The best news of recent times was of course Bush getting a bloodied nose, and his co-conspirator, Donald Rumsfeld, having to fall on his sword, though of course he will be able to retire to a rich and indulgent old age, and a few board-rooms to keep him occupied, whilst thousands more Iraqis meet some pathetic and violent end on account of his ruinous machinations. My concerns about Bush attacking Iran before the elections have not been born out in fact, perhaps I have been guilty of underestimating the ability of the other parts of the executive and the military to moderate what Bush might have wished to do. But I suspect we haven't heard the half of what has been transpiring under his presidency, and that sometime in the future we will hear more nearly what the uncomfortable truth has been. There are still three years of this presidency remaining, an attack on Iran is still not "off the table" - we shall see.
In the meantime, the Democrats have control of both houses - but what are they going to do? I have yet to hear anything from the Democrats that recognises the revolutionary changes that oil depletion and global warming are going to bring to America and all other world's people. As in New Zealand, and the UK and most other countries, the promise is basically business as usual, that rhetorical flourishes can achieve as much as action. Where in the UK Tony Blair can blow his own trumpet in regard to his concerns about global warming, but at the same time, doesn't blink an eye with the news that the airline industry sees a trebling of air travel by 2030, with a massive investment in new airports and runways in the UK, or here that we can be carbon neutral yet still be planning to build a new coal fired generation facility in Northland, or plan a $400 million terminal in Taranaki to import foreign natural gas.
So you see the problem, all these issues I have covered on my site previously and on several different occasions. Is it really worthwhile taking hours to post to the site, merely to repeat myself, and bore the occasional surfer with yet more of the same? So what have I been thinking about and doing in the interim since my last posting and should I bother posting it here?
Climate Festival.
On the fourth of November, "International Climate Change Day" a "Climate Festival" was held in Wellington, with most activities being based in the Paramount Theatre in Courtney Place, Wellington. The programme can be read here.. It was a day long event, and I attended most sessions. I drank a few glasses of beer from the bar on the way, got to chat with a few people and had a very interesting time. Now I am writing this up nearly a month later, I am realising just how much detail of these presentations is now beyond recall. However the morning was made up of some good scientific presentations, including by Peter Barret, whom I have quoted on the front page of my web site. Whilst a lot of what was said wasn't new to those who have had an interest in global warming, it was good to get the information from the horses' mouths. These people are the ones actually doing the research, actually risking their lives in some of the world's most inhospitable places, or crunching all the numbers in their huge computers, are the one's telling us the stories that add up to the irrestistable conclusion of what we are doing to the earth.
It should be noted how few of those climate sceptics that claim some scientific expertise, even if not in the science of climate, have actually done the field work that these scientists have done. It requires just a single paper with some irrefutable observation or theory that anthropogenic global climate change is not a real phenomenon, for the whole edifice to come tumbling down. A Nobel Prize and untold fame awaits the first scientist to do this, yet not a single such paper exists. And this is why it absurd, and slanderous, to claim, as many climate change deniers do, that global warming science is promoted by a conspiracy of greedy scientists, the much derided "consensus", frightening us all in order to get government money to continue their junkets to the Antarctic, and other such desirable holiday resorts, or play with their super-computers manufacturing models for their own amusement. Science is sometimes a cut-throat business, anyone who has read the story of the discovery of the double helix by Crick and Watson would know how desperately scientists will labour to discover the truth, not just for its own sake, but for the sake of their reputation and their glory. Are we supposed to believe that among those thousands of scientists who are part of this great conspiracy to deceive us all about this matter, not one would break ranks to claim this great prize for themselves? It just doesn't make sense.
A BBC film on global warming was then shown. Covering similar ground to Al Gore's film, the programme "Climate Chaos - are we changing the planet Earth" was narrated by that doyen of natural history commentators, David Attenborough. It was as good a film as Al Gore's, and there is a full resumé here on the Wikipedia site. Indeed you can actually view this film and its companion film, which wasn't shown, but which examines man's options in response to climate change. Please click here. . I would thoroughly recommend reading the article, it will save me having to seach my memory bank for some of the details of what I saw. I remember being introduced to David Attenborough in 1954 on the BBC, watching all the "Zoo Quest" programmes, on our 14 inch Bush TV, which my parents bought to watch the Coronation the year before. I have followed David Attenborough's career and broadcasts and environmental advocacy for over fifty years. I have seen him grow from an enthusiastic, indeed breathlessly excited and personable young man to a major figure in broadcasting and envrironmentalism. Up to now, David Attenborough has been content to describe the world as he finds it, as it is, and now, too often, as it has been. It is this change in the circumstances of our planet and its wildlife that now concerns David more than anything else.
This film on global warming is a heartfelt plea for us to learn the truth of what is happening. When a man of his stature and humanity and understanding can so passionately state his own belief, there seems to me to be something more than just disbelief or scepticism or misunderstanding that motivates critics of global warming science to so cavalierly disregard the words of such a wise and informed human being, and other men and women like him. There has to be an overwhelming hubris that says, it doesn't matter what evidence that you present to me about global warming, how distinguished or honest the people that are warning me, or even the evidence of my own experience, I will not take notice of them because it is inconceivable. Not because it is impossible, or unlikely or illogical, but because it doesn't fit in with my preconceptions, my prejudices and, in rather too many cases, it doesn't fit in with the health of my bank-balance. We have invested so much intellectual and physical and financial capital in to the status quo, that to be told that the status quo is no longer a tenable option is beyond the bounds of acceptability.
We are no longer children of nature, but we are our own force of nature.
We have as a species, in just the last two hundred years, had more effect on our planet than a large number volcanic eruptions, or a collision with a small asteroid. We now act on our planet as a massive geological force - for instance, we burn in one year the sequestrated carbon of a million years of atmospheric and geological activity, accelerating these natural processes a million-fold. It is this refusal to accept this simple and easily verifiable fact that is more than blind, it is perverse. Apparently Max Planck, the famous physicist of the early part of the twentieth century, once said "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." He even named this "Planck's Principle". Perhaps what we need to hope for, so as to make unfettered progress in dealing with global warming, is to genetically engineer some new form of "Sceptic Flu" that will infect all such climate warming deniers, and see them off to an early demise.
At the end of this showing, I stood up in the theatre and got the attention of the whole audience. (I shouted out, "Before you leave, may I hijack this session to say something important?") I thanked the audience for its attention, and then explained to them I was delighted to see this film, but why had it not been shown on TV1 or TV3? I told them that in the last three years of broadcasting, in about 10,000 hours of peak hour broadcasting, there hasn't been a single hour set aside to examine this issue, the single most important issue facing mankind, and didn't they think this was appalling? I got a good round of applause for this. I went on to ask every one who cared about this matter to write to their MP, or the Minister of Broadcasting or the TV companies themselves, to complain about this omission. I then thanked the audience, and gave them leave to leave the auditorium. Shortly after, a member of the British High Commission came up to me to say that he too had noticed this absence of debate in television broadcasting, and he had made enquiries as well. Apparently Prime has the right to the two programmes, but have to show them, or indicate when they will be shown.
Here would be the place to discuss National's policies on the environment and their discussion paper "A Bluegreen Vision for New Zealand. This beautifully and expensively produced brochure is available for download here.. It is worth reading and contains chapters on major environmental concerns, including climate change and energy, nature conservation, air, soils, water etc. The next day I gave the document a good perusal, and wrote Nick Smith this letter.
Nick Smith, MP and National Party spokesman for the environment
Parliament Buildings
Wellington
Dear Nick,
I attended Saturday's Climate Festival Programme at the Paramount Cinema, from 12.30 to 11.00pm. This letter is about the National Party's "Bluegreen" programme which I have read today.
First, thank you for attending the meeting, and for your well ordered and thoughtful speech. I thought it was a bit short on detail, but it seems very evident to me that you do indeed have some genuine concern for global warming and other major environmental concerns. Your observations on Labour's poor record was pointed, perfectly accurate, but perhaps it is just as well for you that you weren't made to account for National's equally patchy environmental record. You belong to a party that hasn't until now even acknowledged the global warming issue, and has seen Kyoto as nothing but an il-judged interference in our economic welfare. I was extremely disappointed with Marion Hobbs, her disorganised and ill-prepared effort seemed somewhat appropriate however - it mirrored rather nicely Labour's disorganised and ill-prepared efforts in regard to global warming. In comparison your speech was impressively articulate and straightforward. Russell Norman gave the Green Party's view - and there were no surprises here.
I have been a member of the Green Party for about nine months now. I have always had strong environmental and social justice concerns, though there are aspects of being "Green" that I don't always subscribe to, for instance their intransigence about genetic engineering, which is why I wasn't a member then, nor indeed previously had I voted for them.
However, it is going to take some very well thought out and impressive green policies to convince many environmentalists, having for so many years seen the National Party's scorning of most environmental concerns. In addition, it will require you to get a new leader. When Don Brash was interviewed in the days following the Stern report, his first comments were that global warming was an uncertain science. Don is basically a global warming contrarian, and I don't see how you can expect anyone with even a passing knowledge of what global warming is, or what we may have to do to deal with it, could possibly have any confidence in a party however much it professes its concern, with such a leader. (Mission accomplished!! 30/11/06)
Reading the "Bluegreen" manifesto, there were times I wanted to bash my head against a brick wall with sheer frustration and laugh out loud with its absurdity . Let's take a few things. Your new found admiration for the Nordic countries comes as a complete reversal of all National policies and everything that National has seemed to stand for the last twenty years at least. The Nordic countries have been my personal model for many years, and it has always surprised me why New Zealand should always be comparing itself to Australia, than these countries, or Holland or Austria or Ireland, which are much more comparable to our own. Again and again I hear your spokespeople talking about Australia this and Australia that, never Sweden this, Sweden that, in fact mostly the Swedish model for an economy is treated with complete and utter derision from the right. National has long espoused the neo-con way - the level playing field, reduced social welfare, reduced taxation, anti-unionism, increased economic disparity, simplistic monetarist philosophies and long-term planning, such as it is, left almost entirely to the market. In other words, National Party policies in regard to the economy, to social progress and the environment have been the complete antithesis of the "Nordic Way". I actually find it a bit rich to hear of the National Party's new found admiration for such a way of organising society and the economy.
For instance, a central plank of National's economic policy is reduced taxation. Taxation issues almost completely swamped the last election, and still we hear the same mantra from National, reduce tax, reduce tax. But Nick, for goodness sake, here are the taxation rates as a proportion of GDP in some selected Nordic countries for 2004, with per capita adjusted GDP in US dollars to the nearest $1,000 (figures from the OECD and the UN -see my page here):
And "overtaxed" New Zealand?Sweden 52% $27,000 Denmark 48% $32,000 Finland 45% $26,000 Norway 44% $37,000 Iceland 40% $32,000
You see, when National states that New Zealand is overtaxed there are only five countries in the OECD that are wealthier than us, and are taxed less; these are Canada, the US, Australia, Japan and Ireland, all but Ireland very different counties than ours. All other wealthier countries, and their are thirteen of them, are taxed more, in particular the Nordic countries who are taxed so much more than us. So in statistical terms alone, one could postulate a very strong correlation that the higher a country is taxed, the wealthier it is. The Nordic countries demonstrate this rather well, I have never been aware of the National Party in New Zealand mentioning this fact.New Zealand 35% $22,000
It is also very instructive to look at Denmark's experience following the oil shocks of the 1970's and 80's. In 1973 the adjusted Danish per capita GDP, was about $13,000 and NZ's about $12,500. After the oil shocks the Danes decided that they would not be hostage to such energy problems again, and a wide ranging and ubiquitous energy conservation regime came in place. This included combined generation and heat power plants, high efficiency housing (in Denmark, you get subsidies to replace your double-glazing with the latest high tech triple-glazing - NZ, a single pane of glass, if you please), appliances etc, high taxes on petroleum and gas-guzzling cars, and support of an national energy generation policy to include renewables, and now Denmark leads the world in windpower generation, employing 20,000 people in a high-tech industry and worth ¤3 billion to the Danish economy. Despite being having less windpower assets than we do, they now provide about 20% of the electricity generation by wind power. (NZ about 1%). The installed wind capacity of Denmark is about 5,000 GWh, 80% of which is owned by the local people, which is why some of the problems we are experiencing in getting wind approval here has been less of a problem in Denmark. In New Zealand, large, rapacious corporations own the facilities - no wonder there are protests. And the overall result: since 1973 the Danes, from being about equivalent in wealth to us, are now 50% better off.
Forestry. The Cullen fund has just spent about NZ$30 million buying back of its private owner about a third of the Kaingaroa Forest, which used to belong to the people of this country in its entirety. Private holdings represent about 50% of our forest ownership, including Maori, but about half our forests are now owned by overseas corporations. Finland is covered with forest, and it is, and always has been, an important part of their economy. In their cold country, most trees don't come to maturity before 70-80 years, ours in 25 years. Yet even then we are having difficulty working our forestry industry to our advantage. Most of the timber we export isn't even processed, most recently unprocessed logs represent 35% of our timber exports and this is likely to rise further, thereby loosing so much of the value that should accrue to these plantations. In Finland, local people own their own forest assets, about 80% of the more productive southern forest are privately owned by farmers, families or small numbers of co-holders, the Finnish government owns vast new plantations in the wilder parts of the country. Compare this situation with New Zealand, where so much of our forest assets are merely investment vehicles and speculative ventures for foreign corporations and investment funds.
Now I am perfectly sure that not everything in these countries is just perfect, immigration, environmental concerns, globalisation, poverty, affect us all in some way, but overall I think you are right, there is something to be said for the "Nordic Way", just a shame though, don't you think, that you haven't said so before now?
There are a good number of other items that one might take issue with about the National Party, its environmental concerns, and its near total capitulation to corporatism, globalisation, monetarism and neo-con economics, the predictable results of much of which we were discussing yesterday, but I'll stop here.
Here are some comments about your "Bluegreen Vision"
1 A Vision
You're right. One thing that has defined New Zealand politics over the last thirty years at least is the absence of vision. Of course one man's vision might be another's nightmare. But in recognising this need for vision, you also recognise the essential prerequisite for this, some sort of overall agreement about this country, the way it is going to be run, and where we are running to. The polarisation of politics in New Zealand, the wild swings of policy from Muldoon to Douglas, the lack of cohesion in so many areas, immigration, transport, energy, education, defence etc. I was dismayed by Marion Hobbs's reaction to your proposal to see some sort of cross party consensus emerge on the global warming issue. Her "take the Labour policy or leave it", was not what those attending this meeting wanted to hear, as you would have been aware from the applause you received with this proposal. But you are right again, global warming will not be dealt with by an anachronistic adherence to the adversarial Westminster system.
Another major disappointments with the day was the inability of anyone taking part, politician, activist or whoever, as to the nature of the endeavour we face and its sheer monumentality. According to many respected scientists, to avoid a global warming of more than 2°C will mean keeping our CO2 below about 450 ppm. (We did hear about CO2 equivalents, but it is my personal opinion it is mainly the CO2 that is important, because the other gases, whilst important, are much harder to deal with, and in addition, gases such as methane have only a short residence in the atmosphere, and will not prove to be quite such an intractable problem as CO2, the effect of which will last for many thousands of years). To accomplish this will require reductions in the emission of CO2 by about 70 -80%, indeed if you read Mobiot's recent book, Heat, he suggests 90% will be required. It was evident that no-one at the meeting yesterday, including Russell Norman, had the slightest clue as to how such a reduction in admissions might be achieved. In other words, we are still living in a world where a little bit of tinkering her, a bit of adjustment there, and everything will be fine and we can continue our present unsustainable way of life without any noticeable disruption. This is wishful thinking amounting to a cultural psychosis. What we have to do will require and effort and a commitment of a similar order of magnitude as our parents and grandparents took to fight the Second World War. The scale and enormity of what we have to accomplish, against some of the most of the world's most powerful corporate and political interests, and the deadly inertia of an uncomprehending public, have nowhere yet begun to be articulated, and certainly not from the politicians.
A vision for this country might mean
1) To rid our society of the internal combustion engined private vehicle by 2020, with immediate increases of taxation on petrol to European levels, ie about another $1.00 per litre.
2) An entirely renewable electricity energy generation capacity by 2025 with all new electricity generation by renewables from now. Investigation of tidal power in the Cook Strait, and biomass electricity generation, microgeneration and a start in solar electric power installation in new buildings. See if Germany's experience has something to offer.
3) A national inventory of at-risk landforms, retirement of vulnerable farm land and a massive new reforestation effort, including completing the plantings in the East Cape, which is still languishes years behind target.
4) A regaining of all our fishing resources for this nation, with all fishing to be done by NZ registered boats, built in NZ, crewed by New Zealanders, and serviced here, and all fish processed here. A commitment to 5% of coastal land under marine reserves by 2015.
5) A review of our commercial forestry resources and a scheme to reduce the proportion of plantings from radiata, and encourage plantings of high value timbers for the furniture, barrel, veneer, and other decorative and high-earning uses. An encouragement of a home grown furniture industry using such resources. New Zealand should be diversifying its timber resources and many hard woods now logged unsustainably overseas could easily be grown in our climate. Wood lots and large commercial plantings for use as a biofuel for electricity generation and heat.
6) Much increased expenditure on public transport, light rail, with more networks, reliable services etc, with the vision to have 80% of all commuting in the major cities in New Zealand by public transport by 2025.
7) A major investment in rail. Our rail network is worse than Bulgaria's. Electrification of all main lines.
8) A tax on aviation fuel, and an investigation into the use of biofuels in jet engines. (Using biofuels in cars is crazy, it is the most appallingly inefficient use of such a valuable product - but for aircraft it may be the only way we can continue to fly)
9) A major increasing in funding for science research in New Zealand. We are not going to solve our problems if we don't know how to properly define them, or how to best deal with them when we have. More research in renewable energy, distributed generation, solar power, high efficiency appliances etc.
10) A major effort in energy efficiency, all new buildings to be ultra-efficient, ie using 30% or less of the power needs of presently building standards. I suspect the new standards to be announced by the Labour administration, whilst better than our present ones, will probably be around the level that pertained in Nordic countries about forty years ago. We have to leapfrog these inadequacies to the best that modern technology can reasonably achieve. This will include compulsory solar hot water heating, compulsory passive solar heating to the reasonable maximum available on the particular site, compulsory high efficiency appliances. Space heating in such buildings isn't even required!!
11) A much greater foreign aid budget, minimum o.7% GDP, preferably 1% GDP, to help other poorer nations with the energy requirements with renewable resources, amongst other important help.
13) Research into sailing vessels or sail assisted vessels for commerce.
14) Not waiting for other countries to start their own global warming projects. We are all responsible for the emissions we put out. We are, on a per capita basis, one of the world's worst polluters. It is not an adequate intellectual or ethical response any longer to leave this for international agreements. We need to make a start, and if we have to wait for others to catch up, so be it, we will be the leaders, and what it wrong with that?
2) Global Warming
Your suggestions are not adequate. There should be no more non-renewable energy generation in New Zealand, carbon offsets are not sufficient. We will need all our carbon offsets for our transport infrastructure. A tradable emissions system might be beneficial in some other parts of the industrial and farming sector. Bio-diesel for private vehicles is not the way forward. It is a way of pretending we can carry on as usual, when it obvious we can't. If every country went over to biofuels for private transport, much of the world would starve. Much stricter in car CO2 emission standards, large increases in the price of petrol and diesel, and a major shift to public transport are a much more sustainable alternative.
3) Nature and Conservation.
New Zealand had a poor record of nature conservation in its pioneer days, and correcting for all these mistakes has been a major undertaking for the New Zealand conservation movement. The country has gained an enviable record in rescuing endangered species from the threat of extinction. Our national parks are admired all over the world. I approve of your support for National Parks in the north. There is one thing though that you haven't covered, and this is probably the single biggest issue that I feel most acutely in my twenty years in New Zealand. And that is New Zealand's continued destructive development and subdivision of some of its most beautiful areas, its beaches, rivers, lakes and high country. I am appalled by the lack of protection for these areas, the Resource Law Management Act has not controlled this and we are loosing iconic areas all the time, it is the death of the New Zealand landscape by a thousand subdivisions. In this matter my regard for New Zealand and New Zealanders is at its lowest, your appalling carelessness with these irreplaceable assets distresses me more than any other single issue. No amount of tinkering with the Resource Management Act will deal with this, it requires a new land ownership legislative framework to restrict private landowner's rights to subdivide. It might include removing rates on agricultural land and unimproved land. Also the government should set up a fund worth about $50 million per year, perhaps profits from Meridian's renewable generation capacity, to purchase outstanding landscapes as they come up for sale (eg the recent land for sale in the Marlborough Sounds). No other single action from a New Zealand government would make more personally happy with my decision to come and live here all those years ago. If you cannot value the very land on which you live, and the beautiful areas of which you are so proud, why should I value the country to which I have moved? I do value NZ of course, but as you can see, this is a matter which really makes me depressed and angry.
4) Healthy Air.
I support your views about this. We should look to emulate European standards on clean air, and exhaust emissions. The EU Commission are I believe upgrading their standards at the moment.
5) Soils and erosion
Mentioned above, a national inventory of vulnerable landscapes to be undertaken and a massive programme of reforestation commenced. More research in farm forestry, and species that might be selectively removed in future times for a timber industry with high value timbers. I strongly support your suggestion of a nationally sponsored scheme to help farmers with their plantings, and the purchase of farms to be taken out of productive use to be planted for it's landscape protection. Similarly to think there are still some areas been unsustainably cleared which will be prone to erosion, you are right, this must stop.
6) Water Allocation Quite a difficult issue. We are seeing serious issues in Canterbury - global warming will make this worse. Whilst transferrable water rights might be helpful in some situations, a complete market approach is likely to see some serious disadvantage for many water users. For instance, I would say, that allowing any conversion of land on the Canterbury plains to dairy farming is plainly a nonsense, it is not a suitable climate for dairy farming. Investors, speculators and some (misguided) farmers should be made to understand this. No further dairy farms should be approved, and the government should consider repurchasing previously converted farms if their share of water is proving a problem for other users. There does need to be some sort of proscriptive framework for such expensive developments, it is not an efficient use of New Zealand's resources to be investing so much money in what is an environmentally unsustainable way. It is all very well exporting virtual water via milk from the wet Waikato or Westland or Southland, but to be exporting water from the Canterbury plains, which has had water issues for years, is plainly absurd. I would strongly oppose any move to privatise our water resources.
7) Water Quality
Pertains to the above also. To think that the largest lake in the North Island, Taupo, is now becoming affected by eutrophication, partly due to dairy conversions in its catchment is, when you think about it, a very unhappy advertisement for New Zealand's image, especially as it is one of our major tourist areas and a world renowned fishing area. Obviously the rules are not adequate - and farmers and investors are escaping the environmental costs of their endeavours and the costs are being born by the taxpayers. And it is so much easier to deal with these matters before they cause trouble. Tree breaks at the lower part of paddocks, and along streams, and where water can drain directly or indirectly into the lake, would do much to prevent high nitrogen run-off. In regard to human development, we should be researching the use of eco-toilets in these sensitive areas, rather than septic tanks, which eventually seem to saturate their surrounding soils. The Green Party have been pressing for such measures for some time, as you will be aware, but I am delighted to see your commitment to a programme to clean up our rivers and streams and lakes. It is an urgent and worthwhile issue.
8) Sustainability investment fund
An interesting idea, and will cover quite a lot of the changes mentioned above, retiring land from eroding hillsides, forestry planting, compensation for landowners restricted in their use of their land by environmental needs, for those affected by windfarms, etc.
9) Forestry
Partly covered above. Many of your proposals are sensible, and are long overdue. The monoculture of forestry with radiata pine has always struck me as bizarre and short-sighted. It shows that market forces alone do not always achieve the results that are required to sustain and enrich a society in which the market is allowed free rein.
10) Biosecurity
A very important issue. More money from government will be needed. Where will it come from ? And where do your tax cuts fit in?
11) Outdoor recreation
The fuss over access to privately owned farmland amused me. Coming from a country where public footpaths and bridleways have been a feature of the countryside for hundreds of years, I couldn't believe that farmers here are so upset about it. Indeed the UK has recently introduced even more freedom for walking on privately owned land, as has been the case in the Nordic countries for generations (Nordic countries - ring a bell?) Farms don't suffer with more open access. We are becoming a very urbanised society, access to open space is not as great in New Zealand as in many much more crowded countries. It annoys me that farmers says that riff-raff will upset the running of their farms or create other havoc, I am one of the riff-raff. This is obviously a New Zealand cultural issue that is beyond my ken.
In regard to camping grounds again, I find New Zealand laws to be extremely primitive, why are people who own a camp site necessarily allowed to subdivide it? Land should not be considered a resource to be used in whatever fashion anyone wishes. I think you will find some difficulty finding appropriate land in some areas, eg the Coromandel, where the DoC or other public body has suitable land in certain areas. If you are not going to alter our primitive subdivision laws, and I doubt we will, New Zealander's attitude to property rights are so intense, then the government will need to find the funds in certain cases to purchase the camp site at the market rate. Many countries spend lots of money to provide assets for the tourist, eg, paradors in Spain or publicly owned camp sites in many other countries. But I am really glad that you have identified this problem. This also relates to my complaint above about the continued subdivision of many of your iconic areas. We, through inappropriate development for rich people, are shutting our grandchildren out of the simple holiday pleasures that New Zealanders accept as our birthright, the population is rapidly expanding, and we need many more campsites, not just replacing those we have lost. There is a limited supply of coastline, we urgently need a far more democratic valuation of it.
I support some of your ideas in recreational fisheries and hunter managed areas.
12) Oceans
Your proposals here don't go far enough. Marine reserves represent less than 1% of our coastal land, we need to push strongly for a much greater reserves network. This will improve our fishing resources a great deal, they act as a nursery for fishing resources elsewhere, and this meshes in with your wish for improved recreational fisheries. I have mentioned this matter above. You need to make use of goals like this, to ensure progress. Maybe changes in the legislative framework will help, but without a commitment from the top, such changes aren't in themselves going to necessarily help. In addition, you don't really mention fishing quotas and unsustainable fishing practices. We need a ban on destructive fishing methods, such as bottom trawling. I would like to see, as mentioned above, a nationalisation of our fishing quotas to entirely New Zealand operations, we are loosing so much of the value of the resource otherwise, similar to exporting unprocessed logs. Additionally we need to consider New Zealand's response to the threat of increased whaling operations from Japan, and possibly other countries. It is my thought, which would horrify most other Greens, that we should consider giving some ground in regard to Minke whales, which are numerous, in order to protect other whale species which are much more vulnerable, such as the Humpback and Sperm whales. The thought that either of these species should again be hunted is nothing other than appalling. We also need to do more to protect our Albatross and Mollymawk species.
I support your call for an Oceans Policy, and statutory examination of environmental effects beyond 22 kms, but what is lacking is the policies that the National Party would actually like to propose in this area. As you have been opposition for seven years, I would have thought there would have been plenty of time for a more detailed policy statement.
13) Urban growth
You are wrong to state that there two factors driving the transformation of our cities, population growth and traffic growth. Actually, there is only one, and that is population growth, traffic growth is a consequence of this, cars don't just appear as by magic. In 2004 the New Zealand population rose by 1.3%, a huge rise for a so-called first world country, and much of this growth would have been in the Auckland region. A 1.3% rise in population annually represents a population of 8 million in New Zealand by 2060. Now of course, this is faulty demographics, but it is true that our total population increases continue to make demographic predictions wrong, and by hundreds of thousands of people. (For instanced in 1995, demographers were predicting a population of 4.25 million by 2030, but we're near this number already.) We have had two enormous waves of immigration in the last few years, one under the National administration in the '90s and again more recently under Labour. This year's planned immigration is 52,000 people. Yet immigration gets scant attention, apart from the cultural issues, but the sheer number of people coming here never gets examined meaningfully. We are told we need immigrants to stave off an ageing population but this is demographically impossible - the numbers of people required to to make any significant difference are truly enormous. (If you wish to read more about this matter and my arguments in regard to immigration, visit my internet site.) So managing urban growth is not just a matter of scurrying around trying to deal with our burgeoning population and our crumbling infrastructure. It requires some thought as to population growth in the first instance. I would propose a much more managed and modest immigration strategy, this would save us with lot of problems providing services in our urban centres.
Again, it is pleasing that the problem of urban sprawl is being recognised, Auckland in particular is what Prof. Jan Gehl calls an "abandoned city". But your solutions again seem to be inadequate, and rely almost entirely on financial mechanisms, there does need to a more proactive and legislative approach. Planning is much more than providing a financial framework for private development, for instance the city of Curitibo in Brazil or Portland, Oregon.
In regards to new roads, I must completely disagree with your continued promotion of new roads. It is not just global warming that is the issue, but also oil depletion. You will know that our oil import bill has risen from about $1 billion to over $4 billion in just a few short years. Whilst we are now experiencing a temporary lull in prices, the continued increase in oil prices is inexorable, the sort of swings we are now seeing are part of the plateau of oil production. To be thinking of building any new roads at all, other than for safety reasons, is absurd. All our money needs to be put into public transport, paid for out of our increased petrol taxation. To be investing in new roads is a 1960's solution to a 21st century problem. Energy will be the major issue for all countries in the first half of this century. A private vehicle, used for average mileage in a year, gets through more than three times the energy that a household will spend on its total home energy requirements for the same year. To be encouraging yet further car use is, frankly, economically and environmentally suicidal. Name me a town or city that has solved its traffic congestion by building more roads, I'll wager you a beer at least that you'll have major difficulty in finding one. Any person, or party, that claims they are serious about dealing with global warming, but at the same time is encouraging continued car use by building new roads, is merely displaying for all to see a fundamental lack of economic and environmental wisdom.
14) Noise
Good idea, noise standards do need to be improved.
15) Solid waste.
It's good to see some attention to this matter. Your ideas have some merit. But would it not also be helpful to try and reduce the amount of waste in the first place? Legislation in regard to packaging would help for instance. It would be useful to provide some goals to aim for, such as some proportion of total waste to be recycled, and reductions in solid waste disposal. Standardisation of best practice through the country would also be helpful.
16) Resource management
Interesting that you state in your second paragraph that it is "environmentalists wanting to limit coastal subdivision". I think that reinforces my arguments about coastal subdivision quite nicely. It shouldn't be up to "environmentalists" to oppose such development. The country should oppose it - development of the coastline should be considered a privilege, not a right. I thoroughly agree that because there is no overall strategic vision for the country, that the RMA is trying to replace what should be this vision. It is trying to be all things to all people and is partly failing from this. However, I have noted a very strong push by developers and speculators to water down the provisions of the act, and I am very concerned that in the absence of a strong pro-environmental framework, that this is just going to make things easier for such people, leaving our country even more vulnerable to inappropriate subdivision, sprawl, poorly built housing and apartments, etc.
Increasing compensation for loss of amenity, such as power pylons, and windfarms, is a good idea. For instance, in the proposed Makara windpower project, I suggested a levy of say 0.25% of revenue to be given to the local community - this would provide about $80,000 in perpetuity for community assets etc. I would suggest such a scheme for all such projects, it might save a lot of resource management time.
17) Administering the environment
Your ideas for a Ministry of Sustainable Development and an Environmental Protection Agency are worth pursuing. May I also suggest a Ministry of Energy? I am pleased you have mentioned the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. Dr Morgan Williams, must be a man of great optimism. His report, Future Currents, which I hope you have read, has almost been entirely and scandalously neglected in the public discourse in regard to energy matters and electricity generation. Follow up reports similarly. Future Currents describes two electricity generation scenarios, one is sustainable, the other isn't - guess which scenario New Zealand is presently following? This department has produced many reports of great value, much more use should be made of his expertise, and dare I say it, vision. May I also suggest here some other actions:
1) Free distribution of summaries of such reports to all households in New Zealand
2) Free distribution of the UN Millennial Ecosystems Report, which I am disappointed not to see mentioned in the "Bluegreen" discussion paper.
3) Using the debating chamber of the Parliament Buildings more productively. I have suggested on my internet site (click on the "Part of a Letter to Trevor Mallard" link) that every month or two Parliament should invite an expert about any matter that needs more debate and information, it might be environmental, but it could be do with any important issue, justice, crime, education, transport, immigration, whatever. All MPs to attend, all to be allotted seats at random, eg, you might have to sit next to Trevor Mallard, to hear a talk. An opponent could be invited to speak against this view, and plenty of time should be allowed to actually debate this issue and ask questions afterwards.
Summary.
Thank you for the opportunity of providing some feedback to your proposals. My main concern is that worthwhile as these proposals are, they are no where near enough on their own to make but the smallest dent in our CO2 emissions. To get a sense of what is really required to deal with this issue may I recommend you read, if you haven't already done so, James Lovelock's "The Revenge of Gaia", Jarod Diamond's "Collapse", Ronald Wright's "A Short History of Progress", (Lord) John Houghton's "Global Warming", and very recently George Monbiot's "Heat". If you have read them, then please hand the books on to your leader, Don Brash, he seems to be in dire need of some education. Additionally you both might be interested to read Bryan Gould's recently published book about globalisation, "The Democracy Sham".
That is why I asked the question about your ethical commitment to this issue at the meeting. The revolutionary changes coming to a planet near you are going to provide mankind with its biggest ever challenge, which over the next fifty years will dwarf the effort required to fight the Second World War. Whilst the effort will be immense, at least no-one need get maimed, killed, tortured, imprisoned or blown up, cities won't be laid to waste or atomic bombs dropped on unsuspecting innocents. If we treat the challenge as some straightforward technical hurdle to overcome, or merely see the matter as some sort of enlightened self-interest, then this is not going to be adequate. Nothing less than a total intellectual and moral commitment to this matter will be enough. Do you have this? And as I ask this question of you, I am also asking myself the same question.
Thank you for your time, I apologise for such a long letter, but whilst I am a member of the Green party, environmental concerns belong to us all. I think your efforts deserve some serious consideration. I am sure further thoughts will occur to me later, which I shall communicate in due course of time.
Yours sincerely,
John Monro
Following this session, we had some talks from interested, and interesting people, in regard to their own efforts in energy conservation and global warming. John Gleisner, a psychiatrist and Quaker who used to live in Thames, gave a very nice presentation of his and his family's (successful) efforts to build a straw-bale house in the Wairarap. His son, Sam, helped him design this, and another son, Ben, was the organiser of the whole "Climate Festival" event. So well done the Gleisner's. We all have our own ways to approach this problem. By moving to a low energy property, John has minimised his energy requirements, and as he works on his property, his commuting bills are not large, which can be a problem for those who live on life-style blocks, as I know from my time in Thames. My effort started with my move to Wellington and living close to the city centre, my petrol bills are now nearly about a third of what they were in Thames, where I lived about 9 kms out of the town, and travelled back and forward several times a day (of course, with young children and ferrying them around, made a difference). But also the many trips to Auckland and Hamilton to shows or to take folks to the airport etc. Anyway, the Gleisners have made a very good fist of their first eco-building, showing very well what can be done with simple and inexpensive materials, whilst my older house has more draughts than an English pub.
The final session was a showing of the film, "Who Killed the Electric Car?", a fun, quirky and instructive look at the brief history of the GM EV1. Wikipedia has an article about this film. Whilst the politics and economics and aesthetics of this particular car could be debated, and pointing the finger at GM is pretty easy to do, there is no doubt that over the years, American car companies and oil companies, and other industries that rely on these powerful commercial entities, have a long history of anti-competative behaviour and political arm-twisting and bribery, to further their own interests. I am quite sure that the basic premise of this film is true, that GM deliberately "killed the electric car" because of what it represented - a clean, efficient, quiet and effective personal transport system - that bypassed the present private transport investment - in oil, in dirt, in service stations, oil refineries, oil transport, spare parts, massively depreciating assets, SUVs and all the other agglomeration of the oil and automobile industries - and in doing so made the absurdity of this present investment plain for all to see. It all seems so short sighted, but I have written about short-sightedness in the American car industry elsewhere.. OK, it's another conspiracy theory, but when it comes to American big business, it's absurd NOT to believe in consipracy theory.
