Don't let climate change quibbles weaken the movement

I wish people would stop attempting to undermine the arguments of campaigners working on climate issues by continually demanding they justify their own carbon use, especially in the context of their own campaigns.

Quite frankly, for those of us who are concerned about encouraging real and lasting policy change, such talk is as destructive as it is counterproductive. Encouraging the world to change its ways is going to need an effective political movement, and building such a movement should be the ultimate aim.

A focus on personal responsibility can be taken too far, and it may be said this is more common on the right of politics. A chemical process worker should not be finger pointed at for his job if the society around him does not provide a true alternative source of income.

Collective action will be the most powerful force in dealing with climate change, not individual responsibility.

A few of my greenie friends have refused to fly to meetings, events, conferences etc that would have formed part of most other political campaigns. I think is great people do care, but I sometimes wonder if people get too hung up on it, especially when we are yet to see real alternatives to flying in New Zealand, such as high speed rail. Yes we do need to strongly advocate for such alternatives, but the point is that they do not exist now.

Of course we need to 'think before we fly', especially when there are alternatives available, but I think there is a more important question to ask first - will burning a few tons of carbon build the movement? If so, it may be a case of burning a bit now, to burn a lot less later.

So no, I don't begrudge Al Gore for flying around the world to do his climate change talks. I may think his proposed solutions rely too heavily on carbon trading, but he has been able to communicate the scale of the problem to many people who otherwise would not have heard it. This does not prevent anyone from criticising the oil baron from flying around in his corporate jet - that should be called exactly what it is - needless climate damage.

I hope my friends working on climate change issues don't take this as a criticism - what I am really saying here is Kia Kaha - stand strong! As a hypothetical, say the opportunity came to fly to London to meet up with other climate change campaigners and build international solidarity on the issue. I would want you to go - because of my faith in your ability as effective campaigners.

OEs in the future

With the price of oil continuing to climb, it could well become too expensive to travel to Europe for the big OE.

At least by plane.

Thus I was interested in this story in the Jakata Post about the proposed Trans-Asian Railway (TAR). A train ride all the way from Singapore to Glasgow! Less jet fuel burned into the atmosphere would have environmental benefits, and there would be more interesting scenery than clouds on the way.

"Covering a distance of almost 81,000 kilometers in 26 countries, the line would consist of a northern corridor connecting Europe and the Korean Peninsula through China and Kazakhstan, and a southern corridor linking Thailand with Turkey through countries like Myanmar and India."

For many Kiwis and Aussies, Singapore is a regular halfway point on the long haul flight to London. So could we see environmentally conscious Kiwis and Aussies flying to Singapore to get the train?

In reality I suspect it would be something people might do once in their lives. As for myself, I have always wanted to travel the Trans-Siberian, so taking the train from Singapore seems like a natural extension.

Update: Unfortunately the Jakata Post website does not seem to understand the concept of permalinks and why they are a good idea. I have fixed the link - but I don't know how long it will stay current.

Two protest camps, Waihopai and Happy Valley

Apologies for the lack of posts of late, I have been out of town quite a bit, attending two protest camps in as many weeks. On 20th of January I travelled north to join the call of the Anti-Bases Campaign to close the Waihopai spy base, and last weekend I crossed the Southern Alps to join the occupation of the proposed open cast coal mine site at Happy Valley on the West Coast.

An 'indefinite' occupation was launched following a High Court decision last month to reject Forest and Bird's appeal against an Environment Court ruling in favour of mining. The mine threatens to destroy a completely unique tussock wetland that is a home to 13 endangered species, including the great spotted kiwi and the giant carnivorous snail powelliphanta patrickensis. Rivers will be polluted by acid mine drainage and twelve million tonnes of carbon dioxide will be released into the atmosphere.

The occupation of Happy Valley has been welcomed by Greenpeace.

Ongoing reports of the indefinite occupation can be read on the Save Happy Valley blog; "The beauty and expanse of Happy Valley is poignantly contrasted with the scarred and devastated landscape that is the Stockton open cast coal mine located not far from Happy Valley."

We travelled by van over to Westport on Friday and undertook the four hour tramp into Happy Valley the next day. It actually ended up taking us over six hours to get to our campsite as the weather was very hot and dry, making a long half-time break at a swimming hole absolutely essential. It was easily the best swimming hole I have ever been to, complete with many deep pools and waterfalls. One could get a great adrenalin rush by leaping from the tall banks of the river or the top of the waterfall into the pool below. It was completely safe, despite it being a long way down.

After a brilliant swim I was aghast to hear the brilliant swimming hole is also on Solid Energy's 'hit list' for mining once they have finished digging up Happy Valley. It is also possible the swimming hole will be polluted by the proposed Cypress Mine if the development in Happy Valley goes ahead.

Despite it being a very hot day, we had to be careful where we filled our water bottles, as some of the streams in the area are already polluted by acid runoff from the existing Stockton Open Cast mine. The water from the pristine streams tastes great.

It was really inspiring to see 75 people join our camp on the Saturday night. There was a great sense of community, even though people were tired from a long tramp saddled with heavy packs. Actions like this take a lot of commitment and sunscreen.

Solid Energy have continued to harass and attempt to intimidate protestors, even though the 'occupation' is occurring on public land. This has included attempting to deliver dodgy 'preemptive' trespass notices and continuing to film protestors against their wishes. Save Happy Valley Coalition spokesperson Frances Mountier said she believes security guards filmed the protestors as "a means to intimidate and quell any public opposition to what they (Solid Energy) are doing".

A spokesperson for Solid Energy Vicki Blyth disputes they are adopting intimidatory tactics, and claims they asked security guards to film protestors to ensure they had a record of any exchanges between the security people and protestors, "So that there can be no question about who said what to whom."

Well I happen to know personally this excuse is simply a croc of shit. If this was so, then Solid Energy would not have attempted to instigate 'exchanges' (under false pretences) with each of those taking part, by asking people if they would like to read a statement from Solid Energy and then shoving a camera in their face. But that is exactly what they attempted to do to me while I was standing on a Christchurch public footpath and had shown no interest in being on Solid Energy's land. Passively filming while security guards do they job is one thing, attempting to capture the faces of all your perceived opponents on camera is quite another.

We fell asleep listening to the calls of kiwi and other wildlife and hoped they could keep their natural home.

Categories: Environment, Mining, New Zealand, Politics, Happy Valley

Fab cartoon on global warming

Reading through the latest issue of Multinational Monitor on Tuesday night I came across this cartoon and laughed and laughed :)

The cartoon appears in the September/October edition of multinational Monitor (US). "Reproduction of all or part of MM for non-commercial use is allowed with proper credit to the Monitor."

When the cost of petrol reaches a level that even the Fendalton set can no longer justify driving SUVs to the shops, we might as well put the pile of discarded SUVs to good use!

And yes, for the record I think there should be a levy placed on SUVs, perhaps with an exemption for those that can show they have a genuine use for an all terrain vehicle (farming, fishing etc). SUVs were never designed to be used as inner city runabouts. Around close concentrations of people and traffic SUVs are an entirely avoidable hazard, as their height means there is a dangerous rear blindspot for the driver, as well as regularly blocking the view of other drivers. SUVs are more likely to roll when involved in a traffic accident, endangering the occupants, and accidents involving SUVs are more likely to kill people unlucky enough to be in the other car. In 2003 Researchers at the State University of New York (Buffalo) found that in crashes between small cars and SUVs, the risk of death was 24 times greater in the car.

I shudder whenever I see an SUV lining the road outside a school at 3pm - they are simply a tragic accident waiting to happen.

Carbon tax - Labour's broken promise

In September this year Labour went into the election campaign with a Carbon tax as a central part of its Energy policy.

Increase support for renewable fuel and electricity, and by encourage electricity generators to pursue environmentally sustainable electricity generation in preference to environmentally harmful generation (for example through the carbon tax).
...
Increase support for renewable fuel and electricity, and by encourage electricity generators to pursue environmentally sustainable electricity generation in preference to environmentally harmful generation (for example through the carbon tax).

Today the Government announced it is scrapping its own policy to introduce a carbon tax in 2007 in favour of some vague commitments to look at other ways to meet New Zealand's obligations under the Kyoto protocol. By denying that parliamentary numbers were a factor in the u-turn, new Energy Minister David Parker is saying Labour have changed their mind in the three months since the last election - thereby making it a simple broken promise.

No Right Turn already has some excellent analysis of why the carbon tax is needed, and explains why the lack of a carbon tax could actually end up costing New Zealand more money as we will have to buy more carbon credits to cover the 13 million tonnes of carbon reductions the tax was expected to save.

So for now I will concentrate on a few political aspects of this decision I find alarming.

The timing of this announcement is very interesting. It is also extremely cynical.

It will be no accident Labour chose today to also announce the welcome but underweight increase in the minimum wage. No doubt it hopes the attention of Labour supporters will be on the minimum wage increase in tomorrows papers, and not the broken electoral promise to introduce the carbon tax (especially those who voted Labour who might have voted Green).

On the other hand, Labour will hope business groups will welcome Labour adopting another right wing policy and will not get too snarky about having to pay their lowest paid employees a little more to feed their families (business groups are still complaining, only proving the spirit of Ebenezer Scrooge is alive and well this Christmas). Christmas week is also a handy sideshow for Labour.

David Parker says the decision to axe the tax was made independently of coalition partners NZ First and United Future. Given the short time frame since the election, this claim appears to be of questionable credibility. Under Labour's unusual support arrangements cabinet collective responsibility is only meant to apply to their cabinet portfolios. Do you think Peter Dunne as Minister of Revenue (as aspects of the carbon tax would clearly fall within his portfolio) would have been happy defending the Government's position on the carbon tax? I think not. Was a little quiet deal done at the time of the coalition negotiations? I think likely. It is about time Labour came clean and told the electorate what other policies it has sold out to its new right wing friends.

Interestingly, the Energy policy I quoted from above is dated 5th of October 2005, at least according to Labour's website.

Question Time: Helen and Don are naughty

Today I watched Parliamentary Question Time on the telly for the first time in a number of months.

Fun:
- Helen Clark, and then Don Brash were kicked out of the chamber by the speaker. Quiet down the back! Pity Helen had already answered all her questions for the day, as it would have been a really funny if Nick Smith got the PM kicked out, only to find she was not longer there to answer questions!
- Prebble uncovering a 1995 question Dr Nick Smith asked the then Minister of the Enviornment, Simon Upton indicating that National also thought NZ would materially gain from the Kyoto protcol.

Boring:
- Gerry Brownlee's pointless points of order (as always)
- Trevor Mallard ranting about things he knows nothing about.