the privacy of a public cup of tea – have riveted us for the past month or so – straight after the rugby.

In the Christchurch Press last week, the front page headlines had to do with a murder and the local building enquiry.  On page 2 of Section B, a modest-sized article noted that scientists have concluded that dangerous climate change for the planet was now irreversible.

We prefer not to have this kind of news on the main page of our daily newspapers, thank you.

It is two decades since the international community resolved to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would avert dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.   This was to be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally, ensuring that food production was not threatened and enabling economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.

That was the Rio Earth Summit, and the UN Framework Convention.  It set up the skeletal mechanism for effective and timely action through legal obligations – the international community of states, speaking with one voice on behalf of the global community of peoples, each state committed to pursuing its legitimate national interests in pursuit of the collective goal.

Twenty years later, 193 states, squabbling amongst themselves, have failed – the global interest torn to shreds by the mindlessly competitive pursuit of excessive national interests.

This week the 17^th conference of the Framework Convention parties opened in Durban.  No agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol is in sight.  Instead, the conference legerdemain is of a ‘political transition period’, of ‘voluntary national commitments’, ‘muscular bilateralism’, ‘bottom-up action’.  The negotiators know, as surely as you and I, that this is self-deception, of humanity, by humanity, for humanity.  But they are paid to engage in ‘constructive ambiguity’, innocent of political responsibility – a legacy of 19^th-century diplomatic craft.

In June, the IPCC scientists concluded that the average global temperature is set to rise 3.5 degrees C; the sea-level by some 1.25 m. by 2100.  What should we care?  That’s far off into the future – our grand-children’s dwelling-time on Earth, way beyond our electoral pocket, our personal gaze.

UN officials speak bravely of the fusion, ‘at the border’, between top-down and bottom-up, between legal compulsion and political volition, global objective and national interest.

UN Independent Expert on Human Rights and International Solidarity, Virginia Dandan, is a little more acerbic. The Durban conference, she said, represents a ‘make or break moment for humanity’. Failure to act would greatly damage future environmental negotiations. The world, she said

“…is calling for genuine international solidarity and multilateralism, and for its leaders to take a leap of faith in unison, and as one. There is great need for a radical mind-set change in order to bring back to the negotiating table the time-honoured values of humanity that have been forgotten after decades of market and profit-driven orientation.”

I must forward her comments to our new ministers for climate change, energy and economic development.  Perhaps they can draw it to the attention of the Prime Minister.  Perhaps he can act quickly and decisively.  Perhaps he can persuade other governments to follow suit.  Perhaps the problem of climate change can be solved in time.  Perhaps I can raise the matter in the House before Xmas – to remind him.

Normally, I generally don’t encourage people to make form submissions on a topic but because the issue of land transport funding is pretty technical I wanted to make it as easy for people to participate in this process as possible.

The current GPS controls the allocation of $38 billion worth of funds and is incredibly unbalanced towards motorways, so I thought it was important to make New Zealanders aware of that.

I was pretty horrified at how few people made submissions on the 2009-2012 GPS, despite the fact that it affected the distribution of literally billions of dollars of New Zealand taxpayers money.

This time around over 420 people used my form to make submissions. Another 50 also made their own, independent submissions.

However, I was less impressed by reading the summary of submissions because it sounded as if the Minister virtually discarded all these form submissions. I can understand his point that a form submission is probably not as valuable as a unique one. But, I think they should still count for something.

And judging by the changes between the draft and final GPS (very few) he also seems to have disregarded almost every one of the 50 unique submissions that came from the public, or as he likes to call them, “non-stakeholders”.

So who were the stakeholders? They were the 44 businesses and organizations the Minister deemed important enough to consult.

The list of those consulted is revealing. It includes 17 councils, 11 organizations and companies that represent road users or have as a primary focus road construction, just 1 company to represent rail interests (Kiwirail), 1 organization to represent the bus companies (the Bus and Coach Association), and 3 organizations to represent walking and cycling interests.

Not one group that represented the interests of public transport users was included in the stakeholder list, even though the Campaign for Better Transport (which represents bus and train users in Auckland and Waikato) made an unsolicited submission.

This process shows clearly the the Minister’s disregard for public opinion and lack of interest in genuine consultation.

In fact, after a few years in Parliament I’ve begun to wonder why it is that the distribution of the fuel tax is left so much to the control of one Minister with virtually no scrutiny by Parliament or the public.

What do you think? Do you think that there should be more democratic control and oversight of the National Land Transport Fund? And, if so, what do you think is the best way of achieving that?

350 Moving Planet Day in Tuvalu

We can expect more climate-related crises and refugees as time goes by, even if we do get our act together (as a global community) and start to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

In Panama, Europe is calling for some sanity (i.e., action). Countries such as Denmark are stepping up to the plate. The new Danish Government has just announced bold climate change targets: reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2020. This comes after the Government adopted a plan last year to phase out all fossil fuel consumption by 2050.

We can and must collectively take bold action.  UN-backed scientists have warned that carbon emissions must peak by 2015 to avoid irreversible damage from climate change, with the growing incidence of extreme weather around the world likely to worsen.

That is 4 years from the moment you are reading this. It may already be too late for the people of Tuvalu and some other low-lying Pacific Islands, but it’s not too late for humanity.

We have an extraordinary opportunity right now to do things differently. In transforming our economy, we don’t need to trade off our wellbeing for the sake of the environment. They are one and the same.

That is why we have developed a plan to create green jobs, and have called on the Government to stop subsidising greenhouse polluters.

The Chair of PEPANZ appears almost breathless with excitement as he seeks to fulfil the primary objective of his organisation, “to publicise, promote and advance the interests of the oil and gas exploration industry in New Zealand”.

The East Coast, we are told, has been only ‘lightly explored’.  In fact there have been  surveys done of the area’s onshore and offshore potential since at least the 1970s, and the likely existence of  reserves recognised, albeit in a number of discreet fields rather than one large single reserve. All that has changed is that in the face of declining reserves of cheap, readily accessible oil and gas elsewhere, the industry is moving to ‘frontier’ areas with  a much higher risk profile than would have been contemplated even a decade ago.

Apache we are told is a ‘solid’ company, and isn’t it good that Shell are now players in the South Basin?

With a US$43 billion asset base, Apache are certainly in a position to accept some financial risk from frontier exploration, especially when our government is hanging so much of its misguided economic policy on the back of an extraction-based model worthy of 19th century robber barons.   We  New Zealanders of course will be carrying 100% of the environmental risk – it is our land, water and coastlines that could be irreparably damaged in the event of  a major accident.

And of course while it is noted that Shell has entered the fray in the South Basin, no mention is made of ExxonMobil and Todd both bailing out on the grounds of unacceptably high risk due to the harshness of  the environmental conditions and  remoteness.

Explorers apparently are not put off by protests from Greenpeace (who we are told are only in it for the headlines) nor by ‘local tribal groups’.  That sounds to me like throwing down a wero, a challenge,  one which I’m sure nga iwi o te motu will not hesitate to take up!

We are told that fresh water contamination from fracking (hydraulic fracturing) in the US has only been due to ‘cowboy’ operators cutting corners, but we need not fear for our precious water resources because the Government will ensure that no such operators will be allowed here. I wonder how our single inspector will detect the presence of cowboys, assuming they are astute enough not to turn up wearing a ten gallon hat and carrying a six-gun?  How will he or she manage to be present at every site throughout every operation to spot corner cutting?

We desperately need a government with a progressive, 21st century economic policy, based on the kind of initiatives that groups like Pure Advantage are advocating.  We need a clean green economy that works for everyone, not a backward looking ‘drill and hope’ mentality that creates so much environmental and economic risk for so little benefit.

It’s refreshing to see a Young Green, Marie Brown, reminding us here at g.blog of the reasons we are Green:

The Australian carbon price just announced will be introduced on 1 July 2012 starting at A$23 a tonne rising 2.5 per cent a year. It will be paid by around 500 of the biggest polluters and will be replaced by an emissions trading scheme from 1 July 2015.

That’s about NZ$29/ton compared to John Key’s $12.50, and unlike here, the full package of initiatives can be expected to have a meaningful effect on Australian emissions and the transformation of their economy away from fossil fuels.

As Australian Greens Deputy Leader, Christine Milne said Sunday:

With the establishment of an expert Climate Change Authority, the lifting of the 2050 target to 80%, the five year scheme caps updated each and every year from 2015, and a price floor introduced at the same time, I am confident that this package can deliver real, science-based pollution cuts.

The groundbreaking support for renewable energy, energy efficiency and landscape carbon, the contracts for closure of coal fired power plants and the limits on the use of international offsets ensure that pollution cuts which were pushed into the distant future under the government’s original plans will start now.

Indeed, the summary list of key points from the Sydney Morning Herald is impressive:

- Carbon price to start on July 1, 2012 starting at $23 a tonne rising at 2.5 per cent a year.
- It will be paid by around 500 biggest polluters.
- It will be replaced by an emissions trading from July 1, 2015.
- Price ceiling and floor to apply when trading starts.
- There will be two rounds of tax cuts and increases in allowances, payments and benefits.
- The tax free threshold will almost triple to $18,200 from July 1, 2012, and then increase to $19,400 from July 1, 2015.
- Every taxpayer with income below $80,000 to get tax cut from July 1, 2012.
- Costs for the average household will rise by $9.90 a week.
- Average household assistance, under the “clean energy supplement”, will be $10.10 a week.
- $9.2 billion will be allocated over the first three years for industry assistance.
- Most exposed industries such as steel, aluminium, zinc, pulp and paper makers will get free permits representing 94.5 per cent of industry average carbon costs.
- $300 million has set aside help the steel industry move to a clean energy future.
- $1.3 billion has been set aside for a Coal Sector Jobs Package, targeted at mines that are most affected by the carbon price.
- A $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation will be established to invest in new technology.
- $3.2 billion has been allocated to the Australian Renewable Energy Agency.
- Closure of 2000megawatts of dirtiest power generators by 2020
- Agriculture is not subject to carbon price, farmers to benefit from carbon farming.
- Small grants will be made for community-based energy efficiency programs.
- Transport fuel excluded, but heavy transport to start paying carbon tax in 2014.
- Climate Change Authority to advise on pollution caps and meeting emissions targets.

It is almost surreal to imagine an equivalent approach in New Zealand, and that’s unfortunate for more reasons than one. As Co-leader Russel Norman points out, the Aussie carbon price poses a risk to the NZ economy.

If we continue with a weak carbon price, we’ll fall behind Australia economically as their businesses become more carbon efficient under the new scheme,” Dr Norman said.

The support now being offered to clean technology in Australia, both in the carbon price and the $10 billion for clean energy announced today, means we risk losing some of our best and brightest clean technology companies to Australia. Instead, we’d be left with subsidised polluting industries.

We’re already spending about $1 billion a year subsidising carbon pollution, and as the price of carbon goes up, that bill will go up too. We can’t afford to carry polluters while driving away our clean tech entrepreneurs.

…
The race is on to innovate and move to a low-carbon economy. By setting a higher and firmer price on carbon, Australia will have an edge over New Zealand in the new low-carbon economy.

A higher price on carbon will stimulate thousands of smart green jobs in Australia, while New Zealand will be left behind with an economy choked by greenhouse gases.

The Key govt has long argued that NZ needs to align our emissions reduction schemes with Australia. Of course, they didn’t reckon on there being Greens involved across the ditch to ensure a realistic approach was implemented.

Expect the excuses as to why we can’t match the Aussies to begin flowing any time now.

Every year extraordinary weather events rock the Earth. Records that have stood centuries are broken. Great floods, droughts, and storms affect millions of people, and truly exceptional weather events unprecedented in human history may occur. But the wild roller-coaster ride of incredible weather events during 2010, in my mind, makes that year the planet’s most extraordinary year for extreme weather since reliable global upper-air data began in the late 1940s. Never in my 30 years as a meteorologist have I witnessed a year like 2010–the astonishing number of weather disasters and unprecedented wild swings in Earth’s atmospheric circulation were like nothing I’ve seen. The pace of incredible extreme weather events in the U.S. over the past few months have kept me so busy that I’ve been unable to write-up a retrospective look at the weather events of 2010. But I’ve finally managed to finish, so fasten your seat belts for a tour through the top twenty most remarkable weather events of 2010. At the end, I’ll reflect on what the wild weather events of 2010 and 2011 imply for our future.

The list is rather long, which is the point, of course. Makes for unhappy reading too.

What could it mean?  Hmmm, I couldn’t possibly comment.

As Whip (Musterer), I favoured myself with leave for the day. In the interests of balance, natural justice and self-preservation, I gave leave to co-leader, Russel Norman.

A third MP, the Minister for Climate Change, gave a (prepared) ministerial speech, answered some questions, and left.

Among other speakers:

- Dr Brian Walker spoke on planetary limits and missing institutions.

- Dr Graham Turner spoke on Revisiting the ‘Limits to Growth’: global and national strategies for sustainability.

- Dr Daniel Rutledge spoke on Global biophysical limits.

- Dr Steve Hatfield-Dodds spoke on Governance: challenges in reducing the risks and impacts of overshooting biophysical limits.

The prognosis is grim. In short, we are on the path to ecological (and then, possibly, civilizational) collapse by 2100, and possibly well before then.

These leading authorities, and others, presented researched, rigorous, and succinct depictions of the evidence to date (in their respective fields) and projections of business-as-usual (with variations reflecting some societal intervention on our part). Together, we all stared blankly, over the cliff.

There will some still around who will think we / I are being ‘alarmist’ with such talk. Those numbers are dwindling, and will continue to decrease.

The reality, increasingly stark, is that we have been under-estimating the magnitude of the global problem. And we have not acknowledged the prospect of its imminence.

All this is second-nature to Green members of Parliament. We have devoted effort, over the years, to calling attention to this plight. But those are political calls to action. These were the scientific calls to acknowledge the evidence.

What the conference did not explore was the challenge of finding solutions (beyond calling for a research agenda).

In my Budget Speech earlier in the week, I ventured into that intensely political area. I understand why the scientific minds do not go there.

Towards the end, conference participants wondered loudly why there were not more MPs present. One speaker had vigorously recommended a series of ‘entry criteria’ for MPs – IQ testing, personality testing – with a view to raising their game. In fear of failing the minimal threshold, I forbear comment.

The received wisdom was that MPs were absent because they did not care. Not so. They were not there for two reasons.

- They would have needed to have slunk out of select committees with a permission slip from the Whip (as I did through auto-suggestion).

- And they stayed away because many accurately sensed the nature of the news, and the implication that current economic model is at fault, and chose, through short-term electoral interest, not to front up.

Shame ‘bout that. But the people are waking up to this.

It’s worth quoting Bill in full:

Caution: It is vitally important not to make connections. When you see pictures of rubble like this week’s shots from Joplin, Mo., you should not wonder: Is this somehow related to the tornado outbreak three weeks ago in Tuscaloosa, Ala., or the enormous outbreak a couple of weeks before that (which, together, comprised the most active April for tornadoes in U.S. history). No, that doesn’t mean a thing.

It is far better to think of these as isolated, unpredictable, discrete events. It is not advisable to try to connect them in your mind with, say, the fires burning across Texas — fires that have burned more of America at this point this year than any wildfires have in previous years. Texas, and adjoining parts of Oklahoma and New Mexico, are drier than they’ve ever been — the drought is worse than that of the Dust Bowl. But do not wonder if they’re somehow connected.

If you did wonder, you see, you would also have to wonder about whether this year’s record snowfalls and rainfalls across the Midwest — resulting in record flooding along the Mississippi — could somehow be related. And then you might find your thoughts wandering to, oh, global warming, and to the fact that climatologists have been predicting for years that as we flood the atmosphere with carbon we will also start both drying and flooding the planet, since warm air holds more water vapor than cold air.

It’s far smarter to repeat to yourself the comforting mantra that no single weather event can ever be directly tied to climate change. There have been tornadoes before, and floods — that’s the important thing. Just be careful to make sure you don’t let yourself wonder why all these record-breaking events are happening in such proximity — that is, why there have been unprecedented megafloods in Australia, New Zealand and Pakistan in the past year. Why it’s just now that the Arctic has melted for the first time in thousands of years. No, better to focus on the immediate casualties, watch the videotape from the store cameras as the shelves are blown over. Look at the news anchorman standing in his waders in the rising river as the water approaches his chest.

Because if you asked yourself what it meant that the Amazon has just come through its second hundred-year drought in the past five years, or that the pine forests across the western part of this continent have been obliterated by a beetle in the past decade — well, you might have to ask other questions. Such as: Should President Obama really just have opened a huge swath of Wyoming to new coal mining? Should Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sign a permit this summer allowing a huge new pipeline to carry oil from the tar sands of Alberta? You might also have to ask yourself: Do we have a bigger problem than $4-a-gallon gasoline?

Better to join with the U.S. House of Representatives, which voted 240 to 184 this spring to defeat a resolution saying simply that “climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for public health and welfare.” Propose your own physics; ignore physics altogether. Just don’t start asking yourself whether there might be some relation among last year’s failed grain harvest from the Russian heat wave, and Queensland’s failed grain harvest from its record flood, and France’s and Germany’s current drought-related crop failures, and the death of the winter wheat crop in Texas, and the inability of Midwestern farmers to get corn planted in their sodden fields. Surely the record food prices are just freak outliers, not signs of anything systemic.

It’s very important to stay calm. If you got upset about any of this, you might forget how important it is not to disrupt the record profits of our fossil fuel companies. If worst ever did come to worst, it’s reassuring to remember what the U.S. Chamber of Commerce told the Environmental Protection Agency in a recent filing: that there’s no need to worry because “populations can acclimatize to warmer climates via a range of behavioral, physiological, and technological adaptations.” I’m pretty sure that’s what residents are telling themselves in Joplin today.

Too right. As someone famous once said: it’s the physics, stupid! And it’s not as though the physics is even counterintuitive in this case. More energy (heat) in the climate system leads to increased and more volatile weather activity. What else would you expect?

These recent events are the proverbial writing on the wall. So when will we accept the truth – and really do something about it?

Put another way, how many thousands of lives must we trade for fossil fuel company profits?

First the serious part. The Climate Change Response (Low Carbon Economic Development) Amendment Bill aims to incentivise clean, green and low-carbon economic development so our children and grandchildren can continue to prosper for generations to come. It does this two ways; firstly, eliminating expensive ETS subsidies on lignite coal and secondly, establishing a clean green taskforce to explore developing our green economy. It’s one of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s report into lignite coal.

Even if it isn’t pulled from the Member’s Ballot, I think it’s important to highlight the massive subsidies the taxpayer will pay to develop these dirty resources, trashing our climate credibility and valuable clean green brand.

Now the fun part. I’ve also launched a game where you can keep the coal in the hole (and out of the atmosphere), which you can play here.

I think it’s a great read and I encourage you to send your own letter to John Key urging for greater climate action from New Zealand.

Rt Hon John Key
Prime Minister of New Zealand
Parliament Buildings
Wellington

 

Dear Prime Minister Key,

Encouraged by youth of New Zealand, especially members of the organization 350.org, I write this open letter to inform you of recent advances in understanding of climate change, consequences for young people and nature, and implications for government policies.

I recognize that New Zealanders, blessed with a land of rare beauty, are deeply concerned about threats to their environment. Also New Zealand contributes relatively little to carbon emissions that drive climate change. Per capita fossil fuel emissions from New Zealand are just over 2 tons of carbon per year, while in my country fossil fuel carbon emissions are about 5 tons per person.

However, we are all on the same boat. New Zealand youth, future generations, and all species in your country will be affected by global climate change, as will people and species in all nations.

New Zealand’s actions affecting climate change are important. Your leadership in helping the public understand the facts and the merits of actions to ameliorate climate change will be important, as will New Zealand’s voice in support of effective international actions.

The fact is that we, the older generation, are on the verge of handing young people a dynamically changing climate out of their control, with major consequences for humanity and nature. A path to a healthy, natural, prosperous future is still possible, but not if business-as-usual continues.

The state of Earth’s climate is summarized in the attached paper [The Case for Young People and Nature: A Path to a Healthy, Natural, Prosperous Future, which can be found here],whose authorship includes leading world scientists in relevant fields. The bottom line is that Earth is out of energy balance, more energy coming in than going out. Thus more climate change is “in the pipeline”.

Failure to address emissions of carbon dioxide, the main cause of human-made climate change, will produce increased regional climate extremes, as seen in Australia during the past few years. But young people, quite appropriately, are concerned especially that continued emissions will drive the climate system past tipping points with irreversible consequences during their lifetimes.

Shifting of climate zones accompanying business-as-usual emissions are expected to commit at least 20 percent of the species on our planet to extermination – possibly 40 percent or more. Extermination of species would be irreversible, leaving a more desolate planet for young people. They will also have large effects on New Zealand’s principal export industry, agriculture.

Sea level rise is a second irreversible consequence of global warming. Some sea level rise is now inevitable, but with phase down of fossil fuel use it may be kept to a level measured in a few tens of centimeters. Business-as-usual is expected to cause sea level rise exceeding a meter this century and to set ice sheet disintegration in motion guaranteeing multi-meter sea level rise.

Prompt actions are needed to avoid these large effects. Phase-out of coal emissions by 2030 is the principal requirement. Also unconventional fossil fuels, such as tar sands, must be left in the ground. These conditions, plus improved agricultural practices and reforestation of lands that are not effective for food production, could stabilize the climate.

I have had the opportunity while in your country to meet your science adviser, Sir Peter Gluckman, and your climate change ministers, Hon Nick Smith and Hon Tim Groser, and discussed these issues with them. If I can be of any help with the science of climate change I am very willing to assist your government. Implications for New Zealand are clear.

First, New Zealand should leave the massive deposits of lignite coal in the ground, instead developing its natural bounty of renewable energies and energy efficiency. If, instead, development of such coal resources proceeds, New Zealand’s portion of resulting species extermination estimated by biological experts would be well over 1000 species. Most New Zealanders, I suspect, would not want to make such ‘contributions’ to global change.

Second, New Zealand should lend its voice to the cause of moving the global community onto a path leading to a healthy, natural, prosperous future. That path requires a flat rising carbon fee collected from fossil fuel companies domestically, with the funds distributed uniformly to citizens, thus moving the world toward the carbon-free energies of the future.

Prime Minister Key, the youth of New Zealand are asking you to consider their concerns and exercise your leadership on behalf of their future, indeed on behalf of humankind and nature.

 

With all best wishes,

 

James E. Hansen,
Adjunct Professor
Columbia University Earth Institute

 

Cc Sir Peter Gluckman
Hon Nick Smith
Hon Tim Groser

There has been a lot of rhetoric but few hard figures. How much impact will this have on the dairy industry?

Luckily for the quality of debate in this country, the Ministry for the Environment knows the answer to that:

The cost of emissions for farmers will depend on a range of factors including the size of the farm, the farm type, and the intensity of operations. Initial analysis suggests that in 2015, at a carbon price of $25/tonne CO2-e, farmers will face the following costs on average:

around 2.5 cents per kilogram of milk solids

Yes, you read it right. 2.5 cents. How much does a farmer get for selling a kilo of milk solids? $8!

The first person to tell me what percent 2.5 cents is of $8 gets a green star.

Lignite

It is estimated New Zealand has about 6.2 billion tons of economically recoverable lignite. The trouble is, lignite is the most inefficient and among the worst polluting types of coal there is. Nonetheless, Solid Energy and the L&M Group are pushing their proposals to mine it, ignoring a critical report from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Environment that claims that the mining just isn’t worth it.

We are dismally failing our current climate targets and allowing lignite conversion to go ahead will signal to the world we ‘give up’ on emissions reductions and our valuable clean, green brand. At the 2009 Copenhagen Conference, New Zealand pledged to cut its emissions back to between 10% and 20% of our 1990 emissions yet if the proposed lignite mining goes ahead, our emissions look set to rise 30% above our 1990 levels. Lignite coal trashes our clean green brand and international climate treaty credibility.

It’s not just the climate that could end up the loser if these proposals go ahead it could also be the taxpayer. Under the National Government’s Emissions Trading Scheme, the plans could potentially cost the taxpayer up to $275 million a year, from carbon credit subsidies state-owned Solid Energy would receive. Over its lifetime, the cost of just one lignite-to-diesel plant is likely to be in the billions, clearly bad for the Government’s books and bad for ‘locking in’ polluting industries.

I sometimes wonder if Solid Energy is the only Government agency that understands peak oil and the increasing volatility and oil prices we are likely to see over the coming decades. Unlike the Government that has no plan, Solid Energy is going ahead with coal-based oil alternatives no doubt to take advantage of higher future energy prices. But instead of investing in renewable, sustainable energy alternatives that are greener, cheaper for taxpayer and will last us forever, we’re prepared instead to invest billions in sub-standard fossil fuels. With lignite mining, we’re just scraping the bottom of the barrel for anything we can find, and, consequentially, are coming up with the dregs. The lignite has environmental costs, fiscal costs, but also significant opportunity costs: the capital invested in these projects should be going to clean-tech, green-tech projects.

Coal is the fuel of the past, and lignite is the worst type of coal. Instead of hanging on to it and squeezing it dry to try and drip every cent from it, we should instead look to the future and spend our money on sustainability. Let the lignite be, it’s right now doing a good job propping up some fabulous farmland. Let it stay in the ground and let us invest in the future of energy and the future of the environment.