Robin Johnson's Economics Web Page

Obama and State Department cork the Keystone XL pipeline

2012-01-19T15:14:00.002+13:00

No really! Denial of the Keystone XL Pipeline Application, Media Note, Office of the Spokesperson, United States Department of State, Washington, DC, January 18, 2012.

And Obama's response: Statement by the President on the Keystone XL Pipeline The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, January 18, 2012

Joe Romm notes that the oil would go to China, the jobs to Canada and the extra carbon dioxide would go to global temperature increases - so Was the decision really that hard?

See News for Denial of the Keystone XL Pipeline Application

The Durban UNFCCC international climate negotiations

2011-12-03T10:44:00.003+13:00

In which I discuss the Durban UNFCCC international climate negotiations through a historic lense of the Second World War and the Rio 1992 Earth Summit.

In a very considered comment on the Hot Topic blog , David Lewis questions whether the Durban UNFCCC international climate negotiations can come up with a binding treaty that effectively reduces GHG concentrations, given the existing public will.

"I don’t see how negotiations on an international climate treaty can proceed to an agreement that would actually stabilize the composition of the atmosphere at a level that would not cause [dangerous anthropogenic interference] without more demand for such an agreement coming from the global population"

.

David Lewis compares the global demand for action in the international climate change negotiations with the changing British attitudes to 'Total War' with Hitler's Germany in 1940. Lewis implies that in the climate change negotiations, each government is "trapped in a circumstance where it can’t generate the national will that’s necessary".

In terms of the purposes served by international climate change negotiations, I would go a step further than that thoughtful comment from David Lewis. I say that the negotiations have never had the goal of producing a binding treaty to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations. Governments instead use the negotiations as one of their reasons for not reducing emissions of greenhouse gases and for continuing with 'business-as-usual'.

Let me summarise my contention using another reference to the Second World War.

Q. Whats the difference between Neville Chamberlain's negotiations in 1938 with Hitler in Munich that lead to the annexation of Czechoslovakia and the UNFCCC international climate change negotiations?
A. Neville Chamberlain only went once to Munich.

In making my argument I am influenced by a paper my late father Robin Johnson wrote in 1992 about the political-economy of the Rio Earth Summit. Robin uses the term "political-economy" to indicate he is considering the various groups with interests in the Earth Summit and asking what interests were served by the outcomes.

Robin noted that the expected outcomes of the Rio Earth Summit were binding signed international conventions on climate change and biological diversity. However, the actual outcome was a "framework convention...full of resounding phraseology and generalities".

Robin says the reason for this outcome was the fundamental split between the 'North' (developed countries) and South (developing country) blocs. Neither bloc was was willing to put global interest ahead of national interests. Instead, the outcome of the Earth Summit consisted of "non-binding language ... adopted to get all major nations to sign".

No agreement except on non-binding rhetorical statements! Sound familiar, doesn't it? Isn't that whats happened with all the subsequent climate change talks?

Robin's paper uncannily predicts much of the next 19 years of inconclusive negotiations. He wrote "Prior to meeting in Rio, some governments expressed concern that the Earth Summit would become a "pledging conference" where world leaders would be expected to step to the podium and announce their country's contribution." Copenhagen 2009, anyone?

Robin concluded "The challenge for those seeking action will be to channel the outcomes of Rio into concrete action by member states". Substitute "Bali 2007" or "Copenhagen 2009" or "Cancun 2010" for "Rio", and we can re-use that conclusion for all subsequent international climate change negotiations.

So, from a political economy point of view, the climate change negotiations have had the effect of ensuring that international opinion stays "behind the demand curve” for decisive action. After all, that is the function they have served in the 19 years since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992.

So I think we need to let go of the idea that the negotiations as they are currently constituted and conducted will make any useful contribution to the kind of decisive international action that is required. We need to accept that the negotiations are just another forum for business and politics as usual.

Swallowing the elephant flogging the dead horse

2011-11-11T19:36:00.017+13:00

A snake swallows the elephant in the room and then flogs a dead horse - The politics of climate change in the 2011 New Zealand Election campaign

So whats happening with climate change in the campaign for the 26 November 2011 election?

I was originally thinking about writing a wonkish post comparing climate change policies between parties. You know the sort of thing.

Which parties have policies that reflect the seriousness of the impacts the science predicts? Who has got the science wrong? Which politicians are all talk and no action? What are the minute details of the each party's NZ ETS policies. Such as delays to sector entry dates, partial price obligations and varying free unit allocation regimes...MEGO, anyone? (My Eyes Glaze Over....)

Then I thought, Nah! I am looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

You know what really strikes me about climate change in the election?

It's the absence. It is as if climate change is nearly completely absent from the campaign. When climate change does pop up, it's portrayed in simplistic soundbites.

Nick Smith says anthropogenic climate change is real and complex and 'wicked'. But promises more moderating, balancing and delaying of the NZ ETS. Labour says anthropogenic climate change is real and we will fiddle with some NZ ETS details for agriculture slightly earlier than National as farmers don't vote for us anyway. The Greens say anthropogenic climate change is real and we have a detailed wonk-friendly exposition on our website, but for this election we are running with "jobs, kids, rivers". oh no...MEGO...

What's happened is that climate change, the 'elephant in the room', has been swallowed up whole by the 'snake in the room' -- politics. Along with all other serious political issues.

This snake is the real theme of the election. Russell Brown calls it the politics of absence. Brown says "cultivated political absence...shapes the almost unprecedented popularity of John Key". John Key's political success is because of this successful strategy of "de-politicising" himself. Key's politics-free radio chat show was the perfect example.

The media have largely just played along with the politics of absence. The election is discussed as a poll-driven horse race. Or a rugby game "of two halves" with "kicking for touch". Who looked confident? Who had the best sound bites? Who mispronounced his/her New Zild the least or most. Restructure or "reeshrukcha"?

The media have trivialised and objectified political debate. I give this example. The most discussed electoral contest in 2011 appears to be Auckland Central which the Herald calls "the battle of the babes" as the candidates, Jacinda Ardern and Nikki Kaye, are both relatively young women, whose shared Herald columns are called "Broadsides". Do I need to say more?

After the snake has swallowed the elephant in the room, the snake becomes the dead horse that needs some more flogging.

Climate change has been politically institutionalised. Its now "flogging a dead horse". Everyone has a policy (a horse). Everyone talks their policy. No one does anything.

These policies all have a narrative that explains the problem (the horse is under-performing) and a 'narrative' solution (keep flogging the horse).

It is here that the metaphor of "flogging the dead horse" fits so well. Firstly, the probability of the two main political parties really acting to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases is the same as the probability of the flogged horse springing back to life.

The second reason is that the best dead horses can be repeatedly flogged.

Take the Resource Management Act (RMA). It's the ultimate flogged dead horse of NZ politics. In its 20 years of life, it has been in an almost eternal state of being vilified from all sides: for environmental failures and for economic inefficiency.

Both National and Labour have both been subjecting it to interminable reviews and amendments. The basics remain the same. Plans are written with lofty goals. Plans don't reflect consent practice. But then consent decisions rarely reflect plan goals. Consents are needed for some activities not others. Some consents need more evidence and take longer than others.

The NZ ETS is the new dead horse in the flogging stable. Its perfect. Like RMA issues, the NZ ETS is fiendishly complex. To most people, the NZ ETS is a MEGO topic. My Eyes Glaze Over. A recital of any of the detail of the NZ ETS is usually enough to induce that response. Thus deflecting most criticisms.

Being complex, if not incomprehensible by design, the NZ ETS can be fitted, usually negatively, into any political viewpoint. Farmers can still oppose it with vitriol despite their generous treatment. It is just as good a political punching bag as the RMA.

National's 2009 amendments institutionalise that most Kiwi of practices -- a five yearly review by committee. To me this is the statutory recognition of the near-permanent state of "fixing" the RMA is subject to. Labour have said they will continue the 5-yearly reviews if they become Government. Thus they have bought into Nick Smith's approach of eternal moderating of the NZ ETS. Labour get a payoff of needing less specific policies.

So debates on the NZ ETS, like this one, between Nick Smith's soundbites and Russel Norman's observations on perverse price incentives, on TV One's Q and A programme, don't really matter politically. The debate itself is just more MEGO. The snake swallows the elephant.

Interestingly, TV One had Jeanette Fitzsimons as their 'pundit' for the Smith/Norman debate. She cut right through the snake punditry by analysing the NZ ETS on the meta level. She said the NZ ETS was now so weak and distorted that it no longer mattered what tinkering Smith did to it. "It's like driving a car fast towards a cliff and arguing whether to go in fourth gear or fifth".

The horse is dead and no amount of flogging will make it trot again.

An all-sectors NZETS should include agriculture

2011-11-09T14:35:00.003+13:00

Gareth notes that Nick Smith has confirmed that agriculture will be unlikely to enter the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme.

"Hon Dr Nick Smith... explained the recent decision to indefinitely delay bringing agriculture into the scheme, stating the technology to do so practically does not yet exist"

Nick Smith yet again gets away with a soundbite of spin that is contradicted by the orthodox economic rationale for having an all-sectors all-units and all-gases international emissions trading scheme for greenhouse gases.

Just for the sake of argument, let's ignore the Sustainability Council's work on agricultural emissions reduction and assume that Dr Smith is correct that there are no practical technologies that will enable the agricultural sector to reduce emissions.

Let's go back to basics. Why do we even have emissions trading including all greenhouse gases across all sectors and across national borders?

The whole point is so that 'cheaper emissions reductions' can, in the short to medium term, largely carry the can for 'expensive emissions reductions', in meeting emissions limits or caps.

In economics speak, a sector of an economy with 'expensive emissions reductions' options is more or less just the same as a sector without practical technologies to enable reductions of emissions. Agriculture, for example, according to Nick Smith!

To paraphrase from another Nick, Lord Stern, in a well-functioning "deep and liquid" market for emissions permits, emitters with expensive mitigation options become buyers of permits and purchase permits from emitters with cheaper mitigation.

The role of the all-gases ETS, is to provide a wider variety of cheaper markets for emissions reductions, than would be the case in a single-gas ETS (such as a ruminant methane ETS, if there was one).

So the role of the emitting industries with fewer mitigation options (or more costly options) is to provide a flow of funds to reward those industries that have the cheaper emissions reduction options!

Logically, the lack of immediate practical mitigation technology in any one sector, is not a valid reason for leaving a sector out of an all-gases ETS.

Nick Smith fails the smelter spin test

2011-11-02T12:49:00.000+13:00

What does The Hon Dr Nick Smith, Minister for Climate Change Issues, say when the Greens accuse him of subsidising greenhouse gas polluters. Well it seems he denies it and he produces instructive soundbites of spin. I am informed that at Wellington's Oxfam election and climate change debate he said that the NZ Aluminium Smelter Ltd's operation at Tiwai Point is the only aluminium smelter in the world exposed to a carbon price.

He has said this soundbite a few times. For example, in response to Kennedy Graham on 29 September 2011:

"..the aluminium smelter in Bluff is the only aluminium smelter in the world to face any price at all for its greenhouse gas emissions".

On TV One's 'Q and A' programme:

"the New Zealand Aluminium Smelter in Bluff, it is the only one in the world that pays any face at all for carbon pricing." (1)

In Parliament in September 2009,

"...the Bluff smelter, on 1 July next year, will be the very first to face a carbon price for its pollution. The European scheme excludes aluminium smelters until 2013..."

Does Dr Nick's soundbite stand up to scrutiny? The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme, which started in 2005, excludes the European aluminium smelters until 2013. But it included electricity generation from 2005. And aluminium smelting is very electricity intensive. As the International Energy Agency says: "Although the primary aluminium sector is not directly covered by the (EU) ETS, the impacts of the CO2 price are felt through increases in electricity prices" (p 8). (2)

Another example of a Smith soundbite is saying that the overly-generous free allocation of emissions units to industry in the NZETS is not a cost to the taxpayer. For example: Parliament on 29 September 2011:

"This member and other members make the gross error of trying to claim that not exposing industries or consumers to the full price of carbon over all their emissions is somehow a subsidy. A subsidy implies that there is a cost to taxpayers. That is not true.."

Unfortunately for Dr Nick, that's not what the Auditor General, Lynn Provost, says in her accounting and auditing advice for emissions units in the public sector

"NZUs have a market value and the issue of NZUs without charge to participants is an expense to the Government and creates a liability".

Sorry Dr Smith, the Tiwai Point smelter is not the only aluminium smelter exposed to a carbon price in an ETS. And the European smelters probably pay a higher carbon price through their electricity costs as the Tiwai Point smelter owner is compensated for electricity costs as well as emissions through excessive free allocation of emissions units.

Sorry Dr Smith, you can't just create and give away a permit to emit greenhouse gases that has a clear market value and say there is no cost to taxpayers as Treasury did not write out a cheque. The Auditor General says there is a cost to taxpayers of giving emissions units away to emitters.

Footnotes
(1) NB By 'pay any face' I think he means 'face any price'.)
(2) IEA, 2008,'Climate Policy and Carbon Leakage - Impacts of the European Emissions Trading Scheme on Aluminium'

120% Pure Subsidy NZ Aluminium Smelters Limited Part 2

2011-10-20T00:07:00.011+13:00

I have had some very good comments on the 120% Pure Subsidy post about the quantity of free emissions units that NZ Aluminium Smelters Limited/Rio Tinto Alcan NZ Limited (I will just call them 'the smelter') has received under the NZ ETS in 2010. Enough good comments that they justify a second post on NZ Aluminium Smelters free units.

Simon Terry of the Sustainability Council points out that we shouldn't be surprised at the high level of free allocation of units to big emitters. Simon Terry documented this in June 2008, in the report Corporate Welfare Under the ETS, which looked at free allocation of units to eight energy intensive companies under the proposed NZ ETS.

In particular, Simon Terry reminds us that in the NZ ETS the free allocation of units includes a factor to compensate for NZ ETS related electricity price increases. As the NZ ETS will make some power generation more expensive to the extent that it uses fossil fuels (Huntly Power Station for example). This explains why the 'allocative baseline' factor for aluminium smelting is 2.645 units per tonne aluminium when the emissions factor for the MfE Greenhouse Gas inventory is 1.67 tonnes CO₂-e per tonne aluminium.

This feature of using free allocation of units to compensate emitters for electricity price increases is explicit in the Labour Government's original NZ ETS proposal Framework for a New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme, released in September 2007. As indicated by this quote under the heading "Allocation of emission units"

"indirect emissions associated with the consumption of electricity, as well as direct emissions from ... industrial processes will be included in the concept of emissions from industrial producers...The basis for allocation for electricity consumption will be one that compensates firms for the cost impact".

Another regular commenter, Password1, says my analysis is totally incorrect because I have left out the indirect emissions from using electricity, that I am not comparing the same sets of data, and that I need to redo my calculations based on what is in the legislation. Further, my assertion that there has been an "overallocation" of units "is wrong, wrong, wrong".

Password1 concludes that

"The smelter is not getting a ‘refund’ – they are facing a proportion of the full cost of emissions both at the point of aluminium production and from being passed down from the electricity generator."

Okay maybe I will redo my calculations. So off I will go down the rabbit-hole and look into this electricity factor. So what is the proportion of the 'allocative baseline' factor for aluminium smelting, 2.645 units per tonne of aluminium, is to compensate for NZ ETS-related electricity price increases?

This idea of fossil-fuel-thermal power costs (increased by the NZ ETS) affecting a smelter that only exists because of hydroelectric dams on Lakes Manapouri and Te Anau seems a bit bizarre. Especially since NZAS's supply contract is with Meridian Energy, the 100% renewable power company.

However, the wholesale electricity market works by preferentially using the lowest priced generation offer in any one half-hour trading period. Brian Fallow points out that this means that wholesale price is set by the most expensive block of electricity offered into the market which is needed to ensure demand is satisfied and that block may be from Genesis Energy's Huntly coal and gas thermal plant.

When demand is high and hydro lakes are low, thermal power sets the wholesale price. As was the case through much of 2008. When demand is low and hydro lakes are full, then the Huntly Power Plant may be on the substitutes bench and the NZETS costs won't flow through to the wholesale electricity price.

So it does seem that there is some level of carbon price from the NZ ETS reflected through the wholesale price that ends up in the electricity price paid by the smelter. However, it is quite hard to quantify this price.

Allocative baselines are discussed in June 2010 in this Cabinet paper. Paragraph 37 tells us that the electricity allocation factor is 0.52 tCO₂-e/MWh. Paragraph 40 tells us that an analysis of the smelter's electricity contract with Meridian Energy indicates that the use of this factor would result in over-allocation of units as the actual extra electricity costs are less than 0.52 tCO₂-e/MWh.

Unfortunately the actual extra electricity costs, the degree of over-allocation and the fiscal cost of allocation to the smelter, have all been blanked out from the cabinet paper, apparently as 'the information is commercially sensitive'. I appear to be at the end of that rabbit-hole.

The next rabbit-hole is to check the emissions factor that gives emissions of CO₂-e from tonnes of aluminium produced.

In terms of emissions reported and units surrendered, Regulation 35 of Climate Change (Stationary Energy and Industrial Processes) Regulations gives a 10-variable formula for the calculating the smelter's emissions from production. I am missing about 4 of these variables. So thats also a dead end for duplicating the emissions and the units to be surrendered.

But why don't I just use actual numbers? The Ministry of Economic Development Chief Executive's Report shows that the NZ aluminium manufacturing sector has only one NZ ETS 'participant' and that the sector, and therefore the one participant, the aluminium smelter, reported emissions of 615,814 tonnes CO₂-e for the 2010 year and 312,294 tonnes CO₂-e for the six months from 1 July to 31 December 2010.

So 312,294 tonnes were emitted in the six month period of obligation to surrender matching units. So we divide by 2 for the two-for-one unit deal, and that results in 156,147 units to surrender.

210,421 units were allocated to the smelter for the six months according to the Ministry for the Environment.

That's 54,274 more units allocated than surrendered or alternatively the units allocated to the smelter exceeded the units surrendered by the smelter by 135%.

This result is pretty much a mid-point between my previous estimates which were from 147% to 122%, as summarised in this table.

Table 1 Low actual and high estimate of units to surrender
	Low	Actual	High
Units to surrender	143,342	156,147	172,526
Units allocated	210,421	210,421	210,421
Excess allocation (units)	67,079	54,247	37,896
Excess allocation (per cent)	147%	135%	122%

Summing up

The smelter was allocated 210,421 emission units in the six-month NZ ETS compliance period in 2010. Without any reasonable doubt, this represents 54,274 more emission units than it surrendered to match emissions.

At today's NZ unit price of $14, the value of the units allocated is $2,945,894. The value of the excess of units allocated above units surrendered is $759,836. That is the value of the taxpayer's gift to the smelter.

An unknown (or undisclosed) proportion of the free units are intended to compensate the smelter for NZ ETS-related electricity price increases in a year characterised by highest level ever of renewable generation.

I can't prove that the amount of free units allocated is more than the sum of the units to be surrendered for emissions plus some units as compensation for electricity price increases. But I think it is highly likely.

In any case, it hardly matters whether the volume of free allocation is either just under 100% of costs or whether its 135%. Both options pretty much effectively negate the carbon price on the smelter and mean no real incentive to reduce emissions.

The bottomline for me is that if the smelter were not in the NZ ETS, they would at least be paying the some carbon price as a 'downstream' electricity user where some costs of fossil-thermal power generation are factored into the wholesale electricity price when fossil-thermal power is not priced out by cheaper hydro-generation.

Because of the allocation of units for power price increases, the smelter faces a lower carbon price than if it was exempt from the ETS and just paid its power bills.

There was an argument that the NZ ETS might be weak but at least it was better than nothing. In the case of the smelter, its game over for that argument.

Greek debt crisis

2011-10-18T23:57:00.002+13:00

This evening's economic analysis highlights the Greek debt crisis and is bought to you by John Clarke and Brian Dawe.

Trans-Tasman Emissions Trading Scheme Challenge Part Two

2011-10-13T15:09:00.003+13:00

Yesterday the Australian Parliament adopted legislation for its greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme.

So I thought I would write another post on the theme of the "Trans-Tasman Emissions Trading Scheme test series", this time looking at the key differences between the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme and the Australian Emissions Trading Scheme. The number one key difference between the two emissions trading schemes is in how clearly each scheme sets the carbon price.

1. Unequivocal carbon price vs volatile carbon price.

Unlike the NZ ETS, the Australian ETS will set an absolutely clear and unequivocal price on greenhouse gas emissions.

The price will be $AU23 per tonne from 1 July 2012, then $AU24.15 in 2013-14 and $AU25.40 2014-15 (Securing a Clean Energy Future, The Australian Government's Climate Change Plan, p 26). From 1 July 2015, the carbon price will float within and upper and lower ceiling with the Government setting an overall 'Cap' or limit on GHGs (Securing a Clean Energy Future p 27).

The price for "New Zealand Units" under the NZ ETS is being set at a discount to the price of international Kyoto units in the volatile international carbon. So the NZ price is ...well...it's yeah whatever. As in this chart for 2010. Did you note that the Australian minimum carbon price of 23.00 Australian Dollars converts to 29.50 New Zealand Dollars? A price of 29.50 NZ dollars is off the scale of this chart!

And as in this updated chart for September, showing the fall in the international price driven by the Euro-Zone debt crisis is further pushing the NZ unit price down.

This direct importing of the international price into the NZ unit price is because of two intrinsic design features of the NZ ETS. The NZ ETS has no cap on domestic GHG emissions and no cap on free allocation of units to emitters. The NZ ETS is highly linked to international markets. It allows almost all international Kyoto units to be imported and surrendered by emitters. So an emitter would say to a seller of NZ units "Why should I buy your NZ units instead of international units, which I could sell in a much wider market, unless the NZ units are at a discount?"

Of course, the Australians, influenced by Ross Garnaut and Bob Brown of the Green Party, are not having a bar of this price volatility. In terms of the economics literature, this is absolutely the right way to go.

A clear and consistent carbon price out for several years will clearly signal to emitters which emission reduction technologies to adopt - ones that will break even at the set carbon price! The same goes for developers of windfarms and producers of biofuels. A clear carbon price into the future will give investors confidence that they will not lose their shirts putting capital into windfarms and biofuel plants. Carbon price volatility, like in New Zealand, just makes investment in either mitigation or substitution of fossil fuels a bad bet.

So why on earth would a big industrial emitter want to have an emission trading scheme like New Zealand's where they have an unpredictable and volatile liability to pay a carbon price instead of an unequivocal and consistent-over-time carbon price as set out in Australia's scheme?

The only answer I can give is that if like Rio Tinto NZ Alcan Limited, you are given more emissions units than you need for your actual emissions then it just doesn't matter what the price is.

150% Pure Subsidy: the NZETS gives Rio Tinto Alcan NZ more emissions units than its emissions

2011-10-07T16:48:00.002+13:00

Last week, (back on 29 September 2011 actually), Green MP Kennedy Graham was questioning Climate Change Issues Minister Nick Smith over his apparent lack of consistence over subsidies for fossil fuel industries.

Kennedy Graham was wondering why Nick Smith and Climate Change and Trade Negotiations Minister Tim Groser were happy on the one hand to oppose billion dollar subsidies to fossil fuel industries on the international stage, while on the other hand have the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme include subsidies in the form of generous free allocation of emissions units to big industrial emitters of GHGs.

The Hon Dr Nick Smith replied:

"...this Government is not providing subsidies to greenhouse gas polluters. I remind the member that we are the only country outside the EU to have an emissions trading scheme. Our aluminium smelter in Bluff is the only aluminium smelter in the world to face any price at all for its greenhouse gas emissions".

Lets examine this assertion in two parts; that the Tiwai Point Aluminum Smelter, receives no subsidies from Government and it faces a carbon/GHG price.

A brief recap, Tiwai Point Aluminum Smelter at Bluff, out on the edge of Foveaux Strait near Invercargill, is operated by NZ Aluminium Smelters Limited, which in turn is owned by Rio Tinto Alcan NZ Limited, a subsidiary of Canadian multinational Rio Tinto Alcan.

NZ Aluminium Smelters Limited has received an allocation of free emissions units under the NZ ETS. That is clear from that un-labelled pie chart I have been banging on about. The chart shows that iron, steel and aluminium production are to receive 40% of all free industrial allocation of emissions units.

However, we don't need to do any guessing as the Ministry for the Environment has just released an analysis of how many free emissions units were allocated to whom under industrial allocation for the half-year compliance period 1 July to 31 December 2010.

NZ Aluminium Smelters Limited received 210,421 NZ emissions units or 12% of the total allocated of 1.77 million units. By the way, only New Zealand Steel, the operator of the Glenbrook Steel Mill, received more units. They got 494,704 units.

How does this allocation of free emissions units compare with the number of emissions units that would need to be surrendered? Is the allocation more or less than the number of units surrendered?

With a bit of ferreting, I have found enough data to make some back-of-envelope-but-on spreadsheet calculations. Here are the inputs and constraints I used.

2010 production of aluminium: 343,335 tonnes. From 2010 Sustainability Report , NZ Aluminium Smelters Limited.

Emissions factor for aluminium: Low estimate . 1.67 tonnes CO2-e per tonne Aluminium. From Ministry for the Environment's New Zealand’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990–2009.

Emissions factor for aluminium: High estimate. 2.01 tonnes CO2-e per tonne Aluminium. From Heavy Industry Energy Demand Update Report Prepared for Ministry of Economic Development February 2009, Covec Ltd.

The compliance period for surrendering units is from 1 July 2010 to 31 December 2010, a half-year.

The obligation to surrender units is a half obligation because of the two units for one tonne of GHGs deal.

Free allocation of units is also reduced by a half.

Free allocation is calculated as 90 per cent of the allocative baseline (a benchmark number of NZUs per unit output)

The aluminium allocative baseline is 2.645 units per tonne of aluminium produced. From Section 7 of the Climate Change (Eligible Industrial Activities) Regulations 2010

I will first check my input assumptions by calculating my own estimate of the actual units allocated; 210,421.

Table 1. Estimate of emissions units allocated
2010 production tonnes Aluminium	343,335
Half year production /2 (1 July 31 Dec 2010)	171,668
Half obligation /2 (one unit/2 tonnes)	85,834
90% emissions-intensive-trade-exposed allocation	77,250
Allocation baseline (tCO2-e/t output)	2.645
Equals estimate of Units allocated	204,327
Difference (approx. 2.9%)	6,094
Actual Units allocated	210,421

My estimate of units allocated is 204,327, which is only 6,000 odd units (or 2.9%) less than the actual units allocated of 210,421. So it seems my inputs are roughly good enough.

Table 2 High and low estimate of units to surrender
2010 production tonnes Al	343,335	343,335
MfE Emissions factor (t Al/t CO2-e)	1.67	2.01
Estimated emissions 2010 t CO2-e	573,369	690,103
Half year compliance period (1 July 31 Dec 2010 /2)	286,685	345,052
Half obligation (one unit 2 tonnes /2)	143,342	172,526
Estimated Units to surrender	143,342	172,526
Actual Units allocated	210,421	210,421
Excess allocation (units)	67,079	37,896
Excess allocation (per cent)	147%	122%

Nick Smith implies that the free allocations reduce but do not remove the exposure to the carbon price. This is simply not correct. If it was correct, units allocated to NZ Aluminum Smelters would be less than units surrendered. However, units allocated exceed my estimates of units needed for surrenders.

I estimate that NZ Aluminium Smelters Limited were required to surrender between 143,000 and 172,000 emissions units for the six months to 31 December 2010. NZ Aluminium Smelters Limited were given, under 'industrial allocation', 210,421 units. My low and high estimates of the units to be surrendered exceed the actual units allocated by 37,000 and 67,000 units respectively.

Nick Smith says emitters are not being subsidised by free allocation. This too is simply not correct. Allocations greater than surrenders equals over-allocation or a net gain to NZ Aluminium Smelters Limited. The estimated over-allocation is from 124% to 147%. NZ Aluminium Smelters do not face a positive carbon price at all. If the NZ ETS was a carbon tax, NZ Aluminium Smelters would have a negative carbon tax rate!

This perverse outcome is exactly why carbon taxes are in practice simpler, more effective, and a more robust way of carbon pricing than emissions trading.

The NZ ETS and agriculture's late entry; special pleading

2011-10-06T15:09:00.003+13:00

An agricultural commenter has hit back at the NZ Emissions Trading Scheme Review 2011 and the New Zealand Herald editorial Farmers must share burden on emissions' for saying that there should be no further delay of the 2015 date when agricultural emissions will enter the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (NZ ETS).

The Herald editorial had the temerity to comment on the government's "extraordinary generosity to farmers" in changing the "modest impositions" of the NZ ETS on agriculture so that it "will become truly timorous".

David Anderson, who is described as a former editor of Rural News and a communications consultant in "teh" (sic) agribusiness sector, has just had an opinion piece in the NZ Herald (27 September) arguing for a further delay in agriculture's entry into the NZ ETS.

Just as a brief re-cap, in the Clark-Cullen Labour Government's original version of the NZ ETS, agriculture was 'last in', with unit surrender obligations starting on 1 January 2013; i.e. after the end of the 2008-2012 Kyoto Protocol first commitment period.

In November 2009, Nick Smith and National changed the start or entry date to 1 January 2015 and confirmed that it would be processors and not individual farmers who would have the obligation to report emissions and surrender units. That was done in the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Act 2009

As we know, Federated Farmers can be a bit emotive about the NZ ETS, with past President (and now ACT Candidate) Don Nicholson) describing the NZ ETS in 2009 as the road to hell paved with good intentions.

So lets have a look at David Anderson's arguments. The first argument is;

Why would we want to unfairly penalise New Zealand's agriculture sector - and one of the few sectors with the ability to help the country out of the current economic hole - by imposing taxes when our international competitors are not doing the same?

Because agricultural GHG emissions are the New Zealand's largest source of emissions! It's not that hard to understand.

In 2009, agricultural GHG emissions were 32.8 million tonnes (mt) of CO2-e out of a total of 70.6 million tonnes or 46.5 per cent of New Zealand’s total greenhouse gas emissions. The energy sector emitted 31.4 mt (44.4%). Industrial processes emitted 4.3 mt (6.2%). Waste emitted 2.0 mt (2.9%). Solvents and other products emitted 0.03 mt (0.04%) according to the Ministry for the Environment Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2011.

Other developed countries who have signed up for the Kyoto Protocol obligations just don't have agriculture dominating their GHG emissions like New Zealand. For example, here's a chart comparing New Zealand and Australian agricultural GHG emissions.

Lawyer Toni Moyes points out in a 2008 paper in the Ecology Law Quarterly, 35:4, pp. 911–966; Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading in New Zealand: Trailblazing Comprehensive Cap and Trade that New Zealand is "fundamentally different" from European countries where carbon dioxide from the energy sector emits 80% of GHG emissions.

Moyes concludes "Thus, if non-CO₂ gases were excluded, the NZ ETS would ignore over half of the problem. Likewise, sectors typically excluded from ETS must be included in the NZ ETS in order to address the majority of emissions. The NZ ETS would be far less effective if agriculture, the single biggest emitter, was ignored." I could not put that better. It is not "unfair" to include agriculture in the NZ ETS, it is essential.

Also, I have to point out that Anderson completely omits to mention the fact that agriculture, once it does enter the NZ ETS, will have (arguably) the most generous free allocation of emissions units of any sector of the economy. Under an ETS, emissions units must somehow get into a trading market. They may be either auctioned to emitters (obviously most wealth-enhancing for the tax payer) or "grandfathered", allocated for free to existing emitters. New Zealand has chosen to 'gift', or allocate for free, all domestic NZ units.

According the Ministry for the Environment, free allocation of units to agriculture will be 90 per cent of the emissions baseline and will phase out at 1.3 per cent per annum from 2016. The baseline will be the industry average emissions per unit of output. The allocation will be uncapped, meaning that there is no set limit on the number of units that may be allocated. Further, there are NO eligibility tests or thresholds for agricultural allocation, meaning that all agriculture participants will be eligible for an allocation.

So the entry of agriculture to the NZ ETS in 2015 will be cushioned by 90%. Or the GHG price signal will be reduced by 90% (compared to other sectors) down to 10% via free allocation. The free allocation percent will be based on "average output", which will be gazetted in regulations. Any processor who does 'better than average' will be in for a windfall gain. Again this is hardly the imposition of an unfair tax.

Number two argument is:

I don't see how handicapping our main economic driver will reduce international greenhouse gases. Surely all that will do is shift the production of these agricultural greenhouse gases from New Zealand to another country?

This is the carbon leakage argument. That businesses and their emissions will relocate to other jurisdictions to escape a carbon price.

Dr Jan Wright, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, pretty much shot to pieces the agricultural carbon leakage argument in her submission on the 2009 amendments to the NZ ETS.

Dr Wright noted that National was proposing to base allocation of units to agriculture on the industrial allocation model in the Australian Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (which was in 2009 only a proposal and which was withdrawn in 2010).

"There is no justification for treating allocation to the agricultural sector the same as industrial processes, either here or in Australia. The impact of the ETS on agriculture is very different to that of industrial process sectors. Productive agricultural land can not be shipped offshore...Carbon credits should not be allocated to prevent an unlikely event."

The nail in the coffin is from Suzi Kerr, an economist who has specialised in permit trading. She had this to say in her submission to the NZ Emissions Trading Scheme Review 2011:
."A small, but crucial, point on agricultural emissions is that all available empirical evidence suggests that leakage of land and production out of the agricultural sector in response to greenhouse gas costs would be small. This evidence is summarised in Kerr and Zhang (2009).

Number three argument is;

It has always argued that it's crazy for New Zealand farmers to be hit with the costs of an ETS when they had no way of mitigating these

This is the 'Agriculture can't mitigate' argument. As blogger Idiot/Savant said in his blog No Right Turn, this is simply untrue. The Sustainability Council wrote a report A Convenient Untruth in 2007 that argues that there are significant mitigation options for agriculture.

Anyway, Anderson almost immediately contradicts this statement in the next paragraph when he states

"There is already evidence - which is also noted by Caygill's Review Panel - that the agriculture sector is reducing its greenhouse gases (my emphasis). Emissions per unit of product from agriculture have fallen by about 1.3 per cent a year over the past 20 years - due to improved management, animal genetics, pasture and crop genetics and technological changes. Opportunities for further reductions included the use of forestry on marginal or erosion-prone land, nitrification inhibitors, and "good practice" management techniques that increase productivity."

Its great that agriculture is reducing emissions! Those responsible deserve all credit for it. However, the advocates of agriculture such as Anderson need to be reminded that reducing emissions is the same as mitigating them!

Anderson's fourth argument is that

"critics and environmental doomsayers" are "making claims about farmers being subsidised".

And that it is unfair and selective to say farmers are getting a free ride.

Look, as far as I'm concerned, we all have an obligation to do something about climate change. New Zealand's climate change policy reflects that. NZ has emissions reduction targets and climate change policies and commitments under the Kyoto Protocol and the UNFCCC. All of us share the responsibility of making NZ's emissions reductions policies work. If we leave out agriculture, the sector of the economy that is the biggest emitter of GHGs, then that is unfair to everyone else.NZ ETS agricultural special pleading

What ever happened to Clippy?

2011-09-24T12:50:00.002+12:00

What ever happened to Clippy?

Clippy is alive and well in the Wellington Botanic Gardens.

The NZ ETS Review 2011: Clear signals for business as usual

2011-09-16T00:05:00.003+12:00

Minister for Climate Change Issues Nick Smith has finally released the delayed report of the NZ Emissions Trading Scheme Review 2011. The 98-page report is titled Doing New Zealand’s Fair Share, The Emissions Trading Scheme Review 2011.

The review panel chaired by former Rogernome David Caygill gave their report to Smith on 30 June 2011. Two and half months later and one week into the Rugby World Cup, Smith has let the report out into the world.

From the title of his press release, Slowing of ETS recommended by Review Panel, I think Smith is pretty happy with the report. It also uses some of Smith's favourite phrases; such as "Doing our fair share" and balancing environmental and economic concerns.

"The Panel acknowledges there needs to be an appropriate balance between managing these short-term costs and providing a clear long-term direction. Given the current international uncertainty and the challenging state of the economy, this means there should be measures in place which ensure the increase in the costs of the ETS occurs at an appropriate pace."

If you don't want to scroll through another 98 pages of blue-green flannel just like that, the best short sweet on-line summary to read is this Reuters factbox.

For me, these recommendations are the guts of the ETS Review report (as numbered in that report).

Agriculture's planned 2015 entry to the NZ ETS should not be delayed (4.1). At least they didn't cave in to Federated Farmers. But there is a big but to this.

The important issue of the lack of a real cap on emissions is just kicked for touch and left for future reviews (3.15)

The issue of high volumes of subsidised allocation of free emissions units to industry is just kicked for touch (3.9).

Remember that the NZ ETS includes a $25 fixed price option for buying emissions units until 2012? This is limited to energy, transport and industry. This option would have acted as a maximum limit on unit prices, except for the fact that NZU prices were never more than $25 in 2010.

The report recommends keeping the fixed price option/price limit out to 2017 and increasing it by $5 each year (2013; $30, 2014; $35, 2015; $40, 2016; $45, 2017; $50).

I am very skeptical that actual NZ units prices will reach these levels. The Euro-zone debt crisis has just contributed to the recent collapse of the international carbon price. The international carbon price is the dominant driver of NZ unit prices. It is pure speculation that actual NZ prices will be any where near the proposed price ceiling.

Remember Nick Smith's two for one deal for 2010 to 2012? Where emitters can can emit two tonnes of greenhouse gases and surrender one emission unit? In other words it halved the emitters obligations to surrender units. The report recommends extending this to out to 2015. So 2013 would be the "three for two" deal, 2014 would be the "five for four" deal, before finally going to one tonne to one unit deal in 2015. So in carbon pricing we look to simplistic sales slogans. Only in New Zealand.

And I said there was a 'but' for agriculture. On entry in 2015, the report recommends that agriculture should be eligible for the two for one deal until 2016. Then three for two deal, the five for four deal, before finally going to one tonne to one unit in 2019. Oh I forgot to mention that from 2019 there would still be 90% allocation of free units declining at a linear rate of 1.3% each year.

Summary

I must admit I am completely underwhelmed by the report, its analysis and it's recommendations. I didn't think it was possible to further dilute the carbon price signal in the NZ ETS with more exemptions. I didn't think it was possible to make the NZ ETS sound even more like a bad used car parts advertisement. But I am wrong on both counts.

OIA pie chart

2011-08-18T12:08:00.010+12:00

Maybe Dr Smith can explain what the total number of NZ Units allocated to industry is - as represented in the pie chart Figure 8 in the Report on the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme. I will see how it goes. Probably I will have to wait 20 working days for an answer.

The Hon Nick Smith
Minister for Climate Change Issues
Parliament Office
Private Bag 18888
Parliament Buildings
Wellington 6160

By email to: N.Smith@ministers.govt.nz

17 August 2011

Request for Official Information regarding the Report on the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme

Dear Mr Smith, [Oh dear, I should have called him Dr Smith]
I have read with interest the Report on the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme, by the Ministry for the Environment, which you released on 1 August 2011.
However, I am puzzled by one of the charts, Figure 8, on page 16.
Figure 8 presents allocations of New Zealand Units by activity expressed as a percentage for each 'pie slice'. The report appears to omit the total number of New Zealand Units allocated (the number that each represents 100% of all the 'pie slice' proportions) and the number of units allocated to each activity. This seems inconsistent with other charts in the report. For example, Figure 5 on page 9 is accompanied by a table of the data used.
Will you please provide me with the actual data, for Figure 8, being the actual number of units allocated to each activity and the total number of units?
Thank you for your assistance

Subject: Thank you for your email
From: "N Smith (MIN)"
Date: Wed, August 17, 2011 3:59 pm
To:
On behalf of Hon Dr Nick Smith thank you for your email. Your correspondence has been noted and will be recorded. All correspondence, including email, is routed through our mail tracking process. Although e-mail increases the speed of delivery, the "behind-the-scenes" efforts of the Minister's staff in responding to mail cannot always provide the kind of speedy response users of email may anticipate.
While the minister considers all correspondence to be important, if it is obvious that you are writing only to express a personal view your opinion will be noted but a response beyond this acknowledgement may not be sent. Kind regards

Subject: RE: Official Information Act 1982 attached
From: "Natasha Lewis (MIN)"
Date: Wed, August 17, 2011 4:50 pm
To:

Dear
On behalf of the Hon Dr Nick Smith, Minister for Climate Change Issues, I acknowledge receipt of your request for information as identified in your email below. Your request will be processed in accordance with the provisions of the Official Information Act. Please contact me should you have any questions in relation to this request. Kind regards
Natasha Lewis
Private Secretary for Environment and Climate Change Issues
Office of Hon Dr Nick Smith, Minister for the Environment and Minister for Climate
Change Issues
Parliament Buildings|Wellington| New Zealand

Charting unexplained territory in the NZ ETS Report

2011-08-17T14:07:00.011+12:00

So far, I have posted on the comprehensiveness of the NZ ETS vs the Australian Clean Energy Future ETS, the Kyoto chart junk in the Report on the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme, and the over-supply of the New Zealand Units in 2010.

This post mixes two of these ideas; searching out bad charts and looking again at the supply side of the NZ ETS market, how many New Zealand Units were allocated for free to emitters and businesses.

The Report on the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme provides in Figure 5 a pie chart of the number of New Zealand Units (NZUs) surrendered by emitters.

Although the pie chart is Kaiser Fung's least favourite type of chart, this pie chart isn't too bad. There are a manageable number of categories; only five; and no 3-D effects. The key point is clear from the pie chart, that about two-thirds of NZUs surrendered were purchased from foresters. Also the chart follows the Ministry for the Environment usual practice of providing the original data underneath so you can make your own chart.

I did a bar chart of the data, re-labelling the "Other" NZUs as "Free NZUs".

The free allocations of NZUs are shown in another pie chart, Figure 8.

The allocations to industry activities (the pie slices) are charted not as as numbers of NZUs as in Figure 5, but as proportions. The proportions are noted as percentages on each pie slice. There is no table of data accompanying the chart. This is clearly inconsistent with Figure 5. Why doesn't the pie chart show either the actual total number of NZUs allocated, or the number allocated by activity? The total number of NZUs allocated for free in 2010 is not disclosed anywhere else in the Report on the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme. There is another chart, Figure 11, that appears to show free NZU allocations to each industry sector.

Maybe these add up to the total "pie" in Figure 8. I added them up. 1.76 million NZUs given to industry, plus 6.9 million NZUs given to pre-1990 forest owners plus 0.69 million NZUs given to fishing quota holders, equals a total of 9.35 million NZUs.

However, the total number of NZUs allocated by free gifting between 1 July 2010 to 31 December 2011 is 12,776,026, according to the Ministry of Economic Development Chief Executives report. So there appears to be a gap of 3.4 million gifted NZUs, not disclosed in The Report on the NZ ETS.

Is this a big deal? I think it is. Dr Jan Wright, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, describes free allocation for what it is; a subsidy to industry

In her submission on the 2009 amendments to the NZ ETS, Jan Wright said;

Allocation is costly. Each credit that is given away rather than kept or sold is a real dollar loss to the taxpayer. And there is another cost: it lessens the incentive to invest in low-carbon technology and emissions reductions. Generous and unlimited allocation that is promised to last a long time –whether or not it actually does - removes the push to transform to a low carbon-intensive economy.

To me presentation is an unsatisfactory level of disclosure of information. I am struggling to find an explanation for this other than to obscure the amount of subsidies funded via NZUs to emitters such as Comalco. I leave the last word to Jan Wright.

The principle of Parliamentary scrutiny in the Public Finance Act should also apply to allocation. Given the large taxpayer expense, the reason for allocating to a particular sector should be transparent.

The NZ ETS Report disclosure does not meet this standard of transparency.

The Beauty of cricket pavilion names

2011-08-12T16:58:00.009+12:00

I love the website Ugly New Zealand.com So I sent them some pictures "at and about" Karori Park.

Dear Ralf,

I love your website.

May I provide you these photos I took today? Please feel free to put them on your website if they meet your standards.

Some descriptions.

"What is is with cricket clubs? Why are they obsessed with naming their facilities after retired club Presidents? Why is the font CAPS plus plus? Was there really a club President named David Bain? Is there something the residents of Karori don't know?

What can you see from the David Bain viewing area. Duh! You can see the Ted Tyler scoreboard!

What other anthropomorphic facilities are in Karori Park? Well there is the Catley Curtis Nimmo PAVILION.

Whats the rest of Karori Park like? A damp running track around a mist-shrouded rain-drenched cricket field hidden in the ravines of Karori. It is a little known fact that Karori Park has the third highest annual average rainfall in NZ after the Cropp River recorder in the upper Hokitika catchment and Milford Sound.

Report on the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme

2011-08-10T21:32:00.008+12:00

Finally I have got past the chartjunk and I have read the Report on the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme that Minister for Climate Change Issues Nick Smith released on 1 August 2011.

Perhaps the first point to make is that the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (NZ ETS) has now been though a complete compliance period, the six months from 1 July 2010 (when energy and industry entered) to 31 December 2010. In that period both buyers (emitters) and sellers (foresters) of emissions units had obligations under the NZ ETS. So we should be able to make an assessment of how the NZ ETS is working.

The same underlying data, emissions units issued and surrendered in the 2010 compliance period, has already been available from the "central bank" for emissions units - the NZ Emissions Unit Register, run by the Ministry of Economic Development. The Climate Change Response Act requires certain information on emissions trading to be disclosed annually. The Ministry for the Environment's Report on the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme is really this same trading information with some, ugh, "100% Pure" photo shoot pictures, quite a few junk charts and several text-boxes.

The MfE report and Dr Smith's press release received some media coverage. The best reporting, with no junk charts, is Brian Fallow in the NZ Herald.

Dr Smith's narrative is that the NZ ETS is going well and Fairfax/Stuff repeated this angle, as did the National Business Review and even Reuters said the NZ ETS was working as intended. The Sydney Morning Herald even reported that the NZ ETS had "performed to expectations."

In terms of raw numbers, there 96 mandatory "participants" (emitters) in the NZ ETS at 31 December 2010, of which 76 are in the energy sector. There were 1,216 voluntary participants, of which 1,206 were in the forestry sector; forestry having entered the NZ ETS from 1 January 2008 mainly in terms of sequestering carbon in forest carbon sinks. In the six months from 1 July to 31 December 2010, 12.8 million NZUs were gifted to participants by "free allocation"; 9.4 million NZUs were transferred to mostly to foresters for forest carbon sequestration and 8.3 million units were surrendered to the Government (Surrender means to obtain units equivalent to a participant's GHG emissions and to transfer them to the Government's account at the NZ Emission Units Register).

We may then ask "So what?" in response to these raw facts. Well, lets think how the NZ ETS performed according to the expectations of someone who has written a book on the NZ ETS - The Carbon Challenge: the economist Geoff Bertram. In the book, Bertram analysed the NZ ETS as a market for emission units/carbon credits and as a market it can be understood in terms of supply, demand and price.

The supply of NZUs into the market for the six months from 1 July to 31 December 2010 was 22.2 million NZUs, made up of 12.8 million NZUs gifted to companies by "free allocation"; and 9.4 million NZUs transferred for forest carbon removals.

The demand from the market participants (the emitters) is the 8.3 million units surrendered in 2010. The NZ Emissions Unit Register report tells us that the 2010 year GHG emissions were 33.4 million tonnes and the NZ ETS-liable emissions from 1 July 2010 to 31 December 2010 were roughly half that at 16.3 million tonnes. Remember Nick Smith's 2-for-1 deal to surrender 1 unit for 2 tonnes of GHGs? That explains why only 8.3 million units were surrendered, when 16 million tonnes of GHGs were reported.

For me the critical issue here is that supply (22.2 million units) exceeded demand (8.3 million) by 13.9 million units (or by 267%). There were 13.9 million units left over after emitters satisfied their 2010 NZ ETS surrender obligations.

As we know from basic economics, when supply exceeds demand, the price drops. The MfE report and Dr Smith's press release make no mention of the NZ ETS carbon price. However, the reliable Westpac carbon update provided this chart which shows the declining price of NZUs in 2010-2011.

The excess 2010 units have no expiry date and will carry forward to 2011. In 2011 and 2012, as well as starting with excess units, the 2010 template will be repeated for 12 months not six. More units will be allocated for free to industrial emitters and more units will be given to pre-1990 foresters as compensation, and to post-1989 foresters for carbon sequestration. The 1-for-2 deal carries on as well to 2013. These features are embedded into the structure of the NZ ETS and will ensure that for the rest of the Kyoto Protocol commitment period to 2012 that the NZ ETS market will be over-allocated with NZUs which will trade at a discount to other internationally marketable Kyoto emissions units.

Geoff Bertram and Simon Terry made a number of predictions in The Carbon Challenge. Here's one.
"In the New Zealand scheme, arbitrage between the NZU and the Kyoto currencies sets a ceiling on the carbon price, with no quantity limit. Local emissions volumes will change only insofar as the price of the Kyoto currencies constitutes an incentive to change behaviour; and NZUs will be used to cover liable emissions only insofar as they are a cheaper alternative to Kyoto currency units" (p 58).

My conclusion is that, contrary to Dr Smith's narrative, the MfE report on the NZ ETS is completely consistent with Geoff Bertram's prediction that the NZUs would be over-allocated, would be priced at a discount to international units and as a consequence the NZ ETS will not provide a sufficient price incentive to reduce GHG emissions.

How to chart the NZ Kyoto Protocol commitment

2011-08-09T23:01:00.001+12:00

The post about Dr Nick Smith's junk chart has been on Hot Topic NZ, the Oil Drum Oz and NZ and hat-tipped on No Right Turn

Okay, so what would a good chart of New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions and compliance with the Kyoto Protocol look like?

We mulled over that issue last year when we wrote a how to book on carbon forests.

I came up with this chart as a first draft.

Clunky and black and white. Add colour.

Paul Kennett said "hmmmm" and asked me for the data and he came up with this.

Not surprisingly, Paul's version appeared in the published version of The Carbon Forest (available now at the Kennett Bros!)

Trends in Labour and Greens polling

2011-08-02T19:19:00.006+12:00

I prepared this chart as my response to the media chortling and blogosphere despair over the Labour Party's polling. It's of course dedicated to Scott of Imperator Fish.

I downloaded the 2009-2011 polls data lovingly recorded on Wikipedia for Labour and the Greens. Lots of dots. To keep it simple, I put in a linear regression trend line through each series of dots.

On that basis, there is no real trend in either the Labour or the Greens polling! And it's just not valid to say "Labour's polling is on a downward trend".

So for Labour the bad news is not extremely bad, but it still fairly bad, as there is still a consistent trend of a 20 point gap between Labour and National.

The NZ ETS Review 2011 and the Minister's Chartjunk

2011-08-02T00:28:00.000+12:00

This evening I was intending to carefully read the Report on the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme that Minister for Climate Change Issues Nick Smith released today and write a considered review.

However, I only got as far as Nick Smith's forward on the the third page when I got stopped in my tracks by Figure 3, a misleading piece of chartjunk if I ever saw one, about New Zealand being on target to meet its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. Here it is.
The chart legend says it shows "Kyoto net emissions (actual emissions)". This parameter trends upward to 2007 and then in 2008 and 2009 it suddenly drops below the blue line of NZ 1990 emissions. Thus showing we are meeting our emissions reduction commitment that we signed up in the Kyoto Protocol. Its enough to make you proud to be a Blue-Green.

This chart is junk because it misrepresents the underlying data on greenhouse gas emissions. Back to the legend: "Kyoto net emissions (actual emissions)". Why does it say "actual emissions" in brackets? Because Smith would like you to think that. Lets look at a real chart of real New Zealand greenhouse gas emissions.

This shows total real emissions up to 2007 and predicted emissions 2008 to 2012 - the green line. It looks nothing like Fig 3. The actual and predicted trend does not show a return to 1990 volumes of emissions. However, that legend also said net emissions, that is total or gross emissions in any year less carbon absorbed by forests. Maybe Fig 3 is based on net emissions.

The trend in net emissions (total less forest sink removals) or the blue line shows an even steeper rate of increase than the total emissions. So how can Fig 3 show that New Zealand reduced emissions to 1990 volumes? Two more clues are in Figure 3. The title is "Kyoto net" and there is a note under the data source says "Kyoto net 2000-2007 values are backcasted". So the Fig 3 data is not just "net", it is also "Kyoto net" and "backcasted". What does ''backcasted" mean? Another chart shows how Smith gets to Fig 3 from the real total and net emissions data.

Greenhouse gas emissions, as defined for compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, are gross from 1990 to 2007, and once the Kyoto commitment period starts in 2008, an Annex B country like New Zealand can meet its target by deducting removal units issued for carbon sinks - so Kyoto-defined emissions go net from 2008. Hence the red line. The removal units issued for afforestation (the increase in carbon stock in a forest planted since 1990) appear as if from nowhere in 2008 and disguise the growth in both the gross and net emissions.

100% (??) Ugly New Zealand

2011-07-31T13:06:00.008+12:00

I am very tired of the use of "100% Pure" branding when New Zealand's water quality is declining.

However I have the antidote!

It is this article in the Sunday Star Times by Grant Smithies. Smithies points refreshingly to this collection of photos titled Ugly New Zealand.

Smithies writes;

Site founder Ralf Hebecker moved from Germany to Dunedin in 2006 to work as a design tutor at Otago University. He was disappointed to discover New Zealand had been misrepresented as a blemish-free natural wonderland, and set about collecting photos of the less agreeable sides of the place to add balance to the "postcard perfect" national myth.

and

With admirable teutonic bluntness, Hebecker's blog acknowledges that New Zealand's built environment frequently appalls the eye. His site celebrates the mundane, the shabby, the poorly designed, the cheap and loveless, and revels in the fact that a picture speaks a thousand words.

Brilliant and a must-read!

What can I do but attempt to display my own visual twisted love letters to the country I love?

Sign advising dog owners of responsible dog effluent rules, Lambton Quay, Wellington, 11 May 2011.

The banality of street signs, Allington Road, Karori Wellington, 13 June 2011.

Ruahine Range 23 to 24 July

2011-07-25T14:46:00.007+12:00

I went tramping to the Ruahine Range in the weekend. Here are some pictures.

This is entering the Ruahine Forest Park from the farmland at the end of Mangakukeke Road, about 30 km from Mangaweka.

Pahautea Libocedrus bidwillii on the bushline at the old hut site.

Purity Hut, a new (2006) DOC 6-bunk hut.

Hut inhabitant. Do not feed.

Bjorn Lomborg 101

2011-07-19T22:36:00.004+12:00

Tom Bennion the non-flying lawyer wrote a good post a few weeks ago on Bjorn Lomborg writing in Newsweek.

Tom's comment was that Lomborg had claimed that London had cleaned up its 1950s air pollution with technology.

Tom pointed out that ten minutes of internet search would tell you that air quality regulations cleaned up London's smog.

If you have ever wondered who Bjorn Lomborg is and where he is coming from in terms of climate change, I have just read a very good analysis which I thoroughly recommend. It is:

A Critical Review of Bjorn Lomborg’s Cool It and of Media ‘Complicity’ in Climate Contrarianism. By Michael Svoboda, 12 May 2011.

As an engaging and charismatic communicator, Bjorn Lomborg has few peers addressing climate change. But an analysis of his Cool It documentary, now available on dvd, documents long-standing shortcomings reporters should consider so stories of personal courage and conviction don’t displace sound science journalism.

Michael Svoboda reaches this conclusion on Lomborg, a warning to journalists.

This record of persistent and consistent misrepresentation points to a challenge the media face in covering a strategic communicator, of reporting on someone who systematically spins a complex topic that is rife with uncertainty — in part by accusing everyone else of “alarmism.”

Securing a Clean Energy Future - how comprehensive?

2011-07-12T23:46:00.004+12:00

I have to admit I did rush to conclude that the Australian carbon pricing scheme would be a "leapfrog" ahead of the NZ Emissions Trading Scheme. Okay, I admit I generally think the NZ ETS is worse than nothing as a policy to reduce GHG emissions. So of course the Australian scheme must be more effective!

Now I have actually read Julia Gillard's carbon pricing proposal and I can offer a slightly more considered opinion. The carbon price scheme has a name which we should be using; Securing a Clean Energy Future. The full document is Securing a Clean Energy Future, The Australian Government's Climate Change Plan, Commonwealth of Australia 2011, ISBN 978-0-642-74723-5.

First of all, the 'Clean Energy Future' is not a carbon tax. It is a cap and trade emissions trading scheme with a safety valve. Page 25 says "Large polluters will report on their emissions and buy and surrender to the Government a carbon permit for every tonne of carbon pollution they produce." That's very much an emissions trading approach, but with a fixed carbon price for three years.

The price is $AU23 per tonne from 1 July 2012, then $AU24.15 in 2013-14 and $AU25.40 2014-15 (p 26). From 1 July 2015, the carbon price will float within and upper and lower ceiling with the Government setting an overall 'Cap' or limit on GHGs (p 27).

The GHGs covered are; carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and perfluorocarbon emissions from the aluminium sector (p 28).

There will be 500 sources of emissions, which will be companies or sites with direct greenhouse gas emissions of 25,000 tonnes of CO2-e a year or more. Sectors covered will be; stationary energy, waste, rail, domestic aviation and shipping, industrial processes and fugitive emissions (p 27). But not farming or land transport fuels.

So how comprehensive is 'Clean Energy Future'? To me, the comprehensiveness of a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme is a good metric of likely effectiveness. And its a metric to use to make comparisons between policies.

Lets say the comprehensiveness is the proportion of total GHGs emitted that is either taxed or included in an emissions trading scheme. 'Clean Energy Future' claims half to two-thirds. The report states that more than half of Australia's GHG emissions will be directly covered by the scheme, and almost two-thirds of GHGs will be included when other measures are included.

'Clean Energy Future' includes an appendix of forecast revenues. In the year to 30 June 2013, the 'Clean Energy Future' scheme will earn $AU 7.74 billion (Appendix C, p 131). At the fixed price of $AU 23 per tonne, that gives 337 million tonnes of GHG (by CO2-e) that is taxed or priced. That's 60% of Australia's 2009 GHG emissions (565 million tonnes) priced in 2013.

That seems not a bad start, given that Geoff Bertram and Simon Terry have calculated that the NZ ETS, after free allocation, delayed start dates, only prices 3%, (12 million tonnes out of 378 million tonnes) of New Zealand's GHG emissions between 2008 and 2012 (Bertram and Terry 2010, The Carbon Challenge, p 111).

But is there any free allocation of carbon permits to emitters in the 'Clean Energy Future' scheme? Yes, if you look carefully there is.

The revenue forecast in Appendix C lists costs of $AU 2.85 billion for "Jobs and competitiveness program" and $AU 1 billion for "Energy security". Table 15 on page 114 notes that "Jobs and competitiveness" involves the free "allocation of permits ...to new and existing entities undertaking an eligible emissions-intensive trade-exposed (EITE) activity". Table 16 Energy Security p 116 indicates that "Energy security" involves "allocation of permits and cash estimated at $5.5 billion over six years to assist highly emissions-intensive coal-fired generators" and "payments for the closure of around 2,000 megawatts of very highly emissions-intensive coal-fired generation capacity by 2020".

So of the $AU 7.7 billion collected from the 500 emitters in 2012-2013, possibly some $AU 3.85 billion will be rebated to the dirtiest and most carbon-intense emitters, as long as they are trade-exposed. The definition of emissions-intensive-trade-exposed isn't exactly tied down and has a number of parts. One is being imports or exports as greater than 10% of production. Also, rather like the NZ ETS, any assistance to emitters will phase out at a very gradual 1.3% a year (Table 15, p 114).

Lets assume that 100% of these two categories is spent on free allocation of permits or is just given as a subsidy to some of the 500 emitters. If we have 337 million tonnes of GHG emissions (by CO2-e) that is priced, and subtract 167 million tonnes for the gifting and assistance ( $AU 3.85 billion divided by $23AU = 167 mt) we get 169 million net tonnes of GHG emissions priced in 2013 under the 'Clean Energy Future' scheme. That's 30% of 2009 GHG emissions of 565 million tonnes.

Okay, I am comparing 2013 for the 'Clean Energy Future' scheme with 2008-2012 for the NZ ETS, but 30% coverage of GHG emissions beats 3% of GHG emissions hands down. The 'Clean Energy Future' scheme is more comprehensive than the NZ ETS by a factor of 10, 30% of GHG emissions priced vs 3% priced. That certainly is a big "leap frog" ahead by our trans-tasman cousins, I would say.

Global mean land temperature chart

2011-07-11T18:54:00.011+12:00

This is my version of the well-known chart of NASA's temperature data from land instruments showing global warming since 1880. Yes, the temperature series researched and prepared by James Hansen. I got the data from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre. Its just as easy to download the data from NASA as well.

The chart does not show absolute temperature on the vertical axis it shows the difference (or 'anomaly') from the mean temperature recorded for the period 1951 to 1980. In other words, Wellington's actual temperature on any day will be very different from that of a place near the equator. However, the use of the anomaly or difference from the average temperature for 1951-1980, standardises the data to a common scale. Also, absolute temperature varies a lot over short distances, but annual temperature anomalies are strongly correlated out to distances of a 1000 km.

I made the chart with the R programme.

Here's the code, assuming you have downloaded the data file "gl_land.txt" to your R working directory.

glt<-read.table("gl_land.txt",skip=23,header=TRUE,sep="",dec=".",strip.white=TRUE)

str(glt)

'data.frame': 131 obs. of 3 variables:
$ Year : int 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 ...
$ Anomaly: num -0.24 -0.19 -0.14 -0.19 -0.45 -0.32 -0.42 -0.54 -0.24 -0.05 ...
$ mean : num -99.99 -99.99 -0.24 -0.26 -0.31 ...

png("gisstempland.png", bg="white", width=650, height=550,pointsize = 16)
with(glt,plot(Year,Anomaly,type="n", cex.lab=1.2, main="NASA GISS Global Land Temperature Anomalies",xlab="", ylab="Degrees Celsius"))

abline(h=0,col=1,lwd=1)

mtext(side=3,line=0.3,"Difference from mean temperature 1951-1980")

legend(1880, 0.8,bg="white",bty="n", c(paste("Mean", c("annual anomaly", "Lowess anomaly f =0.05"))), lty = c(1,1),lwd=c(2,2), pch=c(16,NA),col = c(4,2))

box(lwd=2)

with(glt,points(Year,Anomaly,pch=16,type="o", col=4))

with(glt,points(lowess(Year,Anomaly,f = 0.05),type="l",col=2,lty=1,lwd=3))

mtext(side=1,line=3,cex=0.8,"Data: Hansen Ruedy Sato Lo 2011 NASA GISTEMP/CDIAC \nhttp://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/hansen/gl_land.txt")

dev.off()

Almost cut my hair (if I had any)

2011-06-13T01:37:00.000+12:00

Here's some nostalgia courtesy of Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young.

Blackfish Ltd DOC Porter Heights Crystal Valley land swap

2011-05-03T19:02:00.008+12:00

Crystal Valley is an east-facing valley in the bottom or southern end of the Craigieburn Range in Canterbury. It's immediate neighbour to the south is the Porter Heights skifield, which enthusiastically markets itself as "Christchurch's closest ski area".

Blackfish Ltd, a company financed by Australians and Russians, has some well-advanced expansion plans for Porters Heights. They want DOC to give them the title to Crystal Valley and some adjoining areas in return for a bush remnant on Banks Peninsula. They want to expand the skifield and build a 3000 bed lodge.

Claire Browning gives the full background in Crystal Valley, and the conservation state and reports that Al Morrison the Director-General of DOC has agreed to swap the land. Claire asks (roughly) how could the landswap achieve a net gain in conservation values when the land that goes to Blackfish gets made into skifield? And why are DOC proposing to swap land that the Nature Heritage Fund painstakingly purchased specifically for DOC from a pastoral leasee, the Castle Hill Station?

I wrote to Kate Wilkinson the Minister of Conservation and asked in terms of the Official Information Act for copies of Al Morrisons decision and the advice from DOC. My requests were answered last Friday 29 April, after 19 working days.

They sent me the DOC report to Al Morrison (DOC_report-to-Morrison-Blackfish-21-02-2011.pdf ) and (Morrison-Blackfish-11-03-2011.pdf).

I have scanned them and uploaded them to Google Docs.

* the DOC report to Al Morrison DOC_report-to-Morrison-Blackfish-21-02-2011.pdf 7749KB.

* Al Morrison's decision on the landswap Morrison-Blackfish-11-03-2011.pdf 1778KB.

Things that stand out on my first reading.

1. DOC is proposing to swap land that is not even conservation land!

Crystal Valley is not yet conservation stewardship land under the Conservation Act. The Nature Heritage Fund purchase, the surrender of the pastoral lease and the transfer to DOC have not been completed. Crystal Valley is still crown land with a pastoral lease held by Castle Hill Station and administered by LINZ. see para 8.1, page 7 of the DOC report to AL Morrison.

2. When Crystal Valley is gazetted as land held for conservation purposes, which is why former Minister of Conservation Chris Carter signed up for it, it will also be gazetted as a conservation park under s 18 of the Conservation Act. Which is the whole point of plugging the gap between Korowai/Torlesse Tussocklands Park and the Craigieburn Forest Park. A conservation park cannot be swapped. DOC have put a paper to Kate Wilkinson to have Crystal Valley not gazetted as conservation park.

3. Under section 16A of the Conservation Act, DOC has a discretion to swap 'stewardship land' (land held for conservation purposes but not classified as conservation park or wildlife area (see section 2 Interpretation) Arguably, DOC has no jurisdiction to swap crown land under pastoral leases.

4. Given the arguable lack of jurisdiction, why did DOC engage in a lengthy iterative process with Blackfish? Why didn't DOC say to Blackfish "We can't look at your landswap application, we have no authority over Crystal Valley until it is legally held for conservation".

5. The two specialist biodiversity reports commissioned by DOC (one by DOC botanist Nick Head, the other by consultant Markus Davies) concluded that the land swap would result in a net loss of biodiversity.

6.However, through a use of further offers of easements and encumbrances on Crystal Valley back to DOC, deft prose and dense matrices/tables, the report to Al Morrison concludes that the swap will "enhance the conservation values of land managed by the Department".

7. Consultation with Ngai Tahu and the Aoraki/Canterbury Conservation Board look formalistic. "We told them what we were doing and we ignored their response". Definitely not following the Kaikoura whale-watching case.

ACT quote of week

2011-05-02T15:16:00.003+12:00

"I now know why ACT believes so strongly in the rights of the individual - no two of their members agree on anything."

Dave Armstrong, writing today for Fairfax/Stuff, Eyes Right as Don 'Quixote' Brash gallops in.

Coming Clean - New Zealand's Emissions Trading Scheme Explained

2011-04-13T19:43:00.000+12:00

There is a new video available on-line explaining the NZ Emissions Trading Scheme.

Its called Coming Clean - New Zealand's Emissions Trading Scheme Explained and the film maker is Lindsay Horner.

Its very good. It hammers the key points well;

that the NZETS lacks the real cap on greenhouse gas emissions that is an essential part of a textbook 'cap-and-trade' scheme.
that relying on post-1990 forestry carbon credits to match growth in GHGs since 1990 is the same as borrowing on a credit card, as the forestry carbon credits will have to be surrendered when the forests are eventually logged.

Coming Clean - New Zealand's Emissions Trading Scheme Explained from Lindsay Horner on Vimeo.

PCE Jan Wright mining still an issue

2011-04-07T23:52:00.003+12:00

Dr Jan Wright, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment explains that mining within the conservation estate is still a live political issue, in spite of the Government withdrawing the proposal to allow more mining in the Schedule 4 areas (40% of the total).

Wright is against the Minister of Energy having any role in granting access to the conservation estate for mining.

Earthquake surface flooding

2011-03-31T13:20:00.000+13:00

Here is a Youtube video of surface flooding probably caused by liquefaction immediately after the Christchurch earthquake.

Fifteen years warning of the Christchurch earthquake

2011-03-11T00:31:00.003+13:00

Have a look at this July 1996 'Inside New Zealand' TV3 documentary Earthquakes.

Don't tell me there were no warnings.

No doubt the property developers and their lawyers and consultants decried the documentary as alarmist as they applied for subdivision consents in Bexley.

Also mentioned in this Herald article Christchurch will shake like a leaf'

Yardbirds Train Kept a Rolling

2011-03-08T01:54:00.000+13:00

I seems to have watched/listened to this several times...

Robins primus 71 part 2

2011-02-23T22:34:00.006+13:00

Here is Robin's Robins Primus 71 stove, with the stand and the billy/container.

Here is just the stove.

Here is the Primus stamp on the base of the stove.

The stove in the billy (pot) stand.

Here is the underside of the base of the stove with the 'AU' date stamp clearly visible.

Today I lit it, boiled some water and made a small plunger of coffee.

Robins Primus 71 stove

2011-02-22T23:47:00.007+13:00

Robin's tramping and climbing stove is a 1955 Primus 71. Like this. It still works. I started it yesterday. Robin bought it new in Christchurch when he was very actively mountaineering with the Canterbury Mountaineering Club (CMC) in the mid 1950s.

I have fond memories of the stove's roaring sound as it cooked our "dehi" curry on many a tramp with Robin in the 1970s and 1980s.

Here is a picture of a similar Primus 71.

Here is a You Tube of a Primus 71.

This is a gallery of beautiful photos. of a Primus 71 stove.

Primus stoves can be dated. Robin's stove is stamped 'AU' on the bottom, which confirms 1955.

More shiny photos at Picasa.

Summertime

2011-02-15T00:34:00.003+13:00

Yes it is. Its also February. Thats my month. This video of Janis Joplin really seems to jump out of the speakers. Joplin's music always reminds me of driving out across Porters Pass, the Torlesse range and the Craigieburn range on the way to the upper Waimakariri River and Arthurs Pass to go tramping. I used to have a couple of well-used Janis Joplin tapes in my Nissan Bluebird station wagon.

New Zealand's overseas debt

2011-02-09T21:55:00.005+13:00

There is a lot of talk about New Zealand's overseas debt. Usually described as "ballooning". And sometimes the debt levels are compared to those of Ireland and Greece. According to the Reserve Bank, at 24 December 2010, New Zealand as a whole owed international creditors $253 billion NZ dollars. This is equal to 132% of GDP. The Reserve Bank provides the debt data analysed between Government and corporate (private) debt in this spreadsheet I made it into the chart with R.

The first step is saving the data into a Comma Separated Values file with a spreadsheet programme. The R code is then:

d <- read.csv("he3.csv", skip = 2,header=TRUE, sep=",", na.strings="na", dec=".", strip.white=TRUE)
attach(d)
totdebt<-c(Total/1000)
tmax<-max(totdebt,na.rm = TRUE)
plot(totdebt, ylim=c(0,tmax),type="n", main="New Zealand Overseas Debt 1993 to 2010",las=0,xlab="", ylab="$NZ billion",xaxt="n")
axis(side=1, las=0,at=c(8,28,48,68), labels=c("1995", "2000", "2005","2010"))
points(totdebt,type="l",col=2,lwd=2)
points(Govt/1000,type="l",col=4,lwd=2)
points(Corp/1000,type="l",col=3,lwd=2)
mtext(side=1,line=2.4,cex=0.9,"Source: New Zealand Reserve Bank")
mtext(side=1,line=3.4,cex=0.8,"http://rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/extfin/e3/he3.xls")
legend(1,250,bty="n",c("Total Debt","Private Debt","Government Debt"),lty = 1,lwd=2,col=c(2,3,4))

The chart makes it pretty obvious it is the private sector overseas debt that has steadily increased and not Government overseas debt.

Mt Aspiring reminiscence

2011-02-07T23:28:00.004+13:00

I have just seen this NZ On Screen doco about Brian Brake and JK Baxter filming on Mount Aspiring. It brings back some wonderful memories. Robin always had several black and white photos of Mt Aspiring, including one very iconic photo taken by Mike Nelson of Robin nearing the final pyramidal summit in the 1950s.

Where the bloody hell are ya?

2011-01-21T14:25:00.001+13:00

How is that guy in pool filtering out the urine....?

Cool NOAA climate change widget

2011-01-19T13:50:00.004+13:00

Have a look at this cool widget on the website of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

It is a series of dashboard-style panels of time series data. The data are: global average temperature, atmospheric carbon dioxide, solar radiation reaching Earth (Sun's energy), seal level and the extent of Arctic sea ice. AT the top of the panel is a slider control allowing you to choose any time period between 1880 and 2011.

Queensland Floods

2011-01-13T23:08:00.004+13:00

Gareth looks at the Queensland floods from a climate change point of view. The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society say it is caused by the strongest La Nina event ever.

This BBC Weather webpage gives a graphical explanation of how the flows of the cold and warm currents change in a La Nina phase.
BBC Meteorologist Nina Ridge explains La Niña.

Good simple explanation. (Unlike the graphic on TV One News tonight where the moist air flow seemed to be twisting down onto western NZ, and completely missing Queensland!)

But is her name really Nina Ridge? It does appear too much of a coincidence.

Greenhouse gases global warming

2011-01-11T11:15:00.000+13:00

Here is James Hansen giving a four minute explanation of global warming caused by our greenhouse gas emissions and the need to phase out coal within decades.

Powered By Coal CBS 60 minutes

2010-12-24T23:49:00.006+13:00

Here's a CBS 60 minutes documentary featuring James Hansen and the CEO of Duke Energy, the USA's third largest coal thermal power plant owner. The CEO says he totally accepts that carbon dioxide contributes to global warming. However, his plan is to phase out coal over 40 years.

CBS cuts to Hansen who of course says "No new coal fired power plants and a phase out must take place in 20 years or less". CBS goes back to the CEO and ask him how much Duke has invested in carbon capture and sequestration. The answer is nothing!

World Temperature Trends

2010-12-22T19:20:00.004+13:00

Is the world's average temperature warming? Yes, it is.
Here is a chart I have made with the R programme from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies data.

The data is the Combined Land-Surface Air and Sea-Surface Water Temperature Anomalies (Land-Ocean Temperature Index, LOTI), Global-mean monthly, seasonal, and annual means, 1880-present

The chart is a line plot of differences in annual land-ocean average temperature from the average for the base period 1951-1980 global mean temperature index, 1880 to present. The dotted blue line is the annual mean and the solid red line is the five-year mean, calculated with a Lowess function.

Bobbiting the Employment Relations Act

2010-10-29T14:56:00.004+13:00

Here is how the The Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill (or the "Hobbit Bill) works.

Here is Section 6 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 with the words added by the Hobbit Act in italics.

Employment Relations Act 2000 No 24 Section 6 Meaning of employee

* (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, employee—
(a) means any person of any age employed by an employer to do any work for hire or reward under a contract of service; and
(b) includes— (i) a homeworker; or + (ii) a person intending to work; but o (c) excludes a volunteer who— (i) does not expect to be rewarded for work to be performed as a volunteer; and (ii) receives no reward for work performed as a volunteer.

and
(d) excludes, in relation to a film production, any of the following persons:
(i) a person engaged in film production work as an actor, voice-over actor, stand-in, body double, stunt performer, extra, singer, musician, dancer, or entertainer:
(ii) a person engaged in film production work in any other capacity.
(1A) However, subsection (1)(d) does not apply if the person is a party to, or covered by, an employment agreement that provides that the person is an employee.

(2) In deciding for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) whether a person is employed by another person under a contract of service, the court or the Authority (as the case may be) must determine the real nature of the relationship between them.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the court or the Authority—
(a) must consider all relevant matters, including any matters that indicate the intention of the persons; and
(b) is not to treat as a determining matter any statement by the persons that describes the nature of their relationship.
(4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not limit or affect the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 or the Sharemilking Agreements Act 1937.
(5) The court may, on the application of a union, a Labour Inspector, or 1 or more other persons, by order declare whether the person or persons named in the application are— (a) employees under this Act; or (b) employees or workers within the meaning of any of the Acts specified in section 223(1).
(6) The court must not make an order under subsection (5) in relation to a person unless— (a) the person— (i) is the applicant; or (ii) has consented in writing to another person applying for the order; and
(b) the other person who is alleged to be the employer of the person is a party to the application or has an opportunity to be heard on the application.

(7) In this section, “film” means a cinematograph film, a video recording, and any other material record of visual moving images that is capable of being used for the subsequent display of those images; and includes any part of any film, and any copy or part of a copy of the whole or any part of a film
“film production” means the production of a film or video game
“film production work” (a) means the following work performed, or services provided, in relation to a film production:
(i) work performed, or services provided, by an actor, voice-over actor, stand-in, body double, stunt performer, extra, singer, musician, dancer, or entertainer (whether as an individual or not):
(ii) pre-production work or services (whether on the set or off the set):
(iii) production work or services (whether on the set or off the set):
(iv) post-production work or services (whether on the set or off the set):
(v) promotional or advertising work or services (whether on the set or off the set) by a person referred to in subparagraph (i); but
(b) excludes work performed, or services provided, in respect of the production of any programme intended initially for broadcast on television
“video game” means any video recording that is designed for use wholly or principally as a game
“video recording” means any disc, magnetic tape, or solid state recording device containing information by the use of which 1 or more series of visual images may be produced electronically and shown as a moving picture.

The Bobbit the Hobbit Bill

2010-10-29T14:51:00.004+13:00

As noted, the "duck test" for telling an employee from a contractor is Section 6 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 as applied in Bryson vs Three Foot Six Ltd.

The Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill (or the "Hobbit Bill requested by Sir Peter Jackson and Warner Bros") is now the law. It stops the "duck test" being applied in the NZ film production industry.

The facts of your employment, as in Bryson's case, are no longer relevant. In the NZ film production industry, you are a contractor (with no security, no sick pay, no ACC, no holiday pay) unless you have a written contract of employment stating that you are an employee. As from today, on any Jackson/Weta film production, being an employee is at the whim of Sirs Peter and Richard.

The Three Foot Six practices of issuing detailed contracts of employment that use the word "contractor" instead of "employee", and issuing pay slips marked "invoice", will be conclusive proof of the fact that you have no rights as an employee.

Facts of Bryson vs Three Foot Six Ltd

2010-10-29T14:02:00.007+13:00

Have a read of the Bryson vs Three Foot Six Supreme Court case, also a PDF.
Under Section 6 of the Employment Relations Act 2000, someone can ask the courts to find that he/she is in fact an employee, despite the wishes of the film production company/"employer". In other words, this is a "duck test".

The Bryson facts were;

Bryson worked for Weta workshops as a miniature model maker for several months on regular hours and on an hourly rate ($18 an hour and from 8:00am to 5:30pm)

there was no written contract or letter of appointment

he transferred to Three Foot Six, the LOTR film production company, on a verbal basis

he got 3 weeks specific training for the new role

his partner had a baby, so he asked and they agreed he could stay on 8 to 5:30 instead of moving to 7:30am to 6pm which was normal for 3F6

after several more months, everyone on LOTR work is issued with a 'crew memo' which read exactly like an employment contract except it states "YOU ARE A CONTRACTOR"

Bryson is issued pay slips from 3F6 that are titled "Invoice"

Filming of LOTR finishes, 3F6 tells Bryson his services are no longer required and no redundancy is payable as he was a contractor (baby? partner? bad timing? eh)

Bryson asks the Employment Tribunal to make a finding of fact that he is an employee so he can allege unjustifiable dismissal. The Employment Tribunal agrees with 3F6 that he is a contractor. Bryson appeals this 'finding of facts' to the Employment Court, and Judge Shaw rehears the evidence and finds that Bryson is an employee of 3F6 (This is just like the Environment Court hearing an appeal of a resource consent. It rehears the evidence and 're-makes' the council's decision.) 3F6 appeal on 'points of law' to the Court of Appeal, and convinces the majority of the Court of Appeal judges that Judge Shaw made 'an error of law' in her judgment (This is because the C of A cannot re-make the Employment Court's decision, it can only review the procedures followed for errors of law).

The Supreme Court decides that there were no 'errors of law' in the Employment Court decision. Judge Shaw considered all relevant matters in the Section 6 of the Employment Relations Act 2000. Therefore the Employment Court decision, that Bryson is, on the facts of his case, an employee of 3F6, stands.

This went through the various tribunals between 2002 and 2005. It is not very plausible to state that this area of law 'lacks clarity' or that this decision is a threat to the production of The Hobbit film.

Bryson vs Three Foot Six

2010-10-27T23:52:00.005+13:00

Here is National Radio on the Hobbit deal.

The Supreme Court case of James Bryson v Three Foot Six Limited, from 2005, is pretty much necessary context for the Key-Warners Bros deal.

Scoop have an explanatory summary from the Department of Courts, who also have the full record of the hearing (20 pages).

How long til he buys Elephant Man's skeleton?

2010-10-27T21:14:00.003+13:00

This evening, we learned the outcome of negotiations held between Sir Peter Jackson's personal agent, the Hon John Key, Prime Minister of New Zealand, and the media multi-national Warner Bros.

Key has 'brokered' with Warners a special deal for Jackson and "The Hobbit" film project.

Jackson gets special legislation to clarify the distinction between independent contractors and employees in the film production industry. (PS the NZ Supreme Court says there is nothing to clarify)

Warners get $US15 million of tax rebates over two films and $US10 million for marketing.

So I wrote to Key.

Since when should Government be acting as an agent for private sector parties such as Warners and Peter Jackson? I had thought it was a central principle of your party that “Government should keep out of matters of business” and that “Government should not try to pick winners”.
Secondly, as a taxpayer, I am aghast that you have announced ad-hoc changes to film tax rebates to advantage only specifically Jackson and Warners, apparently in response to your meetings with Warners.
Thirdly, I am very disappointed that you intend to introduce legislation to Parliament apparently at the request of Warners and Jackson. And that this legislation is to clarify the law solely to specifically benefit the NZ film industry and Peter Jackson, instead of to achieve a general public goal. The Supreme Court has clarified the law of contractors and employees in Bryson vs Three Foot Six Ltd. This should only be amended by Parliament if due process is followed. This does not appear to be the case here.

Hasta La Vista Paul Henry

2010-10-06T22:55:00.003+13:00

Well I hope it is!

TVNZ has a comment form. I just used it! With this message.

Rick Ellis,
Chief Executive
Television NZ Limited,

Dear Mr Ellis,

Re: Paul Henry

Mr Henry's "expletive-laden tirade" of today (following his offensive comments about the Governor-General) confirms to me unequivocally that that Mr Henry no longer has any constructive role to play in Television NZ and that his two-week suspension was not the appropriate sanction.

It is time for this man to be removed from the airwaves and from TV NZ.

Yours sincerely

Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act 2010

2010-10-06T22:17:00.005+13:00

Andrew Geddis has expressed concern about the unconstitutionally sweeping powers of Gerry Brownlee's Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act 2010.

I wondered if the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act 2010 had a Regulatory Impact Statement. These statements are meant to give an "evidence-based approach to policy development".

I wrote to the Ministry of Economic Development asking if there had been a Regulatory Impact Statement. Their reply (Google Docs) fairly promptly; "No there wasn't".

So I wrote this letter and sent it to Bill English, Rodney Hide (as the Ministers behind the Government Statement on Regulation and Gerry Brownlee, as Minister of Economic Development and Earthquake Recovery.

"The Ministry of Economic Development has confirmed to me that a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) was not prepared for the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act 2010 of 14 September 2010. That Act gives the executive branch of Government sweeping powers to create exemptions from existing legislation via orders in council.

Will you please explain to me why there was no RIS for the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act 2010? Who authorised the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act 2010 to proceed without a RIS? Please treat this as a request for official information.

The absence of a RIS appears to be inconsistent with the Government Statement on Regulation, which you released on 17 August 2009. It includes commitments that:
"We will introduce new regulation only when we are satisfied that it is required, reasonable, and robust".
"We will resist the temptation or pressure to take a regulatory decision until we have considered the evidence, advice and consultation feedback.."
"Ensure that Cabinet's requirements for assuring regulatory quality are treated as an integral part of policy development, and built into the policy process from the beginning"

The statement also encourages the public to hold the Government to account for actions inconsistent with the commitments in the statement. In light of that, I am writing to say that the absence of an RIS for the earthquake Act is inconsistent with the Government Statement on Regulation, and I wish to hold the Government to account.

The absence of the RIS also appears to be inconsistent with Treasury's Regulatory Impact Analysis Handbook, which indicates that a RIS is required for any policy initiative or review that considers new primary legislation (Regulatory Impact Analysis Handbook, 2/11/2009, The Treasury, ISBN: 978-0-478-33091-5)."

I wonder what I'll get back?

Noami Oreskes on obscuring global warming

2010-09-28T00:27:00.003+13:00

Here is science historian Noami Oreskes giving a talk back in March 2010, I think. The talk is about her book, Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming.

Canterbury earthquake links

2010-09-07T19:42:00.002+12:00

Here are some cool Canterbury Earthquake links

Relive your sleepless night.
Christchurch earthquake map

Bob Parker did it and he is a lizard. Did I mention he is an alien?
Bob Parker Engineered the Earth quake

See the Canterbury earthquake page on Wikipedia.
A substantive 78-footnote page has sprouted in 4 days.
Canterbury earthquake

Secret government geo-engineering vis vapour trails.
New Zealand Chem Trails

Delayers against elephants

2010-09-02T19:19:00.001+12:00

A new group is on the political scene. "Delayers against elephants", protecting your family's right to pollution from fake elephants.

The Elephant in the room

2010-09-02T19:03:00.003+12:00

What did I do at lunch time today? I was out with Tom Bennion as he walked up and down Lambton Quay in Wellington's CBD, in an elephant suit holding a sign saying "Time to stop flying".

The elephant in the room being Climate change.

Tom had released a media statement about why he did it.

Iraq A trillion-dollar catastrophe

2010-09-01T22:32:00.003+12:00

Simon Jenkins writes in the Guardian that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 by the United States and the United Kingdom was and is A trillion dollar catastrophe.

Jenkins notes:

Two million remain abroad as refugees from seven years of anarchy, with another 2 million internally displaced. Ironically, almost all Iraqi Christians have had to flee.

Jenkins does not hold back.

It was a wild overreaction by a paranoid, overmilitarised American state to a single spectacular, but inconsequential, act of terrorism on 9/11. As such it illustrated how little international relations have advanced since the shooting of Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo. Its exponents are still blinded by incident.

I could not agree more.

The Daft New Zealand Energy Strategy

2010-08-27T18:41:00.004+12:00

Have you seen this chart from James Hansen's website? I have included it in my submission on the National Government's Daft Energy Strategies

Draft Energy Strategies
Ministry of Economic Development,
PO Box 1473
Wellington 6140

Submission on Draft New Zealand Energy Strategy and Draft New Zealand Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy

Dear Sir/Madam,
Please accept this submission in respect of the Draft New Zealand Energy Strategy and the Draft New Zealand Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy.
I attach a chart of the trend in historic global fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions and future IPCC emissions scenarios. I obtained it from the website of the NASA climate scientist James Hansen.
I see nothing in either strategy that will help reduce the trend in emissions growth.
I see next to nothing in either strategy that recognises the magnitude of the challenge of anthropogenic climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions (including carbon dioxide from fossil fuels).
Neither strategy even mentions;

the UNFCCC which NZ has signed,
the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report,
the Kyoto Protocol which is binding on NZ,
NZ's energy intensity,
NZ's actual emissions.

Therefore, I oppose the adoption of both strategies because they are wholly inadequate in setting out any realistic measures to decarbonise the economy.
I request that there should only be one New Zealand energy strategy, that is directed to decarbonising the economy, and that is focused on efficiency and conservation, as required by the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act 2000.

The closing deadline for submissions is 5.00pm, Thursday 2 September 2010.

Biodiversity and energy must-reads

2010-08-13T23:02:00.003+12:00

Massey ecologist Mike Joy has written a must-read opinion piece in the Dominion Post on how short-term profit-seeking, economic analysis and the legal system, the Government, the Resource Management Act, and well, all of us, have failed to slow New Zealand's decline in biodiversity. Government failures and ecological apathy bite back.

Joy highlights the role of consultants and lawyers acting for resource developers.

Simply put, it is expensive to limit environmental damage. So predictably the economic incentive for the evasion of the laws that are there for a public good, quickly became a big money-spinner for lawyers and consulting firms.

These law firms and environmental consultancies have been successful at helping their clients evade the RMA. They have increased profits for developers/polluters while undermining the ecosystems that sustain us all; effectively allowing private profit from public loss.

And Claire Browning has a good post on Gerry Brownlee's 'fossilised' 'fuelish' energy strategy Filty rich: our developing energy strategy.

Claire Browning asks:

Can we, in clean green conscience, keep digging for coal and drilling for oil, postponing the inevitable, and increasing the global carbon burden? How do we justify that, to the rest of the world?

No, its insanity.

Impact assessment risk management NZ agriculture

2010-08-12T16:32:00.001+12:00

I have just uploaded a new paper to Robin's website. It is:

RWMJ (1992m) 'Impact assessment and risk management in New Zealand agriculture: integrating local, regional and national farm models', In: 'Regional and Catchment Modelling', Agricultural Systems & Information Technology, Vol 4, No 2, November 1992, Bureau of Resources, ACT, Australia.

From the abstract: 'This paper describes methodologies and results achieved with local and regional models for agricultural impact analysis both within the agricultural sector and on other sectors in New Zealand.'

A new post on Worlds Worst ETS

2010-08-09T23:09:00.002+12:00

Earlier this evening I wrote a new post on the other blog, The Worlds Worst Emissions Trading Scheme.

It explains that the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme is not a cap and trade scheme as it has no cap.

Yes, really No Cap

Adjustment in agriculture: agribusiness

2010-08-07T18:14:00.001+12:00

I have just uploaded a new paper to Robin's website. It is:

Johnson R W M (1988e) Adjustment in agriculture: agribusiness, Discussion Paper 121, Vol 1: 103-112, Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit, Lincoln College, University of Canterbury.

This was a paper presented to the July 1988 annual meeting of the NZ branch of the Australasian Agricultural Economics Society. Here is the abstract.

This paper reviews changes in the agribusiness sector since 1984. Evidence is based on available statistics and some anecdotal information. Considerable changes are identified in factor markets, input markets and service markets. Main features include rapid increases in factor productivity, stabilization of service prices (except interest), a decline in investment and a decline in balance sheet assets. Amalgamation and restructuring has occurred in the input and service industries and surplus capacity still exists at several points. Outputs can only be maintained at current high levels by disinvestment in the capital base. The agribusiness sector is likely to settle down at some new lower level of output and investment with increased levels of productivity in the medium term.

Hurunui River moratorium: So What?

2010-07-22T22:57:00.003+12:00

According to the Press, the Greens and Forest and Bird have welcomed today's Ecan's moratorium on processing applications for resource consents to take more water from the Hurunui River. It's even been described as a victory for "people power".

That view is just so wrong. Just read the Environment Canterbury announcement all the way down to the sixth paragraph.
"Existing resource consents would not be affected by a moratorium."

So it will have no effect on the applications to dam the Hurunui River for irrigation storage already lodged by the Hurunui Water Project

As far as I know, there is no impending 'flood' of applications to take more water from the Hurunui River about to hit Environment Canterbury. So the moratorium is at best, a futile gesture, and at worst, greenwashing for Smith and the irrigators.

It's the applications to dam the Hurunui River that are the 'game-changers' which will have irreversible adverse effects on the ecology of the Hurunui River. That particular horse has bolted from the stable, so there's not much point shutting the stable door.

The World's Worst Emissions Trading Scheme

2010-07-22T22:51:00.004+12:00

TO DO list
* catch 4:30pm no 3 bus Lambton Quay...check
* 5:00pm buy mushrooms Karori Woolworths...check
* 5:20pm cook Mrs Johnson her favourite meal; bacon and eggs with tomatoes and mushrooms...check
* 5:45pm - serve dinner to Mrs Johnson as per Key Performance Criteria - finished by 6:00pm...check
* 6:00pm - wash dishes...check
* 6:10pm - go to bedroom to escape TV1 News on really loud...check
* 7:00pm - go online, set up new blog to combat climate change...check

The World's Worst Emissions Trading Scheme

Brownlee's Mining Backdown?

2010-07-20T22:52:00.000+12:00

It looks as though our submissions were successful! The Government has announced the decision decided not to allow mining by removing 7,000 hectares from Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991. It is great that as many people marched and submitted as they have. It's great that Brownlee and co have backed down on mining in Schedule 4 conservation areas.

BUT there is a sting in the tail of the Government's announcement at Scoop. Its going to be much easier for mines to be approved in the other 60% of the conservation estate not in Schedule 4.

Scroll down to bullet point 12. 'What has the government agreed to, and why?' "Decisions regarding access to land for mineral-related activity are to be made jointly by the landholding minister and the Minister of Energy and Resources." That is by Kate Wilkinson AND Gerry Brownlee. So pro-mining Gerry gets to jointly decide mining access to conservation land. Gerry as disinterested impartial decision maker?? It's just gobsmacking.

Have a look at the decision making matters in Section 61(2) of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 , that Gerry (and Kate W) will operate under. They are:
"*(a) The objectives of any Act under which the land is administered; and
*(b) Any purpose for which the land is held by the Crown; and
*(c) Any policy statement or management plan of the Crown in relation to the land; and
*(d) The safeguards against any potential adverse effects of carrying out the proposed programme of work; and
*(e) Such other matters as the appropriate Minister considers relevant."

For a conservation area proposed for mining, considering a) through to e) will involve conservation purposes, not mining purposes. It's just so wrong for Gerry to have any role.

Even an allegedly more conservationist Minister twists these matters and approves mines. Here's an example; back on 12 March 2004 Chris Carter as Minister of Conservation agonised in deciding to approve Pike River Coal's application
but he still approved it.

Think how much quicker Gerry and Kate would have approved Pike River Coal Mine's access. This isn't good for conservation.

New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme stage 2

2010-07-01T21:43:00.005+12:00

Today, the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme moves to 'stage 2'.

That is to say, today several sectors of the NZ economy 'enter' the NZ ETS.

'Participants' in the sectors stationary energy, industrial processes and liquid fossil fuels, now have obligations to obtain and surrender emission units to match their emissions.

Remember 'stage 1' started in 1 January 2008 with forestry, who are be a net sink of emissions, not a source. In other words, 'afforestation' since 1990 has been able to earn emission units for carbon sequestration. So 'stage 2' is significant as several sectors that are major sources of greenhouse gases now have mandatory obligations.

According to this Wikipedia tool, 1,011 people in June considered it worth at least browsing to the wikipedia page on the NZ ETS.

And on 30 June, yesterday (Tuesday ), 91 people browsed the NZ ETS wikipedia page.

Its not many is it? More surprising, on Monday 28 June, 3 days before the start of 'stage 2' of the NZETS, not a single person checked the wikipedia page.

James Hansen 22 years of testimony

2010-06-11T23:54:00.003+12:00

I just found a 2008 Guardian article by James Hansen noting the 20th anniversary of his 1988 testimony to the US Congress. The good old Guardian have left us a PDF of it.

Actually now its the 22nd anniversary. That's a two year old newspaper I'm surfing.

Requiem for a Species

2010-06-03T01:14:00.002+12:00

I am currently reading;
Well actually I had a brief look at:

Clive Hamilton (2010). Requiem for a Species: Why We Resist the Truth about Climate Change. Allen & Unwin. pp. 103–105. ISBN 1742372104. .

Whiff of self-interest

2010-06-01T17:06:00.002+12:00

Vernon Small has written a good article in today's Dominion Post Whiff of self-interest in ETS air, noting the blatant self-interest of farmers being cultivated by the ACT Party as they stir up trouble over the impending New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme.

Small notes In truth, farmers are bleating from a position of extreme privilege. They are having a "dream run" as greenhouse gas emissions from pastoral stock (48% of NZ's total) do not enter the NZETS until 2015.

He quotes Dr Jan Wright, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, saying that the biggest flaw in the NZETS is the high on-going level of free allocation of carbon credits/emission units that will be given to trade-exposed emissions-intensive industries.

The Ethics of Emission Trading

2010-05-22T02:25:00.005+12:00

I have some homework to do. I am writing a book on forest carbon sinks with the Kennett Bros and Tom Bennion.

I need to read up on ethics of emissions trading

Hopefully this should do it.

The Blues Magoos Tobacco Road

2010-05-19T02:03:00.004+12:00

For some reason, I feel the need to....embed a You Tube video of the American 1960s band The Blues Magoos performing the John D Loudermilk song Tobacco Road.

Mokihinui Madness

2010-05-17T23:56:00.004+12:00

Claire Browning has done another thoughtful post on the Pundit blog about the roles of Meridian and Solid Energy in seeking permission to respectively dam the Mohikinui River Gorge and remove the habitat of Powelliphanta augusta for the Cypress open cast coal mine

I agree with her conclusion - it is bad government to let an SOE push the envelope of 'balancing the environment and the economy' as far as Meridian has in obtaining resource consents for a dam on a large undammed river within 337 ha of conservation 'stewardship' land.

Claire Browning asks "how does it serve the taxpayer exactly, for Meridian to battle on with Mokihinui consents, in the face of quite clear signals that they would not get the DOC dispensations that they need?"

Yes, having DOC and Meridian funding lawyers and expert witnesses at both the council resource consent hearings and the Environment Court is obviously a waste of money. Particularly, when DOC, as the agent of the landowner, the Crown, has not approved the use of the Mokihinui River Gorge.

I have been wondering for some time (actually since Easter 2003 when I tramped from the Buller River via Lyell to the south Branch of the Mokihinui River and out the gorge, great tramp actually) why DOC has even been bothering to participate in the resource consent process when DOC has a right of veto over the permission to use conservation land for a non-conservation purpose.

So when I read of DOC's intention to appeal the grant of resource consents, I thought I would just ring up the direct dial number of the "Comms" person given on the press release, and ask. To protect his identity, I have made up the name "Mr Spin".

Our conversation went like this.
1. Is DOC appealing the grant of the consent or just the consent conditions?
"Both. DOC does oppose the substance of decision to grant. I can email you the notice of appeal."
2. What is status of Meridian's application for a concession for the dam?
"It is "on hold" at Meridian's request therefore DOC cannot decide it."
3. Does the Conservation Act 1987 provide for applications for concessions to be placed "on hold"?
"Um as far as I am aware yes, DOC cannot process it, its the same as if there were no application."
4. If DOC opposes the proposal, why does it not simply decline application for concession?
"It is my understanding that the department cannot act on the application for concession if the applicant has requested a delay in processing."
5. Do you realise that the Department is being gamed by Meridian?
"Ah ha ha ha. The department has to follow due process in these matters and Meridian is able to choose how it proceeds with its proposal so the department has to proceed via the Environment Court".

"Mr Spin" had completely recovered from appearing slightly wrong footed by my third question, which after brief hesitation he fudged admirably. With his "Ah ha ha" he was now talking in a very superior tone of "you may say that, I couldn't possibly". The DOC Glenorchy staff I worked with as hut warden in the mid 1990s would no doubt regard "Mr Spin" as a "head office shiny-pantsed seat-warmer".

The RMA clearly provides in section 37A for applicants for consents to request a delay in processing. But the Conservation Act 1987, which deals with concessions in sections 17O through to 17ZJ, has no such provisions. The Conservation Act 1987 does not provide for applications for concessions to be placed "on hold".

"Mr Spin" was reflecting the party line, however incorrect it may be. In September 2009, the Hon Tim Groser informed Parliament: "Meridian Energy has requested that part of the application, with respect to the proposed dam footprint and inundation area, be put on hold while the Department of Conservation processes a land exchange application over the same area"

A land swap! Are they joking? If you follow the case law in Buller Electricity Ltd vs the Attorney General High Court case , DOC cannot dispose of or swap land for a non-conservation purpose. There is no chance that Meridian could find a large river equivalent to the Mokihinui River Gorge outside the conservation estate. Wasn't that the point of the allegedly suppressed Landcare report?

Back to Mr Groser. As at October 2009, DOC are still considering Meridian's land swap application .

I am gobsmacked that DOC is allowing Meridian to dictate the timing of the processing of concession application and also it appears the land swap proposal. DOC has let itself be fooled into wasting time and money opposing the Mokihinui dam in a decision-making forum dominated by 'weak sustainability' when it had at all times the statutory decision making power to decline a concession application or a land swap on due to inconsistence with conservation purposes.

Buller Electricity Ltd v Attorney-General

2010-05-16T01:13:00.003+12:00

I have just added a copy of the 1995 High Court case Buller Electricity Ltd v Attorney-General 1995 3 NZLR 344 to www.scribd.com. Its an important case which should be relevant to the current issue of Meridian's proposed hydro-electric dam on the Mokihinui River which will be within conservation land.

Buller Electricity Ltd v Attorney-General 1995 3 NZLR 344

Photos of Auckland No Mining March

2010-05-06T18:37:00.001+12:00

Have a look at some photos of the Auckland No Mining march.

Brownlee's reverse Midas touch on Mining

2010-05-01T14:07:00.002+12:00

John Armstrong, the New Zealand Herald's chief political commentator, is hardly out on the extreme left.

Today he has written a scathing column about Minister of Energy and Resources Gerry Brownlee's plan to lift the prohibition on mining in 7,000 hectares from national parks and some other high-value conservation areas which would otherwise be protected by their inclusion in Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991.

Armstrong says the idea "is turning to custard", that his search for a mining Eldorado is "King Midas in reverse".

Armstrong writes that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Dr Jan Wright, has "slammed the document as inadequate in assessing the real ecological impact of mining in specific localities, deficient in the way it measures the value of minerals claimed to be underground and unacceptable in recommending additions to Schedule Four as some kind of quid pro quo for taking other land out of that protection."

Armstrong considers Brownlee's poor "salesmanship" is a symptom of a wider problem of the National Government. Ministers seeking policy advice from outside of the core public service. That's consistent with Rod Oram's view that Brownlee only takes advice from mining industry insiders.

Mining submissions deadline extended

2010-04-30T11:53:00.003+12:00

Ministers Brownlee and Wilkinson have changed the closing date for submissions on their proposal to remove 7,000 hectares of conservation land from Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 so that they are not protected from mining.

Submissions can be made until 5.00pm Wednesday 26 May 2010.

Kate Wilkinson notes that 14,000 submissions have been received.

Short on time in your busy life? Copy and paste my handy template submissions into an email addressed to schedule4@med.govt.nz.

Shorter submission 642 words.

Longer submission 2080 words.

Toaster CO2 Widget

2010-04-30T02:18:00.001+12:00

This widget is a bit more funky.

Way cool!

Carbon Dioxide concentration

2010-04-30T02:13:00.001+12:00

I am trialling some code that embeds a widget displaying the lates update of the current concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Yeah thats pretty cool

ECAN Commissioners again

2010-04-28T00:05:00.007+12:00

One of the other new ECAN Commissioners is David Bedford who is Chairman of Enterprise North Canterbury.

So where in the Canterbury water politics spectrum do David Bedford and Enterprise North Canterbury fit in?

According to its web site, Enterprise North Canterbury is a not-for- profit trust acting as the economic development agency for the Waimakariri and Hurunui District Councils. One of its key objectives is "to promote and facilitate land-use intensification in the region...(such as the) Hurunui Water Project which Enterprise North Canterbury helped establish.

Enterprise North Canterbury was part of a working group consisting of the Hurunui Irrigation and Power Trust, MainPower, Ngai Tahu Properties and Eskhead Station, which came up with the Hurunui River/Lake Taylor dam and water storage proposal in April 2006.

This working group recieved $590,000 from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Sustainable Farming Fund and Enterprise North Canterbury must have supported them as it contributed its postal address.

As National Business Review's Chris Hutchings says; the Environment Canterbury special legislation "represents a victory for Irrigation NZ and rural interests seeking control of the region’s waterways for irrigation projects involving the Hurunui, Rakaia, Waimakariri and other main rivers."

The Hurunui Water Project is going to be the main beneficiary of the special legislation as it cancels Fish and Game and Whitewater NZ's right to appeal their Hurunui River water conservation order application to the Environment Court. Remember, success for the water conservation order application would prevent the Hurunui Water Project, who already have had their consent applications notified, from damming the Hurunui River at Lake Sumner.

But the Government has moved the goalposts on the water conservation order.

Whitewater NZ is furious.

So Commissioner Bedford will be firmly in the pro-irrigation camp. I wonder if he will have the sense to declare a conflict of interest and excuse himself from any discussions the ECAN Commissioners have on the Hurunui River water conservation order?

Its also a little odd that Irrigation New Zealand's press release applauding Bedford's appointment does not mention the Hurunui Water Project Connection.

You are not in Fiji now Dr Jenkins

2010-04-24T01:27:00.003+12:00

I nabbed this from the Rapid Fire blog.

Isn't it brilliant?

Campbell Live on Environment Canterbury

2010-04-23T13:39:00.002+12:00

How cool is this? Using a widget on the TV3 website I posted this link of Campbell Live's item on Environment Canterbury. Quite funny that John Campbell (Wellington College Old Boy) said "This is why you should give a dam about Environment Canterbury.

Govt labelled 'dictatorship' after kicking out elected reps - Campbell Live - Video - 3 News

Posted using ShareThis

Environment Canterbury's New Commissioners

2010-04-23T00:48:00.009+12:00

Nick Smith and Rodney Hide have announced the other commissioners who will join Dame Margaret Bazley in running Environment Canterbury for the next three years.

They state "The Government has selected experienced and capable commissioners with first-class public service, governance, judicial and business skills. We have ensured a balance of agricultural, environmental and electricity expertise"

"The Commissioners are: Dame Margaret Bazley (Chair), Hon. David Caygill (Deputy Chair), David Bedford, Donald Couch, Tom Lambie, Professor Peter Skelton, Rex Williams."

Professor and former Environment Court Judge Peter Skelton will be welcomed because of his highly relevant judicial and professional background. He has acted as an Ecan hearings panel member for the Lower Waitaki catchment consents. He has also given advice and run RMA training for Ecan staff.

Tom Lambie, the former President of Federated Farmers, and South Canterbury organic dairy farmer and consent holder, is also known to Environment Canterbury. In particular, by the Enforcement staff, as he received an infringement notice fine of $750 in February 2003 for an unlawful discharge of dairy shed effluent.

Have a look at the list of infringement notices on page 16 of Environment Canterbury's Enforcement Report of 2003.

R03-37

Canterbury water conservation orders

2010-04-19T14:53:00.005+12:00

A commenter asks Claire Browning at the Pundit blog:
"Does the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act 2010) mean that the new ECan can bypass the process so that rights to access water in the Hurunui can be granted regardless of anyone else's needs or concerns?"

No the special legislation doesn't bypass the process, it completely rewrites the process!

Specifically, it inverts the old decision making criteria so that development of water resources is more important in the decison on a WCO than preserving rivers in their natural state.

In a tribunal decision on a WCO (under Section 207 of the RMA) environmental criteria ("outstanding amenity or intrinsic values which are afforded by waters in their natural state" s 199 RMA) have predominance over resource development criteria, which were still a matter the tribunal "shall also have regard to" (S 207(b)).

The Hurunui River WCO application, even though it was applied for and had it's tribunal stage prior to the Ecan Act, is now to be decided by the new Ecan/Dame Margaret. See Section 46 of "the Ecan Act".

Dame Margaret/Ecan's decision on the Hurunui WCO is to guided by Section 50 of "the Ecan Act"

The decision must have particular regard to the vision and principles of the Canterbury Water Managment Strategy (S 50(2)(a)(ii). The "vision" is now Schedule 1 to the Ecan Act.

I am afraid when I see the "vision and principles of the CWMS", it just seems a rehash of "resource management" apple pie matters, just like sections 5, 6 and 7 of the RMA.

The decision must also have particular regard to the old WCO criteria; "outstanding amenity or intrinsic values that are afforded by waters in their natural state" (S 50(2)(a)(i) and S 50(3)(a)).

But the decision must be made foremostly "subject to Part 2 of the RMA" (S 50(2)). That wording is from s 104 of the RMA (the section about how to consider the granting of resource consents). It means that ultimately the decision on a WCO should 'promote sustainable management' of resources as defined by court interpretations of Section 5 of the RMA. Just like a consent decision.

The MfE and Court-approved interpretation of "sustainable management" is the "broad overall judgment" weighing all matters. In other words, it is a balancing exercise. So what will this sort of decision look like in practice?

I suggest it will look exactly like the recent decision to grant consents to dam the Mokihinui River within a conservation area. See the article Watchdogs explain giving dam go-ahead, 8 April 2010 in the Herald.

The three-person hearing panel made a split 2 vs 1 decision to grant the consents. The civil engineer and the west coast councillor outvoted the specialist freshwater ecologist, who considered the dam should not go ahead due to significant adverse effects on freshwater ecosystems.

We may ask "how did the Hearing Panel "have regard to" the adverse effects of the dam on freshwater ecosystems?". The answer is that one of the three panel members recognised and documented the importance of the freshwater ecology in their decision and the other two considered the instream values worth sacrificing for the power.

To me that is a perfect example of what is wrong with the "broad overall judgment" approach to sustainable management It is "weak sustainability" writ large.

The definitions section of the Ecan Act also defines the term 'WCO application' to include an application to revoke or vary an existing WCO. Applying to revoke or vary a WCO is provided for in S 216 of the RMA. But there is a high threshhold as it's still the same S 207 decision-making criteria "outstanding amenity or intrinsic values" of water in it's natural state".

The Majac Trust (the Talley family) tried to vary the Buller River WCO to allow hydro dam on the Gowan River. That application was declined.

The Ecan Act now means that Canterbury's WCOs, which were established against criteria of "outstanding intrinsic values", can now be varied or revoked by appications that will be considered against a criteria of fairly weak sustainability.

It is no wonder Chris Hutchings of the NBR decribes the Ecan Act as a major victory for the irrigators.

Short No Mining Submission

2010-04-14T12:43:00.004+12:00

As I was saying the other day, I felt my submission opposing mining in the high-quality Schedule 4 conservation areas, was too long.

Here is my shorter version, weighing in at 642 words.

Schedule 4 stock-take
(Email: schedule4@med.govt.nz)
Ministry of Economic Development
PO Box 1473
Wellington 6140

Submission on Schedule 4 stock-take discussion document

Dear Sir/Madam,
Please accept this submission in response to your notice of 22 March 2010.
Q1 On the areas proposed for removal from Schedule 4:
I oppose the proposal to remove the suggested conservation areas from Schedule 4 and therefore remove their protection from mining because:
1.Mining will harm biodiversity. It will reduce the habitats of New Zealand's endemic species, many of which are endangered, and make range contraction and species decline more likely.
2.Mining will involve removal of mature native forest. This deforestation and further coal mining will release additional volumes of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
3.Mining will increase the pollution of freshwater environments caused by acid mine drainage.
4.Mining involves significant earthworks and roading and tailings dams. These are frequently not adequately managed to prevent excess nutrient-rich sedimentation running off into streams and other natural freshwater ecosystems. This will impose further adverse cumulative effects (in conjunction with intensive agricultural run-off) on the already declining water quality in New Zealand's rivers, streams, lakes and estuaries.
5.Mining will conflict with recreational use and scenic values of the conservation areas.
6.Mining is a destructive, damaging and exploitative land use that is completely inconsistent with the statutory conservation purpose for which these conservation areas are held.
7.Allowing additional mining in conservation areas detracts from New Zealand's international image and makes our marketing of tourism and our exports appear hypocritical, especially in the eyes of our competitors and in the view of environmentally conscious consumers in the OECD countries.

Q2 On the areas proposed for addition to Schedule 4:
I support the addition of the listed protected areas to Schedule 4.
I also request that all places that match the land classifications listed in Schedule 4 should be automatically added to Schedule 4 when gazetted to ensure protection from mining.

Q3 On the assessment of areas:
For all areas I consider that the environmental and conservation values (biodiversity, native species habitat, wildlife, cultural, recreational, amenity, scenic, carbon sequestration) outweigh the highly speculative economic values ascribed to the minerals that these areas are alleged to have.

Q4 On the proposal to further investigate the mineral potential of some areas:
I oppose this proposal. I oppose subsidising the minerals industry with $4 million of taxpayers’ money to investigate the mineral potential in New Zealand's conservation areas.

Q5 On a new contestable conservation fund:
I completely oppose forming this fund. Conservation of biodiversity is an important enough matter to have adequate funding without having to be “in debt” to mining within conservation areas. Conservation outcomes can be best enhanced by reversing the $50million cut (over three years) in the Department of Conservation’s budget.
The tying of conservation funding to mining and the “greenwashing” of this proposal would further undermine New Zealand's current international reputation for excellent management of biodiversity and conservation areas.

Q6 On approval of access arrangements:
I oppose adding the approval of the Minister of Energy and Resources to the access decisions of the Minister of Conservation because this would introduce energy, economic and mineral considerations into the Ministerial decision on granting mining access arrangements to conservation areas.
I support the status quo where the Minister of Conservation must consider the statutory land management purposes and land management plans and the potential adverse effects of access against conservation purposes.

In summary, I remain unconvinced by the assertion that mining in conservation areas can be environmentally responsible.
Yours faithfully,

Storms of my grandchildren

2010-04-12T22:29:00.006+12:00

"Storms of my grandchildren", the book by James Hansen that I ordered via Fish pond arrived today. Great!

Here is the promotional video for the book.

My submission on Schedule 4 stock-take discussion document

2010-04-11T11:57:00.006+12:00

Here is my submission. It is quite long. I may prepare a shorter version too.

Schedule 4 stock-take
(Email: schedule4@med.govt.nz)
Ministry of Economic Development
PO Box 1473
Wellington 6140

Submission on Schedule 4 stock-take discussion document

Dear Sir/Madam,
Please accept this submission in response to your notice of 22 March 2010.

Q1 On the areas proposed for removal from Schedule 4:
Section 7 of the discussion paper sets out the areas proposed for removal from Schedule 4. Do you think these areas should be removed from Schedule 4 so that applications for exploration and mining activity can be considered on a case-by-case basis? Yes or No? And why? (Your response may be in relation to any one or more of the areas discussed. Please clearly identify the area(s) to which your response relates.)

No
I oppose the proposal to remove the conservation areas from Schedule 4 and therefore from protection from mining. I oppose the proposals to remove the suggested areas from Schedule 4 because:
1.Mining will harm biodiversity. It will reduce the habitats of New Zealand's endemic species, many of which are endangered, and make range contraction and species decline more likely.
2.Mining will involve removal of mature native forest which will release additional volumes of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
3.Mining will increase the pollution of freshwater environments caused by acid mine drainage.
4.Mining involves significant earthworks and roading and tailings dams. These are frequently not adequately managed to prevent excess nutrient-rich sedimentation running off into streams and other natural freshwater ecosystems. This will impose further adverse cumulative effects (in conjunction with intensive agricultural run-off) on the already declining water quality in New Zealand's rivers, streams, lakes and estuaries.
5.Mining will conflict with recreational use and scenic values of the conservation areas.
6.Mining is a destructive, damaging and exploitative land use that is completely inconsistent with the statutory conservation purpose for which these conservation areas are held.
7.Allowing additional mining in conservation areas detracts from New Zealand's international image and makes our marketing of tourism and our exports appear hypocritical, especially in the eyes of our competitors and in the view of environmentally conscious consumers in the OECD countries.

The Inangahua sector of Paparoa National Park
The proposal includes taking 3,000 hectares of native lowland forest near Inangahua out of north-eastern Paparua National Park to allow coal mining.
According to the Ministry of Economic Development, 83% of NZ's coal production in 2008 came from opencast mines. It appears highly likely that any new Inangahua coal mine would be opencast. Opencast mining is associated with the most severe adverse environmental effects. Mr Brownlee has stated that opencast mines cannot be ruled out in areas removed from Schedule 4.
Such coal mining is the worst possible reason to justify removing this lowland forest classified as national park from Schedule 4. James Hansen of NASA has let us all know that atmospheric science is absolutely clear that the world needs to urgently stop mining and burning coal if we are to stop the warming effect of more carbon dioxide getting in the atmosphere.
New Zealand has obligations under the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol to actively reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. It is completely contrary to these goals to be proposing removal of protection from mining from the Inangahua sector of Paparoa National Park when the prospective mineral is coal, the most carbon-emission-intensive fossil fuel.
I also oppose removal of this area because of the adverse effects on biodiversity.
o Otahu Ecological Area and Parakawai Geological Area in the Coromandel
o The other seven areas in the Coromandel Peninsula totalling 2,574 hectares
o Te Ahumata Plateau on Great Barrier Island
I oppose removal of these areas from Schedule 4 because of the adverse effects on biodiversity and native species and habitats.

Q2 On the areas proposed for addition to Schedule 4:
Section 8 of the discussion paper sets out the areas proposed for addition to Schedule 4. Do you agree with the proposal to add these areas to Schedule 4? Yes or No? And why? (Your response may be in relation to any one or more of the areas discussed. Please clearly identify the area(s) to which your response relates.)

Yes.
I support the addition of the listed protected areas to Schedule 4.
I also request that all places that match the land classifications listed in Schedule 4 should be automatically added to Schedule 4 when gazetted to ensure protection from mining. In that way all new marine reserves, national parks, nature reserves, scientific reserves, wilderness areas, wildlife sanctuaries, internationally significant wetlands and any additions to these areas will be protected from mining.
I also request that all conservation areas and areas such as national reserves such as Lewis Pass; all of our World Heritage areas (Te Wahipounamu, Tongariro and the Sub-Antarctic islands), and all ecological areas are added to Schedule 4.

Q3 On the assessment of areas:
The assessment of areas covered by Schedule 4 and those proposed for addition is outlined in sections 7 and 8 of this document and Appendices 1 and 2.
(a) What are your views on the assessment of the various values (conservation, cultural, tourism and recreation, mineral, other) of the land areas discussed?
For all areas I consider that the environmental and conservation values (biodiversity, native species habitat, wildlife, cultural, recreational, amenity, scenic, carbon sequestration) outweigh the highly speculative economic values ascribed to the minerals that these areas are alleged to have.
(b) Do you have any additional information that may be important for Ministers to make their decisions?
The Ministers need to be more aware of how unacceptable their proposal is to the New Zealand ethic of conservation and recreation.

Q4 On the proposal to further investigate the mineral potential of some areas:
The Government is carrying out a research and investigation programme on the mineral potential of areas with significant mineral potential over the next nine months. Areas include the Coromandel, parts of Paparoa National Park and Rakiura National Park, and a number of non-Schedule 4 areas.
I oppose this proposal. I oppose subsidising the minerals industry with $4 million of taxpayers’ money to investigate the mineral potential in New Zealand's conservation areas. Public conservation lands, especially Schedule 4 areas such as National Parks, belong to the people of Aotearoa and for conservation of indigenous biodiversity, recreation and tourism, not mining. Conservation areas should remain protected now and for future generations.

Q4(a) Do you have any comments on the type of information that would be the most useful to mineral investors?
I suggest the most useful information for mineral investors would be anything that informs them about the importance of the conservation of New Zealand's indigenous biodiversity and the enjoyment thousands of New Zealanders get from conservation areas. I also suggest a copy of James Hansen's book on the science of anthropogenic global warming “The Storms of my Grandchildren”.

Q5 On a new contestable conservation fund:
Section 9 describes a proposed contestable conservation fund the Government proposes to establish, which would be made up of a percentage of the money the Crown receives from minerals (except petroleum) from public conservation areas.
(a) A broad objective, to enhance conservation outcomes for New Zealand, is proposed for the fund. Do you agree with the proposed objective?

No
I completely oppose forming this fund. Conservation of biodiversity is an important enough matter to have adequate funding without having to be “in debt” to mining within conservation areas. Conservation outcomes can be best enhanced by reversing the $50million cut (over three years) in the Department of Conservation’s budget.
This fund if established would create perverse incentives. It would have the effect of being a “moral hazard” for the Minister of Conservation which may inappropriately influence her decisions on mining access.
It would give the minerals industry excellent public relations opportunities for “greenwashing” their environmentally harmful activities. The tying of conservation funding to mining and the “greenwashing” aspect of this proposal would further undermine New Zealand's current international reputation for excellent management of biodiversity and conservation areas.
(e) Do you have any other comments that might help the Government to make decisions on a new conservation fund?
Yes, please do not proceed with this inappropriate idea.

Q6 On approval of access arrangements:
In section 6 it is proposed that the joint approval of the land-holding Minister and the Minister of Energy and Resources be required for an access arrangement on Crown land for mineral exploration or development. Do you think this is appropriate? Why or why not?

No.
I oppose this idea because this would introduce energy, economic and mineral considerations into the Ministerial decision on granting mining access arrangements to conservation areas.
I support the status quo where the Minister of Conservation must consider the statutory land management purposes and land management plans and the potential adverse effects of access under Section 61(2)(a) to (e) of the Crown Mineral Act 1991.
The statutory land management purpose of conservation land is of course conservation: “the preservation and protection of natural and historic resources for the purpose of maintaining their intrinsic values, providing for their appreciation and recreational enjoyment by the public, and safeguarding the options of future generations.”
That purpose should be the primary consideration of the Minister of Conservation in deciding an access agreement. A Minister with a focus on energy and resource development is a completely inappropriate decision-maker for mining access to areas managed for the purpose of conservation.

Q7 On any other issues:
Do you have any further suggestions or comments on what has been said in this document?

Credibility of the 'rational' debate on 'environmentally-responsible' mining
Rod Oram has recently written on the mining issue in the Sunday Star Times of 28 March 2010 (http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/business/3512763/New-Zealand-stuck-between-rocky-riches-and-hard-truths).
I recall Mr Oram telling National Radio some months ago that he was in favour of doing a stocktake of mineral-rich conservation areas and having a reasoned debate on environmentally-responsible mining and value-added processing in NZ of the minerals. Oram says he used to think:
"We could be leaders in environmentally responsible mining, the science around it and the high-value downstream products and services flowing from it. Then we could prove that the economy and environment, treated well, can enhance each other."
However, Oram now says he has changed his mind because of the divisive and adversarial way Government Ministers have pushed the proposal and the poorly researched sound-bite analysis they have provided in support of the proposal.
For example, Oram considers that the National Party could have transparently started the debate at the 2008 election by outlining the proposal then. Instead it was deliberately vague about its mining intentions. So there is no real electoral mandate for the proposal.
Also, Oram considers the sum of $194 billion, the estimated total mineral value, is so 'back of the envelope' that it is not a rational basis for any debate on weighing up the costs, risk and benefits of additional mining. Oram considers this is because the Minister of Energy and Resources only takes advice from mining industry insiders.
Oram also thinks that claims of 'surgical' mining have not been credibly backed up by real examples. So he concludes that the assertions that environmental impacts will be minimal and tourism will not be harmed are not credible.
If you cannot convince Rod Oram that you can credibly conduct a reasoned debate on environmentally-responsible mining and value-added mineral processing, then you certainly can't convince me.

Credibility of mining licences without resource consents
On 27 October 2009 the Parliamentary Commissioner Dr Jan Wright released the report “Stockton revisited: The mine and regulatory minefield”. In that report she notes there are 111 old mining licences that operate legally without resource consents as they were issued before the commencement of the Resource Management Act 1991.
Dr Wright made a recommendation to the Government that some action was needed to ensure these 111 old mining licences are required to obtain resource consents that have up to date environmental monitoring and mitigation conditions.
As far as I am aware, the Government's mining plans do not include any response to Dr Wright's recommendation. The Government and Ministry of Economic Development appear to have ignored her report.
If the Government was genuinely concerned about ensuring that mining was conducted with environmental responsibility, the Government would have acted on Dr Wright’s recommendation. The lack of action further undermines the Government's environmental credibility in the Schedule 4 stocktake exercise.
I remain unconvinced by the assertion that mining in conservation areas can be environmentally responsible.

Wilderness asks Should we mine?

2010-04-10T00:05:00.007+12:00

I usually enjoy having a look through a copy of the outdoor recreation-oriented magazine Wilderness.

The March 2010 edition included an article titled 'Should we mine?' by one Paul Hersey.

That title is fairly indicative. I found it to be verbose "middle-way" waffle tentatively suggesting that trampers and climbers could compromise on mining within National Parks. Hersey starts this in his second sentence: "Maybe MP Gerry Brownlee has it right when he states that mining can be done efficiently and with a minimal environmental impact on protected lands."

I hate this sort of contrarian concern troll compromise approach bullshit. As Gary Taylor of the Environmental Defence Society said recently, 'compromise' with mining is pretty useless for conservation, as "Victories are temporary and defeats are permanent".

So I wrote a letter to the Editor of Wilderness.

Dear Sir,
In response to Paul Hersey's article 'Should we mine?' in the March 2010 edition, I will try not to assassinate him and I will try to debate rationally whether there is some middle way where "mining can be done efficiently with a minimum enironmental impact".
However, to look at the middle ground, I will borrow someone else's ideas - those of business commentator, Rod Oram, not someone we are likely to meet in a tramping hut or handing out anti-mining postcards.

Rod Oram has recently written on the mining issue in the Sunday Star Times of 28 March 2010 (http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/business/3512763/New-Zealand-stuck-between-rocky-riches-and-hard-truths).

I recall Oram telling National Radio some months ago that he was in favour of doing a stocktake of mineral-rich conservation areas and having a reasoned debate on environmentally-responsible mining and value-added processing in NZ of the minerals.

Oram says he used to think:
"We could be leaders in environmentally responsible mining, the science around it and the high-value downstream products and services flowing from it. Then we could prove that the economy and environment, treated well, can enhance each other."

However, Oram now says he has changed his mind because of the divisive and adversarial way Government Ministers have pushed the proposal and the poorly researched sound-bite analysis they have provided in support of the proposal.

For example, Oram considers that National could have transparently started the debate at the 2008 election by outlining the proposal then. Instead it was deliberately vague about its mining intentions. So there is no real electoral mandate for the proposal.

Also, the estimated total mineral value, $194 billion, is so 'back of the envelope' that it is not a rational basis for any debate on weighing up the costs, risk and benefits of additional mining. Oram considers this is because Brownlee only takes advice from mining industry insiders.

Oram also thinks that claims of 'surgical' mining have not been credibly backed up by real examples. So he concludes that the assertions that environmental impacts will be minimal and tourism will not be harmed are not credible.

So the middle ground on the mining issue has already gone.

So that really only leaves the 'greener' than middle view espoused by Paul Hersey's postcard-carrying friend. This is New Zealand's traditional conservation politics favouring protection of conservation areas and opposition to threats to conservation areas. After all, it is such conservation advocacy that achieved legal protection for our national parks in the first place.

Ultimately, the protection of native species and their habitats (and the ecosystem services provided to us such as water quality) should drive the decision on allowing more mining in conservation areas. And so should climate change.

The proposal includes taking 3,000 hectares of native lowland forest near Inangahua out of north-eastern Paparua National Park to allow coal mining. According to the Ministry of Economic Development, 83% of NZ's coal production in 2008 came from open-cast mines. It is therefore highly likely that any new Inangahua coal mine would be open-cast.
And remember, James Hansen of NASA says we need to leave coal in the ground to stop the warming effect of more carbon dioxide getting in the atmosphere.

I think we need to be very clear about this issue. There is no middle way on the Government's proposal for more mining in conservation areas. It needs to be strongly opposed. I encourage all Wilderness readers to send a brief submission to the Ministry of Economic Development opposing the mining proposal.

Submission guides for 'No Mining' in Schedule 4 conservation areas

2010-04-09T18:19:00.008+12:00

The Government's conservation mining proposal, released on 22 March 2010, is to remove absolute protection from mining from 7,058 hectares of conservation areas listed in Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991.

So that the Minister of Conservation may (or more likely will) approve mining on a case-by-case basis under Section 61(2) of the Crown Minerals Act. Just like Chris Carter did with Pike River Coal.

The various ENGOs have web forms and guides to help making a submission. And submissions close on 5.00pm on Tuesday 4 May 2010.

The Greens have a good guide on how to make a submission opposing further mining in the 'Schedule 4' conservation areas.

There is also a PDF guide.

Forest and Bird have a quick email submission form

Greenpeace Aotearoa also have a quick email submission form

The Ministry of Economic Development also have a web-based submission form

However, the Ministry's form is structured as a list of questions, some of which are a bit leading. For example,
"Q4(a) Do you have any comments on the type of information that would be the most useful to mineral investors?
Yeah, read a book about getting a life!

Q4(b) Are there any particular areas that the Government should consider including in its investigation programme?".
Yeah, the rest of New Zealand that isn't conservation land!

I have started my submission. I usually wonder for these sort of processes whether I should just keep it short and brief and to the point. I really do doubt the Government's intention to take much notice of them. In that case, it's just a numbers game and we should just fire off the Greenpeace web form email. We will see.

James E. Hansen wins Sophie Prize

2010-04-08T22:04:00.004+12:00

My favourite climate scientist, James Hansen, has won a Sophie Prize.
I will borrow some text (and the photo) .

Dr. James E. Hansen is an outstanding scientist with numerous scientific articles published in high-ranking journals. His conscience, and later his role as a “concerned grandfather”, has committed him to combine his research with political activism based on personal conviction. This has led him to participate in political demonstrations against coal mining, and has made him testify in court in defence of demonstrators using civil disobedience to stop the building of new coal-fired power plants in the UK. In 2009 he published the book 'Storms Of My Grandchildren' - The truth about the coming climate catastrophe and our last chance to save humanity.

Apparently;

The Sophie Prize is awarded to one or several persons, or an organisation, which has created awareness of alternatives to modern-day development and/or initiated such alternatives in a pioneering or particularly inventive manner. The Sophie Prize is an annual environment and sustainable development prize (US$ 100.000). This is the thirteenth time it has been awarded. The prize was established in 1997 by the author Jostein Gaarder and Siri Dannevig.

There is a prize statement and there is a photo gallery.

James Hansen on Letterman

2010-04-02T14:07:00.006+13:00

I have just finished reading the book Storms of my Grandchildren by NASA scientist James Hansen.

I found it inspirational. For example on page 73, chapter 9 'An honest effective plan'.

A simple clear urgent conclusion leaped out from our research on the appropriate target level of atmospheric carbon dioxide: Coal emissions must be phased out as rapidly as possible or global climate disasters will be a dead certainty.

Here is a Youtube clip of Hansen talking to Letterman.

The Environment Canterbury Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management Act Part 2

2010-04-01T19:28:00.006+13:00

Claire Browning makes the point about the Environment Canterbury special legislation weakening the water conservation orders in Canterbury.

The press release of EDS, Ecologic, Fish and Game, Whitewater NZ and Forest and Bird is bang on.

The legislation really cries out 'Have a go at the Canterbury water conservation orders'. If Dame Margaret's commissioners don't give economic values enough weighting, the water interests are very familiar with the courts. The lack of appeal on facts to the Environment Court is unlikely to put off the water interests. Ngai Tahu and Central Plains Water Limited took the 'priority' of water issue (the 'who is first in line' issue) all the way to the Court of Appeal.

I have been looking at the "Dame Margaret" bill to see if the additional powers in Subpart 4, sections 61 to 69, will be likely to help 'fix' the Natural Resources Regional Plan ("NRRP").

S 63 appears to say Ecan (Dame Margaret's commissioners) must have particular regard to the CWMS in deciding the NRRP. Well, okay.

S 66 appears to say that there is no right of appeal of that decision to the Environment Court, only to the High Court, if you were a submitter.

S 69 appears to say that IF hearings on submissions on the NRRP have concluded (S 69(1)(b)) AND Ecan revokes the delegation to the NRRP commissioners (S 69(1)(a)) THEN Ecan can then make an 'instant' decision with no further cross-submissions or hearings AS LONG AS submissions, evidence and officers reports are considered.

However, Ecan's decision-making for the five problematic NRRP 'chapters', which were notified in July 2004, is 'grandparented' under the version of the RMA that existed in 2004. This is provided for in S 131 of the Resource Management Amendment Act 2005, S 161 of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Act 2009 and S 62 of the Environment Canterbury Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management Bill (which specifically says S 161 still applies).

So, on the face of it, Dame Margaret can't make a quick-no-hearing-no-appeal decision on the NRRP, relying on S 63, 66 and 69. And submitters will still have rights of appeal to the Environment Court.

It appears to me that Dame Margaret can only use S 61, 63, 66 and 69 to speed up variations (amendments) to the NRRP, that she initiates AFTER the commencement of the Bill. At last count, Ecan were already up to 14 'variations' on the NRRP. I don't really see more variations cutting through the complexity. It's more likely to add to it.

However, Dame Margaret may 'withdraw' the proposed NRRP chapters under Schedule 1 Clause 8D 'Withdrawal of proposed policy statements and plans' of the RMA. That clause has not been changed since 1993, it was in the RMA when the NRRP was notified in 2004, so it can be used by Ecan/Dame Margaret.

I would favour complete withdrawal of the NRRP and starting again. I don't think the NRRP is worth saving.

For example, even if the NRRP was operative tomorrow, the rules only make groundwater consents exceeding a groundwater allocation block "non-complying" and therefore arguable at a hearing. The more rigorous 'third order' groundwater allocations that would be backed by prohibited rule status are a 'work-in-progress' And have been since 2004.

Really, this shows that Dame Margaret has a very tough job. She will need some very good planners as fellow commissioners to produce an effective regional water allocation plan for Canterbury. She is unlikely to be helped by the Ecan planners as they are stuck in Plato's cave, mistaking the world viewed through the lense of the NRRP as reality.

The Environment Canterbury Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management Act

2010-03-31T22:08:00.004+13:00

Its no longer a bill. At 7.50 p.m. I switched to Parliament TV and watched the last few speeches of the third reading debate. Lianne Dalziel was fairly good.

The third reading debate concluded and the matter was adopted at 7.59 p.m. with National, ACT and United voting for and Labour, the Greens, the Maori party and Progressive against.

Environment Canterbury Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management Bill became law just in time for me to switch channel to "The Big Bang Theory".

The Environment Canterbury Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management Bill

2010-03-31T12:40:00.003+13:00

I am quite concerned about some aspects of the Environment Canterbury Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management Bill. (Oh no another awful acronym, the "ECTCIWMB"!)

Under Part 3 of the bill, Dame Margaret Bazley and the Environment Canterbury commissioners will become the decision maker for the Hurunui Water Conservation Order application when that process is perhaps 80% complete (Tribunal compromise decision with Minister) .

Water Conservation Orders were the only part of RMA deliberately not subject to Part 2 (sustainable management) of the RMA, as the statutory purpose inherited from the previous legislation is preservation in the natural state of nationally significant rivers. Dame Margaret's decision on the Hurunui River WCO must consider 'sustainable management' and the principles of the Canterbury Strategic Water Management Strategy.

And there is of course the Hurunui Water Project suite of storage and irrigation consents notified at Ecan, which cannot co-exist with the Hurunui River WCO if approved in it's current form.

This part is a major change to the water and rivers framework of the RMA that is nothing to do with Ecan's jurisdiction or performance. It is being rammed through Parliament without due process. It's an affront to due process for Fish and Game (as the Hurunui WCO applicant) to have the legal process (and goalposts) changed at the nearly the end of the process.

It's also an affront to the transitional practice that has applied to all previous (overly numerous) amendments to the RMA: that the process for all applications and plans are 'grandfathered' with the version of the RMA that existed on they day they were lodged.

Here's a quote, not from the Greens, but from Canterbury NBR correspondent Chris Hutchings

"The move represents a victory for Irrigation NZ and rural interests seeking control of the region’s waterways for irrigation projects involving the Hurunui, Rakaia, Waimakariri and other main rivers."

In respect of that part of the bill, it's hard to disagree.

Environment Canterbury Councillors Gone-Burgers!

2010-03-30T14:18:00.004+13:00

With apologies to Jim Hickey and Jeremy Wells, Nick Smith and Rodney have made a decision on the Creech Report on Environment Canterbury.

The decision on the Beehive website and on the Ministry for the Environment website, replaces the councillors with up to seven commissioners to be chaired by Dame Margaret Bazley. Special legislation, an Environment Canterbury Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management Bill, will be introduced under urgency in Parliament this week. It will amend the Local Government and Resource Management Acts to give Dame Margaret and co. some special powers:
* to complete the Canterbury Natural Resources Regional Plan (NRRP);
* to decide Water Conservation Orders (the Hurunui River Water Conservation Order is in draft form being appealed to the Environment Court) and,
* to impose moratoriums on consenting over-allocated water resources (with the consent of the Minister).

The commissioners will govern Environment Canterbury until October 2013 (for a complete 3-year electoral term).

There is a Q and A sheet (pdf).

Scoop has coverage, as does Fairfax/Stuff.

Alec Neill, the short-lived Chair of Environment Canterbury has just recycled his previous press release about working constructively to ensure a smooth transition.

Hasta la vista, Alec!

Environment Canterbury's RMA heresy

2010-03-29T22:31:00.001+13:00

Claire Browning of the Pundit blog, asked some follow-up questions on my long comment on the Creech Report on Environment Canterbury and its performance in managing Canterbury's water resources. Claire's questions are in italics.

"I found it (the Creech Report) cavalier in documenting its justification for dismembering a democratically elected body"

Yes I agree totally. The report has large portions that are just a grab-bag of embittered comments from district councils and consultants.

"on the question of whether ECan had been misapplying the RMA, the discussion was very muddled, and the evidence presented very thin".

Yes again I agree with that too. The Creech Report is an inherently political document. Kennedy Graeme's speech , as well as being enjoyably eloquent, was pretty much right in referring to it's circular logic and preconceived conclusion. A contact informed me that the review team arrived late for their day at Ecan and left early.

I think Creech and Doug Martin, who is a very experienced operator-around-politicians, knew they had a 'rush-job' on. I think they also knew that Smith and Hide didn't really want detailed analysis. It would have been wasted on them! I think they also knew that whatever they recommended, Smith would probably not follow it any way (Remember the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance?).

So I think they deliberately gave Smith an extreme recommendation (or a "hatchet job") which would give him the justification and the space to do whatever he wants to. As whatever Smith decides will appear well within the scope of the Creech recommendations and therefore more 'balanced' and 'moderate'.

"I would have thought the job is to protect the environment in accordance with the RMA, which would seem to be the real bone of contention -- ie, whether there has been an undue or improper focus on the environment by ECan, in terms of the RMA"

You make a good point here. This comes back to what "in accordance with the RMA" means to the various actors in the tragedy!

The Creech Report RMA experts are almost as vicious as Creech about Ecan's "improper focus on the environment". That is because Bryan Jenkins (and therefore Ecan) has committed a heresy against RMA orthodoxy. Jenkins stated that Ecan has not been able to apply sustainability limits to groundwater because the RMA is 'enabling legislation' (Rather than because the NRRP is as helpful as the Book of Mormon. Or because Ecan's senior planner and senior hydrogeologist were poor witnesses).

RMA orthodoxy, as espoused by the MfE Commissioners course and by RMA lawyers, planners and consultants, is 'weak sustainability rules okay'. For Jenkins to say otherwise is a heresy against the RMA mainstream. Jenkins also publicly and explicitly criticised a decision of a hearing panel - the decision to approve more groundwater abstraction from the arguably over-allocated Rakaia-Selwyn groundwater zone. Also heretical.

Rod Oram on Brownlee's conservation mining

2010-03-29T00:44:00.011+13:00

Rod Oram has a good column in today's Sunday Star Times on the Government's proposal for mining in Schedule 4 conservation areas .

A while ago, I was a bit surprised to hear Oram saying to Catherine Ryan on Nine to Noon that he supported a stocktake of the mineral value in conservation areas that are off-limits to mining under Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991.

However, Oram's logic is roughly;
We could be leaders in environmentally responsible mining, the science around it and the high-value downstream products and services flowing from it. Then we could prove that the economy and environment, treated well, can enhance each other.

But Oram considers that this will never happen under the Key National Government because;

National was vague about its mining intentions at the 2008 election.

Brownlee only takes advice from mining industry insiders.

The estimated mineral value, $194 billion, is not credible.

'Surgical' mining is not credible.

Neither is the royalties-funded conservation compensation.

Nor are the assertions that tourism will not be harmed.

Oram concludes:
..Key and Brownlee are determined to use old-style adversarial politics to bulldoze through their high-risk low-value plans..

I couldn't agree more with that last point though I will point out that Oram leaves out the two important reasons for not going ahead with more mining in conservation areas (whether listed in Schedule 4 or not.

Its bad for biodiversity to remove or further fragment indigenous habitats.
Its bad for global warming as deforestation of forest for mine sites releases stored carbon.

Canterbury's Urban-Rural Voter Split 2007

2010-03-26T16:02:00.000+13:00

In 2007, the 8 urban Canterbury councillors represented 40,284 voters each. The 6 rural Canterbury councillors represented 33,062 voters each.

(Source 'Local Government Commission Determination of the representation arrangements to apply for the election of the Canterbury Regional Council to be held on 13 October 2007', by Sue Piper (Chair) and Gwen Bull (Commissioner), 10 April 2007.)

Environment Canterbury constituencies 2007 local body election
Constituency	Urban Rural	Population	Councillors	Population/councillor
Waitaki
Rakaia(Ashburton)	Rural	32,480	1	32,480
North Canterbury	Rural	73,620	2	36,810
Selwyn-Banks Peninsula	Rural	36,870	1	36,870
South Canterbury	Rural	55,400	2	27,700
		198,370	6	33,062

East Christchurch	Urban	80,620	2	40,310
West Christchurch	Urban	81,290	2	40,645
South Christchurch	Urban	81,130	2	40,565
North Christchurch	Urban	79,230	2	39,615
		322,270	8	40,284
		520,640	14	37,189

Canterbury's Urban-Rural Voter Split 2004

2010-03-26T15:51:00.006+13:00

Claire Browning is interested in the representation weighting between rural and urban constituencies of Environment Canterbury's councillors. In 2004, the 8 urban councillors represented 43,012 voters each. The 6 rural councillors represented 29,417 voters each.

The rural to urban weighting of Ecan constituencies for 2004 and 2007 is found in 'Local Government Commission Determination of the representation arrangements to apply for the election of the Canterbury Regional Council to be held on 13 October 2007', by Sue Piper (Chair) and Gwen Bull (Commissioner), 10 April 2007. (http://www.lgc.govt.nz/lgcwebsite.nsf/Files/CanterburyRC2007/$file/CanterburyRC2007.pdf)

Environment Canterbury constituencies 2004 local body election
Constituency	Type	Population	Councillors	Population/councillor
Waitaki	Rural	12,300	1	12,300
Ashburton	Rural	26,700	1	26,700
North Canterbury	Rural	55,300	2	27,650
Selwyn-Banks Peninsula	Rural	39,100	1	39,100
South Canterbury	Rural	43,100	1	43,100
		176,500	6	29,417

East Christchurch	Urban	81,300	2	40,650
West Christchurch	Urban	85,200	2	42,600
South Christchurch	Urban	85,500	2	42,750
North Christchurch	Urban	92,100	2	46,050
		344,100	8	43,012
Total		520,600	14	37,186

Environment Canterbury and the Creech Report

2010-03-25T22:18:00.006+13:00

Claire Browning of the Pundit blog has written intelligently about Environment Canterbury and the Creech Report.

I have been delaying commenting on the Creech Report, but I felt Claire deserved an inside viewpoint on Environment Canterbury. So I have finally come up with an opinion (below), which I posted as a comment on her post on Pundit.

You may be interested in a few thoughts from someone who was once on the "consenting frontline" at Environment Canterbury. Through the 'noughties', I either worked for or contracted to Ecan, as a (consents) compliance monitoring officer or a consents investigating (processing) officer or as an author of the annual environmental enforcement report or as a contracted reporting officer at consent hearings.

Yes, Creech's involvement is not that relevant. Yes, the Creech Report is not above criticism. For example, it says almost nothing about agricultural intensification and water quality. Yes the Greens have gone from criticising Ecan for 'not trying and failing the environment' to defending Ecan for 'trying and failing the environment'. Yes, Ecan's water consenting and water planning are the most important issue. Yes, both have been a shambles. Yes, it is a failure of both governance and senior management, and yes, there are are culpable parties, and an intervention is required to solve a problem and it would be good to hold those culpable parties responsible.

Here's one example of bad management management of groundwater and surface water permits. Prior to 1991, the North Canterbury and South Canterbury Catchment Boards issued water permits that specified weekly or fortnightly take volumes, maximum pumping rates and had a maximum duration of 10 years.

In the early 1990s, the new manager of the Ecan groundwater scientists wished to manage water consenting much as he had done at his previous employer, Nelson Catchment Board. He wanted short duration permits (5 years), clearly stated maximum pumping rates and weekly/fortnightly volume limits, and compulsory measurement via water meters of the volumes taken. At Nelson, after five years, they replaced expiring permits with new permits with annual volume limits based on actual usage. Pretty commonsense sustainable management of water resources you would think.

However, the Consents Manager (who we used to call 'Mr Teflon' as nothing used to stick to him) did the exact opposite.

He bowed to pressure from rural councillors and began issuing non-notified water permits with the maximum duration, 35 years, without water meters, and without the weekly volumes, instead only stating a maximum pumping rate. This was a huge strategic mistake. The 35 year duration was out of step with other regions and has been validly criticised by DOC, Fish and Game, Ngai Tahu, the Water Rights Trust and Judge Smith in the Lynton Dairies case.

Obviously (in hindsight, to me anyway), the then CEO, the Director of Regulation and the Director of Planning Policy, either tolerated or acquiesced in councillor interference in statutory decisions delegated to a 'tier 3' manager, and had failed to plan for the issue. To me, that was clearly a failure of governance and senior management.

Water planning.

As the most water-abundant region in New Zealand, Canterbury should have led planning for water allocation under the RMA, instead of being the laggard. Why doesn't Ecan have an operative regional water plan? Why is the proposed Ecan plan stuck in limbo? I have several reasons.

The proposed-but-not-operative Canterbury Natural Resources Regional Plan ("NRRP") was fundamentally over-scoped from the beginning and the plan writing process suffered from continual scope-creep. The best metaphor is that the NRRP is the INCIS Police Computer System of RMA planning and local government. The NRRP can be seen as a code to completely replace the RMA in Canterbury, rather than to complement the RMA in setting the most important rules for the highest priority matters such as water allocation and agricultural intensification.

I once tried to goad one of the senior Ecan planners (an ex-catchment board planner) with the quip that the NRRP was like the bible, capable of any interpretation. The planner started a serious discussion with me about how one strength of the NRRP was it's comprehensiveness. He just didn't get it.

Here's a real-world example of this. At the 2006 Rakaia-Selwyn groundwater hearing, the applicants' planning witness (of course a former Ecan consents team leader) gave a plausible interpetation of the NRRP 180 degrees different from Ecan's. The said senior Ecan planner further sunk the Ecan case by giving three possible explanations of the water allocation provisions to the hearing panel ("On the one hand, on the second, and on the third hand..."). That typified interactions with the Ecan planners. Any discussions about the NRRP and its meaning were very open-ended and inconclusive.

From a practical consent processing perspective, a regional plan only affects the real world through the granting of resource consents. A plan can only concretely affect the real world in two ways:
* It can permit without consent some low level activities that would otherwise require consents under sections 9-15 RMA (i.e. make 'permitted' taking small volumes of water that would otherwise be 'discretionary' requiring consent).
* It can make some activities 'prohibited' that would otherwise require consents under sections 9-15 RMA (i.e. prohibiting taking water in excess of a minimum flow or allocation block).

From a theoretical plan-writing perspective, a regional plan can also have rules making consented activities 'controlled', 'restricted discretionary','discretionary' and 'non-complying'. A plan can also include detailed objectives, policies, and methods. From a practical consenting background, such distinctions are just mere generic 'matters to have regard to' for the decision makers.

The NRRP writers had transferred to Ecan from catchment boards (or even the short-lived Canterbury United Council) and had little or no practical resource consenting background. Not surprisingly the NRRP includes too many unfocused overly-long objectives, methods, and policies. The more unfocused provisions you have in your plan, the more open-ended inconclusive discursive debates you have about them. And the more uncertain and open to alternative interpretation the plan becomes. And the longer to get it through the submissions stage. And the less relevant the plan is to the consent process.

Again, the Ecan Councillors, the former CEOs, the Director of Regulation and the Director of Planning Policy, all failed to ensure that the NRRP's original scope was clearly prioritised and defined. They all either initiated or tolerated or acquiesced in this miss-scoped open-ended on-going never-ending discursive discussion that was the NRRP planning process. Again, I call that a failure of governance and senior management.

What should Ecan have done? Easy to answer with hindsight. There were explicit minimum flows for river in the conditions of a large number of the old catchment board surface water permits. These minimum flows and a few 'boundaries' between 'permitted' activities and discretionary activities should have immediately been written into a 'quick and dirty' RMA-styled regional plan. Ecan would have 'learnt by doing' RMA planning by incrementally writing and getting prioritised rules operative. After minimum river flows, Ecan should have worked on river allocation blocks and groundwater allocation blocks and water quality effects of agricultural intensification. Instead, they went for a 'kitchen sink' approach where the definition of the 'kitchen sink' was endlessly debated and the needed outcome, clear certain, enforceable rules, remains as far off as ever.

Whats my cure? Well, my diagnosis is that the problem is the plan, the NRRP, not the organisation, Ecan that created it. Any new Canterbury Water Authority will be just as stuck in contentious water consent hearings as Ecan when it inherits the NRRP. The fix for the NRRP is for the Ministry for the Environment to enact a 'quick and dirty' National Environmental Standard for Canterbury water allocation under Sections 43, 43A, 43B and 44 of the RMA. These sections allow the Minister to enact an almost instant operative plan that covers "water quality, level, or flow" (s43). It trumps both a proposed and an operative plan (s 44A), thus making the NRRP a dead letter. The National Environmental Standard for Canterbury water allocation needs to be in place before the October local body elections.

Of course, the Ecan councillors should be replaced by commissioners. There has been a cumulative governance failure and some admirals need to be shot. The present councillors, especially Alex Neill and Jo Kane, can try to explain to the public in October why they should be returned to office instead of new blood.

Gerry Brownlee and Kate Wilkinson's conservation mining proposal

2010-03-23T22:38:00.004+13:00

I have posted three letters about Gerry Brownlee and Kate Wilkinson's conservation mining proposal. Here is the letter I sent John Key.

"Dear Mr Key,

I have just read the joint statement of Gerry Brownlee and Kate Wilkinson, “Time to discuss maximising our mineral potential”, released yesterday, 22 March 2010.

I am very disappointed that your Government intends to increase potential mining within conservation areas by removing 7,058 hectares of Crown-owned conservation land from Schedule Four of the Crown Minerals Act. This idea is completely contrary to the statutory conservation management purposes of those areas.

This decision will damage 'Brand New Zealand', our clean and green image that exporters and the tourism industry rely on.

I am also completely unconvinced by the assertion that such mining will be environmentally responsible. If your Government were genuinely concerned about ensuring that mining was conducted with environmental responsibility, you would have acted on the PCE Dr Jan Wright's recommendation of 27 October 2009 to do something about the holders of 111 old mining licences that operate without resource consents.

Dr Wright's report is Stockton revisited: The mine and regulatory minefield. She recommends that the 111 old mining licences should be supplemented with adequate resource consents that have up to date monitoring and mitigation conditions.

I am not convinced that the likely mining impacts of the additional mining can be either mitigated or compensated for. Given your Government has reduced the Department of Conservation's budget by $15million per annum for the next three years, the proposed $10million per annum compensation fund does not even return DOC to square one."

I still have not received a reply from my last letter to Key, or even an answer from the hon Anne Tolley.

The property rights of mining conservation areas

2010-03-23T13:24:00.008+13:00

For any new Government policy, Robin would probably have asked "what property rights are involved? Who holds them? Who is trying to change them?"

So looking at Brownlee's conservation-mining proposal through a property-rights lense, I note that:
1. The property rights are initially held by the Crown as the land is public conservation land. Conservation areas are 'public common goods'.
2. That initial allocation does not change if a conservation area is mined. The miner never has full freehold title. The asset, and any liabilities, remain with the Crown, when mining ceases. For example, the Crown has ended up with a $NZ10 million liability for the Tui mine.
2. The Crown's property rights are restricted by statutes such as the National Parks Act 1980 and the Conservation Act 1987 which provide generally that such public land is to be managed for conservation purposes.
3. However, Section 61 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 provides the exception; a statutory access process for mining within conservation areas.
4. Section 61(2) provides the specific matters that the Minister (of Conservation) must consider.
5. Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 prohibits mining access via the Section 61 to certain high value conservation areas.

So, the 'property right' to mine in a conservation area is a privilege to be applied for, not an exclusive right. And it is 'prohibited' from even a case-by-case assessment under S 61 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 in some conservation areas by Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991.

So Schedule 4 and Section 61 act as an 'allocation plan' for a restricted subset of property rights, the right or permission for a private company to mine, subject to conditions, within a conservation area.

But miners don't need exclusive property rights to mine and will want to avoid ownership liabilities such as orphan mines like Tui mine. Also, the relevant case law, the Buller Electricity case says that the Minister of conservation cannot dispose of conservation areas for social or economic reasons.

So the Crown Minerals Act provides a Crown guarantee for mining Crown land, as well as providing a process that gets round the obvious inconsistence of mining with 'management for conservation purposes' statutory objective.

National is proposing to change this 'allocation plan' by increasing the conservation areas allocated to 'access-on-application'. The minerals, once mined, are certainly private goods owned by the miner.

The Brownlee conservation-area-mining plan is therefore a transfer of property rights from the public to private interests.

Like a postage stamp on Eden Park

2010-03-23T08:47:00.005+13:00

Gerry Brownlee was on TV1 'Close Up' last night and on 'Morning Report' today using his best new soundbite. The magnitude of the area of conservation land that will be opened to mining will be "like a postage stamp on Eden Park".

I sent off this email to Morning Report.

"morningreport@radionz.co.nz

Subject: Gerry Brownlee Mining

Last year, Dr Jan Wright, Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, recommended that the Government legislate to ensure 111 old mining licences be brought under the RMA. National and Gerry Brownlee completely ignored her.
Therefore, RATIONALLY speaking, Gerry Brownlee and National have absolutely no credibility in declaring mining of conservation areas to be environmentally responsible.

Yours sincerely"

The failure to action the PCE's recommendation shows to me that National have no real interest in mitigating the environmental effects of mining. Their talk of mitigation and compensation is just greenwashing to assist the mining industry.