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)

The website says:

‘The Summer Festival will bring together people from Southland and across Aotearoa who are concerned about climate justice to raise their voices, listen, collaborate, strategise and participate in non violent direct action. We need community action to avert dangerous climate change and leave a thriving planet and society for future generations.’

The main target is lignite coal mining in Southland an issue the Greens have been strong in opposing. Lignite is bad for the environment and our economy instead we should be pursuing modern renewable energy solutions, not 19th Century coal.

Sounds good, will you be going?

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.

Click on the image to visit the Coal Cares™ site.

Hat Tip: Gareth Renowden at Hot Topic

One of the biggest problems Dr. Hansen has seen so far is the gap between the scientific understanding and public knowledge on the issue of climate change. The challenge for Hansen has been in teaching himself to communicate the urgency of the situation, instead of remaining solely a scientist. Thank goodness he made the switch though. His content was terrifying, in that we have so little time left in which to avoid further irreparable damage to the climate, yet ended on a note of hope, in that there are solutions, we just need the political will to enact them.

Over the past 10,000 years Earth’s climate has remained remarkable constant, fluctuating by less than 1 degree Celsius. This has enabled us, civilisation, to develop in a safe, constant environment, which led to the society we see today. Pretty cool, right? During this time, volcanoes naturally emitted CO2, so it’s not entirely incorrect to say that there’s a natural element to climate change. This natural emission rate is approximately 0.0001 ppm/a (parts per million, per year). Thanks to this stability, and our discovery of fossil fuels, the society we’ve developed now emits at 2ppm/a. Preservation of life on this planet requires us to stabilise CO2e at or below 350ppm. We are currently at 391ppm. Even if we phase out all coal use by 2030, and do not depend significantly on other fossil fuels, we can still expect CO2e to peak somewhere between 400-425ppm. Numbers aside, we’re well outside the safe zone, and climbing.

The reason climate change is so hard to stop is due to the inertia of the climate. It’s estimated that at least as much warming as has already occurred due to humanity so far is still ‘in the pipeline’. This is especially worrying, when we consider climatic tipping points, which are essentially points of no return, generating warming feedback loops. For example: as the permafrost in the arctic tundra melts, pockets of trapped methane (a greenhouse gas far more potent than CO2) are released. This compounds the original warming, and pushes us further and faster down the past of climate change.

So what does this all mean for New Zealand? We’re clean and green; we’ve got a lot of renewable energy, right? I had the opportunity to ask Dr. Hansen about this, and his response was interesting. He said that in his travels around the world presenting his lecture, he had been looking for a country whose leaders were willing to stand up and tell the truth about climate change. New Zealand’s image gave him hope, but when he arrived he was taken aback: “It’s a beautiful country, it looks very green, but your emissions have increased by 20% since 1990, you’re not meeting your target!” His stance on lignite was firmer. We cannot afford, says Dr. Hansen, to prospect for further oil and gas, or exploit tarsands. We cannot afford to dig and burn lignite. “[You’re] not looking at your responsibilities to young people, to other species on the planet, or to future generations”.

The solution, according to Dr. Hansen, is fairly simple: fee and dividend. Furthermore, his message was one of urgency. While international cooperation and consensus is, of course, needed to tackle climate change, we also need a country brave enough to take the lead on this. Who better than New Zealand? What better way to repair the recent damage to our clean green brand, arguably one of our most valuable assets, what better way to demonstrate to the rest of the world that we are proud, principled, determined leaders? We led on universal suffrage, we led on our anti-nuclear stance, we need to lead on climate change. I’m left with one final Hansen quote in my mind: “The present situation is analogous to that faced by Lincoln with slavery and Churchill with Nazism—”the time for compromises and appeasement is over.”

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.

For 35 years I have been wrong about how to prevent climate change. It’s time I confessed.

For 35 years I have worked to improve energy efficiency – insulating homes, efficiency standards for appliances, better light bulbs, fuel-economy standards for cars and energy-saving technologies in industry and farming.

The assumption was that this would result in less fossil fuel being burned and less carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere. Well, it doesn’t.

She details State-Owned Solid Energy’s plans to make money out of lignite, and how that would spell disaster for New Zealand’s climate emissions.

In addition to oil and gas exploration there are well-advanced plans to use more than 3 billion tonnes of economically recoverable lignite from three fields in Southland. These plans are big, and New Zealanders are hardly aware of them.Because we don’t need coal for electricity; state-owned coal company Solid Energy has developed plans to use the lignite for fertiliser and diesel.

This is why changing your light bulbs will not reduce greenhouse gases – Solid Energy, and its government owner, are determined to use that coal.

Of course Don Elder, CE of Solid Energy, imagines that somehow mining Southland’s lignite would reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. We think Don is dreaming, and couldn’t agree more with Jeanette’s call to action:

We need to refocus international negotiations to keep most of the world’s remaining coal in the ground. As citizens, we need to refocus our domestic action to tell Solid Energy and the Government by every means available to us to keep the coal in the hole. Every tonne of lignite New Zealand keeps in the ground is 1.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide that doesn’t get into the atmosphere.

We can let energy efficiency give us a good standard of living, a prosperous economy, more jobs and a clean, green marketing brand. But if we mine the coal, we are fooling ourselves that those “green” developments will do anything for the climate.

Yesterday I spoke to Alana Barrett who has moved out of Nightcaps because she and her daughter both tested high for lead levels. But she mentioned the open cast mine dust contained more heavy metals such as arsenic and boron and that aluminium has been found in the local waterway. So the underground mine turned into an open cast mine right next to the town and the Takitimu mine itself went from producing 13,000 tonnes of coal to producing 170,000 tonnes of coal per year in the last three years. The mine is elevated above the town on District Council land (which makes the consent issues quite interesting) and smoke and dust are ongoing problems.

The company Eastern Corporation of Australia claim to have spent money on sprinklers but the Nightcaps residents are not happy. Contrast this with Gerry Brownlee’s modern and surgical mining claims. The plan is to develop the Southland lignite mines. This is low grade coal and whether they make it into urea or sell it to pollute other countries, none of it helps our tally of greenhouse gas emissions. And we should be listening to the Nightcaps community when they tell us that coal mining is dirty and is making people sick.  On Saturday the Green Party will be supporting the anti mining march in Invercargill because we want to hear from all the Southland communities.

“So I guess my prescription is to say that a partially listed model where you have access to the capital that you need, similar to the Air New Zealand model which I think is a good model, is a really important path for a company like Solid Energy.”

Mr Palmer thought there would be little political risk for the Government in its second term, were it to win one, in going down that track with a company such as Solid Energy.

“This can be, with the right sort of management and the right sort of capital, one of New Zealand’s most important companies. It should be,” he said.

Yes, that quote is from the Sydney Morning Herald.  I can just imagine the executives at the foreign-owned mining giants like BHP Billiton drooling all over their shoes at the prospect.

Energy and Resources Minister Gerry Brownlee was quick to see the political risk, and slap down tread lightly on Palmer:

But Brownlee said any sale of state-owned assets would occur only if the Government was elected on that mandate.

”The government has made it very clear we not selling any assets until we go to New Zealand and say that’s our plan.”

What a hopeless response from Gerry!

Solid Energy is hard enough to control as a State Owned Enterprise.  It is already wanting to start coal seam fires in the Waikato to convert coal into gas, with consequent pollution of both the air and the water table.  It is also wanting to mine the dirtiest coal of them all, lignite, on a far greater scale in Southland.

Let Solid Energy loose on the sharemarket, especially given National’s proposed relaxation of Resource Management Act constraints, and who knows how much environmental damage Solid Energy will do.

We need a clearer response to the Solid Energy privatisation proposals, Gerry.  Yes, or no?

And we want it now!

The government is intent on tearing up Schedule 4, which protects our most important conservation lands from mining. This is National’s own cross-party agreement negotiated in the 1990′s covering just 13% of the country. But at a time when our clean, green image is increasingly looking shaky and the reality of climate change demands action, the government’s response is instead to dig up our parks to harvest even the coal that lies beneath.

It is not too late to prevent this from happening. The Prime Minister says he wants feedback from the public. Many Kiwis have already said enough is enough – don’t mine any more of our parks!  But the pressure needs to be kept high before final decisions are made.

You can show how you feel by attending one of our Earth Day events today. Details can be found here.  Afterward, or if you can’t make it to a public event, please make a submission on the discussion document released by the Ministry of Economic Development. Links to all the info you need to do this are here. The deadline is 4 May.

Show that you want to save our treasured places!  We really hope to see you today!

Dear Sir,

I understand that your corporation is sponsoring an essay competition for schoolchildren in Southland, West Coast, Canterbury and Waikato.  The essay, up to 1500 words, must address “The Role of Coal in Sustainable Energy Solutions for New Zealand.”

I am not sure if there is an age limit this year, but as a mature New Zealander I am excited at the chance to participate and would be most grateful if you’ll allow me to submit.  Any opportunity to stimulate young minds – any old mind – towards sustainable thinking is a priceless contribution to this country’s future.  It should be appreciated for what it is – a selfless act of communal service on your part.  I plan to alert the Minister of Energy to this example of corporate supererogation. I know how pleased he will be.

I shall keep my contribution under 1000 words – discounted for age, as it were.  Here is my submission:

In this essay I consider the role of coal in sustainable energy solutions for New Zealand.  As an aspiring young leader, I shall summon people – future followers of whom I know many – to support my vision.  To do that, I must combine intellectual rigour with emotional appeal.  So I begin with a definition of the main concepts in the essay title.

Sustainability is the capacity to provide for our present generation’s needs whilst ensuring that future generations can meet theirs.  An eco-centric perspective requires that we humans act as custodians of the planet for the sake of all species.  But the prevailing anthropocentric view is that other species are here on Earth to serve human needs, and if they appear not to be doing so, they become dispensable.  This applies particularly to those of small size – snails for example – but it can apply equally to larger creatures, including all higher primates.

A solution is defined as an answer, a ‘key’, to a problem.  In this essay, the problem would appear to be the implied lack of sustainable energy scenarios for New Zealand.  This excludes the rest of the world.  I am having difficulty with this since we have traditionally been import-dependent on heavy oil from overseas.  So it comes as a relief to know that the Government is encouraging the exploration of oil here, both on-land and off-shore, and that it sees one future scenario of New Zealand as a potential net oil exporter.  Bravo!

I suggest that oil and coal should not be seen as mutually competitive.  Each draws from past solar activity and remains predictable in its proven reserves.  If peak oil is as early as 2014 – the latest IEA report – then we must rely further on its older sister whose reserves are believed to last for several centuries more.  This will give us time to successfully deal with any climate change, and adapt to whatever extent we may need.

The emotional appeal of coal is, I submit, self-evident.  My grandparents used to speak wistfully of cosy evenings of times past with the open-hearth fireplace casting a warm glow around the living-room, generating human conviviality and good cheer on a dreary night.  Today’s clinically-modernised global community could do with some of this.  If the ensuing heat-loss of 85% warmed the heavens, then surely this was a cosmic good.  I do not begrudge my ancestors their simple pleasures; in fact, we should seek to recover them.  Solid Energy has a moral role here, I believe, in uplifting our flagging spirits.

But, it must be asked, is such a role sustainable?  I realise that the world’s coal reserves are finite, so at some future stage we must switch to renewable energy resources.  But in the meantime, there is more coal to extract and consume than any other fossil fuel source.  Oil and natural gas are, together, insufficient to double the carbon concentration in Earth’s atmosphere – with the goal of 800 ppmv.  We can only achieve this through coal-burning.

That is estimated to result in an average global temperature increase of some 8 to 10°C and a sea-level rise of 5 to 15 metres over the next two centuries.  Some timid souls may see this as a negative consequence of my energy solution.  But several qualifying considerations are, I think, relevant here.

First, a global average does not mean that New Zealand will necessarily share in those figures – our temperature increase could well be lower, at a congenial level perhaps, particularly for those of us in Southland.

Secondly, the time-span of two centuries raises the question of how far out the concept of inter-generational justice that underpins sustainability just has to stretch.  For my part, I think it is sufficient simply to worry about one’s children and theirs.  Beyond that, our mokopuna are just gleams in a fossil-burner’s eye.

We can, moreover, be confident that human ingenuity and technological prowess, of the kind that has generated such an economic miracle over the past 250 years, will see us through.  In the same vein, we should believe that humans will have learnt, over the next 3 billion years, to take leave of the solar system on which we currently rely, and bid our dying Sun adieu, when the time comes.  Nothing is beyond us, now that technology has allowed us to break free of Nature’s primitive grasp.

New Zealand has its part to play in all this, punching as always above its weight.  A hungry China is installing two Huntly-sized coal power stations each week.  GHG emissions are correlated with GDP on a per capita basis.  Ours are about 17 tonnes per annum.  Theirs are 3.5.  They have a right, and must be encouraged, to reach our level.  We must help.  It is our bounden duty.

Besides, if we do not supply them with the coal they need, someone else will.  So let us compete.  Solid Energy has a role to play in meeting China’s needs.  The export income we earn from this will allow us to focus here on climbing out of the economic recession and making our national economy grow again, as it has in the past.

Annual growth of 5% – surely a credible aspiration – enables us to double our economy within about 12 years.  As our population grows to the projected 5 million and Earth’s to 9 billion, we shall need all the coal reserves we possess.  Meanwhile, our Government will ensure that we balance economic opportunity with environmental responsibility.

Some are terrified that an atmospheric carbon concentration above 450 ppmv and a modest temperature increase above 2°C will spell disaster for humanity.  But I say, we have nothing to fear but fear itself.  We shall balance economic opportunity with environmental responsibility.

A sustainable New Zealand is a wealthy New Zealand.  A wealthy New Zealand has the capacity to ensure that we are sustainable.  Wealth thus equates with sustainability.  Coal and oil equates with wealth.  It follows that coal and oil equate with sustainability.

Sir, I trust these thoughts meet with your approval.  I hope to win a prize for this essay from Solid Energy that allows me to consider a career in your company.  Give me a child of seven, as they say, and I will show you the man of seventy.  That will be around the year 2075.  I foresee a bright future for New Zealand, with coal as the Key to its sustainable energy needs.

May Solid Energy grow from strength to corporate strength, delivering power and happiness to the people of New Zealand.

The Sunday Star Times ran a powerful feature on the weekend called “Picture imperfect”. It looks at international concern at New Zealand’s environmental performance, including National’s plan to mine conservation land:

IT’S JUST a stock-take of mineral resources, insists Gerry Brownlee, Minister of Energy and Resources. But the August announcement of a review of the schedule that prohibits mining and exploration in our national parks raised international hackles.

The 9th World Wilderness Conference (1500 delegates from 52 countries) in Mexico last month passed a resolution asking our government to retain the no-mining status quo measures of protection in relation to public conservation land within protected areas.

The government had already received a letter from the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, after 200 delegates met in Korea: “The news that a modern, comparatively wealthy nation such as New Zealand is prepared to exploit its resources in lands set aside for biodiversity sends a disturbing message to more populous countries,” the IUCN said.

Today, the Greens received an e-newsletter from the Mountain Protected Areas that is being circulated around the world. It will be read by influencial policy makers world-wide.

The newsletter is from the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s World Commission on Protected Areas, of which the New Zealand Government is a member. A section is critical of New Zealand’s change in position on mining protected areas:

Potential Problems In New Zealand PAs [Protected Areas]

From IUCN Regional Vice-Chair for Oceania, Penny Figgis comes some disturbing news about a threat from mining in NZ’s conservation estate. In a recent address to the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy 2009, the NZ Minister of Energy and Resources spoke on “Unlocking our Minerals Potential”. In it he stated: “In my short time as Minister, I have become acutely aware that one of the fundamental barriers to mineral exploration and development is access to prospective land, particularly to land administered by the Department of Conservation.”

Reasonable access to the mineral estate in Crown-owned land, particularly conservation land, is a key issue. Kiwi Bruce Jefferies has written expressing concern, and Nik Lopoukhine, WCPA Chair has written on behalf of the Commission. He has reminded the Prime Minister and the Ministers for Energy and Resources, and of Conservation, that NZ as an IUCN member, supported the resolution on mining passed at the 2000 World Conservation Congress in Amman, Jordan. It called for no mining in IUCN Categories I-IV. The mining industry itself in 2003 agreed not to exploit any World Heritage areas. It is hoped that the NZ Government will not permit this to move forward, especially in view of the PA leadership NZ has exhibited to date.

Last week, the Greens and the Federated Mountain Clubs broke the story that 20% of Mount Aspiring National Park was being touted for removal from Schedule 4 to make way for mining.

Since then the “Hands off Mt Aspiring” facebook page has gone ballistic, with 4325 members in a week. Join it now! I love this graphic:

Image from Julia Hamilton on the Facebook Page

A National Government created Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act in 1997 to protect National Parks from mining.

The Government wants to mine in Kahurangi National Park, a Park created by National while Nick Smith was Conservation Minister and proudly opened in 1996 by Jim Bolger.

So, why does Nick Smith support this move?

Here is Nick’s 1997 speech [not online] when the Schedule was created:

Thursday, November 20, 1997

Hon. NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): In rising to support the third reading of the Bill, I draw the House’s attention to the significance of the final stages of the passage of this legislation. …

This Bill at long last puts some pegs in the sand in some very significant areas of New Zealand and says to the mining industries of New Zealand: “These are no-go areas.”

I draw the House’s attention this afternoon to just how significant that range of areas is. First, we have all those areas that are national parks: areas such as the Abel Tasman National Park, and the national parks of Arthur’s Pass, Egmont, Fiordland, Kahurangi, Mount Aspiring, Mount Cook, Nelson Lakes, Paparoa, Tongariro, Te Urewera, Westland, and Whanganui. Those areas total over 3 million hectares of land. This legislation says to the mining industries that those areas set aside as national parks are not appropriate areas for mining.

If one picks up the National Parks Act and sees the quite prohibitive range of activities that is permitted to go on in those areas, one realises that it is certainly consistent with those activities to say that mining should not occur in those areas. In effect, this legislation we are about to pass sets and strengthens that National Parks Act, which dates back to 1980.

This legislation goes further than just national parks. Areas around New Zealand have been set aside as nature reserves, scientific reserves, wilderness areas, sanctuaries, and wildlife sanctuaries. There are areas that have been set aside as Ramsar sites, in terms of the convention on wetlands and highly migratory birds, as well as those areas in the Coromandel that the Alliance member Jeanette Fitzsimons has mentioned. This Bill sets out quite clearly very significant areas of conservation estate in which mining is not allowed. That is something that this House should welcome.

In 1990 National’s manifesto committed it to going down this route. …. the commitment that was made in 1990 to ban mining in national parks was a significant one. … the Bill does provide a mechanism, which has been improved in the Committee stage, whereby additional areas can be added to those that will be provided for in the mining ban.

I also wish to make comment about my New Zealand First colleagues and their attitude to this Bill. Members will note that the coalition agreement specifically mentions the banning of mining in national parks. Again, I would draw to the attention of this House that the Government is honouring a further clause of the coalition agreement by advancing this legislation.

Environmental groups—the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, the Maruia Society, and groups in the Coromandel—have pushed for this legislation for a very long time. I welcome its progress. I want to make reference to the cooperative way in which members on both sides of the House have worked to progress this legislation. ….

This is landmark legislation for the conservation movement in New Zealand. I welcome the Bill’s progress and, as Minister of Conservation, look forward to not having to consider mining applications in those areas where nature should be able to rule the roost.

What’s changed, Nick?

Leading Bluegreen and the National Party’s long-time environment spokesperson, now the Minister for the Environment and Climate Change, Dr Nick Smith, is proud of his environmental commitment. His blog before the election:

New Zealand’s environment is at the core of our national identity and our way of life. For most Kiwis it is considered a birthright to be able to get out and enjoy our great outdoors.  This unique ability to camp, fish, tramp, hunt, and picnic is part of what defines us as New Zealanders, and is enjoyed by young and old alike.

The reality is, though, that our natural environment, which we are all so proud of, is not being well managed.

Now, many are pointing finger and him and his Government – and noting the lack of influence of the Bluegreens – about the management of our natural environment; on climate change, enviroschools, RMA reform, funding, and now attempts to steal protected conservation land for mining.

Nick has been surprisingly silent on the decision of Ministers Brownlee and Groser to do a stock-take of our premiere conservation land for its mining potential. Was he consulted? We know he was given a copy of Brownlee’s speech prior, but did he read it? Does he support it?

The view from Mt Owen

What’s up, Nick?

Nick proudly displays a large landscape photo of Kahurangi National Park’s Mt Owen above his office reception desk.

Will he let his Government mine it for the gold in the granite quartz seams?

He proudly displays Forest and Bird mags in his office reception as conservation-cred.

Has he listened their perspective on the Government’s decision to assess National Parks and Nature Reserves for mining?

And his reception area coffee-table book is LISTEN to the Heartbeat of the Earth, a “collection of inspirational images of the natural environment …each reminding us what a fragile and special place we live in.”

Will listening to the rumble of mining machines and photos of scarred mountains be his Government’s contribution?

Before the election the National Environment Spokesperson Nick Smith said “The burning of coal is the dirtiest form of energy and the single largest global source of greenhouse gases.”

Why then does his Government want to find more, and from under our most high value conservation land?

What’s up, Nick?

Green frog - photo by flickr.com/mouse

It’s frog week! My favourite week of the year.

But this one comes under a large grey cloud.

My local native frog rellies have not been faring well for a while. They’re threatened by diseases including the frog fungus disease (chytridiomycosis); predation by rats, stoats, introduced frogs, possums, pigs and cats; habitat loss and modification; toxins from human activity; climate change; and illegal collection.

But now they have a new predator – Gerry with his sidekick Tim. All New Zealand’s native frog species are now threatened by mining.

Three of the four live in Schedule 4 places that Gerry and Tim are considering mining, which should not be surprising because Schedule 4 is there to protect our highest value conservation treasures from mining. What is surprising is that Maud Island – the only home of Maud Island frogs is NOT in Schedule 4.

I thought Tim’s job was to look after my little slippery friends – to advocate for and support DOC to protect them from existing threats. Instead Tim has let Gerry add yet another threat. Tim, you should be adding Maud Island to Schedule 4, not looking at whether Gerry can dig up the other 3!

A mark of respect please for a froggy roll-call:

Hamilton’s Frog

Status: Nationally critical
Location: Stephens Island/Takapourewa Nature Reserve in the Marlborough Sounds

Maud Island Frog

Status: Nationally endangered
Location: Maud Island/Te Hoiere Scientific Reserve in the Marlborough Sounds

Archey’s frog

Status: Nationally Critical
Location: Predominately in Coromandel conservation lands

Hochstetter’s frog

Status: Sparse
Location: Significant populations in Coromandel conservation lands and Raukumara Wilderness Area

Map of frog distribution from DOC

Tongariro National Park Photo by flickr.com/photos/jcolman/

On 23 September 1887, Te Heuheu Tukino of Tuwharetoa gifted the mountains of Tongariro, Ngaruhoe and Ruapehu to the people of Aotearoa. As Frog’s kiwidiary notes, this allowed all New Zealanders access and usage for recreation, but also gave us all responsibility to care for and protect these sacred mountains. Parliament passed the Tongariro National Park Act in 1894.

This anniversary was sullied by the fact that the Crown is now considering the Park’s mining potential. The Minister of Energy and Resources and the Minister of Conservation are undertaking a stocktake of high value conservation places listed in Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act, which includes all National Parks.

Despite the Acting Minister of Tourism’s attempts to play it down with the comment that “the Minister of Energy and Resources has not said anything about opening up national parks to mining”, that Minister Brownlee has refused to rule National Parks like Tongariro out of the stocktake, saying to Metiria: “The member knows which bits of the national parks are in schedule 4 — all of them, in fact. But we have said that we are doing a stocktake of the lands in schedule 4 — end of story.”

What a way to celebrate such a generous gift to the Crown and people of these lands – to include them in the Government’s treasure-hunt folly. I wonder what Te Heuheu Tukino’s mokopuna, National Minister Hon Georgina Te Heuheu, thinks of the idea?

You can have your say by reading about the Government intentions on our mining page , sending an ecard to the PM, and getting your friends to sign the petition [PDF].

Credit: Photo sent in by Glenn Murdoch

Gerry was so inspired he decided to tell a mining conference that he wanted to open up our best conservation land for mining.

Reasonable access to the mineral estate in Crown-owned land, particularly conservation land, is a key issue. … Some of the areas within Schedule 4 [which includes National Parks] are known to host significant [mining] potential…

Very inspirational indeed Gerry – it’s up there with sexy coal!

RadioNZ’s Insight doco at 8am was on carbon offsetting. Reporter Ian Telfer narrated a well-rounded look at the benefits and risks inherent in the largely-unregulated voluntary carbon market. Includes Jeanette Fitzsimons. Podcast here.

On TVNZ’s 9am Q&A show, Guyon Espiner interviewed Minister Smith on climate change targets. The show’s panel was well-informed – made up of  former Minister Simon Upton, political scientist Terese Arseneau and our own Jeanette Fitzsimons.

Frog will look in a later post at the new NZIER/Infometrics economic analysis of the ‘cost’ of a 40%announced by the Minister, but it seems to again ignore the economic benefits and opportunities of moving to a low-carbon economy, the long-term threat of climate change to the whole economy, and the threat to NZ’s premium brand if we don’t set a responsible 2020 target. Jeanette noted that the Government has yet to do an assessment of what NZ’s emissions reduction options are possible and their costs and benefits, so the economic analyses rolled out are just straw-men to make it all seem too hard. A bit like the All Blacks deciding to play for a draw just cause the Spingboks forward pack weighs more than theirs.

The Minister also pointed to the importance of supporting low-carbon technology transfer to developing countries, but seems reluctant to recognise that a responsible 2020 target would allow NZ to facilitate that through assisted emissions reductions offshore. Story and video here.

Last, RadioNZ’s Sunday Group panel on “Irrigating the Mackenzie Country” [not online yet, but will be here] held an informative debate about the impacts of massive irrigation in this iconic dryland landscape, including the threats to tourism, water quality, and biodiversity. Recommended listening.

So much good stuff, I might need a Sunday nap!

The Green MPs personally pay to offset their flights through carboNZero, choosing native forest regeneration projects like the Hinewai Reserve on Banks Peninsula as preferred use of the credits. Photo credit – EBEX21.

Frog readers will know that Solid Energy has had a lot to do with creepy-crawlies. Coal-mining operations destroy invertebrates and their habitat daily. Solid Energy terminated the only habitat of an endemic giant carnivorous (and NZ’s most famous) snail species Powelliphanta Augustus. Solid Energy had to get a wildlife permit to move and kill them. But the relocated populations are struggling, and face extinction.

Despite this, Solid Energy has invited the bug-man down to talk about the importance of bugs to Coast kids, and get nice PR out of it. Solid made a cool snail movie too, just to show how much they loved them.

I’m also told that their leaflet promoting the Solid Energy Leisure Centre in Westport has a beautiful photo of a sun-speckled nikau leaf on the front.

You’d be forgiven for thinking Solid was in the business of environmental enhancement, with a bit of mining on the side! Alas, it’s an illusion.

Solid Energy: 100% Pure Greenwash.

Addition: a local tells me that Ruud’s visit is part of Solid Energy’s “Environment Week”, which also includes hosting a beach cleanup, an environmental photo competition, a tour of mine water treatment plant, tree planting and a blue duck presentation. Sound great – pity about the coal mining, biodiversity destruction and carbon emissions.

It’s been raining on the Coast - not just cats and dogs but tigers and seals!

The rain has apparently caused a massive slip on the Stockton mine access road, closing the mine yesterday and costing perhaps one million bucks in lost coal production.

Is this Gaia venting her anger at Solid Energy?