Archive for category The Greens
So what is it that absolutely defines civilisation? That tipping point when our species moves from uncouth barbarian to civilised being? Let me jump, with no further ado, to the answer: it is plumbing.
I remember making that decision back in 1978 while watching what was the original reality TV show when twelve couples and three children were placed in a re-created iron age village. These original Greenies were frothing with romanticised anticipation of the opportunity to demonstrate that man and the planet were so much healthier back in the BC years and life itself so much more satisfying.
It was hilarious. One of the first tasks, being practical people, was to arrange for their communal latrine. There is nothing more ‘back to nature‘ than taking advantage of an already fallen log as the communal lavvy seat and digging a trench beside it for the containment of the communal waste. Job done, now for a well deserved communal dinner. They spotted a hen and thought that will do nicely. I would have kept it for the eggs but what do I know about sustainability, I bow to the wisdom of the village earth mother who they elected (I forgot, they did that just before designing the ablutions block). Eventually, after an extraordinarily clumsy hen-butchering effort during which, I suspect, the hen decided to pretend to be dead just to get it all over with, they had their chicken dinner. And so to bed for the first self-satisfied night (not intended as a euphemism, but may well be) in their communal bed-hut.
And, in the middle of the night, the chook got her revenge. Oh dear, you have to be so careful with chook; it can be dodgy if not butchered and cooked correctly and this chook was a long, long way from being undodgy. It was probably still technically alive when they ate it. So as their second mistake dawned on them (their first mistake was the design of the latrine, but more of that later) it became clear why such romanticists were, forever after, referred to as the greens; nothing to do with the colour of grass, everything to do with the colour of the faces of this lot as they stumbled barefooted in their hemp undies to where the fallen tree lay and then fought like primal beasts for the spot with the least bark upon which to place their soft white bums while they communally sprayed arse-gravy into a far-too-shallow trench.
And so morning dawned on these fifteen very unwell greenies. Their first day in the iron age now seemed as romantic as a newly married couple waking with a stinking hangover and a squashed turd in the bed.
And so, in spite of the subsequent impact of the internet into our lives, my conviction remains unwaveringly that the tipping point between civilisation and barbarism is with our ability to instantly turn a pile of poo into a shiny white bowl of clean, clear water with a hint of citrus. Thomas Crapper was, to my mind, the founding father of our civilisation.
I raise this now because it is our local body election year and the time for us to elect our village leader upon whom we will depend to ensure our latrines are well plumbed and that we are not served dodgy chicken. So first let us reflect on our current village earth elder, Dave Cull. What did we know of him when we elected him? Well he was a TV presenter and a published author on all things DIY. Handy about the house. Knows a few things about pipes and drains, the fundamentals of our civilisation. Perfect. The sort of good practical bloke to whom you can give a miner’s hat with torch and leave him to happily wander through our sewers and mud ponds to ensure all is well.
Then came the big flood of June 2015. What happened? Even I know that floods occur when drainage inflow exceeds the outflow. The official response came quickly. A prophetic mayoral announcement in the local newspaper, headlined, “End game for South Dunedin” or something similarly dramatic, put the blame squarely on mother nature and her annoyance with our failure to remain in the Iron Age where we belonged. “The seas are rising” said the wise old one, “we are being punished for offending Gaia with our toxic fumes. We will have to have a conversation about abandoning South Dunedin, either that or find a few virgins to sacrifice”. A year later after many hundreds of paid hours of ‘investigation’ we find that the cause was, as the common man said at the time, the failure of Council staff to sweep up the autumn leaves off the streets, check the pumps and clean out the mud tanks before the rains came.
The Otago harbour tide gauge has shown an average annual rise over the past one hundred years of 1.28 millimetres. The current level is almost the same as it was forty years ago. The problem is confirmed as being that the mud tanks, put in after we reclaimed the harbour shallows for housing, were simply too full of mud. They need regular cleaning out. In spite of having a DIY expert as Mayor, this did not happen. Under questioning from Radio NZ the mayor spluttered that it wasn’t his fault, the system was designed to cope with a one in fifty year flood and this flood occurred within the fifty years. Excuse moi?? The last South Dunedin flood was ten years ago so did our DIY mayor think he had another thirty nine years before having a bit of a look at them?
Well just for the record, long before we could ever be accused of excessive carbon emissions, Dunedin experienced regular major floods that did not have anything to do with any fifty year deal with mother nature. In the first century of our city’s history it was North Dunedin that suffered the wrath of the gods of flooding. Major floods, with the Leith River bursting its banks, occurred in: February 1868, January 1870, February 1877, November 1883, December 1911, August 1913, April 1923, March 1929, November 1933, April 1944, September 1946, February 1955.
But there were no Mayoral proclamations during that century saying ‘we need to have a conversation about the end game for North Dunedin”. The North Dunedin flood protection just got better and better as experience was built up. In the late 1950’s the water channel from George Street to Great King Street was straightened with a high velocity concrete channel. Boulder traps were built upstream of George Street and in the late 1960’s a larger boulder trap built upstream of the Malvern Street bridge. North Dunedin is now safe and happy.
So South Dunedin just needs a simple programme of sweeping up leaves before they wash into drains, clearing out the tanks before each rainy season and making sure the pumps in the pumping station are working. Then, Dave, I really do not think we are needing to ‘have that conversation about the end of days’.
But what we really need is a total review of Council priorities (which means who we choose on the upcoming village earth-mother elections). For the South Dunedin mud tank problem is just the start of our city plumbing issues. If our mud tanks were neglected because they are out of sight out of mind, when was the last time the mayor went for a wander through our sewers? The job we elected him for. The preservation of the very basis of our civilisation. And what is the state of the water pipes to feed our showers or fill our baths. Close behind the essential need to have a civilised crap, is the need to have a nice hot bath or refreshing shower on demand. It is for good reason that we have the age-old maxim, cleanliness is next to godliness.
Truth is, the plumbing of our city is old, very old. Some sections of piping are an ancient hundred years old when clay pipes may not have been as robust as today’s standards and our population was half what it is today. Would the Dave Cull that we thought we knew from TV’s Home Front tolerate that? As author of such riveting reads as “NZ backyard DIY Projects” and “Kitchen Essentials“, our plumbing should have been a DIY job right up his alley, so to speak. Condition critical. Priority #1. But it is not. In this city, under this mayor, priority #1 is that a couple of dozen middle-aged men can park their SUV’s in South Dunedin on a Sunday morning, put a black pudding down the front of their Lycra’s and pedal off on one of the city-wide routes that will take them to the cafe of their choice for a latte and slice of cheesecake. ‘Yoghurt not cream thank you, my body is a temple’.
“But do you know the cost of replacing all the pipes in Dunedin? Are you happy for your rates to go up to meet that?” he may bleat. Don’t give me that! We are now being fed alerts from Council that the budgeted $20-30 million earmarked for the cycleways could well head northwards to $100 million and this money “will be found” quote/unquote. What we need to do is take Dave Cull and all his lycra-wearing chums, feed them some dodgy chicken and make them spend the night sitting bare-arsed on a log in the dark. That should re-set their priorities for a civilised society in Dunedin.
Throughout the cycleway debate we have been confronted with an arrogance from the green political lobby both within the Council and within the NZTA, who promote and partially fund the retro-fit of cycleways into our motorised communities. Last October, Cr Kate Wilson represented our City at a conference in Nelson, The 2WalkandCycle Conference, to receive an award for being the Council that most easily bent over to receive the will of the NZTA as regards implementing cycleways (Officially titled the NZTA Cycle friendly award). The official wording of our Council’s achievement is “The commitment to improved cycling displayed by the Mayor and Councillors of Dunedin since 2012 is fast making Dunedin the leader for high-quality cycling infrastructure in New Zealand. In particular, their commitment to installing separated lanes on SH1 through central Dunedin has already inspired other cities around New Zealand to seriously consider separated lanes. The City Council recognized local expertise and explicitly directed Council staff and NZTA to include cycle advocacy group SPOKES Dunedin in the SH1 working group.
The Dunedin SH1 separated cycle lanes project is quite possibly the most significant breakthrough for urban cycling in New Zealand history. This marks a turning point where Councils are willing to support high level separated facilities, even at the expense of on-street parking loss.”
Cr Kate Wilson proudly returned from the Nelson Conference with her silly little tax-funded trophy and with a giggle of pride presented it to the beaming Mayor at a Council meeting. This naive arrogance must be based on believing that the NZ Transport Agency is the ultimate intellect in deciding the road layouts in and around our cities. The NZTA have an annual budget of $1.7 billion dollars to ensure all the expert staff, well-funded research and access to the best overseas case-studies; so surely they must know best; and if they award Dunedin Council with being the most cooperative Council in implementing their will then that means we must also be right on track with the best thinking that $1.7 billion can buy. Yes?
So, how about this little project that NZTA Cycling division recently implemented near Cambridge? Lots of people love cycling in Waipa; pleasant terrain, pleasant climate. So attached is what the finest transport minds in the country came up with.
Yes you are seeing it as NZTA cycling manager, Dougal List, conceived and implemented it. A standard two lane road with centre line was divided into three lanes, two of them for cyclists and the centre lane, just 3 paces wide, to be shared by motorists traveling in opposite directions. It is a rural road; so in order to make this new layout ‘safe’ for truck drivers and motorists travelling in opposite directions along this centre single car lane, Dougal reduced the speed limit to 60kmh. Two cars or trucks, or combination of both, travelling towards each other along this single lane at 60kmh each is supposed to be safe? Is this really the intellectual outcome of a $1.7 billion budget?
What was he thinking? Dougal said the road layout gave additional priority to cyclists and encouraged drivers to share. Apparently it was based on seeing this Dutch cycle lane. Why is it that our cycleway enthusiasts automatically think that if it is done in Holland, then it must be right? The Netherlands is the planet’s poster country for cycling. A total of 16,500,000 bikes represents an impressive 98% of population; almost one bike for every person in the Netherlands. And yet on Yale University’s Environmental Performance Index ranking for average exposure to PM2.5 (dangerous fine particles in the air) the Netherlands ranked 152nd worst out of the 178 countries in the year 2014. If I was the transport planner in the Netherlands I would not be thinking cycling through that airborne mist of respiratory-destructive particles was to be encouraged. And if I was looking at the attached photo from a NZ perspective I most certainly would not be thinking ‘that looks a great idea for safe traffic management, we must set those up throughout NZ.’
Outrage by locals when they saw the single lane for two-way motorist traffic resulted in the new lines, which were painted on Thursday 23 July 2015, being repainted on the following Saturday. Roto-o-rangi road was reverted to a two-lane road. It was extremely lucky there was not a collision in the short time the lanes were changed. Presumably all road users, including cyclists, just pretended the new lanes were not there and reverted to common sense road rules. So NZTA did an embarrassing back flip, but how did it ever get to the point that it got approved in the first place? Dougal and the cycle advocates apparently just got their way and the local Waipa Council had also been aware, in advance, of the trial. I wonder if they were wanting to get NZTA’s award for most gullible council at this year’s conference. But now Dougal is saying: “We’ve seen that there has been strong public reaction to it and that the layout isn’t right for that location and we’ve reacted quickly to that feedback.” He is the well-paid expert on this subject, why did it take common sense feedback before he could see what a stupid idea it was. And what does he mean that this is the wrong location for a layout with a single 2-way car-lane with two separated cycle lanes on either side? Where in New Zealand does he still think might be the right location? Probably Dunedin, he has got a pretty docile Council here and if he saw our Portsmouth Rd ‘trial’ in Dunedin and saw that DCC got away with that, he can surely get away with this lunacy in Dunedin.
It is not that I do not get the environmental cause. I am very concerned about the pollution of our waterways and landfills. I am concerned that in less than a 1,000 years humans in Aotearoa/ New Zealand have been responsible for the extinction of so much million+ year old flora and fauna, including the extinction of the planet’s largest bird, the Moa, through destruction of habitat and unsustainable hunting. Intensive dairy-farming today is causing me concern for the quality of our vital waterways. And beyond New Zealand, the same happened with other mega fauna in Australia when the Aboriginals arrived and wherever Homo sapiens migrated throughout Europe, Asia and America. I am concerned about our growing reliance on genetically modified crops when we have allowed so many natural crops to become extinct.
I get it all, but the “Greenpeace” and its “Green Party” organisation owns this political landscape and that organisation is, regrettably, dominated by people who say and do totally illogical things. Like the cycling decisions above. Like trying to persuade us that more and more wind farms, with the accompanying pollution crisis from mining Neodymium, are the green future for energy to replace oil. Anyone serious about finding environmental solutions to our challenges have to disassociate themselves from the Greens and that is the worst impact of the Greens. By being so illogical in their fanatically advocated ‘solutions’, they are actually counter-productive to solving the pollution and species extinction crises.
Homo Sapiens has been the most destructive species on the planet over the last fifty thousand years. The destruction took a quantum leap with the introduction of farming about 10,000 bc. whereby more and more intensive farming allowed for exponential population growth. And that, my fellow Sapiens is the genie we cannot put back in the bottle, unless we make a universal decision to revert back to a hunter gatherer culture and 90% of us volunteer for euthanasia for the sake of the deserving 10%, the health of the planet and its other species.
Either that or we use our gifted problem-solving intelligence to find some better solution. What we need is for the mainstream political parties to all incorporate policies that fund the scientific research and tap into the surplus employee resource to create a cutting-edge ecological sustainability industry, developed and fine-tuned in our own environment and then exported to the world. But placing two cycleway lanes one either side of a single size car-lane for two-way car traffic is not part of the solution, my silly little green friends.
A bit before the last General Election I had a Greenpeace fundraiser knock on my door. Pleasant enough young lady who had flown in from Canada to warn me about the devious way my government had conspired to expose me to the risks of deep-sea oil drilling off the south island coast. A nice but not a memorable graphic presentation on a smart new IPad apparently explained why I should be demanding the Government choose the alternative of wind power development rather than drilling for oil which would quite possibly destroy life as we know it.
Perhaps, being from Canada, she was not up with the fact that New Zealand, like many other countries, has been investing in wind-power generation for a few years now. Wind power supplements hydro-sourced energy but is not seen in the forseeable future as being viably able to replace the need for oil as an energy source. Even if petrol vehicles were all banned and electric cars, trucks, ships and buses made mandatory, we are acutely aware that such battery powered technology also comes with its own environmental price tag due to the need for mining of rare earth elements.
I also concluded that the Greenpeace lady thought that the proposed oil exploration off the south island coast was intended only for NZ’s own energy needs since she proposed to me that wind farms built by our Government would replace the need for off shore oil drilling. Not so. Even now, crude oil is NZ’s fourth largest export commodity. If we found more oil, this oil would be for exporting. But aside from that, looking at the alternatives as a global rather than local issue, by promoting wind turbines as an alternative to oil energy, this GreenPeace representative is effectively promoting exploration for rare earth elements, such as Neodymium, as a preference to exploring for oil.
Neodymium is the rare earth element that is essential in the manufacture of the electro-magnets for the wind turbines. Incidentally, her new iPad also requires the mining of rare earth elements for its manufacture.
There are serious and considerable environmental concerns connected with sourcing rare earth elements. Extracting rare earth elements begins with mining, followed by the refining process and then disposal.
All of the stages of mining, refining and disposal come with unique issues. Most rare earth elements are mined through open pit mining, which involves heavy equipment and machinery. This disruption on the surface of the earth disrupts ecosystems.
Furthermore, mines are the point source of release for very serious contaminants. Rare earth elements contain radionuclides (radioactive isotypes), Once radionuclides are in an ecosystem, they accumulate in plants, where the higher concentrations are ingested and ascend the levels of the food chain (Paul & Campbell, 2011). Radioactive contamination has become such a problem that monazite mining has now been banned by China.
The other major contaminant is dust and metal. When mining operations break up materials, the dust can release a variety of heavy metals commonly associated with health problems. As dust, these minerals (such as the asbestos-like mineral riebeckite) can be absorbed into lung tissue, causing problems like pneumoconiosis and silicosis, commonly known as “Black Lung” (Paul & Campbell, 2011). Another example of harmful dust generated is flue dust, a byproduct of mining fluorine. According to the Chinese Society of Rare Earths, every ton of rare earth elements produced generates 8.5 kilograms of fluorine and 13 kilograms of flue dust, waste materials which contain the heavy metals discussed above (Schuler et al, 2011).
The goal of mining is to end up with a mostly pure and usable element that can be utilised in whatever way necessary. However, the ores that are extracted from the earth do not come out pure, instead they need to undergo a refining process. This refining process introduces another set of environmental concerns, mostly revolving around the release of metal byproducts into the environment. It is very easy for metals to enter the air, ground or waters in an environment, and once there it is nearly impossible to remove them.
The metals in an environment can also prove devastating to organisms. The byproduct of mining rare earth elements is usually waste that is full of further threats to the environment. Generally, waste is categorised into two different types: tailings and waste rock stockpiles. It is the tailings that are of particular concern as they are full of small, fine particles that can be absorbed into the water and ground surrounding a particular mine. Regardless of whether a contaminant is deemed tailings or waste rock stockpiles,the contamination of the water is the main concern. Water can be contaminated in three ways: sedimentation, acid drainage and metals deposition, and once contaminated is difficult to restore to its original quality.
While most of the Neodymium is currently mined in China, it is readily available elsewhere on the planet and very possibly available in economic quantities in New Zealand. Areas in New Zealand that have been identified as possibly containing mineable quantities of rare earth elements are in Northwest Nelson, Westland, Fiordland, and Rakiura/Stewart Island. Fortunately many of these places are off-limits to such mining under schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 (when, incidentally, the National Government held 70% of the seats in Parliament) or because they are in World Heritage areas.
However Greenpeace, in spite of these environmental issues, are asking for my financial support to pressurise the Government to explore this wind-turbine industry as their alternative to oil exploration.
The Greenpeace young lady then presented me with a very legal-looking direct debit form that apparently gave GreenPeace the right to dip into my bank account every month and extract the agreed amount to help them put this pressure on the government to cease and desist from oil as an energy source and invest instead in the business of wind turbines.
When I raised my concerns over the problems in extracting Neodymium I was surprised to be told by the young Canadian lady that she had absolutely no knowledge that there even was such a problem. I don’t think she even knew what Neodymium was. Given that she also did not even seem to realise that wind-farms were already existing and expanding rapidly in NZ, it was a little alarming that a front-of-house representative of Greenpeace, sent all the way from Canada to inform me about the benefits of wind turbine energy, knew so little about them. There ended that discussion. So, short story even shorter, she didn’t get my signature on the direct debit form.
That however did not discourage Greenpeace from a follow up attempt at getting access into my bank account to help halt this oil exploration, this time from an English-accented young lady. I tried the amicable fob-off: “haven’t you got big enough environmental issues closer to England?” (I don’t look for confrontation, but there seems to have been a lot of oil drilling underway in the seas around Europe), but she insisted she was actually calling from Auckland, as if that made any difference, as if flying halfway around the world to make a phone call was something with which Greenpeace were ecologically comfortable. She really did want me to contribute to the Greenpeace funding campaign.
I explained that I know full-well that oil drilling companies are primarily interested in profits and I have no doubt they are negotiating with a Government that is equally keen on making our country a profitable economic entity, and yes I am aware what happened in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, and have some idea of the risks of a worst case scenario in NZ. I assured her that if there was a viable alternative I would endorse it but so, I believed, would the corporates and Governments which are also very averse to risk taking. The corporates for the impact on their profits, the governments for the impact on their next election.
But the massive and growing demand for energy sources including oil, wind, hydro, gas, coal and nuclear means that we still need to keep sourcing new deposits of oil in addition to developing alternatives if the rapidly growing world population is to be fed, provided with homes and hospitals, schools and libraries, offices and factories and with a transport infrastructure to connect everything.
And frighteningly the earth’s population grows exponentially. While it took over 150,000 years for the earth’s human population to reach its first billion, it took only another 150 years to reach its second billion and now in less than a further 100 years it is moving quickly towards eight billion. How quickly we pass ten billion depends on what happens in this current generation. I am not surprised if the earth is complaining loudly.
So I pointed out that increased drilling for oil with the consequential increase in CO2 levels in our atmosphere is actually a symptom of our problem, not the problem itself.
The core problem is that our population is rapidly expanding out of control. If GreenPeace were somehow successful in significantly reducing oil drilling then that would be a solution of sorts, but only because it would lead to global economic collapse, massive unemployment, starvation, disease and would put the human species on the path back to the stone age and possibly beyond.
I wondered aloud whether the Greenpeace organisation might wish to focus its resources on humanely resolving the crisis of over-population as a means of reducing the human impact on the environment rather than asking me for money to travel around the world fundraising and sailing protest banners to oil rigs. For if we do not resolve the population explosion problem then, sooner or later, mother nature will develop a really unbeatable virus and do the job for us.
A pause and then an exasperated young English lady told me that she was just wasting her time with me and so she hung up.
I guess you can’t travel to New Zealand and Australia on Greenpeace donations if you are only coming to tell us about birth control. The dire threat of off shore drilling is a much easier sell.