Things have changed since then. There is a new Mayor in town and the Breakdown Gang has wreaked havoc on the Hawkes Bay grocery, the Auckland livery and the Northland Ranch. They’ve slashed up Tairāwhiti. Will he confront them this time? We’ll see in this next, exciting episode.

Camera zoom into the sheriff’s office on Main Street:

Sheriff Ministers is having his toast and tea when Deputy Greenie Shaw bursts in.

Greenie: “Sheriff, it’s a mess out there. The grocery and the livery are all bashed up and now I’ve got Commissioner Carr asking why we didn’t use the ETS on the Breakdown Gang.”

The sheriff leans back and takes a bite of toast, “Just tell Carr that it’s complicated, we gots lotsa irons in the fire”.

Greenie: “That’s what I told him before, but he wants more spee-cifics. Should I tell him about the…”

Sheriff: “No, don’t mention nothin’ ‘bout the ‘lection. He’ll just think we’re a pack of coyotes who think ‘bout nothin’ more than holding on to our day jobs and sounding ‘portant.”

“Besides, that ETS don’t seem to work anyway. I took it out to the Unit Auction for a test fire and it didn’t work. I think it was may be a problem with the reserve price…”

Shaw looks incredulous, “Didn’t work? What are we going to use against the Breakdown Gang?

Shaw takes his hat off and sits down, pressing his temples.

“How about the Biofuels Mandate?”

The sheriff sips his tea, “Nah, Mayor Hipkins nixed that.”

“The Cash for Clunkers deal to get the high emissions vehicles off the street?”

Sheriff: “Gone too.”

Greenie: “Expansion of public transport?”

Sheriff: “Nope”

Greenie: “Maybe the light rail for Auckland?”

Sheriff: “History”

Greenie: “Surely, we could at least put back the petrol tax. You know, cheaper petrol is playing right into the Breakdown Gang’s hands.”

Sheriff: “Not gonna to happen. Hipkins has made some changes round here.”

Greenie: “So, what we gonna do? The situation’s getting dire out there! People are hurtin’!”

Sheriff: “Well, the mayor has sent around some bread and butter. Maybe that will help. It’s awful good. Here, try some… If he keeps giving these out, maybe he’ll win that ‘lection.”

The sheriff hands Deputy Shaw a slice of toast. Shaw looks on in stunned silence.

Camera fade to credits…

Sheriff Cabnet Ministers with his rusty ETS sidearm

So, dear reader, the situation in Aotearoa is looking grim. As you will recall, cabinet decided in December to ignore the Climate Commission’s advice and kept the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) price settings low for this year. As a result, the price of emissions credits fell so low that the last two quarterly unit auctions actually failed. Not enough bids achieved the minimum price set by the Ministry. No emissions credits were sold.

Compare this to last year, when a quarterly auction hit the cost containment reserve price triggering the release of extra credits and emissions unit prices were at an all-time high. The price of emissions units has been steadily rising in the last few years, as intended.

A failure of the auction is a little bit of good and a lot of bad. Good because it means industry will need to buy the credits they need to surrender for their emissions from the secondary market, soaking up some of the surplus units that Climate Commission has been worried about, but bad because the government didn’t raise any revenue for the Climate Emergency Response Fund like it expected.

It’s also really bad because the price for a tonne of CO₂ emissions has fallen from a high of around $85 late last year to a low of $60 now. Releasing greenhouse gas into our atmosphere has just gotten a whole lot cheaper.

And, there’s a whole lot more uncertainty in the ETS market right now. Companies planning to upgrade coal boilers to electricity or wood chip will now look at their balance sheets and wonder if it is still a good idea. It’s maybe going to be cheaper just to pay for more credits, if the price stays low. Yet another delay in the transition to a low emissions future.

So, the Climate Breakdown Gang appears to have won this round in Aotearoa, and will have plenty of rein to continue its havoc. I suppose we can all thank the new mayor for our bit of bread and butter, at least until the Climate Breakdown Gang comes back. And, you can rest assured, they will be back.

by Tom Powell – Climate Karanga Marlborough

The post High Noon in Aotearoa, Part 2 appeared first on Coal Action Network Aotearoa.

Sheriff Cabinet Ministers was busy at his desk, sorting through citizens submissions, when Deputy “Greenie” Shaw bursts into the room. “Sheriff, it’s the Climate Breakdown Gang again. They’re back and causing trouble. If we don’t do something, somebody’s going to get hurt!”

Sheriff Ministers knew what had to be done. It was all laid out clear in the Zero Carbon Act. He rose from his chair and reached for his trusty sidearm, hanging on the peg by the door. Those troublesome Emissions Boys would be no match for the Revamped ETS, its shiny emissions-killing metal gleaming from the holster. He strapped on the weapon and reached for the door.

But then he thought, “Wait. What about inflation? What about the election? What about my corporate buddies at the Parliament Saloon? Nobody understands the ETS anyway. What the hell.”

The sheriff turned back and sat back down at his desk and went back to the submissions.

Greenie, wide-eyed and exasperated, piped up, “But sheriff, we’ve got to do something! Mayor Adern has promised the townspeople that we’d be net zero of those emissions by 2050!”

“That’s another 27 years away, Greenie“, grumbled the sheriff. “Plenty of time to deal with those emissions. Now go away, I’ve got paperwork to do.”

“But, what will we tell the townspeople? They are expecting us to get out and fight those Emissions Boys with the ETS!”

“I’ll just hit them with another request for submissions. That’ll shut them up!”

The evil Climate Breakdown gang out to raise havoc

What? Wait a minute! That isn’t how the story is supposed to go! The sheriff is supposed to go out into the streets and fight the bad guys, not hide in his office doing paperwork!

But faced with the choice of either strengthening the ETS, (i.e., NZ Emissions Trading Scheme) by letting emissions prices rise, as the Climate Commission has recommended, or holding emissions prices down for another year, our cabinet ministers blinked and voted in December to keep the prices low. So, we are in for yet another blowout of the cost containment reserve, releasing more emissions credits into the market than planned, making it incrementally harder to reach our ‘net zero by 2050’ emissions goal. So much for using the ETS to cap our emissions.

This little episode, the latest in a long list of disappointing episodes involving the NZ ETS, points up its fundamental weakness – it is a beast that is easily defanged.

Which is perhaps why The New Zealand Initiative, a conservative think tank advising the National Party, likes it so much. They argue that government incentives and regulations to control emissions, such as banning the import of petrol engines by 2035, as recommended by the Climate Commission, are not needed because the ETS is all that is needed to do the job.

But, we all remember what happened to the ETS under the last National government. The emissions price went from $21 per tonne CO2 in 2011 to just $2 per tonne by 2013, recovering to $19 per tonne by 2017, when Labour returned to power. In essence, the last National government was quite successful in defanging the ETS, stopping nearly all progress in reducing New Zealand’s emissions along the way. Good for business but bad for the planet.

So, considering this latest example of how easily the ETS can be softened, and even by a government that has declared a climate emergency, it is clear that we should NOT put all our climate mitigation “eggs” into one basket, like the ETS.

Government incentives and regulations, on the other hand, are harder to “defang” because, once handed down, industry starts to take action. The government ban on coal-fired boilers after 2037, for example, would be difficult to change because industry has already started to invest in the change to other fuels. A new government relaxing the 2037 ban would be met with howls of anger from industry, asking why they want everyone to change horses in mid-stream. Businesses do better in a stable regulatory environment, so regulations made well in advance give them time to plan and make the necessary changes with minimal disruption.

So, don’t despair, Deputy Shaw. There are other guns we can use to fight off the Climate Breakdown Gang. Sheriff Ministers just needs to be pushed into having the courage to use them.

TO BE CONTINUED…

by Tom Powell – Climate Karanga Marlborough

The post High Noon in Aotearoa, Part 1 appeared first on Coal Action Network Aotearoa.

All that summer we sailed the drowned isthmus,
Miramar Island bulking east. Diving
was an anxious wait for murk-filled water

to yield its occasional treasures, relics of better days
left behind as the frantic dikes were overwhelmed.
Out by the drowned airport runway,

the never-finished extension lost beneath us, we faced
long rollers carrying Antarctic meltwater northward,
braved the sudden southern chop and squall

to plumb abandoned warehouses, corroding cars.
So many days we returned empty-handed
to the boatshed on the Wadestown shore,

worked the elaborate locks with reddened fingers,
climbed the hill to short commons and mixed
parental signals of frustration and concern.

It was a life lived in increments of bad news, a
Government of bluster and paralysis, its authority
manifested in chain-link fences and pronouncements

no longer listened to on matters that concerned
only those sited most securely inland. At the water’s edge
the social contract washed away, replaced

by alliances more fickle than the weather.
And the sea still rose, icecaps converted to ocean
by generations of accumulated arrogance.

That was all before our time. What we knew
was the rising wind, swoop of storm,
slack and snap of sails, one of us waiting aboard,

the other diving the ruins of lives lived
in those final glittering years of denial
before the ocean washed all doubts away.

– Tim Jones

INTRODUCTION

He waka eke noa – We are all in this together.

The New Zealand Government has declared a Climate Emergency. The seriousness and ambition of the Climate Change Commission’s advice to the Government should reflect that – now is not the time for half-measures. Yet the draft targets and timelines are patently inadequate in the face of the ever-growing climate catastrophe.

To meet the challenge of climate change, it is essential that Aotearoa plays its part, both domestically and internationally, and serves as an example to other nations. Our team of five million responded well, acting communally, on scientific advice, to keep ourselves safe from COVID-19. Now we need to do it again, to help save the world from an even greater threat.

The majority of people in Aotearoa realise the urgency of climate action and want the Government to act now, in strength and justice. The Government must publicise and follow the science, so that all parts of society can make a planned and just transition.

It is essential to our survival as a civilisation, that we do everything we can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.

We need to focus on redefining economic growth and reducing consumerism. An energy descent is still possible.

As with COVID-19, people will respond to clearly expressed policies required to meet climate targets. We need to step up, as we have made too little effort to date. As a developed nation, Aotearoa has the capacity and the means to do this, compared to other countries, many of which look to us for an example.

If we do not act decisively now, it will be much harder in the future. We are already seeing the disastrous consequences of inaction for the global poor, who have contributed minimally to global warming. Ecosystem collapse is already occurring, as temperatures increase and the forests and oceans edge towards becoming carbon sources, rather than sinks.

Above all, we have a responsibility to future generations; not only to humans, but to every other living species which cannot speak for itself. This is a moral and ethical commitment.

About Coal Action Network Aotearoa

Coal Action Network Aotearoa (CANA) is a group of climate justice campaigners committed to ending coal mining and use in Aotearoa New Zealand. Formed in 2007, we recognise the mining and burning of coal as the primary threat to Earth’s climate system. CANA promotes climate justice by advocating and acting for a just transition to an Aotearoa free of coal mining and use. We work with local communities threatened by new coal mines and coal projects, and with allies across the climate justice and environmental movements. We are a member of the New Zealand Climate Action Network. Our target date for coal mining and use in Aotearoa to end is 2027.

Successful campaigns we’ve been involved in include:

• Helping to end Solid Energy’s plans to mine and burn massive quantities of Southland lignite
• Getting Fonterra to commit to, and then bring forward, an end date for installing new coal boilers
• Bringing Fonterra’s use of coal to the attention of the country
• Encouraging the New Zealand Government to set up a Just Transition Unit to help resource communities depend on fossil fuel extraction to transition to low-carbon jobs
• Opposing the expansion of Bathurst Resources’ Coalgate mine in Canterbury – this mine is now being closed down
• As part of the Fossil Fuel State Sector coalition, getting the Government to commit to replacing coal boilers in schools with renewable alternatives.

We have been involved in legal action, direct action, and lobbying to achieve these goals. Our members and supporters are members of local communities with experience of the negative effects of coal mining and use, climate activists, and scientists. We work with communities around the motu, other activist groups, and central and local Government to achieve our aims.

In writing this submission, we acknowledge the work done by the Climate Change Commission to produce its draft advice in difficult conditions and under time pressure, and likewise, the work of many individuals, groups, and journalists in analysing the report and producing submission guides. CANA contributed to this cross-groups submission guide, and we want to acknowledge the work put in by all the groups that contributed to that document.

We also endorse the submission of OraTaiao, with its focus on the health and wellbeing co-benefits of climate action and the centrality of Te Tiriti.

CANA’S “BIG ISSUES”

 1.  Urgent and Effective Action to Reduce GHG Emissions is Required

 Whilst the Commission’s draft advice is a welcome change from decades of Government obfuscation and reluctance to address the existential threat of climate change, the Commission’s clear systemic bias towards Business as Usual (BAU) has blinded it to actions that need to be taken. The advice reads like “happy talk”, in that the Commission:

• supports the political and economic status quo, e.g. in the treatment of methane and electricity generation;
• irrationally assumes there will be enough time for incremental policies to solve super-wicked problems, and,
• despite decades of egregious failure, does not question whether our post-WW2 economic and political structures are up to the task. As per the previous link,

“…the responsibility for global warming is not the common property of humanity but lies overwhelmingly with the few wealthy countries, the United States above all others, that profited most from early industrialization.

 The corollary truism is that the poor countries that disproportionately suffer the impacts of climate change contributed next to nothing to the problem. We have since learned that what is true in global macrocosm applies at the societal level as well. The wealthy consume far more resources and emit far more carbon than the rest of us.

 According to a recent Oxfam report, the richest one percent produce twice as many emissions than the poorest half of the planet’s population, and the richest 5 percent were responsible for more than a third of all emissions growth between 1990 and 2015. Leveling this gross inequity is a question of survival.”

Furthermore, we are, frankly, astounded that the draft never mentions rapidly approaching biophysical hard deadlines such as the multiple “tipping points” (aka planetary boundaries) that our civilisation is transgressing.

These include the melting ice of West Antarctica and Greenland, forests becoming net carbon sources instead of sinks, and the warming Arctic permafrost and shallow seas that are emitting ever-increasing amounts of methane.

These trends, coupled with the latest CMIP6 climate modeling that show a higher climate sensitivity than previously thought, suggest that we do not have more than one or two decades before our emission budgets are overwhelmed by feedbacks in the Earth system and atmospheric and ocean temperatures spike uncontrollably. We know this has caused mass extinction events in the past, e.g. the PETM.

As stated in a recent scientific review, “Underestimating the Challenges of Avoiding a Ghastly Future” (emphasis added):

We report three major and confronting environmental issues that have received little attention and require urgent action.

 First, we review the evidence that future environmental conditions will be far more dangerous than currently believed. The scale of the threats to the biosphere and all its lifeforms—including humanity—is in fact so great that it is difficult to grasp for even well-informed experts.

 Second, we ask what political or economic system, or leadership, is prepared to handle the predicted disasters, or even capable of such action.

 Third, this dire situation places an extraordinary responsibility on scientists to speak out candidly and accurately when engaging with government, business, and the public. We especially draw attention to the lack of appreciation of the enormous challenges to creating a sustainable future. The added stresses to human health, wealth, and well-being will perversely diminish our political capacity to mitigate the erosion of ecosystem services on which society depends.

 The science underlying these issues is strong, but awareness is weak. Without fully appreciating and broadcasting the scale of the problems and the enormity of the solutions required, society will fail to achieve even modest sustainability goals.

 …most of the world’s economies are predicated on the political idea that meaningful counteraction now is too costly to be politically palatable. 

 The gravity of the situation requires fundamental changes to global capitalism, education, and equality, which include inter alia the abolition of perpetual economic growth, properly pricing externalities, a rapid exit from fossil-fuel use, strict regulation of markets and property acquisition, reigning in corporate lobbying, and the empowerment of women. These choices will necessarily entail difficult conversations about population growth and the necessity of dwindling but more equitable standards of living.

We repeat, this is not climate “alarmism”, but cold, hard fact. To have some hope of maintaining a reasonably habitable planet for ourselves and other living species, we need to take actual and urgent action, to bend the emissions curve. The CCC’s draft recommendations to the NZ Government, if implemented, would be a step forward from our very feeble response to climate change so far, but we do not consider them to be nearly strong enough. We have proposed a number of changes to the Commission’s advice to strengthen its policy recommendations. As the draft report says, to the extent that is possible, we need to address this problem in a way that is fair to people and protects their living conditions and livelihoods.

2.  End Coal Mining and Use in Aotearoa

In light of the above, Coal Action Network Aotearoa is calling for an end to coal mining and use in Aotearoa by 2027, including a ban on both coal imports and exports.

NB: In this, we can cite the support of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who recently said:

“Phasing out coal from the electricity sector is the single most important step to get in line with the 1.5 degree goal.”

Mr. Guterres underlined action in three areas to end what he called “the deadly addiction to coal.” 

He called for countries to cancel all coal projects in the pipeline, particularly the 37 members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) who are urged to do so by 2030. 

The UN chief also appealed for ending international financing for coal and providing greater support to developing countries transitioning to renewable energy. 

 “I also ask all multilateral and public banks — as well as investors in commercial banks or pension funds — to shift their investments now in the new economy of renewable energy”, he added.

Specifically, CANA Requests that the Commission:

• Advise the Government to immediately ban new and expanded coal mines, including but not limited to a ban on mining coal on conservation land
• Set an end date of 2025 for all coal mining in Aotearoa – including coal for export
• Set an end date of no later than 2027 for the import of coal into Aotearoa
• End the free allocation of ETS credits to coal and other fossil fuel users, starting with an immediate end to free allocation of credits to large industrial users of coal

It is vital that the transition from the use of coal is to renewables, not other fossil fuels, and in particular, that it is not to natural gas, given that fugitive emissions mean the extraction and use of natural gas are almost as bad for the climate as burning coal.

The transition must be urgent, but it must also be just. We discuss this later in our response.

In 2019, about 2.68 million tonnes of coal was mined in Aotearoa, leading to well over 5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere. Additionally, in 2020, 1.1 million tonnes of coal were imported into Aotearoa.

In 2021 it is, frankly, a disgrace that a country with the wealth of renewable energy resources New Zealand possesses is still so dependent on coal. The good news is that alternatives are either available now, or rapidly becoming available. The rise of large-scale electricity storage means we don’t need to keep relying on coal or gas to back up renewable energy generation.

Coal boilers are being phased out at all levels: in 2019, Fonterra made a commitment to build no new coal boilers, while the Government has committed to a carbon-neutral public sector by 2025 and is rapidly moving to get coal out of school and hospitals.

But public-sector coal use represents a small fraction of New Zealand’s emissions from burning coal. It’s time to go much wider, and the climate emergency demands that we act much more urgently to phase out coal than the Commission projects. Many overseas jurisdictions have either ended the use of coal or announced target dates to do so within the next few years. New Zealand should not be dragging the chain.

The Commission has said that the use of coal needs to end (Advice report, p.15) – yet also projected coal use continuing at above 10 PJ/yr right up to 2050 (Advice report, Figure 5.4, p. 91). It’s time for the Commission to end the ambiguity and recommend to Government a firm phase-out date for coal.

3.  Low Hanging Fruit – Process Heat in the Dairy Industry

We will focus our submission here on Fonterra, as the country’s biggest user of coal for process heat.

Fonterra has stated that it will not build any new coal boilers, bringing that date forward from 2030. This may seem like progress, but our understanding is that political and other constraints mean that NZ has reached “peak cow” and Fonterra has, in fact, no need to build any more boilers.

Fonterra recently stated that it will reduce emissions by 30% by 2030, and the Climate Commission draft states that Fonterra should be allowed to continue to use coal for process heat until 2037. As noted above, CANA’s target date for coal mining and use in Aotearoa to end is 2027. Continued use of coal for process heat until 2037, by Fonterra or any other company or industry, is unacceptable.

The Commission’s Process Heat evidence (Chapter 4a: Reducing emissions – opportunities and challenges across sectors Heat, Industry and Power) states:

At current carbon prices, the operating costs of low emissions fuels are generally considered more expensive than fossil fuels.

The Commission should recommend a carbon price high enough to reverse this absurd – and unhealthy – price gap.

The Commission also refers to “current business models” that limit a company’s ability to convert to other forms of energy such as biomass.

The Commission rightfully states that New Zealand doesn’t have a huge amount of expertise in large biomass plants, and availability.  This is indeed true.  The downside of this is that a few so-called “experts” who have little international experience, nor willingness to understand, for example, the experience in Europe, are advising companies like Fonterra that there is no availability of biomass for new boilers.

We need to draw on overseas expertise. Europe is far ahead of New Zealand in this issue and biomass plants, using all kinds of sources, are common there.

4.  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms 

Another issue the Climate Change Commission omits to mention are Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms, and how that sits with our current Eligible Industrial Activities (EIA) allocations of NZU to big emitters, who argue they need a level playing field internationally, so shouldn’t have to pay a carbon price for their use of coal.

Over the nine years 2010-2019, for example, Fonterra was allocated 333,489 free units. It wasn’t our biggest recipient, by any means, but is an example of how this country does not provide any disincentives for coal users, and is therefore propping up a dirty industry.

While the recipients of these free allocations have previously relied on the argument that they would be at a competitive disadvantage internationally if they had to pay for their emissions, the situation is rapidly changing. The European Union is actively considering imposing Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms (e.g carbon taxes or tariffs) on any goods entering the region that haven’t had to pay for their emissions at source.  China is also putting Emissions Trading Schemes in place in some regions, and is likely to take these nationwide in the near future.  The US, UK and the G7 are likely to follow suit.

Thus, while the Zero Carbon Act does reduce EIA allocations gradually through to 2050, exporters such as Fonterra are likely find themselves facing growing border costs.

This is another reason to remove these allocations sooner rather than later, so that exporters such as Fonterra are forced to switch from coal.

In our view, free allocations of credits to large industrial users of coal and other fossil fuels should cease immediately.

5.  Fossil Free State Sector

The Government’s announcement, as part of its Climate Emergency declaration, that it was committed to becoming a carbon-neutral Government by 2025 was welcome. However, while some sectors (such as education) are now making progress in actual emissions reductions by removing coal boilers from schools, there are still many Government departments and agencies that have not yet focused on what they will need to do to reduce their emissions.

As a result, there is a considerable risk that offsetting, rather than actual emissions reductions will be the main method used to meet this target.

Therefore, CANA wants the Commission to advise the Government that it should place a high priority on reducing actual emissions to zero from the state and public sector by 2025.

6. The Cost of Climate Change

The CCC’s estimates of the costs of action (GDP) vs BAU show that acting on climate change will cost little more than BAU GDP projections. Due to the fact that there are no complete studies of the costs of climate change impacts to the country, the CCC simply left out the whole subject.

This is, in our view, raises a major communications issue. For years, consecutive governments have successfully argued that acting on climate change would cost too much, especially the Key government. In 2015, then Climate Change Minister, Tim Groser, argued the cost of meeting our target would cost New Zealanders $30 billion. He claimed that a stronger target would cost the country too much, but the opposite is true, as the following articles attest:

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/drowning-dreams-billions-at-stake-as-govt-mulls-sea-level-rules

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/aucklands-500m-roading-problem

Treasury 2018 estimate of the rising cost of climate change is also sobering:

https://www.treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2018-08/LSF-estimating-financial-cost-of-climate-change-in-nz.pdf

..we estimate that flood and drought costs attributable to anthropogenic influence on climate are currently somewhere in the vicinity of $120M per decade for insured damages from floods, and $720M for economic losses associated with droughts.

Because no NZ-based peer-reviewed papers yet exist investigating the FAR associated with storm damage, hailstorms, wildfire, frosts or tornadoes, we have left these out from the analysis. Our neglect of such events means we ignore at least NZ$279M in weather-related losses between July 2007 and June 2017. As an indicative comparison, if the FARs associated with these events were similar to those in the table – around 0.3 – then the extra attributable losses would add another $84M.

Our first estimate is that climate change attributable extreme rainfall-related floods have cost New Zealand around $120M in climate change attributable privately insured damages over that ten year period. Our second estimate is that climate change-attributable economic losses associated with droughts have cost New Zealand around $720M over that ten year period. These estimates are necessarily approximate and incomplete. Nevertheless, they provide ball-park estimates of current climate change-attributable costs, and the methodology could be extended to examine a wider range of hydrometeorological and other impacts, potentially forming one important element of a future more comprehensive understanding of climate risks in New Zealand.

 In the Evidence chapter 12.2.1, the Commission’s draft states:

Under current policy settings, GDP is projected to grow to $512 billion by 2050. This is likely to be an overestimate as this does not factor in the negative climate and trade impacts of not acting on climate change.

It further states:

Any analysis of the impact on GDP only provides a narrow picture of the impacts of reducing emissions. It does not reveal the indirect costs and benefits, nor who the costs and benefits fall on. The cost of not acting on climate change and the co-benefits of actions to reduce emissions, such as to health, the environment and productivity from increased innovation, are significant and provide even more reason for a country to act on climate change.

The rising costs of climate impacts

While we accept there is no New Zealand-wide study on the subject, some preliminary work has already been undertaken. However, the two statements above are buried in Chapter 12 of the Evidence report, and not well communicated to the wider population.

Frame et al, 2018, did address this issue. They looked at the costs of floods and droughts over the course of a ten-year period, finding:

…we estimate that flood and drought costs attributable to anthropogenic influence on climate are currently somewhere in the vicinity of $120M per decade for insured damages from floods, and $720M for economic losses associated with droughts.

Because no NZ-based peer-reviewed papers yet exist investigating the FAR associated with storm damage, hailstorms, wildfire, frosts or tornadoes, we have left these out from the analysis. 

Our neglect of such events means we ignore at least NZ$279M in weather-related losses between July 2007 and June 2017. As an indicative comparison, if the FARs associated with these events were similar to those in the table – around 0.3 – then the extra attributable losses would add another $84M.

Nevertheless, they provide ball-park estimates of current climate change-attributable costs, and the methodology could be extended to examine a wider range of hydrometeorological and other impacts, potentially forming one important element of a future more comprehensive understanding of climate risks in New Zealand.

Moreover, New Zealand has more than $20 billion worth of assets vulnerable to sea-level rise, another factor ignored by the Climate Change Commission in this draft.

While we accept there is no currently agree method of modeling these costs, that should not be a reason for the CCC to just go with a projected BAU GDP, and thus conveying the same kind of misleading communications to the New Zealand public in this report that we have seen over the past 30 years.

In summary: This flawed strategy has focussed attention on the cost of action, conveniently leaving out the very important issue of the costs of inaction, thus skewing the debate.

While Chapter 12 of the expert evidence does include two small paragraphs, this is wholly inadequate to the importance of the issue. It should have been front and centre in the Advice Report.  There is no mention at all of such costs, even generally, in the Executive Summary of the CCC’s advice to the government, therefore the country and our media will all be focussing on the costs of transition to a low-carbon economy.  What are the benefits of avoiding dangerous climate change?  What are the costs of continuing the way we’re going, and the impacts of a >3C world? These are indeed big issues, but to avoid discussing this aspect altogether is both disingenuous and dangerous.

The NZ Insurance Council’s data on the costs of extreme weather events bring this into focus. Last year the Napier floods alone cost $73m. The Ohau fire cost $35m.  How many coastal properties or properties on floodplains are going to lose their ability to get insurance?

By omitting this discussion altogether from its advice and the public conversation, the Climate Change Commission is not providing the New Zealand public with reasons to take action. Instead, we are left with conversations about the Government preparing to take away someone’s gas barbecue, never mind the fact that the home containing that barbecue may well be destroyed by the warming of 3-4C that currently awaits us!7.  Emission Budgets

Re the CCC draft advice Big Issues Question 1, Do you agree that the emissions budgets we have proposed would put Aotearoa on course to meet the 2050 emissions targets?

Coal Action Network Aotearoa strongly disagrees. The emissions budgets are not ambitious nor set to be achieved quickly enough. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 1.5-degree report outlines that for a 66% chance of averting climate catastrophe, we must begin emissions reductions with deep cuts, starting immediately. The Commission’s proposed approach is clearly not ambitious enough and risks passing many tipping points, which would put us on a hothouse earth trajectory.

The proposed emissions budgets must take into account the commitment to global equity and New Zealand’s obligations as a developed nation that are noted in the NDC section of the report. The legislation describes the purpose of emissions budgets to be for meeting the 2050 target AND New Zealand contributing to global efforts for 1.5 degrees (section 5W).

There are various policy areas where greater action can be taken in the next decade to enhance the first two budgets for greater consistency with IPCC’s 2030 pathways for 1.5 degrees while also meeting the 2050 target.

Re Big Issues Question 5, What are the most urgent policy interventions needed to help meet our emissions budgets? (Select all that apply)

Action to address barriers – Pricing to influence investments and choices – Investment to spur innovation and system transformation – None of them

All of these are urgent, and, to quit coal, all of the first three are required.

Coal and other fossil fuels can be burnt far too cheaply. The low price range in the ETS and, even worse, the massive allocation of free credits to major polluters – which renders the ETS unjust and ineffective, and gives vested interests an unearned financial advantage over renewable energy industries – render it an almost completely ineffective tool for influencing investments and choices.

CANA requests the Commission recommend to Government that:

• The floor price for ETS credits be sharply increased, and
• The allocation of free credits be ended immediately

High-temperature processes that use coal are a crucial area where investment to spur innovation and system transformation are needed. The Advice report, Fig 5.4, p. 91, projects that coal use will continue at above 10 PJ/year right up to – and possible beyond – 2050. From discussions with Commission staff, we understand that this demand is for steel and cement production.

If steel and cement production is to continue in Aotearoa, both must transition rapidly away from coal consumption.

NB: Research & development in carbon-free steel is already accelerating overseas, notably in Europe and Australia, and New Zealand Steel should be put on notice that a similar transition is urgently needed here.

Re Big Issues Question 6, Do you think our proposed emissions budgets and path to 2035 are both ambitious and achievable considering the potential for future behaviour and technology changes in the next 15 years?

Strongly disagree

In our view, the Commission’s recommendations lack ambition.

Given that we were all led to understand, by Climate Change Minister James Shaw, that the Climate Change Commission would provide advice on a 1.5C compatible 2030 target, we are puzzled as to why the CCC did not provide such a recommendation, only stating it should be “much more than 35%”.  This is another communications failure.

By only stating “much more than” and not giving any number above 35%, it is logical that the public understanding (and indeed we have already heard this from the media) is that the target should be 35%, not the “much more than” as set out in the recommendations by the CCC.  Moreover, the emissions budgets don’t even meet our weak 2030 target.

This is a failure of monumental proportions, exacerbated by the aforementioned failure to communicate to the public – and to Government – the cost of inaction, the cost to Aotearoa of a >3C world.  

Leaving aside the obfuscatory and unacceptable gross:net accounting of our plantation forest sinks (and its new “averaging” iteration), New Zealand’s emissions in 2030 will be around 67 MtCO2eq/year (excluding LULUCF). To be compatible with the Paris Agreement, those emissions should be at 41 MtCO2eq/year: a 50% reduction by 2030 levels excluding LULUCF.

NB: This is just for our domestic emissions pathway: taking into account our privileged position in the developed world, and “fair share” equity contribution to global emissions reductions, this should be even less.  (Here we agree wholeheartedly with the submission by Lawyers for Climate Action).

The problem is, the emissions budgets provided by the CCC are based on what the industry has said it can do, not on what must be done. The CCC has failed to do its job. Its budgets do not even meet the 2030 target.

To truly meet the scale of the climate emergency, and to play our part in giving the world a chance to stave off the worst effects of climate change, we need to carry out the bulk of the needed emissions reductions by 2030. Although not easy, decarbonising heat, industry, and power is comparatively straightforward compared to the challenges faced in decarbonising sectors such as transport and agriculture.

Therefore, we need to press ahead quickly, end the use of coal in this sector by 2027, and ensure a transition to renewable energy use.

8.  Te Tiriti

Re Detailed Question 7, Do you support enabling recommendation 3 on creating a genuine, active and enduring partnership with iwi/Māori? Is there anything we should change and why?

We agree that this partnership is critical, but the Commission’s focus on “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” rather than the wording of Te Tiriti risks weakening this focus and imperilling this partnership.

The Commission should undertake a thorough Te Tiriti analysis of its proposals and include recommendations on how Crown policy can give effect to Te Tiriti in achieving emissions targets.

Without prejudicing the outcome of such an analysis, we envisage this could include a national-level partnership mechanism with Māori as well as measures to enable iwi, hapū, and whānau to exercise their rangatiratanga and kaitiaki role in respect of taonga within their rohe.

9.  Overall Path

Re Detailed Question 12, Do you support the overall path that we have proposed to meet the first three budgets? Is there anything we should change and why?

CANA do not support this pathway, because it is insufficiently ambitious, particularly with respect to methane. We call for the Commission to recommend large cuts to methane and nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture, through destocking and by imposing limits on the import of synthetic nitrogen fertiliser and PKE.

The IPCC report estimates that 30 – 40% of current global warming comes from humanity’s methane emissions, as shown below:

Furthermore,

“Controlling methane emissions is an effective way to slow global warming. Because methane is very effective at trapping heat and has a relatively short lifetime of about a decade before it oxidizes to carbon dioxide, controlling its emissions is an effective way of reducing the heat trapped in the atmosphere now. It thus is very influential in determining how rapidly the planet warms.”

To our dismay, the draft submission barely mentions this fact, preferring strained and specious arguments centred on the short lifetime of methane in the atmosphere (10-20 years). Unfortunately for all of us, the Global Warming Potential of methane over 20 years is about 85 times that of carbon dioxide, and that heat remains in the atmosphere and ocean long after the methane molecules have decomposed into carbon dioxide and water.

The full impact, going forward, of this uncomfortable truth is left to the last page of the Commission’s draft advice, where we find the following graph:

To reiterate, whilst a particular molecule of CH4 decomposes relatively quickly to CO2 and H2O, most of the heat it has trapped in the atmosphere is absorbed by the oceans, causing the sea level to rise (SLR).

Ocean warming causes SLR through both ocean thermal expansion and the melting of the underside of floating ice shelves in the polar regions, which then destabilizes adjacent land-based ice sheets.

To our surprise, the Commission’s draft advice seems oblivious of these critical processes, despite much of the research having been carried out by their own colleagues!

The historical impact of methane-induced warming is shown in the graph on p.76 of the Commission’s draft advice, where we can easily see that the cumulative warming caused by methane is more than that of the next two gases combined.

10.  A Just Transition  

Re Consultation Question 13, Do you support the package of recommendations and actions we have proposed to increase the likelihood of an equitable, inclusive and well-planned climate transition? Is there anything we should change, and why?

We are pleased to see that the Commission acknowledges the need for an equitable transition to a low-carbon economy. CANA has been a leader in this field, specifically in terms of the need for a just transition to low-carbon jobs for New Zealand coal miners and coal mining communities.

Our 2015 report Jobs After Coal: A Just Transition for New Zealand Communities helped contribute to the Labour Party’s Future of Work project and has contributed to the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions’ thinking on just transitions – see for example NZCTU, Just Transition – A Working People’s Response to Climate Change (2017), p. 16.

Jobs After Coal argues that:

• the role of coal in New Zealand’s economy is small
• there are many options for jobs in the industries that will replace coal
• skills of coal miners are transferable to other industries, and
• communities can reinvent themselves to regain a new prosperity after coal.

These positive outcomes depend on recognising the need for a proper and effective transition path and setting up a planned process within the community itself, including all stakeholders, with support from central and local government. One of the recommendations in Jobs After Coal was that the Government set up a unit within MBIE to help manage the transition to low-carbon jobs. This Just Transitions Unit has now been set up, but has focused on oil and gas so far – CANA wants  the Commission to recommend to Government that MBIE widen its focus to coal-mining communities and regions.

CANA views trade unions as important partners in the just transition process, together with iwi, local authorities and business in affected areas. The words “trade union”, however, do not appear at all in the Commission’s advice. Therefore, we want the Commission to acknowledge the central role that New Zealand trade unions and workers will play in the transition from fossil fuels.

11.  Electricity generation

 Distributed electricity generation is viewed positively in the Evidence section of the draft:

Distributed generation refers to a variety of technologies that generate electricity at or near where it will be used, such as solar panels. About 95% of distributed generation is from renewable sources such as wind, geothermal and hydro, and ‘behind the meter’ generation such as rooftop solar.

 These forms of decentralised generation play a role in reducing the amount of electricity that would otherwise have to be transmitted by the grid. This is particularly valuable when it can offset periods of peak demand, and potentially emissions and high electricity prices, and when the grid is limited in some way (for example if a line fails during a storm). The amount of distributed generation in the system is expected to increase as the cost of solar PV and wind generation decreases and more households and communities look for energy sovereignty.

 Community involvement in distributed generation may have social benefits, such as enhanced cohesion, acceptance of development (when there is control over where the generation is located) and self-sufficiency through self-supply. It can also adapt and affect consumer behaviour and energy use.

 For example, iwi/Māori through local marae schemes and rural communities may actively transition to distributed generation for a variety of reasons, including ownership, cost and resilience (particularly if they are in remote areas) and a desire to reduce their emissions.

 In Aotearoa, it can be challenging for owners or would-be investors in distributed generation to access the electricity market. Owners of distributed generation can either sell any generation not used on site to a retailer through a contract or sell it into the market and ‘take’ the wholesale price. It can be difficult to secure the long-term contracts. A liquid hedge market would be important in facilitating this. 

 Given this, it is surprising that the Advice section makes no mention of household rooftop solar, which is subsidised as a public good in other many countries.

Instead, the draft advice prefers wind power, as seen in the graphs on p. 62, and, in the absence of government support, any growth in solar generation seems likely to come from corporate solar farms, rather than small household and community installations. This is clearly anti-competitive.

Commenting on a recent article on renewable power generation in NZ, respected economics professor Geoff Bertram has the following to say about the institutional impediments to such smaller initiatives (emphasis added):

“Tweaking the market settings” won’t really cut it. Clearing the way for distributed solar to get quickly underway requires breaking the united opposition of the big generators and their wholly-owned subsidiary the Electricity Authority, who are still pressing ahead to get increased fixed charges imposed on household consumers as a means of making rooftop solar uneconomic (the very low buy-back rates in the absence of a regulated feed-in tariff were just a first step towards squeezing out small distributed competition to the big guys)…

Basically, we have an industry structure designed and built to entrench and perpetuate monopolistic behaviour, and that broken market is the biggest roadblock to electrifying the economy . A climate change emergency is a recipe for the generator cartel to hold us all to ransom.

 Energy analyst Molly Melhuish expresses a similar view:

MBIE’s scenarios support Government’s fast-track plan for removing the Low Fixed Charge regime… The corporates want every residential consumer to pay around $2/day on their power bill. This is like an electricity tax to fund their growing electricity empire. Their intent is to reduce the per-kilowatt-hour charge from 33c/kWh to 23c/kWh, which will clearly make consumer investment in rooftop solar panels much less economic.

Yet rooftop panels add resilience to our energy supply – a benefit that is ignored in MBIE’s supply-side analyses. Small-scale energy projects, household retrofits and community energy projects all employ people at all levels of skill and experience.

Utility-scale solar competes with rooftop solar, so removing the low fixed charge regime, driving unit prices down from 33c/kWh to 23c/kWh, will be a nail in the coffin of the independent solar installers.

CANA calls for strong Government support for small-scale distributed generation, including photovoltaic (PV) panels & batteries for rooftop solar, if necessary by restructuring the electricity generation industry to reduce the power of the cartel of major players.

Furthermore, we believe the building codes should be revised, to make all new buildings zero-emission, with mandatory solar panels and water tanks.

12.  Green Hydrogen

Whilst CANA supports the Commission’s advice to research the potential role of hydrogen fuel produced from the electrolysis of water by renewable electricity, we oppose the use of hydrogen anywhere that electricity could be used directly.

This is because the process of electrolysing water to hydrogen gas, then compressing, cooling, storing, transporting, and using it is grossly inefficient when compared to simply using the electricity directly.

For example, in passenger vehicles, electricity is more than three times as efficient as hydrogen, and almost six times as efficient as such “electrofuels” as methanol.

NB: New Zealand has been down this wasteful road already, with the “Think Big” projects of the ’80s, particularly the gas -> methanol -> synthetic petrol boondoggle that was apparently designed to use and/or waste as much gas as possible within the thirty-year “Take or Pay” contract for the Maui gas field.

Indeed, the same multinational oil and gas companies that benefitted from that scheme, would also be in line for huge contracts to build the infrastructure for a hydrogen economy, which may provide some explanation as to why the idea of exporting hydrogen to other countries is gaining traction.

CANA wants to see our renewable energy resources used to add value within New Zealand, rather than exported as yet more “frozen goods” in the form of liquid hydrogen or, indeed, as aluminium ingots.

In conclusion, we welcome Rio Tinto’s promised departure, and look forward to their replacement by exciting new sustainable industries in Southland.

CODA

Nau te rourou, naku te rourou, ka ora te iwi – From my food basket and your food basket, there is sufficient for everyone.

The post CLIMATE ACTION FOR AOTEAROA – CANA SUBMISSION TO THE CLIMATE CHANGE COMMISSION, MARCH 2021 appeared first on Coal Action Network Aotearoa.

Here is a range of views that our organising committee recommend as interesting and informative:

Russel Norman, Greenpeace: “A sellout of monumental proportions… we have to go back to the streets because this government has now failed on climate change… what other choice do people have when the government rolls and adopts the polluter’s plan?”

Simon Wilson: “Not good enough, but still good… Jacinda Ardern is right to hail the new agreement. It’s a world-first and should, could, be the start of something big… right now the targets don’t matter as much as the process. This is an emergency and we’re just at the start of it.”

Rod Oram: “A turning point 20 years in the making, bringing us into line with more than 20 other jurisdictions around the world (that) have set similar long term climate goals, and established independent climate commissions to oversee the carbon budgets and policy … Above all, such systems give business the required long term certainty.”

Extinction Rebellion: “Either we make history, or we are history… we must draw the line on fossil fuels before it’s too late.”

The post The Zero-Carbon Act and the amended Emissions Trading Scheme appeared first on Coal Action Network Aotearoa.

By a 5-4 vote in 2007, the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) said that greenhouse gas emissions should be regulated by the EPA under the Clean Air Act; this decision was the legal basis for Obama’s actions on climate.

Wave hits breakwater in Japan during typhoon Cimaron: climate change will bring stronger storms and higher seas.

Should President Trump succeed in getting the hard-right operative Brett Kavanagh a lifetime appointment to SCOTUS this week, that decision can and will be overturned, in the interests of the wealthy oligarchs and corporations who control the political process in the US via “campaign donations” (legalised bribes) to both parties.

It may be 30 or 40 years before SCOTUS could again address the issue, by which time climate feedbacks will have kicked in and the Earth system will be irrevocably moving into a hothouse phase.

These dangerous  times cry out for a hero; enter Christine Blasey Ford, a smart and determined woman on a mission to stop Kavanagh’s ascension to SCOTUS, despite all of the male power, wealth and privilege arrayed against her.

Astonishingly, she may just win.

As they say, we live in interesting times – go Christine!

The post Is this the week we lose the US climate battle? appeared first on Coal Action Network Aotearoa.

Good on Jacinda Ardern and the current New Zealand government for their courage in announcing an end to offshore oil exploration, and issuing no new onshore permits outside of Taranaki.  This vital first step re-directs our focus away from fossil fuels toward an industry sustained by renewable energy.  Transitions do have to start somewhere, and at the least, this is a start.  James Shaw is correct when he states that there is an “enormous opportunity for the creation of new jobs and new technologies that our dependence on fossil fuels has held back for too long.”

And shame on the National Party for responding to this announcement with disdainful terms like ‘economic vandalism’.  Economic vandalism is the refusal—inability—to see the dire economic repercussions of full blown climate chaos.  Regional and national governments are regularly confronted by billions of dollars in cost with every drought, flood and cyclone that devastates a community.  Ignoring the increasing frequency and intensity of these storms is a form of negligence that future generations will be loath to forgive.

Vandalism is deliberate, mischievous or malicious.  Ardern’s announcement is deliberate, cautious and commensurate.  She is setting a course.  Many in the climate movement have responded that the course hasn’t been adjusted enough to make an impact, while the fossil fuel industry warns that driving production overseas will harm the environment; they clearly see the greenhouse gas over New Zealand as somehow more green and less harmful that the greenhouse gases over the rest of the planet.

Discussions, thoughts, about climate chaos can either lure despondency or arouse fury.  It is an issue of such importance that the life of the planet is literally balanced in the outcome.  It’s like we’re in a Bruce Willis movie where all the explosions are played by extreme weather events, and the ultimate good-guy hero that saves the day is you and me – so CANA would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Oil Free Wellington for their successful, inspired and indeed heroic hosting of the Rally for Climate Justice.

This was Rosemary’s fifth Oil Summit blockade, and she felt it was the most hopeful because of the diverse cross section of society who gathered and stood together against continuing a fossil fuel addiction that will literally cost us the earth.  The presence of the Supergrans gave depth and wisdom to the action, but the mix of high school kids, iwi, cyclists, professionals, church groups and activists from all over Aotearoa established this blockade as a unified movement.  It wasn’t just a protest.

“Five years ago, outside the Westpac Stadium, I felt powerless alongside the other protestors, watching the delegates enter the conference, pomposity intact. This year I saw worried-looking delegates hustled through fire exit doors and underground car park entrances guarded by angry police. The diversity affected them too.”  —Rosemary 

Oil Free Wellington ensured that those involved in the Rally understood what is at stake, so they opened and freely shared a vault of wisdom on the Sunday prior to the Blockade.  Scientists spoke factually.  Lawyers spoke of the law.  Tangata whenua spoke of tradition and history.  And the people of Taranaki spoke of their lost taonga, the loss of their food basket and their poisoned land.

“I got a heart-felt connection to the Taranaki people who’ve been fighting oil & fracking for years.  I gained a stronger sense of connection with the many people around Aotearoa.” 

—Torfrida

Oil Free Wellington is one part of the consistent pressure a determined climate movement has been put on the Petroleum Conference since it started convening in New Zealand.  This year, this pressure forced conference organizers into secrecy about the venue and the start date; the conference was delayed a full day.

The annual attendance by climate groups at these oil and gas conferences also forced a huge police presence.  Delegates got up 2 hours early to try to get inside the venue before the blockade was formed, but those working to stave off full-blown climate disruption got up even earlier and were in place when those delegates arrived, so the start of the conference was delayed further.  The determination and conviction of those forming the blockade led to the police escorting and protecting the food being delivered for lunch, which was a bizarre thing to watch.

“I was proud to be one of a group of over 70s who held the line in front of the main doors which were never breached. I was proud that we established a conversation with the police who stepped back from their aggression and shared the odd joke. I was very disappointed to hear later of the violence they showed our people on the other side of the building.”  —Jeanette

Petroleum Conference proceedings were disrupted even further with deafening noise.  The TSB Arena is not much more than a long metal shed, and we all know what a racket can be made by pounding on sheets of aluminium.

“The ‘music’ from the ‘band’ was ingenious!  Rubbish bin lids slamming.  Umbrellas carrying the rhythm of a drum beat.  An orchestra of improvised noise makers.  The oil and gas companies must have got the message that they are not welcome here.”  —Jenny

Jacinda Ardern had intimated that she would lead a government that says “No” to new oil and gas exploration, but her announcement does little to address the possible decades of production if oil were to be found on an existing permit or the continued issuance of on-shore permits.  When the government says, “It’s okay to explore and extract,” the voices of those who know better must be heard loud and clear.  That’s why blockades and actions like the one hosted by Oil Free Wellington are so important.

“There was one point in the blockade where I just stepped outside myself and watched.  The police were standing in a line with their arms outstretched.  All of them were wearing black gloves.  I could hear bagpipes and bicycle bells.  A bunch of yellow-caped grannies and grampies came round the corner carrying placards with photos of their grandchildren.  It was raining, and a guy gave me a piece of chalk so that I could write a message about why I was there.”  —Zella

This government has drawn a line in the sand and set our country on the path to a clean energy, low carbon future.  It clearly hasn’t gone far enough to address the oncoming destruction of full-scale climate disruption, but it is a start.

“This is what change looks like. It’s messy, and it’s never as complete or as urgent as it needs to be, and vested interests who’ve spent centuries colonising and destroying the planet for profit don’t give up easily or quickly. But it’s a step in the right direction, made possible by relentless pressure. Now we have to step up the pressure even further on all fossil fuels.”  — Tim

The post Years Of Pressure On Oil and Gas Exploration Pay Off: Jacinda Ardern Announces An End To Offshore Oil And Gas Block Offers appeared first on Coal Action Network Aotearoa.

The Buller District Council has given the green light for the Te Kuha mine – a 109ha mine in the West Coast Water Conservation area  above Westport.

The top 12ha of the mine – the top of the mountain – is in the Department of Conservation’s Mt Rochfort Conservation Area and, in DOC’s own words:  is “recognised as nationally and internationally unique and for having very high ecological and conservation value.”

“Earlier this month Conservation Minister Eugenie Sage signalled there would be no new mines on conservation land,” said Rosemary Penwarden of CANA.

“This is now her test: will she allow a coal miner to take the top off a mountain, in an area that contains the endangered Great Spotted Kiwi?  Or will she all coal mining to go ahead, wiping out crucial biodiversity for coal that, ultimately, will end up in the atmosphere causing climate change?”

All indications are that the best coal for the proposed mine is at the top of the mountain.  The mining scar would be able to be seen from downtown Westport (see image from DOC below), and from the road through the Buller gorge – a spectacular tourist attraction.

The Department of Conservation’s role in the Buller District Council hearing was one of “neutrality” – however, one of its officers did spell out the destruction that would be caused to biodiversity.   Hearings for the DOC access consent were held nearly two years ago, and the Government had still not made a decision.

“All eyes are now on Ms Sage to back her words with real action and start bringing the Department of Conservation’s real role back,” said Ms Penwarden.

The post Press release: Te Kuha is first conservation test of new Government – Coal Action Network Aotearoa appeared first on Coal Action Network Aotearoa.

Elections are a defining feature of a democracy. They remind us of our ability to participate…to have a voice…to shape the world. Yet too often elections are degraded into post-puberty popularity contests. The last American election is a case in point, and the unfair way Metiria Turei was driven to resign is another.

Issues have become tools to polarize, intimidate or bribe the public, and the most pressing issue to consider when casting your vote in this election is Climate Change. None of the political parties of Aotearoa are harbouring acknowledged climate deniers as the Republicans did in 2016; the closest we get is the Conservative Party who “believe that there has always been, and always will be Climate Change, the real debate should be ‘Are we polluting our environment?’ and most of us would agree that we are.”

Without outright denying Climate Change exists, some New Zealand political parties demonstrate a rudimentary understanding of the urgency needed to stave off further warming of the planet.

The National Party policy on Climate Change isn’t even listed on the policy page of their website, demonstrating its utter lack of importance in their planning. They have policies to be predator free by 2050, implement tougher rules for freedom campers, increase fees to foreign visitors who want to experience New Zealand’s Great Walks and increase the amount of funding available to the Department of Conservation Community Fund, but nothing on Climate.

If you delve deeper into National policy and go the the Bluegreens webpage, you can click on Bluegreens Progress and find a statement on climate change. But the Bluegreens are a subset of the National Party—invented obviously to appease the consciences of all the true blue voters who recognize the amazing gift we have in living in God’s Own. The statement itself focuses on rewarding themselves for signing the Paris Agreement so quickly and explaining how difficult it will be for New Zealand to do anything because of our ‘unique circumstances’. They state that they are committed to seeing New Zealand transition to a low emissions economy, and that commitment requires balance. I wonder if that’s the kind of coaching advice Steve Hansen gives the All Blacks: Commit, but be balanced.

As well as expressing an increased interest in public transportation, electric cars, and increasing the amount of electricity that comes from renewable energy a further 10%, National’s plan claims it will reduce emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030, phase out the ETS one-for-two subsidy by 1 January 2019, review and strengthen the Emissions Trading Scheme to ensure it is fit for purpose and is encouraging reductions and tree planting and invest $20 million a year into research on agricultural emissions reduction.

New Zealand First does not have a specific climate change policy either, but it does identify climate change as an issue under its environment policy. Their first step would be to exit the Emissions Trading Scheme and replace it with a UK/Norwegian style Climate Change Act. They would also establish a new Parliamentary Commission for Climate Change (PCCC) as an Office of Parliament and make it legally responsible for reporting against both the Kyoto and Paris Agreements, setting three-yearly ‘Carbon Budgets’ designed to reach these commitments. Provisions would be made for the PCCC to provide independent advice to central and local government on meeting the Carbon Budget and preparing for climate change. There’s no mention of prevention.

Interestingly enough, they would also provide financial support for the development of water harvesting schemes; take account of the views of key stakeholders when making environmental policy; support the extractive industries while ensuring core conservation values are maintained; and support an evidence-based approach to environmental issues.

The Māori Party want to ensure that hapū and iwi, as kaitiaki and tangata whenua, have a significant role to play in decisions that affect the environment. Both their economic and environmental policies are classed as Kāwanatanga—government, dominion, rule, authority. Their climate change policy is listed as solutions and is nested within their environmental policy.

They will prioritise solutions that address the effects of Climate Change working across the political spectrum , enact emissions targets into law and support the setting of carbon budget that would act as stepping stones towards the targets, support the establishment of an independent Climate Commission to advise on setting carbon budgets and to report on meeting those budgets, forestry and electric cars.

They have a determined approach to advance the use of renewable energy, stating that they would close all coal fired power plants by 2025. They also want to ensure Mana Whenua are consulted on all oil and mineral exploration permits.

Newcomer, The Opportunites Party (TOP) considers Climate Change a priority and uses bold language to plot a way forward. Their policy, Climate Change Action, states that New Zealand must wean itself off fossil fuels, which they see as an exciting challenge, an opportunity to improve overall prosperity.

Junk credits held by the government would be dumped, and the ETS would stay closed to international trade. Revenue from a higher carbon price would help households and businesses become more energy efficient. New investment of significance would help create a low carbon future.

“TOP aims to take the most efficient and effective path to a low carbon economy. There is no time for delay, nor for a sentimental focus on any particular technology.” Their policy statements have been explained in a series of one minute videos. Climate Policy in a Minute is worth a watch.

Labour’s policy has a key weakness: it doesn’t rule out new coal mines or oil and gas drilling.  But they admirably seek to lead the nation with the understanding that Climate Change is the greatest challenge facing the world.

Their comprehensive Climate Change Manifesto addresses the need to take a cross-party approach; ensure a just transition to a low-carbon economy; establish carbon budgets, emission reduction targets and an independent Carbon Commission; restore the ETS so that it does what it was intended to do – put a price on carbon that drives behaviour towards low or zero-carbon options; complement the ETS with further measures; acknowledge the importance of including agriculture in the ETS and promote forestry; promote research and development; honour international obligations; and adapt to the changes that are already occurring.

Climate Change has been a significant component of Green Party policy for years. The Greens consider their Climate Protection Plan to be an economic policy. All of their environmental policies are intended to tackle climate change while also protecting the environment, but by listing their climate change policy as an economic policy its importance is elevated.

Financial security, prosperity, jobs and investment drive much of human behaviour and is a key motivator for shaping their political views. Since all the economic structures we currently have in place will become unstable and irretrievably altered should full blown Climate Change occur, defining Climate Protection as an economic policy is both pragmatic and astute.

“We’re the first generation that will feel the effects of climate change, and the last that can stop it. We have a responsibility to act.” That is a statement of political conviction.

Briefly, The Green Party will pass a Zero Carbon Act; establish an independent Climate Commission and a Kiwi Climate Fund; promote forestry, renewable electricity and electric rail; kick-start private investment with a Green Infrastructure Fund; divest public investment funds; and commit to no new coal mines, fracking or deep-sea oil and gas drilling.

Green Party Co-leader James Shaw has released a Member’s Bill to require all Government legislation to have a Climate Impact Disclosure Statement to outline the likely impact of the legislation on the climate.  This bill would ensure every new piece of legislation acknowledges the reality and costs of climate change, so parliament will be thinking about our climate all of the time.

And Climate Action—Yes, we can is a plan identifying how New Zealand can reduce emissions by a respectable 40 percent.

The policy statements of The Greens and The Opportunities Party communicate the enormous opportunity that lies before us, an opportunity to take action and direct the future and our circumstances rather than fall victim to the unrestrained whims of nature. Labour clearly identifies the importance of acknowledging and addressing Climate Change, but their language is more restrained, more cautious. As the contender in this fight for the right to govern The Land of the Long White Cloud, perhaps they feel they have more to lose.

United Future don’t even have a policy for the environment, let alone Climate – although new leader Damian Light does appear more tuned in. ACT has a policy on Conservation and the Environment, but there is no mention of Climate. Neither does the Mana Party mention Climate, but they would ban fracking and deep-sea oil drilling—no mention of coal. The Democrats for Social Credit would replace the Emissions Trading Scheme with measures to reduce pollution and introduce financial assistance to help industry meet the new emissions standards”, but they don’t mention Climate Change.

If Climate Change is not put into check, we all lose. Let’s use our vote wisely. Have conversations with the people you share your life with. See if you can get them to do the same.

The post Using the Election to Fight Climate Change appeared first on Coal Action Network Aotearoa.

Why should a group campaigning against new and expanded coal mines care about that? Although protests against nuclear ship visits might come to mind first when we think of seaborne protests – and indeed, the Government appears to be rushing this Bill through in advance of a planned US warship visit – New Zealnd has also seen seaborne protests against oil exploration and coal shipments in recent years.

What with the Government’s plans to expand deep sea oil drilling, its desire to increase coal exports, and the persistent blind eye it turns to illegal fishing, there is plenty of scope for seaborne protests.

So what’s the Government planning to do? Here’s the callout from our friends at Peace Action Wellington, including the worst features of the Bill and what changes we should ask for. We encourage everyone who wants to preserve the right to effective protest action against fossil fuels – and nuclear ship visits – to submit against this unwise and repressive Bill.

• Submit here: https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/sc/make-a-submission/document/51SCFDT_SCF_00DBHOH_BILL68940_1/maritime-crimes-amendment-bill. If at all possible, please say that you want to speak to your submission.

Peace Action Wellington: Call for Submissions Against the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill

Parliament is currently considering amendments to the Maritime Crimes Act that introduces a new crime of “maritime terrorism”. It seems clear from the current draft of the Bill, and its timing, that it is intended to target protests against visiting warships planned for November this year. It will criminalise free speech and could target maritime workers. Submissions close on Friday 19 August so we need to act fast!

What’s the problem?
The big problem with the proposed law is Section 4. This is the main new “terrorism” clause and it says:

Sec 4 (1): If you are trying to get the government to do or not do something (like what most of politicians and activists are trying to do!), then you are guilty if:
(b)   You discharge from a ship any noxious substance that could cause damage. The new law doesn’t define what is “noxious” nor does it define what “damage” is.
(c)   You use a ship in a manner that causes damage.

Most worrying in the new law is that it is terrorism crime if you even threaten to do any of these things. This is Section 4(A)(2).

Its important to know that it is already illegal to cause damage to a ship or anything else; it is already illegal to intentionally cause injury or to act recklessly on the sea. It is already illegal to threaten to injure or kill someone, it doesn’t matter where you are. This law says that it is terrorism if you do any of those things to a ship with the motive of trying to influence the government. So if you damage a ship because you had a bad time on the last cruise you took, that’s fine. But if you damage a ship because it is carrying out widespread illegal fishing or helping to fight illegal wars then that is terrorism!

What is really important is that this law makes it a crime of terrorism just to TALK about doing something. This law would make it illegal for you to say that you were going to spray paint the side of the US warship visiting New Zealand with the words NO WAR; because they could say you were trying to influence the government not to host US warships. You don’t even need to do it! The penalty: 14 years in prison.  Back in 2003, someone spraypainted the side of a visiting Australian Navy ship with the words “John Howard: US Boot licker!” while it was docked in Wellington Harbour. This would now be a terrorism offence in New Zealand – not just a charge of intentional damage.

No Protections
There is no protection in this law for peaceful protests, strikes, lockouts or any other industrial action.

Even in the Terrorism Suppression Act, there is a specific provision that says:
To avoid doubt, the fact that a person engages in any protest, advocacy, or dissent, or engages in any strike, lockout, or other industrial action, is not, by itself, a sufficient basis for inferring that the person is carrying out an act for a purpose, or with an intention or intends to cause an outcome.

What we can do
Let’s build a groundswell of opposition to this law and demand important changes before its too late.

Make a Submission – Online before FRIDAY, 19 August

Tell Parliament:

• Section 4 is simply not good enough, it lacks appropriate definitions and has no proper safeguards
• That the the definition of damage must be significantly limited:To destruction of, or serious damage to, property of great value or importance, or major economic loss, or major environmental damage, if likely to result in 1 or more outcomes:

(a) the death of, or other serious bodily injury to, 1 or more persons (other than a person carrying out the act):
(b) a serious risk to the health or safety of a population:
(c) serious interference with, or serious disruption to, an infrastructure facility, if likely to endanger human life:

It MUST include an exception that a person who engages in any protest, advocacy, or dissent, or engages in any strike, lockout, or other industrial action, is not, by itself, a sufficient basis for inferring that the person— is carrying out an act for a purpose, or with an intention to cause any outcome specified in this Bill.

• Submit here: https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/sc/make-a-submission/document/51SCFDT_SCF_00DBHOH_BILL68940_1/maritime-crimes-amendment-bill. If at all possible, please say that you want to speak to your submission.

The post The Government Is Trying To Classify Protests At Sea As Terrorism – Submit By Friday appeared first on Coal Action Network Aotearoa.

First, Wellington’s Dominion Post newspaper said in an editorial that it was time for New Zealand to slash its coal use. Then, the same day, Genesis Energy announced that it would close the coal-fired power generators at the Huntly power plant by 2018.

No more coal at Huntly … who’ll be next to abandon coal?

But the writing was appearing on the wall even before these announcements. Not only had the thermal coal price dropped precipitately in response to the rise of renewable energy and environmental concerns in coal’s major markets, but there is a growing political consensus that thermal coal mining in New Zealand must stop.

This consensus does not yet include the National Government. While Energy and Resources Minister Simon Bridges welcomed Genesis Energy’s Huntly decision, and noted that it created further opportunity for renewable energy, he conveniently ignored the Government’s continuing subsiding of fossil fuel mining and use and lack of support for renewables.

The Green Party has long opposed coal mining, and now Labour and New Zealand First are, at least partially, moving in the same direction. In response to the Government’s statement that state-owned coal mining company Solid Energy might be facing liquidation, Labour Party leader Andrew Little – himself a former head of the coal miners’ union, the EPMU – drew a distinction between using coal for heating and power generation, which he agreed was on the way out (audio at 1:41), and using coking coal for making steel, which he said was “part of a green economy.”

New Zealand First’s Richard Prosser was similarly bullish on Solid Energy’s future, but both in his reported comments and in separate discussions with Coal Action Network Aotearoa, NZ First has drawn a distinction between coking coal and thermal coal. New Zealand First’s 2014 election policy calls for a progressive phaseout of coal:

The most effective way to reduce the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (primarily carbon dioxide and methane) is to progressively phase out the burning of fossil fuels, especially coal, and instead use renewable energy eg wind-power, photo-voltaic electricity from sunshine, wood fuels, etc. (Climate Change section of NZ First Environment and Conservation policy)

When we met with New Zealand First, they advocated a similar position to the Labour Party: that is, they expressed continued support for coking coal, but agreed that it was time to move away from the mining and burning of thermal coal.

But while businesses and political parties are moving to end the use of thermal coal, there is one large New Zealand company which is bucking the trend – and that, of course, is Fonterra which, as we reported last month, has increased its coal use 38% since 2008 and plans a further major expansion of coal-fired milk drying plants. Fonterra’s low-value-add, high-energy-input business plan is coming unstuck as global milk prices fall. It’s time for Fonterra to take another path.

Though the political consensus is growing against thermal coal, Labour and New Zealand First are both continuing to back the mining of coking coal – that is, coal used for steel production – even though the coking coal price has also slumped, and burning coking coal is no better for the climate than burning thermal coal. You can read Cindy Baxter’s take on the shaky state of coking coal in her recent analysis of the state of play in the coal industry.

The message to companies such as Fonterra is clear: by backing the increased use of thermal coal, you are on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of science, and the wrong side of a growing political consensus.

The post Political Consensus Grows Around The End Of Thermal Coal appeared first on Coal Action Network Aotearoa.