Where there is a will there is a way
Showing posts with label plundering the Earth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label plundering the Earth. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

"Forest and Bird rejects Joyce call, stands firm on appeals" National Business Review article


Found at http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/forest-and-bird-rejects-joyce-call-stands-firm-appeals-wb-129471 on September 26, 2012, by The National Business Review


BUSINESSDESK: The Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society will press ahead with appeals against resource consents for Bathurst Resources' proposed open cast coal mine on conservation land in the Denniston Plateau region, above Greymouth.

Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce called on Forest & Bird and a West Coast environmental action network to drop appeals against consents granted last August, citing the need for West Coast mining jobs after state-owned Solid Energy announced the mothballing of its Spring Creek mine.

Some 220 of the 440 job losses at Solid Energy will be at Spring Creek. Bathurst says it would employ around 400 people at the Escarpment mine, the first of several Bathurst plans in the area.

However, Forest & Bird says Mr Joyce "is being opportunistic in deflecting the blame for the mismanagement of the Spring Creek mine".

"I feel for the people who are losing their jobs, obviously," Forest & Bird advocacy manager Kevin Hackwell told BusinessDesk.

"That's a real issue. But mining is a boom-and-bust industry with a long history of it on the West Coast. It's one of the reasons their economy has never been as strong as they would like.

"The long-term future is having industries that are much more sustainable."

He questioned also whether Mr Joyce's intervention in favour of Bathurst's proposals could put the minister foul of the legal process playing out through resource consent appeals, and the statutory process that would follow if Bathurst succeeded and sought ministerial position for an access agreement to Department of Conservation land.

"There would be a serious question, given his public advocacy, about whether such a decision has been influenced by government policy," Mr Hackwell says.

Bathurst chief executive Hamish Bohannan has reported frustrations among shareholders over delays to the Bathurst consent process, saying the company has spent $15 million so far on consenting issues.

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

The Swamp Man - The bald cypress of southern Louisiana is resilient and rot-resistant—and so is Dean Wilson, its most ardent defender (by Sierra Club)

Originally published by The Sierra Club at http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/201205/louisiana-bald-cypress-156.aspx

The Swamp ManThe bald cypress of southern Louisiana is resilient and rot-resistant—and so is Dean Wilson, its most ardent defender
By Bruce Selcraig


DEAN WILSON ONCE SURVIVED TARZAN-LIKE in Louisiana's Atchafalaya Basin for four months eating "horrible-tasting" ratty nutria and "fat and juicy" armadillos that he killed with a straightened fishhook. But now it's Sunday night on State Highway 1 in darkened bayou-burbia, and we need pizza.

"I don't know that we'll find anything at this time of night in Plaquemine," Wilson says, surveying the familiar commercial clutter of Family Dollars and auto parts joints. "Maybe we should go back home and have deer burgers." The nationally acclaimed swamp crusader clearly would prefer to be cruising the languid Atchafalaya Basin behind the wheel of his 18-foot aluminum bateau or whipping his kayak through the watery cypress forests he has spent years trying to protect from loggers.

Born to an American father and a Spanish mother on a military base outside Madrid, Wilson came with little English to the sweltering Atchafalaya Basin in 1984 to prepare himself for environmental work in the Amazon. "I just looked at a map and thought this place would be very hot and have lots of mosquitoes," he recalls. "I was right."

Wilson decided that Louisiana life suited him just fine, so he skipped the Amazon and stayed to become a commercial fisherman. For the next 16 years, the Spaniard learned the customs of his neighbors and picked up an intriguing but not always decipherable Cajun-Castilian accent. When he was just "the new foreigner," he received threats from locals, especially after he worked with a sheriff to stop the theft of crawfish traps. A "friendly" local told Wilson not to worry, that he probably wouldn't be killed because, the local said, "your skin is white and your eyes are right"—meaning not Mexican, not Vietnamese. The threats intensified after he became known primarily as an environmentalist: He was fired at, and his dog was poisoned.

"I still sleep with a gun," says Wilson, who likes to hunt, but only for food. "Guns have saved my life down here. I told one guy who threatened to burn me out of my house that he wasn't the only person who knew how to make a fire."

As a fisherman, Wilson witnessed industrial pollution, illegal logging, and the dredging of oil company canals throughout the basin. He thought that complaining to the proper authorities might help. "I was really naive," he says. "Coming from Spain, I had no idea how corrupt Louisiana politics was." His environmental epiphany came around 2000, when he realized that Louisiana loggers were harvesting thousands of acres of cypress trees—not for home building or flooring, as in years past, but to supply the flourishing $750 million annual market for garden mulch.

"That was the last straw for me," Wilson says, "knowing that people were clearcutting trees that were often centuries old in order to grow flowers in their garden."

WE SLIP KAYAKS INTO PEACEFUL Grassy Lake behind Wilson's simple home on Bayou Sorrel to survey the bald cypresses that have brought so much purpose to his life. You can almost feel his stress dissolving with each paddle stroke. "It gets a bit shallow up through here," Wilson hollers as he leads me into a watery forest draped in Spanish moss. He splashes into the muck with his knee-high rubber boots, and we tug the kayaks through soft grasses until we reach a deeper pool that's surrounded by smooth bald cypresses.

Wilson's environmental epiphany came when he realized that cypress trees were being logged not for lumber but for garden mulch. Photo by Christian Heeb/Prisma/SuperStock"

Almost the entire Gulf Coast, and certainly all of Louisiana's coast, was once covered with these wonderful trees," he says. "Only they were much taller, four or five times wider, and many were over a thousand years old. They say it better than I can. This is why I'm here."

It's a shame that movies and books often portray the cypress as a foreboding, mossy ghoul of the swamp, because it's among the most trouble-free, wildlife-friendly trees on the planet, and a close relative to California's Disney-darling sequoia. Since its branches grow out perpendicularto its trunk, the cypress is a great tree for nestingwaders like herons, egrets, and ibis. The hollowed-out trunks of older cypress become perfect homes for raccoon, otters, mink, bears, bats, and owls.

The massive root system of the cypress also makes it among the most hurricane-resistant of all trees.

The cypress decimation started long ago. In 1850, Congress passed the Swampland Act, deeding millions of acres of wetlands to the states along the Mississippi River. Louisiana officials, like others, viewed swamps as an impediment to progress and sold thousands of acres containing virgin cypresses to large corporations, often for 75 cents an acre or less.

"Instead of controlling floods in the Atchafalaya," write basin scholars Greg Guirard and C. Ray Brassieur in their 2007 book Inherit the Atchafalaya, "the Swampland Act enabled the complete devastation of one of the world's great forests." In the early 1900s, timber companies logged millions of board feet from the basin annually, usually by cutting canals (some still in use today) and floating the logs off to the mill. By the 1930s, most of the virgin trees were logged. Nearly a century later, about the only large cypresses left in the basin have been struck by lightning or a fungus.

Realizing he was witness to the last of the swamp's cypresses, Wilson formed a nonprofit called Atchafalaya Basinkeeper—one of about 200 programs affiliated with Waterkeeper Alliance, a global organization founded by activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—and began using litigation and public education campaigns to protect the basin.

Wilson won support from such groups as the Sierra Club, the Garden Club of America, the National Audubon Society, and the Louisiana Environmental Action Network. Some days he prodded understaffed, poorly funded investigators in the New Orleans EPA office to better police the Gulf. On others he talked to schoolkids.

"If cypress had lined the coast whe Katrina and Rita struck, they could have saved lives."

Often Wilson's only legal toehold against the logging is to use the federal Clean Water Act to pursue companies that build unpermitted roads in the forest. Wilson says he's also gotten "crucial" help in doing aerial surveillance of the logging from SouthWings, a group of volunteer pilots based in Asheville, North Carolina, who monitor activities like pollution from animal feedlots and illegal coal-ash disposal. "SouthWings made the difference," he says, "between losing trees and saving trees."

Wilson's greatest success in the anti-mulch campaign came when Home Depot, Walmart, and Lowe's agreed in 2008 to stop selling mulch harvested from Louisiana cypresses. The news is comforting as we drift silently among the stately trees, but Wilson quickly puts it in perspective. "That's just one state," he says. "Loggers will move to Mississippi, Georgia, Florida."

If treehugging doesn't work, Wilson can also argue pure profit. "If you cut every cypress in Louisiana," he says, citing a Louisiana study commissioned in 2004 by then-governor Kathleen Blanco, "its one-time value as wood alone would be about $3.3 billion, but the total annual value of swamp tours, birding, fisheries, hunting, hurricane protection is more like $6.6 billion."

With the help of the Tulane Environmental Law Clinic, Basinkeeper currently has seven lawsuits going—most involving permitting issues—against foes like Tennessee loggers, school districts, and energy companies whose environmental practices have somehow impacted the basin. For now, he simply implores consumers not to buy cypress mulch from any source.

Back at Wilson's bayou-side house, he sits on a porch swing and whips out his laptop. He shows me surveillance photos tracking cypresses being logged from the Atchafalaya Basin, cut at local mills, "chipped" into mulch, and then stuffed into yellow plastic bags with labels that falsely claim the mulch has come from Florida or "forest-friendly" sources. Wilson has shown the photos to countless people, but he's careful not to demand outrage from the uninitiated. Still, he's dismayed that his smoking gun hasn't inspired more official action.

"It is immoral to lie to people about what you're selling," he says calmly. "Virtually everything we do comes down to corporations bullying people. I hate bullying. I hate injustice."

That's the Dean Wilson everyone knows. While a forestry association official once dismissed him as "all passion and no facts," colleagues respect his abundant idealism and his hard work. Thick EPA studies, brightly colored satellite maps, and hydrology reports dot his living room. A network of activists keeps his cellphone humming. "Dean does this every day, from the time he wakes up until the time he goes to sleep," says friend and Lafayette environmental educator Stacey Scarce. It's all necessary in a place where logging ancient trees is just one environmental threat, a place where the oil, gas, and chemical industries not only affect the Atchafalaya but also run right through it.


The Atchafalaya's iconic alligator shares space with 60 species of reptiles and amphibians and some 250 bird species in America's largest river swamp. Photo by Adam Jones/Visuals Unlimited

IN EARLY RISING PLAQUEMINE, my Best Western breakfast nook features more petroleum mechanics and burly welders than blueberry muffins.

State Highway 1, a flat and sweaty industrial corridor that runs south from Baton Rouge to the Gulf of Mexico, is choked with pipe fitters and laborers headed to this area's largest employer, Dow Chemical, on the west bank of the Mississippi. There, more than 3,000 workers churn out polyethylene and methyl cellulose, key ingredients in milk jugs and even milkshakes.

In the shadow of Dow, a shimmering steel monument to the dirty industries that shape so many lives down here, it is easy to forget that just a few miles away is a world-class wetland. Wilson, who also runs the Last Wilderness, a swamp-tour business that attracts visitors from as far away as France and Germany, has told me to meet him at the Bayou Bait Shop in Bayou Sorrel. The village of 1,000 looks like a fishing camp; wobbly wooden homes beside the brown bayou are raised up on concrete piers. The straight two-lane road into town passes the U-turn-inducing Verret Shipyard, where they've been making Mississippi River towboats since 1966. Homemade signs tout "fresh coon meat" and Ron Paul rallies.

"Hey, Dean," a lady behind the bait shop counter says, "you know Junior's back in town, and he's got some new T-shirts."

That would be the town's unassuming but unfathomably famous celebrity, Junior Edwards, the gator-gutting star of the History Channel's hit reality show Swamp People, which has brought international exposure to the basin and its slowly disappearing Cajun culture.

Wilson and I walk to a little dock on the eastern edge of the Atchafalaya. From that vantage point, it's hard to imagine the extent of the basin, which is 1.4 million acres, runs about 100 miles north to south, and is more than a dozen times larger than New Orleans. It's the flood basin for the Atchafalaya River, a "pirate stream," or distributary, that broke through the natural levees of the Mississippi in the 15th century—and has threatened to divert the latter river's flow ever since.

Zippered against the wind in Wilson's boat, we rocket down the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway as Shanka, his German shepherd, patrols the squared-off bow. It's warm for January but winter nonetheless, so many of the swamp's most elegant creatures, like the Florida panther, the black bear, and the mink, are snoozing. But birds are everywhere. The basin is virtually at the mouth of the Mississippi, on North America's most important flyway, and is an indispensable, O'Hare-like terminal for migratory tropical birds. Two minutes into the boat ride we see a stunning bald eagle—removed from the federal endangered species list just five years ago—unfurl from a willow perch as if it has fallen from Mt. Rushmore. Ten more minutes and we've seen great egrets, yellow-rumped warblers, Carolina chickadees, and stocky barred owls with NBA wingspans. Missing are the swamp's divas, Alligator mississipiensis. They're brumating, which usually involves burrowing beneath the nutrient-rich sediment into muddy holes and lowering their body temperature to a torpid, football-watching state.

Amid all this tranquility, we pass a docked barge carrying black tanks of chemicals, a quick reminder that the basin, while elegant in places, is just another aging production field for Big Oil, woven with miles of exposed, often-leaking, 50-year-old pipelines and more than 500 oil and gas wells. "We've got leaks all over the basin," Mike Bienvenu, president of the Louisiana Crawfish Producers Association, recently told the Louisiana Weekly. "We've been fighting the oil and gas companies to get something done about their violations for 20 years."

Wilson checks some of his crawfish traps—mesh metal cages that he pulls from the cool freshwater—then idles into a shallow, moss-covered pool. Pretty but depressing, the water's surface is so completely carpeted by the leafy, invasive Salvinia molesta that dogs less hip than Shanka will often leap in, thinking it's dry land—unwisely waking torpid gators.

"In the spring, if I were to drop just a handful of Salvinia into clear water," Wilson says, "it would be covered solid in a month." Experts believe the menace arrived here in 2006 from local water gardens.

At times Wilson, a father of four on his third marriage, may seem wearied by the day-to-day demands of fundraising, lawsuits, and not missing his son's soccer games. But surrounded by this bright morning theater of cypress, he can't help being drawn back to what brought him here. "Imagine if millions of cypress, four or five times as wide as these, had been lining the Gulf Coast in 2005 when Katrina and Rita struck," he says. "They would have defeated the wind. They would have defeated storm surges. They would have saved lives."

Bruce Selcraig, a frequent Sierra contributor, wrote "Last Man Standing" (September/October 2011), a profile of Texas activist Hilton Kelley.
This article was funded by the Sierra Club's Water Sentinels program.

Monday, March 26, 2012

NZ Herald Article by Dean Baigent-Mercer: Mining by stealth for Northland

From http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10793603

NZ HERALD: OPINION
Dean Baigent-Mercer: Mining by stealth for Northland

Northland needs to prepare itself for multinational mining companies. Photo / Thinkstock
By Dean Baigent-Mercer

Northland: the skinniest parts of our country with spectacular coastlines, low rugged mountains, is culturally and historically rich and under attack. The charge has been led by the National Coalition Government and Northland councils to smooth the way for multinational mining companies.

The public opposition to mining in 2010 saw 50,000 people march up Queen St against mining in conservation areas. I was there and the mood was clear, the public objected to Government plans to open our national parks to international mining interests. In response, John Key and Gerry Brownlee led us to believe that they had listened to the public, backed down and would protect our precious areas.

But since then it's been full steam ahead with the mining agenda. Without landowner consent, and using $2 million of public money, land from Warkworth to Cape Reinga had aerial geomagnetic surveys carried out last year. Again we were told there was nothing to worry about, that they just wanted to see what was underground.

Two weeks ago a Government delegation and the Far North Mayor Wayne Brown played host at the world's largest mining trade show in Toronto, Canada. They took a promotional booklet that gives the false impression that Northland would welcome all miners with open arms, the natives were friendly, and the Northland life would suit them fine and be prosperous.

The Government timetable sets the next fortnight for northern councils and Maori to point out sensitive areas where mining would be inappropriate then treat all other areas as open for mining applications from next month. Only in May will the ordinary landowners and the public be told in which areas what minerals have been found and where the mining industry is being directed.

This is mining by stealth, despite what the Far North Mayor says.

What we do know is that the two main gold deposits are in deep quartz veins beneath mountains of eastern Northland called Whakarara and Puhipuhi. Accessing gold beneath both would involve literally moving mountains, destroying native forests and reopening some of the largest mercury beds in the country.

Whakarara peak is over 300 metres above sea level. The gold begins 200 metres down through very hard rock. Tunnelling is not an option. Mining would mean another Waihi-type hole in the ground. Toxic waste from hard rock mining, over 18 tonnes per gold ring, would need to be safely stored beyond timescales we can imagine. Both areas are prone to extreme floods as witnessed in recent years and flooding around Kaeo this week.

These mountains head the catchments of the Bay of Islands, the Kaipara and Whangaroa Harbour making waterways downstream at risk of toxic mining pollution, including Matauri Bay, Helena Bay and Mimiwhangata. We can't risk anymore waterways being further contaminated. Already the Far North District Council and Northland Regional Council cannot deal with pollution from dairy farming, let alone pollution from mining companies.

Local authorities are claiming that all mining applications will be subject to 'strict' requirements. But right now the Crown Minerals Act is under review and powerful mining interests are lobbying to strengthen their corporate 'rights' and relax their environmental compliance. They want easier access to any land with minerals and the key objective of new mining laws to be promoting attractiveness for business and investment. All this would further undermine genuine environmental, public concerns and sensible protection.

And despite what the Government promised two years ago, mining investigation permits have since been given the thumbs up for World Heritage areas and South Island National Parks. Will Coromandel and Great Barrier Island be next in the firing line?

The Department of Conservation has recently sacked their "back office" staff with the knowledge and skills to address biodiversity and recreation threats from mining applications. Internal memos now instruct what the Department can and cannot comment on. In contrast there has been a major staff expansion within the Ministry of Economic Development to promote the discovery and extraction of minerals, metals and oil.

But the public backlash has already begun as local communities in Northland feel betrayed. Perhaps that's why the politicians are rushing ahead, to try and sign contracts with miners before the mining reality sinks in.

* Dean Baigent-Mercer is the Chairperson of the Far North Forest and Bird Branch. He has worked on national and international conservation issues.

END QUOTE

Monday, February 27, 2012

Shell profiteering climate change in the Arctic



http://greenpeace.org/savethearctic

On 24 Feb 2012, 7 people - including Lucy Lawless, occupied a Shell oil drilling ship to raise awareness about Shell drilling oil in the Arctic - a place only accessible due to climate change (caused by burning of fossil fuels such as oil). 77 hours later, they were arrested - but by that time 200,000 emails [March 4] were sent to Shell Oil by people protesting Shell's profiteering climate change (and also worsening climate change).


Lucy Lawless, NZ:

"I am here today acting on behalf of the planet and my children. Drilling for deep sea oil is bad enough, but to go into the Arctic, one of the most magical places left on the planet, is going too far.

"A melting of the sea ice is a warning to humanity, not an invitation to drill for more of the stuff which caused the problem in the first place.

"And yet Shell claims that they can manage a 90% cleanup of an oil spill in the harsh arctic, and I call BS. An oil spill in the Arctic would make the Gulf of Mexico [oil spill] look like a children's party.

"What Shell is doing is climate change profiteering. We don't have to go to the ends of the Earth to extract every last drop of oil. We've got to smarten up and move to a clean energy economy now."

Saturday, February 4, 2012

Ask the Expert - Polly Higgins - on a new international law against 'ecocide'

From Good magazine (NZ) Issue 22, Page 16:

ASK THE EXPERT
The Earth’s Attorney

The times are a-changing and one London legal beagle thinks it’s time to give the planet more teeth. Simon Day drops in for a chat with environmental lawyer and barrister Polly Higgins.I first met Polly Higgins as a journalist interviewing her for a story. I left an hour later a member of her campaign team. What's so compelling about her idea?

Seven years ago, working as a corporate lawyer, Polly felt she was fighting for things she didn't believe in. She was more concerned by what was happening outside the courtroom and felt the earth needed an advocate. "Environmental law as it stands is not fit for purpose," she says.

So Polly brought legislation to the United Nations that would make "extensive damage, destruction to or loss of ecosystems" an international crime against humanity. If successful, ‘ecocide’ would become the fifth crime against peace – and like genocide, war crimes, crimes of aggression and crimes against humanity, liable from prosecution at the International Crime Court.

In September 2011, Polly was involved in a high-profile mock trial at the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The defendants - found guilty on two of three counts - were chief executives of a hypothetical fossil fuel company charged with ecocide crimes similar to the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the extraction of Canada's tar sands.

Closer to home, if ecocide was recognised by law, then shipping company Costamare Inc's managing director Diamantis Manos could be held directly responsible for the Rena disaster and the damage to Tauranga's Astrolabe Reef.

But the proposed law isn't just to threaten punishment; Polly sees it as sparking a new way of doing business. ''The legislation imposes a 'think before you act' principle," she says. "It makes damn sure you adhere to safety regulations. But it also challenges company directors to question whether the consequences are really worth the risks."

London-based Kiwi Simon Day is completing a Masters in International Journalism,
specialising in the environment

"Today you can murder land for private profit. You can leave the corpse for all to see, and nobody calls the cops."

-Paul Brooks (The Pursuit of Wilderness)

Saturday, January 21, 2012

Forest and Bird post about problems of EEZ bill (to replace RMA) and sharky oil companies with plans to drill thousands of wells on East Coast of NZ

January 27 is the deadline for submissions on a sneaky bill that would allow environmental considerations to be outweighed by economic gain - the 100 km of sea floor from NZ on East Coast of NZ would be ripe for oil wells


I am so disgusted. I am glad I was alerted to this posting by Claire Browning (Forest & Bird) - which can be found here (but re-posted below for safekeeping).

Basically, the East Coast of NZ is rich in oil. A very aggressive oil company in particular called TAG Oil(with expanding operations currently in Taranaki), is appealing to investors to turn the East Coast of NZ into the "Texas of the south", and drill thousands of oil wells. (And there are many other oil sharks circling as well - trying to secure exploration consents. Reference: Fairfax News, article here.)

At the same time - there is a bill currently being considered by the government called the "Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill" or EEZ which may actually allow this to happen. It is to the sea floor off NZ's coast what the Resource Management Act is on land. However, where the RMA's purpose is to “promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources” (and section 8 of the Fisheries Act says that “The purpose of this Act is to provide for the utilisation of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability”), the EEZ Bill is meant to balance protection with “economic wellbeing" . Clause 61, for example - states that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may grant an application for marine consent “if the activity’s contribution to New Zealand’s economic development outweighs the activity’s adverse effects on the environment”.

That is screwed up.

Apparently we have until 27 January to make a submission on the bill. You can make a submission online here (scroll down to the button at the bottom of the page!) or in writing (2 written copies needed!).

Forest & Bird's submission on the EEZ bill is here.

"Without sustainability, we are lost. "
- Claire Browning

"How does destruction of the natural environment benefit New Zealand economically?"
- Myself

Claire's article on the bill (and sharky oil companies) follows, from http://blog.forestandbird.org.nz/the-exclusive-economic-zone-for-sale/comment-page-1/#comment-88244:


The Exclusive Economic Zone: for sale
Tue, 17 Jan 2012 9:28 am – Posted by Mandy No Comments

Blogger: Forest & Bird's Conservation Advocate, Claire Browning

TAG Oil is very excited. It wants to turn the East Coast of the North Island – “literally leaking oil and gas”!! – into the “Texas of the south”, hosting thousands of oil wells.

If you thought that the EEZ Bill, currently before select committee, would be a major weapon in the government’s armoury to protect this unique and extensive environment – if you believed what responsible Minister Dr Nick Smith has said – you were wrong.

Each country’s EEZ stretches from its coast to out to 200 nautical miles. New Zealand’s marine environment, which also includes the continental shelf, is 23 times bigger than our land environment.

The EEZ Bill is supposed to protect it. However, it has what, according to the very charitable interpretation of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE), can only be a “serious error”.

The Bill is, all on its own, an environmental risk.

New Zealand is a party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). It is from UNCLOS that our right to use the EEZ for economic purposes comes. It is this that gives us the authority and the exclusive privilege. It does that on condition of a requirement to “protect and preserve” this environment.

New Zealand waters are a breeding ground and transit route for many marine and seabird species, including threatened and endangered species. There are risks for them, and marine conservation, from accidents that may result from activities in the EEZ, particularly offshore oil activities.

Despite encouragement to comply with UNCLOS (“protect and preserve”), the Marine Reserves Bill has been stuck in Parliament since 2002. A woeful 0.4 percent of the EEZ is protected in marine reserves.

By contrast, around one-third of our land is public conservation land.

Dr Smith has promised to prioritise the Marine Reserves Bill and get it passed in the next three years. It will be reported back from select committee on February 29, with the EEZ Bill. This is good. It is an important part of the protection package.

But it is not, on its own, good enough. No less important is managing the competing uses of the parts of the marine environment that we do not set aside in reserves. It is all the same environment.

The MV Rena’s grounding on the Astrolabe Reef, and oil spill, has taught us about the importance of prevention. Forest & Bird is among those calling for an independent inquiry into the circumstances of this accident – into New Zealand’s oil spill response capacity, but more importantly, stopping accidents in the first place.

That means making good judgements about what activities are allowed offshore, by whom, and on what conditions.

The EEZ Bill is one tool for doing this. It establishes a decision-making process to manage activities in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and on the continental shelf beyond 12 nautical miles.

It has the same job as the RMA, which applies on land, and to 12 nautical miles offshore.

Beyond 12 nautical miles, out to 200 miles, the law is complicated and has gaps. To all intents and purposes, it is currently unregulated. In this sense, the EEZ Bill is a good and a necessary thing.

The Bill is modelled on the Resource Management Act (RMA). And it should be: there is no reason, in principle, for the philosophies of the two Acts to differ. If anything, UNCLOS requires a higher, not a lesser, standard of protection.

However, the Bill does differ from the RMA in some important, and quite malign, ways.

The purpose of the RMA is to “promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources”. It says this in section 5. Similarly, section 8 of the Fisheries Act says that “The purpose of this Act is to provide for the utilisation of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability”.

The EEZ Bill is concerned with “economic wellbeing”.

It “seeks to achieve a balance between the protection of the environment and economic development”: the purpose clause in section 10. It does not talk about sustainability, at all. It directs decision-makers to consider the “efficient” use of resources, not their sustainable use.

Responsible Minister Hon Nick Smith has said that for the small number of decisions under the EEZ Bill (around 10-20 consents per year), the level of complexity in the RMA is not justified. Also, that the RMA requires consideration of some factors, such as social and cultural factors, which are not applicable offshore; therefore, the focus needs to be on economic and environmental factors.

We agree. However, we think that the Minister’s logic is still wrong.

The Bill can be more simply and appropriately drafted. But its basic purpose and philosophy still apply. Without sustainability, we are lost. No environmental protection, no long-term economic wellbeing – so that, in fact, the current drafting of the Bill inadvertently undermines its own stated goal.

We support the Minister’s desire to “simplify and streamline”, provided it can be achieved without doing damage to our own goals of properly protecting the environment. We think that it can.

For example, it would be more “simplified and streamlined” to have at least approximately the same law on both sides of the 12 nautical mile line. At the margins (ie, in cases that cross or are close to the 12 mile limit), and when talking about species that migrate between the two, totally different philosophies makes no sense.

Beneath this is a more fundamental, non-negotiable point. New Zealand is already party to another law, UNCLOS, that requires it.

Beyond the purpose clause, the EEZ Bill differs from the RMA in other ways. The RMA prioritises decision-making factors, into “matters of national importance” (which are about environmental preservation and protection), and “other matters”.

The EEZ Bill lists them all together, with no indication about relative weight, except that on the list of eight items, the conservation ones come last. This is backed up by clause 61, which provides that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may grant an application for marine consent “if the activity’s contribution to New Zealand’s economic development outweighs the activity’s adverse effects on the environment” or “may refuse the application if the adverse effects of the activity on the environment outweigh the activity’s contribution to New Zealand’s economic development”.

This is a direct trade off of economic benefits against environmental costs. In effect, it says that provided the economic rewards are sufficiently high, any lesser amount of environmental destruction or damage may be consented to by the EPA.

It fails to recognise that there are environmental limits which should not be breached irrespective of the economic benefits. And in many cases it is neither possible nor appropriate to try to put a monetary value on environmental damage, such as the irreversible loss of a species or unique habitat.

It is this, concluded the PCE, which must be a “serious error”.

It says that if what you find out there in the EEZ is worth enough, it’s all for sale. What the Bill does is state its price. It does not set in place any bottom line – any fence, if you like, against risk of environmental destruction.

It is the Schedule 4 policy leftovers warmed up, in a more remote place, where the government hopes we will neither notice nor care.

Do you?

If so, please speak for the blue whales and their calves, the wandering albatross who died cloaked in tar from the Rena, the many, many other less charismatic megafauna out there in the EEZ, and those who are not charismatic at all – but important, and with whom we are privileged to share this environment.

It’s not too late to make a submission to the Local Government and Environment select committee which is dealing with this Bill. They close on 27 January. Forest & Bird’s submission is here.





Thursday, December 29, 2011

Coal mining in NZ article: "Labour against lignite plans"

by Alan Wood
NOV 8 2011 / Fairfax News

The original article can be found here:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/5923402/Labour-against-lignite-plans


Solid Energy's lignite development plans in Southland have come under fire from the Labour Party which sees wood or biofuels as being the long-term solution to fuel needs.

Labour spokesman for the environment Charles Chauvel, however, was less opposed to existing mining operations run or being ramped up by miners including Solid Energy and Bathurst Resources on the West Coast but did not want a start to lignite development.

Chauvel released Labour's policy to protect the environment on Sunday. Yesterday, he added that Solid Energy should not proceed with Southland plans for lignite-to-liquid fuels until technology to capture and store carbon emissions was available.

He said the natural environment helped define Kiwis, with expats for example returning home to bring up kids.

It also supported tourism and the food industries.

A spokeswoman for Solid Energy said the state-owned enterprise did not want to be drawn into political debate, but it stood by a previous statement relating to its plans to fit in with environmental concerns.

Taking full responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions was a key consideration in all Solid Energy's lignite developments and the company would look at options such as offsetting carbon emissions by biosequestration (planting more trees) or purchasing carbon credits, or capturing emissions.

Carbon capture and storage is said to be an expensive technology still at an experimental stage.
The coalminer is looking to develop new technologies including turning huge amounts of lignite resource into transport fuel and urea.

To take the plan forward, Solid Energy has bought Southland farmland in order to control 1.5 billion tonnes of lignite.

Chauvel said Labour did not think it was appropriate for a government or SOE to spend money on developing lignite when that would "blow out" carbon emissions and lead to climate change.

Chauvel said any plan to grow trees to offset carbon emissions would also face enormous constraints. "Basically you'd have to plant the entire South Island into forests to create a carbon sink to make up for what it would do to emissions from processing that dirty brown stuff under Southland."

The party viewed the export of mined coal, in already consented activities, as a less serious problem, and did not have anything in its policy to ban such mining, he said.

Labour had a plan to ramp up renewables such as geothermal power to create jobs and answer fuel needs. "In transport we're going to get emissions down by 40 per cent by promoting job rich industries like rail, coastal shipping and public transport."

Biofuels, including the use of wood waste as a biofuel source through yet-to-be commercialised techniques, would answer New Zealand's need for fuel, Chauvel said.

Environmental lobby group Coal Action Network welcomed Labour's stance, saying it was a major step in the right direction. "Labour has clearly taken on board the message that mining up to 6 billion tonnes of lignite that lies beneath prime Southland farmland will lead to many billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions and also devastate the land, rivers and air of Southland," Network spokesman Tim Jones said.

The Network was also opposed to mining plans by Bathurst Resources coal project reserves in the Buller region.


- © Fairfax NZ News

Monday, October 17, 2011

Anadarko in NZ (US deep sea oil exploration vessel)

Photo from Greenpeace Aotearoa on FB. "Greenpeace activists...protest in front of the Polarcus Alima in Port Taranaki late this afternoon. It is due to leave shortly to start exploring for deep sea oil off Raglan on behalf of the US oil giant Anadarko. Greenpeace NZ is campaigning against the Government’s sell-off of deep water drilling rights in New Zealand." Greenpeace / Amos Chapple

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - AND - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -







Found at http://www.greenpeace.org/new-zealand/en/news/blog/police-protect-us-oil-giant-anadarkos-survey-/blog/37357/








Police protect US oil giant Anadarko's survey vessel in Port Taranaki "Blogpost" by Nick Young, October 17, 2011 at 11:13,
This morning, a team of Greenpeace activists were met by an overwhelming police presence at the Port of Taranaki.

Early this morning the Polarcus Alima - a survey vessel chartered by the US oil giant Anadarko - slipped in to the Port of Taranaki.

They no doubt hoped to keep a low profile before embarking on their scheduled assignment to explore for deep sea oil reserves off the coast of Raglan but we cannot let this go unnoticed. This is the pointy end of the looming deep sea oil rush in New Zealand coastal waters.

Greenpeace had a small team there to meet it with a peaceful protest but the police seem unusually interested in preventing anything coming between Anadarko and New Zealand’s promised deep sea oil reserves. How did they know we were coming? We’re not sure. But what is clear is that someone is determined to keep any protest well away from the Polarcus Alima, including the news that they are in town.

The situation is still unfolding so watch this space.

John Key was completely wrong when he said there there is no correlation between the Rena oil spill and his Government’s deep sea oil drilling plans. Anyone with even a modicum of common sense can see that.

The Rena has spewed oil into the Bay of Plenty and demonstrated with jarring clarity just how damaging an oil spill can be, and just how impossible it is to prevent the damage once the oil has spilled.

Deep sea oil drilling would expose New Zealand’s coastline to catastrophic oil spills.

So to push ahead with dangerous deep sea oil drilling as oil continues to wash ashore on beaches in the Bay of Plenty adds insult to injury.

If the Anadarko’s survey is successful, the drilling of wildcat oil wells off Raglan could begin as early as next year, in waters possibly even deeper than the Deepwater Horizon Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico.

Anadarko were part owners of the ill fated Deepwater Horizon well which leaked 780 million litres of oil into the Gulf of Mexico last year. By comparison the Rena spill represents about 2 teaspoonfuls of the bucket that spilled into the Gulf of Mexico and we are struggling to deal with even that.

The ship will later go on to prospect in deepwater areas off Stewart Island, a formidable area for weather let alone oil prospecting, in a permit area due to be taken over by Shell Oil.

It’s time for the government to stop spending millions enticing the deep sea oil industry to New Zealand.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Article ends- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The following photos in this post were posted by Greenpeace Aotearoa's Facebook presence:

"The Polarcus Alima arrives at Taranaki Port. It is due to leave shortly to start exploring for deep sea oil off Raglan on behalf of the US oil giant Anadarko." Greenpeace/Amos Chapple


"The Polarcus Alima arrives at Taranaki Port. It is due to leave shortly to start exploring for deep sea oil off Raglan on behalf of the US oil giant Anadarko." Greenpeace/Amos Chapple








THANKS SO MUCH GREENPEACE AOTEAROA -Nonnie

Saturday, September 17, 2011

NZ Herald: Action groups step up fight against extraction of South Island coal

By Simon Hartley 5:30 AM Wednesday Sep 14, 2011

Article found at
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10751520








Photo / Greg Bowker
The Government has been criticised for promoting coal and lignite use.


Opposition to the extraction of low and high grade coals in the South Island is mounting.

An Environment Court challenge has been lodged and the Government is coming under increasing attack for backing coal and lignite use.

The West Coast Environment Network has filed an appeal with the Environment Court against resource consents awarded to listed Bathurst Resources which wants to mine up to two million tonnes of high grade coal from the Denniston Plateau north of Westport, citing the 200ha as being of high conservation value.

Separately, state-owned enterprise Solid Energy started constructing its $25 million pilot lignite-to-briquettes plant in Southland last week. The Coal Action Network Aotearoa has criticised Deputy Prime Minister Bill English for supporting the use of "low-quality, dirty brown coal" which it said would cause a huge increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

At the forefront of environmentalists' concerns is the release of carbon into the atmosphere, while the Government and mining sector see coal and lignite as vast energy sources with huge economic benefits, regionally and nationally.

While operating separately, Solid Energy and Bathurst have adjoining coal tenements on the West Coast and have agreements to assist one another with infrastructure, access and transport arrangements - which could total four million tonnes of export coal between them every year.

Dual-listed Bathurst has spent more than $100 million getting to this consented stage, but in that time has raised about $242 million for the project, which covers 10,000ha of tenements but is at present targeting 200ha of the southern escarpment of the Denniston plateau.

Subject to the Environment Court challenge, Bathurst wanted to begin production by the end of the year and ramp up to full production of two million tonnes by the end of next year.

Coking coal is a key ingredient in steel making and is in demand from Asian economies.

Bathurst's resource consents came with many conditions, which the company has said are palatable, and claims its rehabilitation and replanting of the landscape would leave it looking original to the untrained eye.

On Bathurst's plans, West Coast Environment Network spokeswoman Karen Mayhew said the open-cast mining would dig up a rare landscape and habitat for threatened species.

"This mine would more than double New Zealand's coal exports. Once the coal is dug up, the release of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is guaranteed," she said.

"Given the scientific consensus on climate change and its impacts, we consider that this issue should have been considered properly by the resource consent commissioners."

Mayhew said the network's appeal would be based on ecological, climate and economic grounds and the group hopes to have eminent Nasa climate scientist James Hansen appear via a video-conference link.

On Solid Energy, Network Aotearoa spokeswoman Frances Mountier said developing lignite was significant for New Zealand because of the increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

And it was hugely significant to eastern Southland because of the damage large-scale lignite mining would cause to air quality, living conditions, and the high-quality rivers and streams on which Southland depended.

- Otago Daily Times

By Simon Hartley

Monday, September 5, 2011

Buller Coal's attempt to mine on conserved land on West Coast of South Island, NZ

Mt. Rochfort, Denniston Plateau
(Photo credit: Craig Potton)


I just wrote to Kate Wilkinson (Minister of Conservation in NZ) about the Buller Coal mine proposed on the West Coast of the South Island on the Denniston Plateau, opposing it obviously on grounds of climate pollution, and habitat destruction (and beauty destruction). Her email is kate.wilkinson@national.org.nz if anyone else is interested in voicing their opinion. Forest and Bird also have a great page with info on it, and the beautiful area there. Also, here are a few news articles about it.

ONE News article, "Environmentalists to fight Buller mine decision" at
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/environmentalists-fight-buller-mine-decision-4368525

Radio NZ article: "West Coast leaders back proposed Buller mine" at
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/83740/west-coast-leaders-back-proposed-buller-mine

TVNZ article: "Debate rages over Buller mine plan" at
http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/debate-rages-over-buller-mine-plan-4251542

Residents and environmental groups are of course opposed, it will temporarily create a few jobs but help to DESTROY THE EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE....hmmm. Coal mines? New coal mines? Not clever. And NZers pride themselves on being innovative.

From Forest and Bird's website:

Coal: The planet's dirtiest fuel
“Coal is the single greatest threat to civilisation and all life on our planet,” NASA Climate Change scientist, James Hansen, who gave evidence via video at the resource consent hearing. At a time when it is crucial we rein in our carbon emissions, our government is actively looking to mine one of the planet’s dirtiest fuels: coal. If this mine goes ahead, it will increase our exports by 63% a year. - Forest and Bird NZ


Here is my letter:

"Dear Kate Wilkinson,

"I am writing to you as you are the Minister of Conservation in NZ. I am a resident living in the Rodney District area, in Stillwater, near Auckland NZ. I am concerned about Buller Coal's plans to coal mine on the Denniston Plateau in the South Island of NZ. I am greatly opposed to the decision to allow any new coal mines at all, due to the environmental impacts that it would have. But if a coal mine is to be constructed, mining conservation land should not even be considered. These areas are important for what they are, unique places with unique species that haven't already been destroyed.

"I also I think it's stating the obvious that coal is a poor choice at all as an energy given what we now know about the pollution in the atmosphere and the great consequences that further pollution would have. New Zealand could far more easily become a leader in alternative energies than some other larger Western countries such as Canada and the US, as it's smaller, innovative, and with its self-sufficient island culture.

"I settled in NZ seven years ago, after graduating from the University of Calgary, in Alberta, Canada with a Bachelor's degree in Communication Studies. Living in Canada I saw alot of resource exploitation, and also large, powerful corporations that were usually more powerful than the government. Due to my experience living there (and from my studies) I would urge New Zealanders to use their great ability to make their own choices wisely - that is become a leader in the world, in areas such as alternative energy use, and not creating new coal mines and adding to the world's problem with climate change. NZ has more ease and ability to make changes than many larger countries. I also have a family here now, and 2 Kiwi children whose interests I would like to protect. Please help protect our conservation areas.

"Nonavee Dale"
[Address etc]

For more information about this, go to Forest & Bird's website: http://www.forestandbird.org.nz/what-we-do/campaigns/save-the-denniston-plateauours-not-mine








Tuesday, October 5, 2010

A Farm Through Time

I have wanted to blog about A farm through time for some time, illustrated by Eric Thomas, written by Angela Wilkes. I finally found this treasure again and scanned it in.

All the images are small "details", as I can't show the wide pages of the book here.

800
The book is meant to be about farming and how it has changed over time, but it has a very strong gleam of meaning about sustainable living. The book shows the same spot over the centuries, so you can see at a moment what took ages to experience. Some things are clearer at that speed as well. The first stage is "Clearing the land", 800 (England). We clear away forest to grow crops, and the forest provides building materials, fuel and many other things. We grow food on a farm surrounded by woodland. People rent land from a lord, who owns everything.

1000
In the next stage, "Two hundred years later, the country looks much the same, but there are fewer trees." You can see stands of trees everywhere, and cleared areas. The lord cuts down trees at will to use. It's really interesting how they make their clothes from flax (linen) and sheep's wool and cook on a fire in the house. Lots of skilled work to do and everyone is working together.


"The farmer's wife spins the wool into coarse thread on a spindle, then weaves the thread into fabric on a big loom. The woollen fabric will make warm clothes and blankets. The girl is winding flax onto a distaff, ready to spin into fine linen thread. Underclothes are often made of linen as it is less scratchy than wool.

"Inside the house, a fire burns brightly on the stone hearth. The farmer's wife bakes flat loaves of bread for the family on the hot hearthstones. Meat and thick, filling soups are boiled in the pot hanging over the fire."




1200
A few hundred years later, the men repair hawthorn hedges that line the fields, they've been there for hundreds of years but need to be reworked and repaired.

"The men are warm despite the bitter cold. Their homespun tunics and leggings are made from coarsely woven wool, held together with leather thongs. They wear stout leather boots and felt hats to keep their heads warm, and around their waists they carry leather flasks of ale for refreshment."

1300A new house is being built by the farmer, but unfortunately, "In the countryside beyond, most of the woodland has been cut down, but a few mature trees still grow in the hedgerows." So, what was once woodland remains in the cracks and grooves of the land.

Just that. A little gleam, the farmer becomes quite prosperous, the pages follow with illustrations of dairy farming, making cheese (in a press) and so on. Later with a soul-less flutter there is the tractor sitting there on the lonely farm and no more people. No community drinking ale and fixing the hedgerows!

Well, this is the way of life that our current way life is based upon. Just notice the trees.