The environmental emergency facing New Zealand: Part 1

In this two part series, I look at what I consider to be an environmental emergency facing this country. It comes as the existing Government all but declares open war on one of New Zealand’s biggest assets. The emergency comes as the onset of man-made climate change is no longer possible to ignore, and international consensus is threatened by backward U.S. politicians. And despite there being actual opportunities to grow the economy through cleaner, more robust policies and technologies, lobby groups here and abroad want the status quo to remain.

Climate change

Man made climate change is here. It is in progress right now and everyone needs to work together to reduce the impact. I no longer believe we can stop a 1.5 degrees Celsius change in the climate – at best 2.0 is now the most feasible, with a couple of assumptions made:

• A major revamp of our energy policy: New Zealand would need to abandon the Liquified Natural Gas terminal; put as much bulk freight on rail as quickly as possible; stop exporting high grade coal and use it for our industries here; investigate local biofuel plants powered by green waste; investigate with a view to restarting our aborted tidal energy programme
• A revamp of how we build: New Zealand has a strict building code for earthquakes, which is totally understandable. What it does not have a is a strict building code for staying warm and dry in watertight housing. Such a code would have multiple benefits – and not just happier, healthier living – as opportunities would arise for use of more environmentally friendly building practices and materials, such as hempcrete
• A revamp of how we transport: I have already advocated for as much bulk freight as possible going on railways. In urban areas there is scope for significant investment in public transport. My own preference is that it is free. It is an area that National, A.C.T. and New Zealand First are at sea on and which Labour has announced surprisingly timid policy of capping weekly public transport costs at $20. I wait to see what Te Pati Maori and the Greens will announce.

Fresh water policy

Our much vaunted freshwater is under an unprecedented threat. This threat is enabled by incredibly short sighted policy from central Government and local councils not having the gumption to stand up to big dairy.

Many provinces have fully allocated freshwater resources. That means 100% of the freshwater resource is allocated to farming, urban uses or for ecological reasons. Farmers and others advocate silly projects such as damming a river on the West Coast, where rainfall is much higher and diverting the excess through a tunnel to top up Canterbury rivers during low flow situations. Others advocate using floods in Canterbury river systems to top up reservoirs that would be constructed, and then distribute the water as needed.

I have a better idea. A much simpler one that Federated Farmers, Beef New Zealand and other agriculture advocates should get used to:

Living within our means, accepting that there are limitations to what can and should be done and that Big Dairy is also Peak Dairy.

Is it popular? No, it is not. Especially not in election year. But does nature care for politicians and politics? No. Irrespective of whether it is election year.

It is not just big dairy though. A number of rivers have been dammed, diverted or otherwise interfered with for electricity generation. New Zealand produces about 70% of its power from hydroelectric power stations on just a few large rivers. In addition to turning the turbines at a large number of hydroelectric power stations, water is also used for cooling at geothermal stations, or be boiled at pressure to create steam to drive thermal power stations such as Huntly.

Environmental policy framework

New Zealand is wrecking one of the stronger environmental legal frameworks known to exist in the western world.

While there is no doubt that the country needed to do something about the Resource Management Act, the best solution in my mind was actually the one solution everyone seems determined to avoid: rewriting the R.M.A.

You see, the core of the Act itself is actually pretty good. What has made it fail was the adding across 30 years of changes that were done by politicians who had no practical working experience with the Act. A relatively trim and robust 400 page piece of legislation became a 900+ page bloated monster that hobbled itself. Much of what needed repair could have simply been done in a legislative rewrite of the Act with a few amendments:

• Reduce the maximum length of a resource consent to 25 years
• Increase 10x the applicable penalties for non-compliance
• Introduce time limits on commencing a consent to stop resource hogging – e.g. surrender the consent after a period of time if it is not going to be used
• Add a natural hazard specific section

Whether politicians are prepared to accept how little they know and understand about the R.M.A. is something else.