Rod Oram speaking to the fossil fuel divestment motion at the Anglican Synod in 2014. Photo: Taonga News

It was 2014, and Rod Oram was central to a decision by the Anglican Church of Aotearoa and Polynesia that would have wide-reaching ramifications for communities of faith across the world.

After a conversation at a Coal Action Network Aotearoa hui, the team discussed the  idea of fossil fuels divestment, someone mentioned the churches. It prompted the idea to get the Anglican Church to do this.

This was ten years ago and we were all starting to talk about climate change and how it was going to affect the world.With a lot of research and help from others nationally from different justice groups , including Rod, I realised it was possible and a motion was formulated which contained the main points of our concerns. 

I made contact with the Anglican Social Justice Network, where Rod was a member, seeking advice and help with this significant move for our Church. While the Auckland synod had already been held , Rod was very much engaged with the venture, with his expertise and knowledge very obvious in the motion’s formulation.  

As a member of the Dunedin Diocese, I proposed the motion to our synod, which turned out to be quite controversial. With only ten minutes to make our case,  it got voted through – just!

It then was sent to other Dioceses including all Māori, Pasifika and Pakeha, so  others could discuss and add their weight to the motion at their synods. As the other synods passed their divestment motions, the feeling grew that we could actually get this passed.

Fortunately they all passed the motion, some with a narrow margin, and some with small amendments. Iit then passed on to General Synod Te Hīnota Whānui as the final step for possible approval.

Rod picked up the baton at just the right time.

In May 2014, the 61st Te Hīnota Whānui  – the Anglican General Synod, was held at Waitangi.

When we got there Rod came and spoke to me about it.  It was essential  there be a person from each tikanga to move, second and speak and affirm the motion if it was to have a chance of passing. We needed some people from across all sections of the church-Bishops, Clergy and  lay people, both men and women… to show that this came with support from all sectors of our community.

There were people with much more mana than I had.  Pasifika were already feeling the brunt of climate change and all its ramifications for their people.

Rod, as a member of the General Synod Te Hīnota Whānui, having helped write the motion, added all the details to back up the argument. He gave a lot of help with getting the motion into the correct words and with the right background. Rod was the driver: he had the knowledge and background on climate change and could speak with authority, knowledge and wisdom, along with the weight of the business community. His extensive international knowledge really helped at the right time.

Rod moved it on the floor of the Synod, and it was seconded by Rev Jacynthia Murphy, from  tikanga Maori.  After a couple of amendments, it was agreed.

Most of us think we can’t  do anything to make changes at this level of decision making.   I discovered that the kitchen table was a great place to start designing this motion with knowing some influential people like Rod who could use his expertise and that of others to make it  come to fruition. With this backing it happened!

The Anglican Church Trust Board, which does the investing, was instructed to keep reporting back to General Synod until they had completed the process of divestment. 

At Waitangi the next morning after it was passed I  happened to sit next to a man at breakfast  who turned out to be  the Trust Board Manager!  We had a discussion about the difficulties of divesting from fossil fuels in all their portfolios… it was going to take some time, he said. But he did it – last year it was announced that it had actually been done!

This decision was one of the  world’s firsts in this field for the Anglican church. Rod was just the right person to get this across the line: he was a tower of strength: we couldn’t have done it without him.

These are my memories of a momentous time and action, facilitated and supported by Rod. A taonga.

Whakataukī: 

Titiro whakamuri, kōkiri  whakamua.

Look back and reflect so we can move forward. 

– Jenny Campbell, interviewed by Cindy Baxter

Motion 22 – Fossil Fuel Divestment

Thursday 15 May 2014

1.         Mr Rod Oram                                                                     
2.         The Rev’d Jacynthia Murphy

Amended Motion

That this General Synod/te Hīnota Whānui 2014:

 Recognizing the threat that anthropogenic climate change poses to all God’s creatures, including human beings, in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia and in all the Earth, for present and future generations,

Noting that the huge reserves held by coal, oil and gas extraction companies far exceed what can be burned in order to hold global warming below the internationally agreed level of 2 degrees Celsius.

Emphasizing the Church’s mission to safeguard the integrity of creation and to sustain and renew the life of the earth, and to seek to transform the unjust structures of society,

Accepting the responsibilities and duties of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia as an ethical investor,

(i)         Considers ongoing investment in the fossil fuel industry to be contrary to the Church’s missional goals of the care of creation and social justice, and to be contrary to its responsibilities and existing commitments as an ethical investor.

(ii)       Resolves that the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia should no longer invest in corporations whose main business is the extraction and/or production of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas).

(iii)      Requests that the Standing Committee require the Trusts and other entities investing on behalf of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the Church’s funds are not invested in such corporations specified in (ii) and to ensure that existing holdings in such corporations are divested within 2 years.

(iv)      That this Synod/te Hīnota commission a group that would include membership from, the Diocese of Polynesia, the Diocese of Auckland Climate Change Action Group, Akina Foundation and other interested parties to advise on the feasibility of investing divested funds into conservation of ecosystems and biodiversity in areas / regions of the three Tikanga that are vulnerable to climate change and sea level rise and to report back the General Synod/te Hīnota Whānui 2016.

Agreed

The post Rod Oram: a tale of success in the Anglican church appeared first on Coal Action Network Aotearoa.

Coal Action Network Aotearoa (CANA) today heralded the Government’s decision to help New ZealandSteel cut its coal use by 45% as a huge step in decarbonising the economy and ending coal use in New Zealand.

“This is fantastic news, and the kind of step we need our government to be taking: it’s great news for the climate,” said Tim Jones of CANA.

“The Glenbrook Steel mill burns around 800,000 tonnes of coal each year, so cutting that by 45% is massive. Now we need to see the rest of the mill decarbonise.”

NZ Steel burns 800,000 tonnes of coal a year (Photo: wikicommons) 

CANA has long advocated for NZ Steel to start recycling scrap steel, but the company had previously argued it wasn’t ready to do this. 

“In the face of a decarbonising world, we’re seeing technologies like electric arc furnaces become mainstream, and getting this up and running in Aotearoa is a no brainer,” he said.

“New Zealand Steel has received more free allocations of emission reduction units under the Emissions Trading Scheme than any other industry, to the tune of millions. This is a far better use of taxpayers money than throwing big overseas-owned industries like NZ Steel money to pollute,” he said.

However, he noted that given the government’s statement today that the abatement cost for NZ Steel would be $16.50 a tonne, compared with the carbon price of $55 a tonne, then why not stop giving big emitters free allocation? 

“This announcement shows how absurd and damaging it is that we continue to pay big industries to pollute by giving them free allocations of carbon credits. If we ended those free allocations, more industries would be incentivised to decarbonise and the taxpayer wouldn’t have to subsidise them to do it.”

The post Government decision to convert steel mill to burn less coal a fantastic move appeared first on Coal Action Network Aotearoa.

The night Cyclone Gabrielle hit my coastal village of Piha was, frankly, terrifying, as it was for so many around the motu.  I measured more than 400mm in my back yard – my neighbours up the road had 457mm. That’s nearly half a metre of rain. In just 12 hours.

The house on a Piha hill that broke in half in a slip

High above us on the hill, a neighbour’s house broke in half: the elderly occupants got out with literally 30 seconds to spare.  The family living directly under them down the hill quickly evacuated to mine at 12.45 am, all soaking wet from the deluge of water pouring off the hill and down our road.

Friends in North Piha had a slip come right through their house: red stickered. They don’t know what they’re going to do. This was their retirement, their dream, and it’s just been shattered.  Another whole road has slumped and the whole street is cut off,  as is the road at the top of the hill that provides access to the school that most of our primary school aged kids go to. The pre-school got flooded so isn’t operational.

The beginning of my little dead end road was completely flooded, submerging two houses. One family got out, leaving two dogs behind; the other didn’t, and spent the night in their house surrounded by water.  The new pond was finally pumped out on Sunday night, so finally we didn’t have to walk up the road and go down a goat track to get out – or to get things like generators in. [The dogs are both fine and reunited with their people].

This area had been submerged underwater up to the first floor of this Piha house

We had no power in our street for 11 days (don’t start me on Vector who didn’t even have our outage logged and was telling people who’d been out of power for nine days that their power was on).  It wasn’t easy.  But my house is fine. And we’re all alive. As are all our neighbours over in Karekare, many of whom are still cut off from the world.

A Coal Action Network colleague was one of those choppered out in the days after Gabrielle, as he lives well below all the slips. His house is fine but whether he’ll ever be able to drive there again is still in question. 

Our hearts go out to the communities in Muriwai and further south in Hawkes Bay and Tairawhiti. 

But trauma is exhausting, and real. I found myself close to tears at the smallest things, like not being able to start the generator in the morning.

What’s also lurking behind my tears is the fact that I’ve been working to stop climate change for 30 years and the same old arguments keep coming up: that it’s too expensive to act on. 

For years we’ve been pushing the government to do the work to understand the costs of climate impacts, to weigh them up against the costs of action, of cutting emissions and moving to a low-carbon economy.  Because if the only numbers you have are the costs of action, it bolsters all those who object to taking the strong action we need.  The Climate Change Commission didn’t have the numbers either. The work on the cost of climate impacts just hasn’t been done.  Perhaps we should start with the bill from Gabrielle.

And now we’re hearing a new kind of climate denial – most ridiculous claims from people like Chris Trotter, and Matthew Hooton, arguing that it’s now too late to act on climate change, now we just have to get on with adapting to it. Act’s Brooke Van Velden joined the fray on TVNZ Breakfast.

Hooton has spent decades trying to (incorrectly) spin New Zealand’s lack of real climate action in favour of planting pine trees as somehow being world-leading. It isn’t and has never been the case.  

The question they haven’t looked at is how much you can adapt to: and when it simply becomes what the UNFCCC views as “loss and damage.” Loss of land, of people, of coastlines, and community. This has been the developing world’s big fight: given the developed world’s lack of action on climate change, those governments need to start paying for the resulting damage, damage that cannot be recovered from. But those Loss & Damage funds would not be available for Aotearoa: we’re part of the problem. 

We’re currently experiencing around 1.2˚C of warming above pre-industrial levels, when we started burning coal and other fossil fuels. Under current policy pathways, the policies governments have in place right now, the world is still heading to more than twice that: 2.7˚C of warming – or more. If governments manage to meet their Paris Agreement pledges, it’s still 2.4˚C. 

The reality of where we’re headed in terms of warming www.climateactiontracker.org

But if this is what we get at 1.2˚C what kind of fresh hell will 2.7˚C bring? 

It’s mind blowing. Cyclone Gabrielle has now been officially confirmed by NIWA as being the strongest cyclone to ever hit Aotearoa. Worse than Bola (1988) and worse than Giselle (1968). The lowest pressure, and the most rain – of course there was a lot more moisture in the air with Gabrielle, thanks to global warming, and Gabrielle picked up intensity as she crossed an ocean undergoing a marine heatwave – also from global warming.

And no, it wasn’t the Tongan eruption. While yes, the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai eruption did send unprecedented vapour into the stratosphere, scientists have calculated it may lead to around 0.1˚C of warming. The rest of the warming is down to us.

If Trotter, Hooton and Act honestly think we can safely adapt to that, they need their heads read. It’s extraordinary the lengths people will go to cling onto their lifestyles and oppose all emissions cuts. 

But we still have choices.

We don’t have to get to 2.7 degrees. We need to spend cash both on adaptation AND mitigation. Because the bill for adapting to 2.7˚C would be ridiculous. A low-carbon society IS possible, and as scientists repeatedly tell us, will actually be good for our economy.  It’s not an either or situation. It’s both. 

It’s going to be hard to get to the recommended, and agreed, warming limit of 1.5˚C. It’s going to cost a lot. But let’s be clear, the costs of adapting to a two or even three degree world will be astronomical. 

Lucy, a friend who has worked on climate change for 20 years, put this next bit so succinctly, I’ve asked her if I can use it in this blog. 

From Lucy

“When I was first working on climate change 20 years ago, the most common belief was it didn’t exist and hysterical environmentalists were over stating the risk.

Then 10 years ago, we acknowledged it did exist but NZ was too small and we couldn’t make a real difference to global emissions and it was hard so we should give up trying – be fast followers.

Then we segued into accepting it was a problem and that if all the small countries like us gave up then, actually, that would be a third of global emissions and so maybe we should do our fair share. Climate change was just one of many other issues that all had higher priority and we needed to balance with economic growth and keep the farmers happy etc.

We also had a fun argument about whether we should invest in community engagement/education and behaviour change OR systemic changes to taxes, infrastructure, economic levers, legislation etc.

We roundly discounted education without considering that a) maybe we need to do both as fast as we can and b) that maybe getting some public understanding of climate change and buy-in to the solutions is an essential prerequisite to making major systemic change.

Bill English on a tractor protesting Labour’s 2003 “fart tax” (c) Scoop media

Instead we just introduced some policies, fart taxes, cycleways, parking strategies etc, got a shock when the public didn’t like them and quickly repealed them.

We didn’t have the support for systemic change but we said ‘we can’t try and educate people about climate change because nanny state, shower gate’, we can tell people not to speed, but we can’t possibly waste money on telling them how we can prevent the single biggest threat to humanity and te taiao.

And now people are drowning in Hawkes Bay and we have segued perfectly to ‘It’s too late, adaptation is the priority, we just have to invest in our physical assets’.

But the tragedy is the climate doesn’t care about the stories we tell and 2.7 degrees of warming will far FAR exceed any physical adaptation we can build.”

The post The new climate denial: adaptation over mitigation appeared first on Coal Action Network Aotearoa.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” – Upton Sinclair

The CANA (Coal Action Network Aotearoa) organising team knows a LOT about coal. We’ve put thousands of hours into researching companies, mines, transport routes, shareholders and maps. All in our own time. But it’s a rare thing for the media to ask a grassroots group for any substantive comment.

On the other hand the coal industry seems to be getting more media time recently, like here on TVNZ (although we did get a little reply in), here on Newstalk ZB. It’s partly down to Patrick Phelps, current coal spin doctor, aka CEO of Minerals West Coast. He’s even managed to get a regular slot on RNZ’s “Nights with Bryan Crump,” where he has been given a platform to promote coal, unchallenged.

Patrick’s early media training with the NZ Broadcasting School has held him in good stead for his current career. He’s a slick operator and somehow the fact he’s a “professional” seems to be attractive to media.

Paid coal schill Patrick Phelps talks to TVNZ at a Waikato coal mine.

Schilling for a substance that’s burning up the planet is his day job, but haven’t we passed the “both sides” rule when it comes to climate change? That fully paid “professional” status seems, to media, to trump those who are fighting for the future of the planet – in their own time. They seem to love his gig.

Using the tricks of the tobacco industry, Patrick makes coal into the down-home-grubby-but-necessary stuff that any right-minded Kiwi would agree we can’t do without. The milk we drink, the out-of-season vegetables we eat, even our toothpaste, has coal somewhere in its manufacture. Coal keeps the lights on and our houses warm when the lakes are low.

This  all sounds quite rational until you hear the words of UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, who told ministers from 40 countries at a climate conference in Berlin last week that “Half of humanity is in the danger zone, from floods, droughts, extreme storms and wildfires. No nation is immune. Yet we continue to feed our fossil fuel addiction.” He added: “We have a choice. Collective action or collective suicide. It is in our hands.” 

The  farmers in Northland suffering more floods after a protracted drought are now talking about climate change. The whole country is suffering a third round of floods in just a short two months, while Europe burns. 

There is nothing rational about burning coal in 2022. 

One of Patrick’s arguments, that NZ’s contribution to worldwide climate breakdown due to coal is so small it doesn’t matter, is cowardly and inexcusable. It’s like me saying my personal tax contribution is so small I might as well not pay it.

Patrick says coal underpins the economy. That’s what they said about slavery back in the day.

Which brings us to ask: why is coal still being mined here? The biggest reason is that coal’s true cost – to the land, to the atmosphere, to our health – is not factored into its price. If it were, coal would be priced out of the market instantly. As it is, companies like Bathurst Resources and Talleys (which together own the West Coast’s Stockton mine, the country’s largest) can still turn a profit whilst offloading all those externalities onto the rest of us. 

Bathurst is even planning to open a new coal mine in Southland so Fonterra can keep burning it and both companies can maximise profit at our expense. That coal is “already sold” says Bathurst boss Richard Tacon, making  a mockery of Fonterra’s insistence that it’s moving off coal. 

Coal’s true cost is something the government could fix with the stroke of a pen, but instead it has adjusted the country’s transition off coal to suit Fonterra’s timeline – 16 years from now. And Patrick Phelps’ latest piece of PR insists we need even longer  to adjust to a coal free economy. 

Yup, they also said that  about slavery back in the day.

The post Beware the Spin Doctors appeared first on Coal Action Network Aotearoa.

One of the most interesting things in watching the Australian elections over the weekend was seeing the shock of ABC presenters when the results of its post-vote polling showed climate change was far and away the most important issue on voters’ minds – a massive 27% compared with the next most important: the economy, at 14%.

Why was this so shocking to the media, the political analysts?

It hasn’t stopped raining in Lismore for three months, during which time there have been two devastating floods: today, the town barely exists – it’s all been underwater, twice. There’ve been ongoing floods and storms – from North Queensland all the way down the east coast. Western Australia suffered record heatwaves and horrific bushfires last summer. The Great Barrier Reef is undergoing its sixth – and worst – bleaching event.

The terror of the 2019/20 firestorms that turned the sky orange, burning seven million hectares, are etched into people’s minds, and so is the response from Scott Morrison from his holiday Hawaii as Australia was burning: “I don’t hold a hose mate.” Equally, his slow response to call a major emergency after the Lismore flooding disaster (rightfully) enraged locals.

ScoMo’s response to climate-related disasters didn’t endear him to the Australian people.

As the election campaign rolled out, Scott Morrison didn’t want to talk about climate, because his position was pretty dodgy; Antony Albanese didn’t want to scare the mining communities he needed the votes from (which he didn’t get anyway), and the Canberra press gallery didn’t want to ask either leader about it – it wasn’t in their minds.

Climate specialist journalists were having the devil’s own job in trying to get analysis on climate change published by their editors.  There were pockets of it, but it simply wasn’t a gotcha front page issue. While the Guardian rolled out a number of good pieces, the vast majority of the media largely ignored this issue, entirely missing the story of what voters really cared about, despite polling telling them otherwise.

But in those communities on the ground, climate change was top of mind. As Greens leader Adam Bandt said on Saturday night, the feedback the Greens were getting in Brisbane was that people from all political persuasions were deeply concerned about climate change. They could see it happening in front of their very eyes,  and they wanted action.  And this was one key reason for the “Greenslide” that saw the Greens gain seats in both the House and the Senate.  And the teal independents win liberal seats.

The trauma of having your house (or that of your family or neighbours) underwater or burned to the ground, your wheat crop ravaged by a mouse plague, seeing your beloved forests – and the animals living in them – torched, your Great Barrier Reef bleached, is not easily dismissed. It lives with people for years.

Labor now looks set to gain a very slim majority, so in theory it won’t have to negotiate with the 16-seat crossbench to get its legislation across the line.  PM Albanese has already stated Labor’s 2030 climate target – a 43% reduction below 2005 levels – is not up for negotiation. The target has been arrived at through detailed modelling of all the party’s climate policies (something that would be good to see the National Party do here in Aotearoa – if it HAD a plan).

That crossbench has a strong climate focus: the Greens want to see a target of 74% by 2030 and the teal independents 60%, both 1.5˚C compatible, according to analysis from Climate Analytics – and Labor’s target is around 2˚C compatible.

The Greens look set to hold the balance of power in the Senate, so that will be one to watch. Will they insist on strong climate legislation, such as independent Zali Steggall’s draft Net Zero Bills (60% by 2030)?

While the fossil fuel industry’s firm grip on government has now been loosened and hopefully will be addressed (this article in Renew Economy spells out just how many fossil fuel industry stooges Morrison and his energy minister Angus Taylor planted in key positions), there’s still a way to go, and a lot of damage to undo. Labor will submit its new target to the UNFCCC, and is likely to re-enter the Global Climate Fund that the previous encumbents walked away from.

Labor still wedded to gas and coal 

But as this great piece in Carbon Brief points out, Labor has not backed off its support of both gas and coal:

“Australia is on track to continue producing fossil fuels in large volumes, with 69 new coal projects and 45 new LNG, gas and oil projects in the investment pipeline, as of October 2021.”

The emissions from those projects, combined, would add at least 8.3% to Australia’s emissions by 2030.

But Albo does not oppose big new gas projects like Woodside Energy’s Scarborough Pluto extension in Western Australia, set to add 1.37 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions to the atmosphere by 2055, and he hasn’t named a single coal-fired power station he’d close down early. He’s even said the country could still be burning coal in 2050, 20 years after the date Australia needs to get out of coal as its part in the global action required to keep warming to 1.5˚C.

Protesters challenge Woodside Energy’s Scarborough Gas project in Western Australia

The fossil fuel industry has been pouring money into the political parties, with Woodside giving the biggest donation – $108,350  – to Labor. The sector donated a total of $1.15m to political parties in the past year, similar to the $1.13m it donated the year before.  It would be good to hear Labor reject that funding.

Sure, Labor does have good, big plans for climate action, and there is certainly scope for its many policies listed in its “Powering Australia” plan to roll out in all the sectors neglected by the federal government: transport, industry, buildings, etc.  Labor had a plan, a plan that it had thoroughly modelled to get to its 2030 target number (something our National Party might want to consider if it wants to be taken seriously on climate change).

But if anyone expects a coal-fired power station to be closed down any time soon – or even a coal mine to be stopped, they will likely be disappointed. We will likely keep seeing coal from the Adani mine continuing to be exported to India. the fight against coal will – and must – go on. [Noting there has been a very long and effective fight against Australia’s coal development, and the Galillee basin in particular].

Perhaps the strong climate signal from the voters, combined with the crossbench in the House that is overwhelmingly in favour of it, will mean Labor will understand it has been given a strong mandate to do more to tackle the fossil fuel production problem – but my bet is that this won’t happen at least until after the next election.  The Climate Wars might be over, but they could come roaring back at any point.

We can only hope that this will bring more of the teal independents and Greens into the House in the next election.

The question that everyone here has been asking is whether the Australian election outcome will have an impact on New Zealand?  It’s probably unlikely we’ll have the same voter reaction based on climate concerns: we haven’t seen quite the devastation that Australians have experienced, even though pockets of the country have (think: Tairawhiti, Westport).

Although I hasten to add we ARE seeing impacts – such as the 40 dead kororā in Northland last weekend, likely because of warming seas.  Our glaciers are shrinking; we ARE seeing more terrible flooding events right around the country.  Recent sea level rise information has shocked the country.   While more of us need to be shouting about climate action as these events are taking place, we’re often told this is “not the time” when we try to.

Other non climate-related takeaways 

While COVID-19 WAS a factor in the Australian elections, I don’t think it was in quite the same way that a lot of the New Zealand media are claiming.  The vote wasn’t a message to an incumbent government from a population fed up with a strong covid response and worried about the rising cost of living. It was a population fed up with a right wing government that didn’t appear to care about its people.

The success of the Australian covid response was largely down to the State premiers, not the federal government. Every time ScoMo did something on covid he did it wrong – and late, he lied about it, tried to blame other people, and messed it up. The loss of liberal seats in both WA and Victoria were, to a large extent, driven by the sledging their premiers got by the Federal government in the face of their strong response. The people of WA didn’t like being called cave people.  Who does?

Aside from pushing back against ScoMo on covid and climate, the other factor was what we’re seeing a lot of here in Aotearoa, unfortunately: misogyny, and the misogyny of the Morrison government had to be seen to be believed. Australia’s women had had enough. They voted for independents – and those who won were almost all women.  This argument is best summed up in ABC’s Annabel Crabb’s fantastic article.

The post The Australian election: what does it mean for climate, coal and gas? appeared first on Coal Action Network Aotearoa.

This week the government gave the thumbs up for Fonterra to keep burning coal for another 15 years, and for NZ Steel to continue burning it past 2050.

Our biggest polluters are still calling the shots on coal.

Wait. Isn’t it the government’s job to set policy for industry to follow, not the other way around?
Yes. Yet this week, as it released the Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP), there was an opportunity for the government to take meaningful steps toward reducing our reliance on coal.  But it didn’t.

We want to give big ups to those ministry folk who put the 343 page document together. All those words sound encouraging, but they don’t distract us from the reality that our civilisation and all that we hold dear on this planet are at enormous risk from global heating and this document is the government’s first response.

Urgent transformative change is needed. We can’t find that in the ERP.

We can’t even find the word “cow”, not even once. Where is the plan to deal with Fonterra, our biggest polluter? Where is the plan to radically transform agriculture, the cause of half of our entire emissions? Too many cows in inappropriate places like the stony Canterbury Plains have decimated Canterbury’s braided rivers, poisoned the native freshwater creatures, polluted aquifers and put human health at risk.

All of that is absent.

Cut the number of cows and you’ve gone a long way to solving the coal problem too, since 95% of the milk produced in NZ is dried, largely with coal, and exported, mainly by Fonterra. Then Bathurst can get on with moving their workers to meaningful jobs to build, not destroy, a low carbon economy.

But no, Bathurst is planning a new coal mine down south and their biggest customer Fonterra is ready-and-waiting. So much for letting the industry voluntarily phase out of coal. Strong government direction is needed – and that’s missing in the ERP.

Bathurst Resources Ltd (BRL) doesn’t have much of a track record. John Key was present to open its office in Wellington in 2012 – along with hundreds of protestors against its plans to mine the Denniston Plateau. But it’s not even a New Zealand company, after delisting from the NZ stock exchange three years after opening here, supposedly due to the dismally low share price.

Bathurst had to apply to the Overseas Investment Office to expand its Canterbury Coal Mine. The OIO gave it that green light, despite the fact it had breached a raft of consents by already expanding into unconsented territory. That closed last year after a dispute with ECAN over the consents that would have seen protracted legal processes Bathurst clearly couldn’t afford.

An Extinction Rebellion blockade highlighted that it had extracted five times more coal than its consent allowed.

Don’t expect this company to do the right thing for the planet.

As for the farmers, they’re on the front line, acutely affected by the changing climate. Farmers in the Waikato have been suffering from a severe drought – a longer drought than normal, they say. Normally the rain has come in by now, but not this year, one of the hottest and driest summers on record, caused at least in part by climate change.

Those farmers are now getting a handout from the government to support them through this difficult period. Support is needed – most importantly to transition away from the carbon-intensive system that is making the tough times more frequent.

The last thing farmers need is their industry’s refusal to change. But thanks to massive lobbying from the agriculture sector farmers are still excluded from the Emissions Trading Scheme and so have not paid a cent towards the ERP.  No Matter! On the very day the government lets them off the hook for paying the cost of their pollution, it was announced the taxpayer would be footing the bill to help them deal with the impact of climate change. You can’t make this stuff up.

NZ Steel

In another nod to industry the ERP allows NZ Steel to keep burning coal up to 2050 – this despite the push elsewhere towards low carbon steel manufacture and NZ Steel referring to steel-without-coal a “holy grail still at least a decade away”. One decade = 2032, not 2050.

Here are three points about steel:

1. You can make steel without coal, you just need the political will. Sweden’s Hybrit, with help from the EU Innovation Fund, will have commercially available coal-free steel by 2026. Sweden’s high percentage of hydroelectricity makes it a sitter for this kind of innovation – sound familiar? Even NZ Steel’s parent company Bluescope is working on low carbon steel manufacture in Port Kembla, Australia. It’s high time coal industry lobbyists stop denying the obvious (no, the world does not need your West Coast coking coal!) and get on with helping coal workers into much needed jobs to help secure all our futures.
2. The cool thing about steel is its 100% recyclability. We do OK in Aotearoa, recycling around 80% of our steel even though it has to be shipped overseas, but there is so much more that we can do in the recycling department. However, as with so many other manufacturing industries here, government must learn from the industry experts in order to make useful policy choices. For example, due to all sorts of technical reasons including the unique way NZ steel is made using thermal rather than coking coal, it currently makes sense to recycle But with low emissions inserted into company’s bottom line in place of profit we have a new, exciting story to tell. Yes please!
3. Stop using so much steel in construction. It’s been called “the concrete of the future” – Cross laminated Timber (CLT), developed at Canterbury University, is cost competitive to concrete and steel in low rise buildings (up to six stories) . One cubic meter of CLT can absorb one tonne of CO2. What’s stopping us?

Genesis Energy

Genesis is our other biggest coal user. It’s embarrassing that Genesis Energy still uses coal. CANA shamed them into stopping importing Indonesian coal 2014 when coal workers were being laid off down the road at Rotowaro.  Yet today Genesis, a 51% government owned company, is importing record amounts of coal.

We won’t go into the tangled mess behind what is now an electricity system that makes enormous profit off the backs of our forefathers’ publicly built electricity network. But Huntly coal has to go. My friend, currently working on huge wind and solar projects in Australia said our electricity system would be so easy to fix – he means make entirely renewable. In his view we don’t need Lake Onslow. Replace Huntly coal with planned, managed, distributed electricity. However, it looks as though the neoliberal capitalist model is sacrosanct. The market rules. But if we’re serious about the climate emergency a coherent public electricity utility has to be our priority.

Summing Up

A 2037 date to end coal in NZ is not fast enough. It ensures our biggest polluters get to continue dumping millions more tonnes of coal into a choking atmosphere than their fair share. CANA’s proposed date of 2027 to end coal use, instead of the government’s 2037, gives industry plenty of time to ensure that all workers involved in the mining and transport of coal get the training and support to transition into jobs needed for adapting to a climate changed economy – and there are plenty.

CANA’s 2014-15 report Jobs After Coal notes that Coal miners’ transferable skills are essential for helping build the economy we desperately need if we are to survive – like fixing our low lying railway network, building flood defences where possible in our low lying coastal cities, reorganising the way we grow food and so many other areas.

We would love to bring you good news folks! Well, climate change bumped Ukraine off top place in the news last week.

TBH, while the government gives the thumbs up to Fonterra in the ERP we have to give the ERP a great big thumbs down.

Our thumbs up goes to the climate activists who shut down Bathurst’s Takitimu coal mine recently, injecting colour and creativity into the heart of Mordor for an entire day.

Cheers!

Rosemary and the CANA team

The post Our biggest polluters are still calling the shots on coal appeared first on Coal Action Network Aotearoa.

PRESS RELEASE

“We’re disappointed and frustrated at the lack of urgency in the Government’s Emissions Reduction Plan discussion document,” said Tim Jones of Coal Action Network Aotearoa, the national group campaigning for an end to coal mining and use in Aotearoa.

“In fact, this isn’t even a plan – it’s a grab-bag of generally underwhelming proposals submitted by Ministers and Ministries. None reflect the urgency of the climate crisis, especially given the government has declared a Climate Emergency.”

“Agriculture, which represents almost 50% of New Zealand’s emissions, is dealt with in just four pages – that tells you all you need to know about the Government’s lack of climate ambition, and the Minister of Agriculture’s refusal to cooperate with the Government’s emissions reduction goals.”

“Coal is the highest-emitting fossil fuel, yet this draft document would let coal mining and burning continue for decades,” Tim Jones said.

“The Government is still giving big industrial emitters massive subsidies, in the form of free industrial allocations of carbon credits under the Emissions Trading Scheme, paid for by taxpayers, to keep burning coal and other fossil fuels: there’s no commitment to phase out those subsidies.

“The Government is also continuing to let Fonterra set the timetable for phasing out industrial coal boilers, instead of telling Fonterra to shape up. Letting big emitters continue to burn coal as long as they want isn’t a plan – it’s a failure of policy and a failure of nerve.”

“Aotearoa needs and deserves vision and leadership on climate action and climate justice,” Tim Jones said. “We need a real plan of action, with a strategy, milestones, and measurable deliverables.”

“The Prime Minister has spoken frequently about her commitment to strong action on climate change. This draft document shows that all too many of her Ministers don’t share that commitment.

It’s up to the community to step into the breach during the submission period and make it impossible for the Government to ignore the clamour for real, meaningful, measurable emissions reductions – and it’s up to the Prime Minister to get her Ministers on board and in line.

Let’s turn this into a real plan to reduce emissions and respond to the climate emergency.”

The post Coal Action Network On Government Emissions Reduction Plan: Where’s The Plan? appeared first on Coal Action Network Aotearoa.

Coal Action Network Aotearoa sharply criticised the Climate Change Commission’s decision to double projected coal use in 2050 in its final advice to the Government, released today.

“The Climate Change Commission’s final advice to the Government is full of brave words about the need to phase out coal,” said Coal Action Network Aotearoa spokesperson Tim Jones. “But brave words mean nothing without the determination to act – and since its draft report, it looks like the Commission’s nerve has failed.”

“In the draft advice, the Commission showed coal use continuing at 10 PJ/yr right up to 2050. Continuing to use coal, the world’s most dangerous fossil fuel, up to 2050 is utterly irresponsible in a climate emergency. CANA wants coal phased out by 2027.”

“But the final advice is even worse. It appears NZ Steel have got in the Commission’s ear and persuaded the Commission that their antiquated, polluting technology should be allowed to continue at even higher levels past 2050 – in fact, at twice the level in the draft advice.”

“This is terrible advice,” Tim Jones said. “Alternatives to using coal to make steel exist, and will be available well before 2050. This backsliding by the Commission shows that we need as a country to have a real debate about alternatives for coal for high-temperature industrial processes, instead of allowing vested interests like NZ Steel to sweet-talk the Commission into allowing coal a future that is bad for Aotearoa and bad for the planet.”

The post Climate Change Commission slammed for doubling coal use in 2050 in final advice appeared first on Coal Action Network Aotearoa.

WELLINGTON PROTEST: Midland Park, outside Fonterra’s office at 157 Lambton Quay, at 1 pm on Friday 28 May.

New Zealand’s largest company, Fonterra, is the major culprit in New Zealand’s most critical environmental and climate problems.

Fonterra, and its farmers, profit from dumping their pollution and waste, for free, into our atmosphere, water and soil.

This is the cause of worsening climate change, unswimmable rivers and undrinkable waters, along with poor animal welfare, tropical deforestation, loss of amenity and biodiversity, and health risks to Kiwis, from premature and breastfeeding infants, to adults risking gastrointestinal illness, including colorectal cancer.

Put simply, Fonterra is at the centre of a web of destruction caused by too many cows, in the wrong places.

Between 1990 and 2019, dairy cattle numbers increased by 82% nationally, from 3.4 million to 6.3 million. Dairy cattle increased almost tenfold in Canterbury (from 113,000 to 1.2 million).

The thin, dry and stony soils of Canterbury, the Mackenzie Basin and Otago are totally unsuitable for intensive dairying, which exists  only through unsustainable inputs of irrigation water, synthetic nitrogen fertilisers and imported feed such as palm kernel.

Photo: Duncan Brown

Intensive dairying also produces copious quantities of two dangerous climate-changing gases, methane and nitrous oxide, in addition to the carbon dioxide produced by Fonterra’s powdered milk factories, which burn about 500,000 tonnes of coal every year.

The waste water from those factories is dumped onto neighbouring, cow-free, “ghost farms”, and is so polluting that farmers and their neighbours dare not drink from their wells, nor eat from their veggie gardens.

New Zealand’s animal overstocking is so bad, that New Zealand risks having trade barriers imposed on us by more environmentally-aware countries, especially since agriculture remains outside the Emissions Trading Scheme.

Fonterra’s toxic rip-off of New Zealand’s environment and people must stop!

We call on Fonterra and its farmer owners to reduce cow numbers by 50% nationwide, and reduce them to 1990 levels in the worst-affected regions of Canterbury, the Mackenzie Basin and Otago.

We also call on Fonterra to stop burning coal by 2027, not a decade later as it currently proposes.

AUCKLAND PROTEST: Victoria Park, cnr Halsey & Fanshawe St, opposite Fonterra HQ at 109 Fanshawe St, at 3 pm on Friday 28 May.

WELLINGTON PROTEST: Midland Park, outside Fonterra’s office at 157 Lambton Quay, at 1 pm on Friday 28 May.

To join the nationwide protest movement, contact your local elected officials, newspapers and trade unions; post on social media and support groups such as:

Coal Action Network Aotearoa (CANA):  www.coalaction.org.nz

Aotearoa Water Action (AWA): www.aotearoawateraction.org.nz

Extinction Rebellion (XR):  extinctionrebellion.nz/christchurch/water-campaign/

The post Protest Fonterra, New Zealand’s Worst Polluter, this Friday, 28th May 2021 appeared first on Coal Action Network Aotearoa.