‘Neoliberalism’ is one of those terms rarely used in a complimentary sense. In fact being described as a ‘neoliberalist’ tends to imply that your moral standing is only marginally above that of someone who steals from widows and orphans. Neoliberalism took a chokehold on New Zealand economic policy back in the 1980s and 90s, but does the emperor really have any clothes?

A central tenet of neoliberal dogma is that business should be allowed to do its own thing while the government stays out of the way. If markets don’t exist in such areas as land, water, or environmental pollution, then they should be created. Controls on working conditions and foreign investments should be relaxed. State assets should be sold off – privatisation and private property rights rule.

The 1991 Resource Management Act (RMA) attempted to set out how we should manage our environment in a sustainable way when making decisions about the use of resources. Decision-making processes, however, may give undue weight to claims that economic gains will compensate for any environmental damage caused.

In order for the best possible decisions to be made, it’s vital that councils and courts should have access to the best possible information. This doesn’t always happen. When Mokau South Resources (MSR) applied for consents to mine the Panirau Plateau, the supporting information was best described as scanty. For example, MSR’s consultant ecologist carried out a one-day field study but didn’t actually visit the proposed mine site. To its credit, the Waikato Regional Council didn’t let MSR get away with its shoddy application, which Tim Jones of CANA had compared unfavourably to that which might be produced by monkeys under zero-hours contracts with bananas banned from the workplace.

Stevenson Mining’s application to develop an opencast coal mine at Te Kuha on the West Coast has, on the other hand, been accompanied by pages and pages of information. Reports prepared by consultants for Stevenson, for the councils, for the Department of Conservation and for environmental NGOs all came to the same conclusion: Te Kuha has extremely high conservation and landscape values which will be irreversibly damaged if mining goes ahead.

The crux of the applicant’s case must be that the benefits resulting from mining Te Kuha would outweigh the environmental destruction. So what is the economic rationale of the proposal? Whereas the scientific aspects of the applicant’s case are backed up with actual evidence, we are asked to accept the economic claims on trust. The Council Planning Officers’ report simply states, “We acknowledge that the proposal will have clear positive economic benefits with respect to providing for employment and wider economic benefits to the district and region.” Well, that’s nice.

DOC and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) struck up a cosy arrangement in which they presented a joint submission on Te Kuha. MBIE consultants assessed the Net Present Value (NPV) of the project as $34–36m, but there is no reference to the identity of these consultants or to the evidence on which their opinions are based.

For those of us who don’t have a background in economics it’s easy to feel threatened by the unfamiliar language. (NPV? Go google.) But in order to challenge the promises of untold jobs and wealth, you often don’t need any specialist knowledge at all.

Let’s take a look at just a few of Stevenson’s claims:

“It can be assumed that the costs and benefits have been responsibly and properly analysed and that from the viewpoint of those with money at risk, the expected financial benefits exceed the expected costs.”
Who carried out this analysis? What were their findings based on? Has anyone told them about Mt Davy, Spring Creek, Escarpment, Roa – just some of the West Coast mines which have spectacularly failed to achieve the financial benefits claimed by their owners?

“Preliminary tests indicate that there could be three products from Te Kuha, including a premium one that will attract higher prices.”
What proportion of the coal will be of this grade? What will the price differential be?

“Te Kuha coal will be used in specialist applications such as for making carbon fibre, activated carbon and pharmaceuticals.”
Which of these processes are currently carried out in New Zealand? What discussions have been held with overseas manufacturers who might buy Te Kuha coal? Who are the competitors in this market?

“Te Kuha will generate 58 new mining jobs.”
Based on what evidence? How many jobs will be for current West Coast residents as opposed to transients?

“The value of coal produced will average $57m a year.”
What evidence does the company have that the recent wild swings in the price of coking coal will stabilise at a profitable level? What is this likely to be?

And one other question: If more than a century and a half of coal mining has failed to bring sustained prosperity to the West Coast, what is the factual basis for claiming that opening yet another coal mine will solve the area’s problems?

Some hard choices have to be made about our use of natural resources. But decision-makers can be hoodwinked into believing that they should accept without question any proposal that includes the words ‘jobs’, ‘profit’ or ‘tax revenue’. It’s time to insist that the same scrutiny is given to economic arguments as to environmental ones. It’s time to rip away the cloak of ‘commercial sensitivity’ that can be allowed to shield the emperor’s nakedness. And it’s time to listen when voices cry out, “But he has nothing on at all!”

The post The emperor’s new economics: how neoliberalism lets coal miners get away with making wild, unsupported claims about economic benefits appeared first on Coal Action Network Aotearoa.

I can now add a rider: even if the cruel Mr Burns introduced zero-hours contracts, removed half the typewriters and banned bananas from the workplace, the monkeys would still produce work of better quality than Mokau South Resources’ application to strip-mine the Mokau River catchment for coal.

It beggars belief that, as the world’s hottest year ends and another hot year begins, anyone would even consider opening a new coal mine. It beggars still more belief that an application that fails to meet so many of the requirements of the Resource Management Act would be allowed to get to the point where it will be seriously considered.

But what’s even more incredible is that the Resource Management Act explicitly prevents us challenging fossil fuel projects on the basis of their contribution to climate change – and in case you think we’re having a go at National yet again, that explicit exclusion of climate change from the RMA was a decision by the last Labour Government. Thankfully, there are now moves afoot to remedy this, not least by the RMA’s author.

Even without the use of this key argument, however, there are so many things wrong with Mokau South’s application and their plans that the many people who responded to our call for submissions had plenty of arguments to choose from: such as the complete inadequacy of the applicant’s ecological assessment, their failure to carry the required iwi consultation, and their cavalier attitude to the effects mine effluent can have in a major water catchment.

In its story on Mokau South, Radio New Zealand chose to portray the Sampson brothers, who are behind this application, as dear old duffers who just wanted their lifetime dream of owning their own coal mine to be granted. But that’s not a thing anyone should want on their bucket list. There is nothing cute, funny or touching about people who want to rip apart an area of regenerating native bush and put a major water catchment at risk just so they can have a crack at making climate change even more disastrous.

So thanks to everyone who submitted by the closing date of 2 February. When we know the story with the hearing on this application, we’ll keep you posted. Although the Mokau South resource consent application reads like it was typed by a roomful of monkeys, the threat it poses is serious, and with our friends in groups such as Waikato Climate Action and Climate Justice Taranaki, we’ll be putting in serious work to stop it.

The post Of Monkeys, Mr Burns, Mokau South and the RMA appeared first on Coal Action Network Aotearoa.

• Already know you want to help? Find out how in our Mokau South submission guide (Word | PDF)

Some people have said they don’t have time to make a long submission – and that’s fair enough, as we know how busy people are! Your submission doesn’t have to be long, but we think its is important to meet the formal requirements laid out in the submission guide. And here’s why.

Climate Change, the RMA, and Grounds for Submissions

The applicant, Mokau South Resources, was unhappy at the idea that their resource consent application might be publicly notified. They asked why this was being done, and Waikato Regional Council’s scanned response is very revealing of both the scale of the project and the applicants’ attitude:

So there we have it: the project is massive, in an environmentally sensitive area, in a river catchment with high annual rainfall, and the applicants want to avoid a fight on climate change grounds!

Unfortunately, on this last point, the Resource Management Act as it is currently worded is with the applicant: it explicitly excludes consideration of the effects of a project on climate change. A movement is underway to put climate change back in the RMA, but in the meantime, a submission that only mentions climate change can be “struck out for disclosing no relevant case”. That’s appalling, but it’s the law.

(However, some arguments related to climate change can still be made – our submission guide explains how to do that.)

So that’s why we encourage submitters to put in a submission that can’t be struck out, because it refers to the many, many other environmental and economic grounds on which the project is a bad idea. Our submission guide (Word | PDF) provides you with plenty of talking points. Pick one or pick just a few, and make your submission as brief as you like: but please do submit. And once you’ve included grounds that ensure your submission can’t be struck out, we encourage you to state clearly which this project is a terrible idea on climate change grounds.

Mordor on the Mokau

Finally, this Radio New Zealand story provides more information about the applicants and their proposal. It makes them sound like a couple of dear old duffers pursuing their lifelong dream. It’s just a pity that their lifelong dream involves ruining an important natural environment and trashing the world’s climate.

The post Don’t Take Our Word For How Bad Mokau South Is – Take Waikato Regional Council’s Word. And Submit By Next Tuesday. appeared first on Coal Action Network Aotearoa.