The environmental emergency facing New Zealand: Part 2

In yesterday’s part, I mentioned fresh water quality, climate change and the reform of the Resource Management Act. Today’s part examines our lack of attention to waste minimisation, the need to see past the pro/anti-mining politics and deforestation.

Waste minimisation (or the lack of)

E-waste expert Laurence Zwimpfer once appropriately labelled New Zealand and Australia, “e-waste laggards”. He was commenting on our near complete lack of effort to address e-waste as an environmental issue (and potential green economic gold mine). Mr Zwimpfer was correct then, in early 2018, and if he said the same today, probably more so. Except it is not just e-waste that we are woefully inadequately managing, but all waste streams.

Sure, we have recycling programmes. Sure, all the cities have green, yellow and red bins for organic waste, recycling and hard waste. But how much of this requires community buy in? How much requires all economic sectors to be developing waste minimisation programmes, and working with each other, with local councils responsible for managing waste collection, and with central government?

The latter is in significant part determined by the size of the councils ratepayer base. Obviously smaller councils will struggle to develop comprehensive waste management programmes. In fairness though – using Kaikoura District (total population, 4,000+/-) as an example just what would such a small population realistically need?

How many people realise that there is millions of dollars worth of rare earth minerals waiting to be recovered from our e-waste? I mean our dead cellphones, computers, televisions, microwaves, printers, and small electrics like clocks, remote controls and U.S.B. sticks?

This is where the circular economy of sending used and unwanted electronics back to their manufacturer via the distributor can become very useful.

Pro/Anti-mining politics

To be honest, I am not opposed to ALL mining. I have no problems, within certain limits, re-working old tailings to see if the mineral/s that were originally mined there have been completely used. Small scale alluvial gold mining for example, is completely plausible in places like the Grey River, where significant such mining has already happened. Most mining companies operating in western nations have much higher standards of corporate responsibility than they do in 3rd World countries – a mining company that tried to run a mine here like the Ok Tedi copper mine was run in Papua New Guinea would be shut down and probably run out of town. Exxon-Mobil would have never gotten away with its destruction of the marine habitat had the Exxon Valdez tanker disaster happened in New Zealand.

It is not to say we are incapable of having an environmental catastrophe. That in a simple phrase is exactly what I think the proposed mine near Wanaka would be, no matter how well run it is – people come to the Queenstown Lakes District for the sheer rugged beauty of the glaciated landscapes, the spectacular mountains, the skiing and adventure tourism. No one comes to see an open cast mine desecrating very much loved and admired countryside. When wine makers find the water needed to water their vineyards being tainted, who will they blame? When dust from an open cast kicks up in a screaming northwesterly and blows into places it should not be, who will enforce the dust control rules?

Deforestation

One might think that deforestation is not happening in New Zealand, and to some extent it might be possible to understand why.

However, it very much is, not only rurally, but also in urban areas. This is worthy of mention because deforestation in an urban setting makes the developed environment less friendly to human wellbeing, mentally, physically and also economically. Urban deforestation is a global problem that only a few smart forward thinking cities have seriously managed to tackle. One of them is Seoul in South Korea, where Chenggyeon Stream is celebrated as an example of reviving a damaged part of the ecological system.

In New Zealand, Christchurch City Council in 2023, put a plan for the reforestation of the city out for public comment. I was quite supportive of the idea. There are parts of the city where the forest canopy is clearly in short supply, around the industrialised parts of the urban area. I also noticed on the maps accompanying the plan, that several of the lower income suburbs where investment in urban renewal seems to be based on ability to pay the necessary rates.

As climate change accelerates, the urban areas, which act as heat domes that trap the heat generated by a fast paced environment, are going to warm up. Those cities lacking adequate natural shelter and cooling provided by the urban forest canopy will notice this in ways that well forested locations will not. Thus, saving the trees is a bit more than just a hippy/tree huggy/greenie thing. If one wants a liveable urban environment, urban reforestation is a must.

But is New Zealand prepared to do so?