Feeling that perhaps I am one of those people he criticises as ‘people who in the one breath chant “more jobs, more jobs” and then in the next breath say “but don’t do that, or that, or that”, I thought I would ask Mr Joyce a few questions about why he and the National Government are saying ‘we won’t’ to a prosperous and sustainable Aotearoa.

Mr Joyce criticises those who say ‘you can’t explore for that there’. In actual fact, those of us who are deeply concerned about the Government’s risky ‘drill it, mine it’ agenda for our country are not saying ‘you can’t’ without providing alternatives that will both keep our valuable clean green image intact, and provide a more  sustainable economic path for Aotearoa.

As the Greens have been pointing out for a while, if we were to secure just 1 per cent of the global renewable energy market in the next five years, we’d create a $5.8 billion industry with 60,000 more green jobs. Short term risky exploration ventures will not create a long term stable economy for New Zealand. And with the Government boasting in its recent briefing to incoming Minister of Economic Development that we have one of the lowest royalty rates in the world, how can we take their claims of the economic benefits to New Zealand seriously?

So Mr Joyce, why won’t you and your Government commit to a modern and sustainably prosperous economic plan for Aotearoa, when the opportunities to do so are so viable?

Mr Joyce criticises those who say ‘you can’t build that there’. I wonder if he is referring to the vast expansion of new motorways planned which he himself presided over while Transport Minister? In the recent briefing to the incoming Minister of Transport, data revealed a transport budget blowout of $ 1 billion is expected as oil prices remain high. Is this smart economic planning? As Julie Anne Genter, fellow Green party MP and transport spokesperson said in a blog last week ‘As oil prices rise, people turn to buses, trains, walking and cycling, but this Government is planning to blow the budget on uneconomic motorways’

So Mr Joyce, why won’t you and your Government invest in sustainable transport options for Aotearoa giving Kiwis real choices which will be better for our economy and contribute to healthier lifestyles and a cleaner environment?

As it’s a large part of the Minister’s economic plan, he is also no doubt referring to those of us who criticise asset sales as the ‘you can’ts’. As my colleague Russel Norman revealed on Wednesday, the Government is planning to sell off assets which are earning four times more than the cost of capital tied up in them, some of which, according to the Prime Minister himself, have returned 18.5% shareholder profit over the last five years. Why won’t the Government implement smart economic decisions like a temporary earthquake levy for Christchurch, or a capital gains tax which would unleash capital to be invested in innovative productive Kiwi businesses?

So I ask My Joyce, rather than focusing on the ‘can’ts’ why won’t you and your Government focus on real solutions like renewable energy, green-tech, or smart transport that would deliver for Kiwis.

A transcript is here for those who cannot access the video.

David Clendon: What is the Government’s contingency plan if there is a catastrophic oil spill or leak resulting from exploratory drilling?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Maritime New Zealand is responsible for ensuring that New Zealand is prepared for, and able to respond to, marine oil spills. The Marine Pollution Response Service consists of internationally respected experts, who manage and train a team of about 400 local, Government, and Maritime New Zealand responders.

I didn’t find that particularly reassuring at the time, and find it much less so now given what is happening off Tauranga. We know some smart and dedicated people, both professionals and volunteers,  are working desperately hard trying to avert a major disaster, but so far we have seen just how little capacity we have to manage an accident.

Nobody ever wants an oil spill anywhere in the marine environment, but in terms of acccess and ability to respond,  the location and timing of this spill could have been a great deal worse.  The vessel ran aground on a reef scarcely 20km from Tauranga, one of our largest, busiest and most modern ports.  It occurred in calm weather, and was known about almost immediately. Yet we have still struggled to bring together the necessary expertise and hardware to deal quickly  with the crisis.

How much worse would the situation be if we were to allow deepwater off shore drilling, which the Energy Minister and her government are so eager to do, and an accident occurred a long way offshore in foul weather.

The American response to the Gulf of Mexico disaster involved hundreds of vessels, and many thousands of  military, civilian and volunteer personnel.  It also required a second rig to drill the relief well that ultimately enabled the stemming of the oil flow into the waters of the Gulf.

New Zealand does not and will never have that sort of capacity.  The oil companies will resist having to take responsibility to provide it.

There will always be accidents at sea that threaten our coastlines, wildlife and the livelihoods of people who rely on the marine resource.  We need to continually assess and reassess the risks of such accidents and put in place appropriate safeguards and countermeasures.

To knowingly invite and even encourage deep water drilling, an activity that we know is highly likely to cause problems entirely beyond our ability to resolve them, would be reckless in the extreme.  I hope that the reality of having to deal with the Rena incident will cause the government to think again about our energy future in the interests of our environmental and economic wellbeing.

The Public Perceptions of New Zealand’s Environment 2010 study, which surveyed over 2000 people, states:

“It is clear that New Zealanders have a very high desire for a future of largely non-polluted freshwaters, fit for swimming and with abundant aquatic life. They want the most important rivers protected and they do not want to trade off environmental protection for economic growth.”

People don’t buy the tired old rhetoric about “balancing” environmental protection with economic progress by way of more intensive agriculture. The Government is out of step with the values of New Zealanders alleging we can have more cows and cleaner rivers at the same time when scientists have shown it is a trade-off. We know from experience that when this Government talks about “balance”, the environment is always the loser.

The report shows that kiwis want solutions that include stronger regulation of polluters and a price on the use of irrigation water. Both of these approaches feature in our Clean Rivers Plan.

Highlights of the study:

• “Water pollution and water related issues were rated as the most important environmental issue facing New Zealand.” (p. III)

• “It is clear that New Zealanders have a very high desire for a future of largely non-polluted freshwaters, fit for swimming and with abundant aquatic life. They want the most important rivers protected and they do not want to trade off environmental protection for economic growth.” (p. 71)

• “Respondents clearly support futures with largely unpolluted waters that are swimmable – they will not accept the loss of native species and clearly do not believe the main emphasis of freshwater management should be economic.” (p. 68)

• “Respondents disagree strongly with the proposition that ‘we should accept some reduction in environmental values of some freshwater resources in order to enhance economic benefits from their use.” (p. 68)

• “For all three types of water body [rivers & streams, lakes, aquifers] nature, scenic, recreational and community values outrank commercial interests which, in turn, outrank Customary Maori values.” (p. 68)

• “Respondents favour integrated approaches which combine economic, regulatory and voluntary instruments, while in a complementary way they are strongly supportive of charging for the commercial use of freshwater.” (p. III)

• “It is clear that respondents support commercial user pays regimes and limited analysis against some key demographics showed no significant difference between farmers and other occupational classes. Respondents all want commercial water use to be monitored, they all want administrative costs charged to commercial users, and in addition they are all strongly supportive of commercial users being charged for the water they use.” (p. 71)

• 52 percent of respondents perceived farming to be the main cause of damage to fresh waters. (p. 17)

The technique is used to extract ‘unconventional’ oil and gas – that’s industry speak for sources of hydrocarbons that until recently were deemed too expensive or difficult to extract, but as the reality of peak oil kicks in the boundaries are being pushed further out.

The technique has been implicated in serious contamination of water supplies, and a correlation has been drawn between fracking and swarms of earthquakes in at least three American states.  It has been banned in France, is under investigation in other European states, and some parts of the US.

Fracking has happened in Taranaki, and has been proposed for other parts of the country, including the East Coast and Canterbury. The industry in New Zealand is staunchly defending the practice, with John Bay, the Chair of the Petroleum Exploration and Production Association (PEPANZ), insisting that problems elsewhere were caused by ‘cowboys’, whom our government would not allow to operate here.

Given the present government’s enthusiasm for extraction of oil and gas, and their willingness to downplay the risks,  I’m less inclined to rely on them!  The fracking that has occurred in Taranaki was done without resource consents .   The Taranaki Regional Council only last month decided that perhaps there had better be a consenting process in future.

The Greens believe in evidence based policy.  Much of the evidence we are seeing indicates that fracking is  dirty, dangerous, and completely at odds with an intelligent 21st century economic or energy strategy. We want a halt to the practice until we see clear evidence that fracking really is safe, poses no threat to human health; our land, water or level of seismic activity; and that any benefits really could outweigh the costs.

I”m launching a petition that asks Parliament to initiate an independent investigation through the Office of  the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, and for an immediate moratorium on the practice until or unless the PCE can give fracking  a clean bill of health. I hope you will sign it, and encourage others to do the same.

So download the petition [PDF] here and get people signing it!

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.

“The D-word – dairy – cited by Mr Key in in linking together the wonders of free trade with China and India should give cause for concern.  Recent reports on how the likes of the Hauraki Gulf and the Kaipara Harbour are changing into marine sewage ponds thanks to bovine excrement and fertiliser runoffs show we are being ‘uddermined’ by poisoning our country to feed foreigners.  Yes, we can sell artificially sustained grass-fed dairy products, but no – as Mr Key so painfully discovered as an interviewee on BBC television – we can’t keep lying about our pure, clean and green image.”

I spent a great day at the Ice Ideas Conference on Friday and came away more convinced than ever that we have the people, the ideas and the capacity to put our economy on a vastly more sustainable footing.

Nobody in the room of some six hundred was heard to suggest that selling more and more  milk powder, or raw logs, or any other high volume / low value commodity is going to give us any joy economically, socially or environmentally.

Those commodities will inevitably hit environmental limits and constraints, as dairying has already shown, and trying to create financial capital at the expense of natural capital is a fool’s errand.

I suspect it will be considerably more innovative and better informed than what we saw earlier this week from the government-appointed  Green Growth Advisory Group . Their discussion paper makes some  claims about the government’s ‘growth agenda’ that are plain wrong; it misses the point about some fairly fundamental issues around making the transition to a low carbon economy; and appears ill-informed about key parts of the economy, notably the Small Medium Enterprise (SME) sector.

We are told for example that ‘Natural capital – natural resources and ecological systems that provide services to society – is a core consideration in all policy making’.  Really?  Even the policies that involve a huge investment into mineral extraction, massive roading projects, a preference for urban sprawl rather than compact urban form?

The document notes that economies ‘will shift to more sustainable practices’, and that our ability to ‘anticipate and respond appropriately to these changes’ is of importance.  It is clearly news to the authors that ‘economies’ including high-value markets like Europe, North America and Japan are already making the shift, and New Zealand is proving to be a very slow follower instead of fulfilling our potential role as leader by example.

The paper seriously understates the economic risk posed by our failure to live up to our ‘clean and green’  brand, despite acknowledging the importance of authenticity (i.e. no greenwash!) and that our environmental stewardship is already under scrutiny internationally.

We are encouraged to reduce our GHG emissions intensity, but not our emissions in absolute terms.  There is no recognition that the government has an enormous ability to influence the behaviour of  economic players by rewarding those who are getting real about sustainability with government supply contracts – the existing approach to procurement, having sustainability as one ‘tick box’ along with many others, is just inadequate.

The assumptions made about SMEs, and the ‘advice’ offered to them, reflects how badly out of touch this government is with the sector, where a lot of work is already being done that is  motivated by a very clear understanding of the imperatives to move to a more sustainable footing. (Maybe the government’s failure to have even one member attend the recent Small Business summit is symptomatic of this lack of engagement.)

The Group was initiated by hapu of Te Uri o Hau and Ngati Whatua o Kaipara o Nga Rima, both of whom have kaitiaki status on areas of the harbour and its catchment.  They very quickly worked out that lots of people and organisations were doing work on and in the harbour, but there was a lack of integration or even coordination so the outcomes of the efforts were less than they could have been.

A research project delivered a solid base for understanding the condition of the harbour and of the influences acting on it, and now a combination of Western science and matauranga Maori is being applied.  An ecosystem managment approach is  generating solutions – focused actions, especially protecting the waterways feeding into the harbour from sedimant and pollutants.

One of the best presentations I thought was from two young farmers whose families have long association with the area, who are now devoting considerable resource and effort to stabilising eroding land, fencing off and protecting waterways, pest management, and retiring land that assists the ecological restoration and also has a positive effect on the productivity of land still in production.

It is early days, and a lot of work yet to be done, but as an example of Maori and non-Maori organisations and individuals working together with a common cause, to improve environmental, social and economic prospects, it is hard to beat!

An animated map of Auckland’s public transport network from Chris McDowall on Vimeo.

Watching it really highlights to me how radial the public transport network is. There are a lot of different public transport services (whether by rail, bus, or ferry) but most of them (with a few exceptions such as the Link) go into the center. They’re like the spokes on a wheel but there’s little to join them up.

In practise, having radial services translates for frustrating outcomes for Aucklanders who want to go from one side of the city to the other. It may not even be a particularly long trip but to get there you have to catch one bus into the CBD and then another out – thus more than doubling the time you have to travel and cost you have to pay.

You also often end up with services that follow very complex routes – trying to get every single person close to their house.

The New Zealand Transport Agency published a paper last year which said that having a grid like network is actually a lot more efficient than a radial or tailor made network. Having a grid means that you can run far fewer buses/trains but get more passengers a lot closer to their destination. Hopefully these diagrams help make that clearer.

However, to introduce a more grid like system in Auckland we’d have to restructure the fares as well because right now the fares effectively discourage people from transferring. For example, if you catch one bus for one stage and then another bus for two stages that’s pretty expensive – more so than just catching one bus for 3 stages. We need a fare system that makes transferring from one service or mode to another cheap.

The integrated ticketing project gives us a fantastic opportunity to look at restructuring the routes and fares of public transport services in Auckland to a more efficient grid like system and get more bang for our buck in terms of subsidies.

Sadly, so far what’s coming out of Auckland Transport doesn’t suggest the government is seizing that opportunity. But the Auckland Spatial Plan is a great opportunity to get these ideas out there.

What do you think when watching the video? Do you think Auckland needs a more grid like network? What other improvements could we make?

Three companies are trying again to secure land use rights for large-scale dairy farming in the Omarama and Ohau regions of the South Island.

They want to develop 16 dairy farms with up to 17,850 cows housed in cubicles.

Looks like it’s the same people with the same sort of plans as last time. One thing that is different now is that there’s no pesky Environment Canterbury acting as gate-keepers, just Nationals hand-picked team of dictators.

Join the Facebook group to keep informed about the latest verse of the saga and what part you can play in it.

This video was made by http://climatecrocks.com/. Plenty more where that came from!

Much of New Zealand’s conservation land survived because it was unsuitable for “development” into productive land. Unfortunately our lowland wetlands – of which 90% have already been drained – make for good pasture once drained. Rich and diverse habitats wetlands play an important role. Acting as filters to our rivers – something which is severely needed currently – wetlands also play a role as a buffer for floods. Able to absorb large amounts of water a wetland can be an important part of a flood protection scheme. For example the Whangamarino is part of a flood protection scheme on the lower Waikato. With the changing climate that we face more frequent, more damaging flood events are a certainty for much of the country. While I hesitate to talk about killing birds, the opportunity to rescue or return some of our lowland wetlands with both flood protection and water filtration benefits seems to me a no brainer.

While the weather might restrict outdoor conservation pursuits this weekend to the hardy few there are indoor events happening this weekend so check out www.conservationweek.org.nz for more details. While Russel might be championing the Kokako (and a Pureora National Park) for the Forest and Bird, Bird of the year that doesn’t mean that you can’t with a clear conscience check out the Unnatural History of the Kakapo. There are screenings happening around the country. If the rain does keep you inside over the weekend I can recommend checking out nzonscreen.com. They have some great old documentaries about our wonderful native treasures.

While DoC ponders the National Park Question our great Kauri are under threat. Kauri dieback , caused by a fungus-like plant pathogen, is threatening our greatest trees. While the exact origin of the disease is unknown it is likely that it’s like Didymo a foreign invader. As our climate changes we need to be prepared to mitigate and prevent more pests, invasive species and diseases gaining a foothold in New Zealand. That is why we want to see more effort invested into becoming more proactive with our biosecurity.

New Zealand has a long history and association with the sea. Māori have a proud history of a respectful coexistence with the domain of Tangaroa. Rāhui were tools that restricted the harvest of kai moana, Tapu existed both around pollution and harmful harvesting methods. Unfortunately those initial ideals where compromised by an influx of Sealers then Whalers. The illusions of an unending resource for harvest and disposal was slowly but surely eroded. New Zealand’s Quota Management System (QMS) establish in 1986 was a world leader in using a market mechanism. While there are some aspects of the QMS that are good, these are often overshadowed by a lack of knowledge and an inability to apply the precautionary principle. The Orange Roughy Crash highlighted this with the successful appeal of a quota reduction challenged due to lack of evidence about the Orange Roughy population.

We face many challenges ahead with oil once again trending upward. The demand for exploration will increase. As has been seen in the Gulf of Mexico recently when the boundaries of exploration are pushed under a permissive regime, tragic consequences can result. I hear that many people down in Dunedin are all a fluster,eyeing up the possibilities of servicing contracts to the Great Southern Basin Exploration and seeing a much needed boost to local industry. Dunedin also reaps a large reward from tourism heavily based around eco-tourism on the Otago Peninsula, yet few consider the risk to this sector.

Climate change is already impacting on our oceans. Absorbtion of CO₂ by our oceans has meant that the atmospheric concentration is not as high as it could be. Unfortunately the consequence of this absorption is an increase in the acidity of our oceans. This will impact on creatures throughout the food chain and put increased pressure on our already threatened marine ecosystems.

As we become more aware of the marine environment our ability to prevent both inadvertent, and deliberate damage increases. We have a golden opportunity to preserve some of our glorious marine heritage. While we do have many small marine reserves it would be great to think about expanding some of the protected areas. The reserves can serve multiple purposes. The primary one, of course, should be to preserve and protect valued habitat but we also shouldn’t overlook the great recreational opportunities that this would present.

Our sea and oceans policy lays out our framework for increased participation in marine conservation. Local communities, as well as recreational and small commercial fishers must be included in marine conservation initiatives, so that we can achieve long lasting solutions that will stand the test of time.

That’s the message from this interesting video that presents global demographic information for a world scaled down to just 100 people. More info at The Miniature Earth.

On Sunday this week Prime TV will be screening the Mokihinui episode in Craig Potton’s ‘Rivers’ series at 7.30pm. I haven’t seen that yet but am really looking forward to it. These films are really important I think, because they give New Zealanders who, for the most part, will never go to the Mokihinui Gorge the opportunity to see what is at stake here. No wonder the Department of Conservation concludes “the public conservation land within the Mokihinui River has such high value that it is most unlikely to be suitable for exchange at all”.

This business of exchange is crucial. In order for the dam to proceed, Meridian must achieve both resource consent and the permission of the land owner. On the first of these Meridian has achieved a consent, but this is now being appealed to the Environment Court by a number of organisations including the Department of Conservation, Forest and Bird and Whitewater NZ, and the appeal is set down to be heard in the second quarter of next year. However, as to the landowner’s permission, Meridian has withdrawn its original application. There is no way that they could be granted permission to flood such high value conservation land so what they instead will need to try to do is “swap” other land for the area they wish to flood and convince the Minister that such a swap has a net positive conservation effect.

The reality is that nobody can think of any land with higher conservation value that is not already protected which could be swapped for the Mokihinui land. So I have been calling on the Minister to save everyone the time and considerable expense of the Environment Court process by establishing first whether there is any way that a land swap is possible. She has declined to rule out any land swap, saying she will wait and see what application she receives, but today I was asking her to speak with her colleague the Minister for Sate Owned Enterprises (like Meridian). If (our) company were to make its application for a land swap before the Environment Court hearing then there would be advantages for all concerned, including Meridian. Better yet, they could abandon the idea altogether!

So check out the Mokihinui films. This is a special place, that we love and treasure. It should not be destroyed for electricity generation, especially when a perfectly good alternative is just down the road. If you want to save the Mokihinui and our other last wild rivers, then you can help by collecting signatures for our petition or by encouraging others to send ecards to the Prime Minister.

What does conservation mean? Like sustainability the meaning often changes with context, and with who is speaking. Early (pre 1960s) use of the word conservation usually revolved around preservation of resources to enable their future use. Through the later half of the 20th century the meaning shifted more towards describing saving something because it was special. This is perhaps a reflection of a gradual shift away from the survival mode of early Pakeha settlers towards a more comfortable existence. There is a tradition of preservation within Maori Culture aptly summed up by the Whakataukī: Toitū he whenua, whatungarongaro he tangata (which can be translated roughly as ‘people disappear but the land remains’). Amongst the early European settlers there were strong advocates for conservation like Thomas Potts MP who is credited with making the first conservation related speech to the House of Representatives in October of 1868. His speech asked of the government “to take steps to ascertain the present condition of the forests of the Colony with view to their better conservation”.

Reflection on the relationship between the economy and conservation is especially relevant today. The current National Government’s policy has seen a move towards more commercialisation of the conservation estate. While their direct attempt to capitalise upon mineral wealth failed they have been implementing a series of decisions which has led to DoC coming under more pressure to gather revenue. The unfortunate incident of the ice cream vendor at cathedral cove is one of the more high profile incidents.

Do we seek to recover money from tourists by commercialising our natural environment? In some respects this is already the case: guided tours are considered acceptable by many,but  ice cream concessions on remote beaches are not. This issue is more an argument of what is acceptable. I would argue that our unique and wild image needs to be preserved and we are better funding conservation solely through the tax take which will draw indirectly upon tourists through their spending on services outside of our National Parks and wild places. Facilitating access through tours is a good idea, provided it doesn’t compromise the ability of the average Kiwi (both the human and avian) to enjoy our beautiful back yard. Allowing DoC to generate revenue from commercial activity upon our conservation estate can lead to a conflict of interest. Should we allow the commercialisation of this part of the National Park so we can fund more pest control in that part? I hope to explore this issue more over the rest of the week.

So what does conservation mean to me? Conservation means many things from our National Parks our great walks/tramps, to a morning spent on a community restoration project or doing a bird count. It is about protecting our natural heritage both for its own sake but so that future generations can also enjoy it. Above all it is about fun; the pure joy of spotting the ungraceful kereru (native Wood Pigeon) somehow maintain its perch upon a heavily bent branch; the silence and serenity to be found atop the walk up to the Sealy Tarns surveying the valley the Tasman Glacier has carved from the Alps.

Check out www.conservationweek.org.nz to find out about events happening at your place, and perhaps share your favourite wild place or what conservation means to you below.

So I jumped at the chance to join Lois, Guy and others in Hokitika last Friday for a celebration a year on. The evening started with the annual Hokitika Whitebait Relay. Teams of four have to put on swanni (called a lamby on the Coast actually) and gumboots and sprint 100m over and through conservation-themed obstacles and piece by piece bring back equipment and whitebait fritter ingredients which are then cooked up by the fourth team member. Judging is a mysterious process combining both speed and taste. Some ethical dilemmas for me: as a vegetarian I don’t catch, cook or eat whitebait, but I decided that it would be an acceptable compromise to run the first leg, which only involved bringing back a whitebait net (minus the net in fact). Damien O’Connor ran the second leg, Mike Copeland (local QE2 Trust rep) subbed the third leg for Chris Auchinvole, who was late arriving, and a local whitebaiting identity anchored and cooked. We won (from about 8 teams) and Damien and I will take turns showcasing the magnificent trophy in our offices.

But then the event proper began with a West Coast singer, Roseanna Gamlen-Greene, entertaining the crowd with a combination of her great original songs and well-judged covers. She has a fantastic voice and performed really well. As she performed Louis mentioned to me that she had attended a workshop he had run on converting ideas into action, and had now set up a group that was busy cleaning up Christchurch rivers. Oh, and by the way, she’s a high school student.

Next up the MPs had to perform, answering a couple of questions about waste and community engagement as a panel, but challenged by Louis to be very solutions-focused, rather than scoring political points. In the break Guy started talking with me about some of what had been discussed and gave me a copy of his film “Carving the Future”, which I highly recommend. It profiles the work of four young New Zealanders – Te Rawhitiroa Bosch, Erana Walker, Jinty MacTavish and Louis - inspired to lead solutions-based approaches to environmental issues in their communities. It just won the platinum award for best short film at the Colorado Film Festival, and has several other awards to its credit already. The common umbrella for this work was the Regeneration Project, a link for young people from Enviroschools into further training and action.

Finally we saw three short films made by West Coast secondary students, winners of a film competition that Louis and Guy had run for school students with a theme of “what we love about the West Coast”. After showing the films the students were asked to come down to the stage to collect their prizes, get lost of applause and praise. The winning film, “Beach”, was especially good. Louis and Guy’s new vehicle, the Te Waipounamu Foundation, is going to be touring these films in West Coast schools, along with Guy’s ‘Day at the Beach” film, which we finished the evening with. It’s very cool.

I’ve gone into all this detail because throughout the evening I was repeatedly blown away by the awesome attitude of these young people. Rather than being immobilised by the size of the threats we face or thinking that somebody else could or should do something about those threats, all of these young people seem to ask themselves the basic question “How can I do something about this problem?” They have a positive, solutions-focused approach, and they believe that what they personally do can make a difference. Back when I was their age, I would have been stopped by fear of failure or of being ridiculed by others. If these young people felt that way, they have certainly got over it. Their ethos seems to be “have a go”, and it’s absolutely infectious.

And very last thing for the evening we heard that Te Waipounamu Foundation and a North Island-based organisation called Sustainable Coastlines (more inspirational young people) have joined forces to organise a national project called “Love Your Coast”, involving beach clean-ups and care right around New Zealand in December. It’s a big project, but I have no doubt that it will work out. When she retired from Parliament Jeanette was asked if she thought we can meet the challenges of climate change. her response was something like “my head says no, but my heart believes we can”. Spending time with this crew of young people is a huge boost for my heart.

I’ve written a piece about the campaign for Craccum which you can read below – enjoy!

Fast-Track the CBD Rail Loop

Are you a geek like me and sometimes stare at the rail map when travelling on the train and imagine how you’d make it better? Given that in Auckland, you are often waiting a fair amount of time either for or on the train I imagine lots of you do… So, what’s the one thing you would do? Most people would probably say build rail out to the airport or North Shore. But me? Well, I’d build an underground track linking Britomart with Mt Eden, turning it from a dumb-as dead-end to a terminus station; creating inner city stations, and a true city loop like they have in other super cities like Sydney or London.

The reason why I’d do this project first is that it is an essential first step to building rail links to other places in future – I’ll explain more about why that is later. But first, this isn’t just a daydream of mine – this plan has been on the cards since the 1920s but it never quite happened.

This week Green MP Keith Locke and I are launching a campaign to fast-track the CBD Loop and I hope you will get on board. You can sign our petition online. Right now the project is stalled because the government won’t stump up with the funds. Our campaign aims to build community support so the motorway-mad Government in Wellington can’t delay and ignore this project anymore.

So, why should you sign our petition and support the loop? Firstly, rail patronage has been growing at a phenomenal rate (over 10% per year for the last 5 years), but the infrastructure is holding it back. Britomart is a dead-end terminus station which means trains have to back out of the station before other trains can share the platform, severely limiting capacity. It is a major bottle-neck.  It is only seven years old yet will soon be at capacity.

The bottle-neck at Britomart is holding us back from 5-minute or more, never-look-at-the-timetable-again services and even a commuter service to Hamilton. The CBD Rail Loop is urgently needed to transform Britomart to a ‘through’ station and meet the growth in demand.

Second, the CBD Rail loop is the key to future development of the network. Once Britomart is a through station we will be able to build many new rail links to places like the airport and North Shore. As you daydream on the train, staring at the rail map, think of the CBD Loop as step 1, step 2 being rail to the Airport, and step 3 rail to the Shore, South-East Auckland etc.

Third, I think the most exciting reason to build a CBD Loop is the chance to transform the city centre from its current boring, car-dependent, and frankly lame state to a more exciting, people-friendly, metropolitan feeling city. Unlike other global super cities, with metro subways or light rail, Auckland only has a station at the CBD edge (but a whopping great hill between the waterfront and K Rd).

The Loop would see new underground stations at Symonds St, Aotea Square, and K Rd, places where people want to stop. The Aotea station would also make it easier for students to get to Auckland University. The CBD Rail loop will transform the city, and bring over half a million Aucklanders within 30 min of the city centre, completely free of road congestion.

The main downside of course is cost. All the tunnelling, track and new stations is expensive and it is estimated to cost in the order of $1-2 billion. I don’t think this should hold us back though. The costs would be shared between the region and the central Government.

Also, the Government is quite happy to pour $1.7 billion of our cash on the Pūhoi to Wellsford ‘Holiday Highway’ even though the road has a Benefit Cost Ratio of only 0.8 which means they’re predicting it will lose the economy $280 million – in other words it is totally uneconomic. By contrast, previous estimates have shown the benefits of the CBD Rail project significantly outweigh the costs.

The difference between the two projects is that, rather than only a few Aucklanders heading north and benefiting on the ten public holiday weekends when the Puhoi to Wellsford motorway is congested, a significant proportion of Aucklanders would benefit from the CBD Loop every working day. Why? Because the CBD loop will massively increase the capacity of the whole Auckland rail network, transform the downtown, and take cars off the congested CBD roads.

These two similarly-priced projects demonstrate the transport choices available to the Government. Their preference for the mad Holiday Highway highlights their 1950s approach to transport.

The Loop has some high level support from the likes of Auckland Mayor John Banks, Manukau Mayor Len Brown, the Regional Council and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority who earlier in the year released their preferred route.

However, we can’t start it without the funding. And right now the Transport Minister is stone walling saying he can’t dedicate any funding to this project until (yet another) study of the business case for the CBD Rail Loop is completed at the end of 2010. The Loop will take between 7-10 years to design and build, and that is all the more reason to ensure that there are no more delays.

That’s why I’m launching the Fast Track the CBD Rail Loop campaign this week to send a clear urgent message to the Government: fast-track the funding! A petition is circulating and you can download a copy and get your friends to fill it out here.

I’m also making it a Super City election issue with a survey of candidates to see who supports the loop. With local body elections coming up over September and October make sure you are enrolled and vote for candidates who support the CBD Rail Loop.

The CBD Loop was almost started in the 1970s but was scrapped by the 1975 National Government in a fit of short-sighted cost-saving, similar to the decision to remove walk/cycle paths and rail lines on the Auckland Harbour Bridge. We cannot let the current Government delay for another decade or two the single most effective thing we could do to transform Auckland’s CBD and public transport system.

So the next time you are on the train daydreaming, check out the map and see how completely common-sense a CBD loop would be, and imagine how cool it would be for Auckland to have a more vibrant downtown with convenient stations, super-frequent trains, and less cars on the roads. In short, a super rail system.