It would be true that whenever I hear the words "clean, green New Zealand", I want to tear my hair out with frustration, except I don't have much to able to do this, nor would anyone notice. This phrase has been around for quite a few years, I am not able to tell you exactly how many. A more recent advertising slogan to encourage tourists to visit talks of "100% pure New Zealand". Being an advertising slogan you can believe it as much as you like, a suspension of belief probably being the most appropriate. I would suggest that "clean, green New Zealand" is treated in the same way. It is not true, and it probably hasn't been true ever since the first men came here, about 1,000 years ago, but even less true in the last one hundred and fifty years.
This observation doesn't come about from any jaundiced attitude from an interloper - but from what is a reasonable accurate and dispassionate observation and understanding of many widely available international statistics and comparisons. Perhaps as an interloper, I am less emotionally involved in the self-delusional and feel good aspect of what New Zealanders themselves think of their country. These self-delusional understandings of one's own country are not unique to New Zealand, they apply to most countries, I'm sure. I am not being mean or unfair to New Zealand. There are many in New Zealand, concerned environmentalists and others, who would share my opinion.
Dear daughter.
Item 1
Above is a graph of comparisons of international ecological footprints taken from the Wikipedia article on "ecological footprint" . I have annotated the graph to show New Zealand's place. Ecological footprints are calculated as the area of earth each country's citizen needs to supply him or her with his or her needs. It is measured in hectares per person. On the graph the Y axis is the calculated area, on the X axis the country's place in the world global development index, Norway is obviously number 1, being the green dot most to the right of the chart - New Zealand wasn't marked on the map, but by checking the statistics I am certain it is the green dot which I have marked. You will see then that New Zealand has the sixth highest ecological footprint in the world- in other words each individual New Zealander uses the world's resources at rate much higher than all but the citizens of five other countries (The US, United Arab Emirates, Australia, Canada and Kuwait are those nations) Even the UK, a crowded populous island, does better than New Zealand, and Ireland and Japan, the latter one of the world's most highly industrialised nation, does much better still. This single statistic alone proves that New Zealand's clean green image is a lie. It is interesting too that four of those six nations are Anglo-Saxon - I call this the Anglo-Saxon Syndrome (aka. ASS), because we are the world's worst environmental culprits and most beholden to a simplistic and destructive market economy. (see my articles on this matter).
Item 2
2) According to the table, on this Wiki page New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions place this country, without land use changes (deforestation etc), at number 12 in the world, those ranking higher include small nations that burn massive amounts of oil, such as Kuwait and Brunei. if you include only similar nations to us, those in the OECD (ie basically the world's richest nations, including those in Europe, Canada, US, Mexico,Russia, China, Japan, South Korea, Australia, NZ etc - there are 28 OECD nations) then New Zealand is the fifth worse, after Australia, USA, Canada and Luxembourg. again this is not a very good result and shows NewZealand's clean green image is a self-deception.
This is a world map coloured according to greenhouse gas emissions.
To be a bit fairer to New Zealand, our CO2 emissions are not as comparatively high, because a lot of our emissions are due to methane from all the cattle and dairy cows. We are 16th in the OECD with CO2 emissions of 8.2 tonnes per person per year. However, that is still massively more than the vast majority of the world's countries and is much the same as the UK's, but recall the UK burns gas and coal for electricity generation, whereas NZ doesn't. Most of our CO2 emissions come from transport and private cars - we have the world's third highest car ownership, after USA and Saudi Arabia. For comparison, Bangladeshi emissions are just 0.2 tonnes per person per year, one fortieth of an average New Zealander's, yet Bangladesh will loose so much from global warming, a one metre rise in sea level will flood about 17% of the total Bangladeshi country, and tens of millions of people will be displaced, through no fault of their own. That's why I get so angry with people who say because our total emissions are small (because of our small population), we shouldn't do anything about them - to me that's an appalling ethical cop-out.
Map of CO2 emissions by country
Item 3
Household Rubbish. According these nz statistics each New Zealand household generated 400 kg of waste. This is ninth highest rate of household weight in the OECD, again hardly the statistics of a clean green country, and of course these amounts will be massively more than in poorer countries.
Item 4
Soil Erosion - this is a massive problem for New Zealand. Links include Gaia and Ecology and I discuss the matter in my own blog here - you'll need to go to the lower part of the page, there's a dramatic picture of erosion due to cyclone Bola.
I don't know how one would compare New Zealand's erosion rates with other countries, though they would seem to be very high by most comparisons. Most erosion is due to cleared forest land which is then grazed by animals. In 1945 about 25% of all the higher land in the South Island was seriously eroded. (Link to Teara)
Another study (Link to Nature summary) suggests that in 1945 about two thirds of New Zealand's cleared lands was subject to erosion. A detailed summary of the soil erosion problem in New Zealand is provided by the MAF (Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries) on this web page In the Gisborne area for instance, they calculate that 83% of all farming land is subject to erosion. This presumably doesn't mean that it is all actively eroding presently, but that a severe storm will erode some parts of this area. The Resource Management Act empowers local authorities to control the effects of land use as necessary to promote sustainable management, including minimising the harmful effects of soil erosion. It is largely implemented by regional councils through their regional policy statements and regional plans, and by district councils through their district plans. What isn't stated in this MAF document is how successful this legislation is in achieving this. Severe weather events in the last few years suggest that there are wide areas of New Zealand landscape and farmland insufficiently protected. The Green Party are keen to use this economic downturn and the need to provide alternative employment to undertake a massive programme of tree-planting on vulnerable landscapes to protect these soils, and protect riparian margins (Green Job Summit Paper). I can't help thinking this makes a lot more long-term success than propping up failing private companies, however "iconic". But it would require a great deal of cooperation from the farming community, where the pioneer spirit lingers long, and resentment of anyone interfering with their property rights is resented, even if their property is one that's gradually slipping in to the sea.
In its natural state, before the arrival of the Maori, it is estimated that New Zealand's forest cover was about 80%, it is likely that Maori cleared, by fire, about 30% of this, when Europeans arrived in New Zealand they cleared about another third. Now, total forest percentage in New Zealand is about 30% with a population of 4 million. In comparison, Japan, with a similar area as New Zealand, but with a population thirty times as large, has 70% of its land forested. (Link Japan stats)
This Teara page shows maps of the loss of forest cover in NZ. It is evident that Maori are just as self-deluded as us Pakehas when they claim their wise stewardship of NZ.
Item 5
Kyoto protocol - New Zealand signed the Kyoto protocol, which aims to have countries reducing their CO2 emissions to under the level they were in 1990. New Zealand's record is one of the worst in the world, with CO2 emissions now 28% higher than they were in 1990. In addition high rates of cutting down forests to make dairy farms is making the situation much worse. (New Zealand Herald ) So not only is New Zealand's per capita greenhouse gas among the world's worse, our record in trying to contain our CO2 emissions is also among the world's worse. So much for our previous PM, Helen Clark, telling us that she considered global warming a bigger threat to mankind than that of a nuclear holocaust. We are failing miserably.
Item 6
Car ownership and public transport - we have the third highest car ownership in the world, with 82% people owning a car. We also have very low usage of public transport - only 56% use public transport to get to work, 22nd out of 28 OECD countries. (I don't quite understand the 56% figure, I am sure it should be much lower, on a regular basis at any rate) (link) Wikipedia quote this same survey, they also quote a figure that only 2.5% of all trips in New Zealand make use of public transport. (Ministry of the Environment) Our over-reliance on private motor vehicular transport is anti-environmental, as the private motor vehicle is one of the main offenders causing global warming, and local air pollution, to say nothing of oil depletion. Trevor Mallard, former transport minister, once remarked that New Zealanders were welded to their cars at the hips.
Item 7
Toxic sprays, herbicides and insecticides New Zealand still makes use of such sprays banned or better controlled in many other countries
Endosulphan is an anti-worm treatment for playing fields. NZ Herald report shows this is being used in various parts of New Zealand, it has caused poisoning in Indonesia, Thailand etc. It is banned in a number of countries, and more strictly controlled in others.
Methyl Bromide is used as a fumigant. It is highly toxic, also it is an extremely potent global warming gas and also very effective at destroying the ozone layer. It is however very effective at killing insect pest in timber for export, which is an approved "critical" use. However it is still widely used as a soil steriliser, this is not an approved use. The gas if used it should not be used in built up areas, and all the gas should be recaptured. These rules are not enforced in New Zealand. The Montreal Protocol, which is an international agreement on ozone destroying chemicals, has stipulated that methyl bromide use should be phased out.
2,4.5_T , a herbicide used in New Zealand until the late 1980s, many years after it was banned elsewhere. It is the major constituent of "Agent Organge" used in vast quantities by the US in Vietnam to kill forests hiding the Viet Kong. It is not particularly poisonous in itself, but it invariably contains dioxins, which are extremely toxic and persist in the tissue for a very long time, and in the environment. It was manufactured in the Dow Chemical works in New Plymouth, and there are concerns about residual effects on the local population. For many years successive governments have allowed residents concerns to persist, because the necessary studies weren't being funded. A new study from Otago University is fortunately more reassuring. However it was poor that New Zealand allowed the continued use of 2,4,5-T for so long after it was banned in most other countries.
Toxic chemical contaminated sites. There are over 8,000 such sites in New Zealand and there is no national register, which means that the unsuspecting public is put at risk. However one of the worst sites in New Zealand, in Mapua, has been successfully cleaned up.
Painted apply moth spray - (Wiki reference) a widespread and controversial aerial spraying of this pest in Auckland a few years ago. This was a supposedly "natural spray" containing Bacillus thurungiensis. However other ingredients in the spray included propylene glycol, hydrochloric acid and benzoic acid ( http://www.greens.org.nz/node/16059 ) and many residents complained of various symptoms from the spraying. (GreensNZ reference)
Item 8
Maui's dolphin, the world's rarest and smallest marine dolphin. It is endangered as the Kakapo. Numbers are estimated at 110. Main cause of death, set netting and trawling. A new fishery control system has just been set up, with vocal and well funded opposition from various fishing interests. This mammal is so rare, the species can't afford to lose any animals to fishing. The Forest and Bird society are still unhappy at the level of protection provided. If clean green NZ can't protect the world's rarest dolphin, what does that say about us, and the prospects for the protection of other rare species around the world? (Forest and Bird link)
Item 9
Overfishing is a problem here as it is almost universally around the world. A quote system is held up as a major contribution to sustainable fishing, but arguments between environmentalists and fishing interests still continue. Species in New Zealand waters severely overfished include Orange roughy, red snapper, moonfish, striped marlin, blue shark, mako shark, porbeagle shark and lookdown dory. Hoki are supposedly sustainably fished, but it is strange that the quota for its catch is regularly reduced, not the sign of a robust fishery. (Forest and Bird ref.) It says something of the mutual antagonism of these interests that the fishing spokesman when Seafood Industry Council chief executive Owen Symmans says the guide was rubbish. "I have much more faith in the Government's system of fisheries management than Forest and Bird's." Strange then that all these further fisheries have now become severely endangered.
Bottom trawling is a highly destructive fishing technique and has severely damaged large areas of ocean floor, which will take generations to recover - restrictions have just been introduced which will protect some areas, this is more than most countries have done, admittedly, but is still not sufficient according to Greenpeace, Forest and Bird and WWF among other organisations. This form of fishing is "out of sight, out of mind", we'd never treat our land with the destructive potential of bottom trawls, we'd be horrified. (Treehugger ref. )(link)
Item 10
Water use and quality
Increasing numbers of lowland rivers and streams are becoming polluted as the dairy industry spreads its mucky way. (Link 1 0r here) (Link2 or here)
Even Lake Taupo, the worlds largest volcanic lake, and a major trout river fishery, is becoming polluted. Nitrogen runoff, 90% due to fertilisers and stock effluent, causes increase amounts of nitrogen in the water, in a process called eutrophication. This in turn causes algal growth in the lake, and toxic algal blooms have been found in Lake Taupo. If this isn't dealt with promptly, it will put this lake at risk, and damage the trout fishery, and New Zealand's clean green image might come to be questioned more seriously. Another important tourist lake, Lake Rotorua, is already very polluted, this time mostly from sewage run-off from Rotorua City, the lake is much shallower than Lake Taupo.
Rivers affected by pollution include the Waikato, Tarawera (Bay of Plenty) Tukituki (Hawke's Bay) Manawatu River (no swimming notices) Waiwhetu Stream - Lower Hutt (New Zealand's most polluted waterway - now some funds have been found to clean this up) Kaiapoi, Avon and Heathcote rivers, (Canterbury) - regularly these rivers are unsafe for rowing, kayaking or swimming in. Lake Forsyth - toxic algal blooms have killed stock, Selwyn River, high faecal counts, Mataura River (Southland) (GreensNZ Link or click here). There is a voluntary accord that farmers are supposed to follow, many do, but a substantial proportion don't. In many countries such matters are dealt with by legislation, and include such measures as fencing off streams and planting a 20 metre buffer zone of trees to filter pollutant run-off from farms before it reaches the rivers or lakes.
In the dryer parts of the country, increasing intensification of farming, increasing dairying and increasing irrigation has put great stress on water supplies. In Canterbury water tables are sinking, streams are drying up in the summer, and the water is becoming polluted with nitrogen run-off from farms. Inappropriate conversion to dairy farms is one major cause of this problem. (Link or here.) According to a Lincoln University article, water issues in Canterbury are in a "crisis". Clean water, a sustainable supply and a wise use are basic and fundamental human rights. New Zealand is unfortunately failing in these areas, and commercial interests are riding roughshod over other longer-term interests and environmental concerns. (Lincoln University Link or click here.)
In the Hawkes Bay, the community of Bridge Pa has no water at all, water has to be trucked in. Household bores that have served many years are no longer deep enough. Thirty thousand grape vines in one vineyard alone are irrigated locally from deep bores, each vine uses 5 litres a day, and the water table is lowering. In addition the area is suffering a drought. The wine growers say they are not to blame. Commercial interests rarely admit responsibility. The council also won't admit liability, again this is typical. There is a TV3 News video about this available here . The video shows spray irrigation - this is very wasteful way of irrigating, much of the water merely evaporates. Legislation should demand drip irrigation and a review of the local situation and a moratorium on future irrigation. A sinking water table is never sustainable.
Item 11
Illegal imports of tropical Kwila. According to Greenpeace this timber will become extinct in 35 years. But the NZ government does not regulate its import, or monitor imports.
Well daughter, I hope this information is of help to you.
New Zealand's environmental record is very bad. It started with the Maori, who killed off all the Moa species and the world's largest eagle, the Haast Eagle, it continued with us, and despite some spectacular successes, Kakapo, Chatham Island Robin and the large National Parks, our modern lifestyle is inimical to the health of our landscape, our soils, our waters and our oceans. We also plunder resources from overseas, tropical hardwoods, metals, oil, and pollute the atmosphere worse than almost any other nation.
The clean green image of New Zealand is a myth. It always has been, except of course before humanity arrived here. It is what is called a "Myth of Place", a fond story that societies concoct for themselves to make them feel better about themselves. For instance, America - the greatest country in the world, the Land of the Free, the UK - a great and virtuous builder of Empire and exporter of truth and justice, France - land of Liberté, Égalitee and Fraternité, Australia - the Lucky Country, and New Zealand, clean and green, Godzone. The only reason we have been able to get away with this, and deceive both ourselves and our visitors, is that we live in a country the size of the UK, but with just one fifteenth the population. There just aren't so many of us to make it obvious what we are doing. (However if you're a cyclist you'd know straight away that clean green New Zealand is not true, the amount of litter along any road is really appalling!) Additionally we don't have the inheritance of two hundred years of industrial wasteland that there is in the UK, Europe and the US. It's easy to see a derelict building site, or shabby slums, but toxins aren't so obvious, nor are polluted waters or loss of soil. Our lack of major manufacturing industry and our island situation in a windy ocean keeps the air very clean. Indeed the clarity of the air can deceive people and their need to protect themselves from the sun.
This is not a diatribe against New Zealand, but you asked me to give evidence that "Clean, Green New Zealand" is a myth. I think I have done that. But this isn't the concern. The major worry is that we are in fact no worse nor any better than any other "advanced" Western country, we're all as bad - we all live an unsustainable and toxic life-style which is slowly and surely killing our planet. If it were just New Zealand, it probably wouldn't matter so much, but the world at large? What is it about Homo sapiens? What is the major principle of survival in nature? It's the principle that says "you don't foul your own nest", even termites know that, yet us human's aren't even that clever, and New Zealanders are, sadly, the same as everyone else.
What is true though, and I am happy to admit, is that compared to the more crowded parts of the world, we are indeed clean and green, we know it, and we trumpet it. Our wonderful National Parks provide real space for the traveller in an almost pristine natural environment, though even there introduced predators such as stoats, and tree-browsers such as the opossum cause much damage to native flora and fauna. Our beaches are beautiful and unfouled, and our cities are not yet blighted by slums. There is room here that we take for granted, but that others marvel at. That is the nature that our tourists come to see, that we visit and enjory, and we rightly take great pride in. I'm not sure that as New Zealanders we deserve much credit for these wonderful natural resources, but it does support the myth, and we are generally content to accept this state of affairs as being our birthright and our bounty without thinking too hard as to the nature of our good fortune. At the best our myth is a form of national smugness, at the worst, hypocrisy, both of which we share with the vast majority of the rest of humanity.
Lots of love,
Dad xxx
West Coast scene, tranquil and very beautiful. New Zealand is beautiful, we need to keep it so. Our lack of population helps us so much, but our individual responsibilities are the same as everyone else's.
Copyright Tom Dempsy. Removed if requested.