Bluegreens

Regenerated Ellesmere water ways a credit to dedicated locals and volunteers

nospam@example.com (admin) — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:13:11 +1200

Christchurch Bluegreens

Farmers and volunteers in the Birdlings Brook and Harts Creek area near Lake Ellesmere, in conjunction with Environment Canterbury, welcomed the public to an open day on Saturday to mark World Water Day, Monday 22 March 2010.

The event provided an opportunity to view the results of ten years of dedicated regeneration of the water ways in the area and learn of riparian replanting projects for the future. Local farmer Peter Chamberlain hosted a bus tour of a number of specific water ways and embankments, explaining that a decade ago, concerned fisherman had alerted farmers in the area to the deterioration of water quality and stream habitat. They said water ways were choked and silty and noticeably lacking in marine life.

The regeneration project has involved the commitment of seventeen local farmers who, in collaboration with ECAN, stopped the twice a day cattle access to the stream and put a significant investment into fencing it off, also building a bridge for cattle. The process then involved clearing the streams of willows which were jamming river flows and causing flooding and erosion, and replanting natives over the decade. An enthusiastic group of us at the open day also planted a section of embankment at Birdlings Brook by the Lakeside Hall.

Water clarity and riparian habitat in Birdlings Brook and Harts Creek have been restored and the results are clearly visible. I had fun with some fascinated young children - who I’m sure are budding environmentalists - and some very knowledgeable and helpful ECAN water scientists looking at all sorts of insects in classification trays. We were lucky to see some spiny gilled mayfly, which are very sensitive to stream deterioration. A good sign that ten years of hard work and dedication have paid off!

- Nicky Wagner

Treeplanting on McKenzie Reserve - Waiheke

nospam@example.com (admin) — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:32:47 +1200

Auckland Central Bluegreens

Early August the Auckland Bluegreens, Auckland Central National Party members and local MP Nikki Kaye spent a day planting native trees on Waiheke's McKenzie Reserve. The McKenzie reserve was a pine forest, but the trees were removed in 2006. Since then groups like the Bluegreens have volunteered their time to plant natives. It was great to see enthusiasm for the Bluegreens and this project despite some rain. We were happy at our effort of 250+ trees and hope to be back soon.

New additions to Westland National Park

nospam@example.com (admin) — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:28:56 +1200

Over 4,400 hectares of land have been officially added to Westland Tai Poutini National Park, Minister of Conservation Kate Wilkinson announced today.

The new additions consist of areas at Okarito Lagoon, Three Mile Lagoon on the coast south of Okarito, Alpine Lake and further land at Omoeroa Bluff, Waikukupa and Gillespies Beach.

“Westland Tai Poutini National Park features some of New Zealand’s most breath-taking scenery and the new areas enhance its integrity.

“It’s fantastic that these new parcels of land can be added to the park in the year it celebrates its 50th anniversary,” Ms Wilkinson says.

“The additions include wetlands, lake beds, river margins and forests that are home to our native flora and wildlife.

“All have high conservation values and are worthy of the protection status enjoyed by the surrounding land.

“The Government is dedicated to enhancing and protecting the natural values in our national parks for the benefit of all New Zealanders.”

The New Zealand Conservation Authority had recommended the areas be added to the park over the past few years. The changes were officially gazetted today.

Renewable generation remains high

nospam@example.com (admin) — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:51:45 +1200

Renewable electricity generation remained high at 73 per cent of total electricity generation in the March 2010 quarter, Minister of Energy and Resources Gerry Brownlee says.

The March quarter data is recorded in the latest edition of the New Zealand Energy Quarterly published by the Ministry of Economic Development today.

“High renewable electricity generation levels continue,” Mr Brownlee says.

“This quarter the new 132 Megawatt Nga Awa Purua geothermal power station in the central North Island came online, contributing further renewable generation capacity to New Zealand’s electricity system.”

Other highlights in this quarter’s New Zealand Energy Quarterly include:

• coal production returning to normal levels

• a 16 per cent increase in the production of petroleum products following a capacity upgrade at the Marsden Point refinery

• a decrease in petrol and diesel demand

The New Zealand Energy Quarterly presents quarterly statistics on the supply of major fuels, electricity generation and greenhouse gas emissions, and prices to the end of March 2010.

The New Zealand Energy Quarterly is part of a suite of energy publications produced by the Ministry of Economic Development. It is free to download or subscribe to by going to www.med.govt.nz/energy/nzeq. The Ministry also provides up-to-date information via its energy data web pages at www.med.govt.nz/energy/data.

Minister Welcomes International Climate Change Appointments

nospam@example.com (admin) — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 15:40:13 +1200

International Climate Change Negotiations Minister Tim Groser today applauded the election of New Zealand’s Climate Change Ambassador, Adrian Macey, to the position of Vice-Chair of the Kyoto Protocol Negotiations process.

“This is an impressive achievement for Dr Macey and for New Zealand. I congratulate Dr Macey on this election,” Minister Groser said.

“His election as Vice-Chair is an honour that reflects the esteem in which Dr Macey is held internationally. It also shows that New Zealand is a highly regarded, constructive player in the international climate change negotiations.”

Macey has been Climate Change Ambassador since the position was established in 2006. His term as Kyoto Protocol Vice-Chair will be for the remainder of 2010. The election was by consensus of the 191 parties to the Kyoto Protocol, at a meeting in Bonn, Germany yesterday.

At the same time, Minister Groser welcomed the appointment of New Zealand’s new Climate Change Ambassador, Joanne Tyndall.

“Ms Tyndall will bring significant expertise and negotiating experience to this role,” Mr Groser said.

“Her background in senior management is complemented by considerable experience in international negotiations, including as part of the New Zealand negotiating team to the GATT Uruguay Round.”

The Climate Change Ambassador’s primary role is to lead New Zealand’s international climate change negotiations. Negotiations are currently underway to secure a comprehensive global agreement as a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

Ms Tyndall will take up the role from her previous position as member of the senior management team at the Ministry of Culture and Heritage. She has previously worked as Chief Executive of New Zealand on Air, and had been posted to Geneva with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Protection status changes to Wildlife Act

nospam@example.com (admin) — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:47:49 +1200

Whale sharks, katipo spiders and all giant weta will now be absolutely protected under changes to the Wildlife Act, Minister of Conservation Kate Wilkinson announced today.

They are among 12 previously unprotected species of invertebrate and a number of marine species, including manta ray, giant groper and corals, which have had their protection status upgraded.

“All native species are special and have evolved key functions in our unique biodiversity, whether they are weevils, weta or beetles they deserve an appropriate level of protection,” Ms Wilkinson says.

"Giant groper, whale sharks and manta ray are all highly valued, particularly by divers, in New Zealand. The upgrade in their protection status, and that of corals, recognises how unique they are in our waters."

The changes to the Wildlife Act affect more than 50 species, including a number of introduced species that have had their protection levels reduced.

Permits will no longer be required to keep some common introduced species as pets, like spotted and turtle doves and ring-necked parakeet.

There will also be no need for permits to control some wildlife, such as wild chickens and muscovy ducks – both of which are farmed species but currently absolutely protected in the wild.

“I have been pragmatic about the changes given to some species and a reduction in protection will be the best way to manage some populations.

“For instance, the grey teal often flies with mallard ducks and is shot in error by hunters so I have dropped the penalty from a $100,000 fine to $5,000, which is the same as a fine for shooting game out of season.”

The new changes will take effect on 8 July 2010.

A final decision is yet to be made on the level of protection for Canada geese.

For more information go here.

Changes needed to Air Quality Standard

nospam@example.com (admin) — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 12:08:54 +1200

Hundreds of businesses and thousands of jobs will be put at risk if changes are not made to the unrealistic and unfair air quality standard adopted by the previous Government, Environment Minister Nick Smith says.

Dr Smith today released a discussion document proposing amendments to the National Air Quality Standard.

“The existing standard of only one exceedance a year is unrealistic and would require banning home log burners and industries in communities where air quality is generally very good. This decision by the previous Government was against the Environment Ministry’s recommendation of five exceedances per year,” Dr Smith said.

“The Technical Advisory Group has recommended the standard be increased from one to three exceedances a year, which is consistent with the World Health Organisation Air Quality Standard. This still means substantial work will be required in 15 airsheds covering 45% of New Zealand’s population where exceedances are as high as 91 per year.

“The existing standard is also unfair in severely punishing businesses when the vast bulk of pollution comes from home fires and motor vehicles. The current regulations prohibit any new consents or consent renewals for industry after 2013 in airsheds that exceed the standard which the Ministry for the Environment estimates would put at risk 233 businesses employing more than 17,000 staff. We are proposing putting forward the date to a more realistic 2018 and a compliance regime that does not unfairly penalise business.

”These changes are about improving air quality but in a pragmatic and realistic way. It will ensure we do not put thousands of jobs at risk or unnecessarily ban home burners and open fires in areas with only occasional air quality problems.”

An independent Technical Advisory Group established by the Government in June last year reviewed the air quality standard and recommended it be changed. The review was a National Party election promise and a key initiative out of last year’s Job Summit.

“I am today releasing this advice and the Government’s proposals for amendments to the air quality standard. This includes requiring mandatory public reporting by councils. This would allow me as Minister to monitor progress in problem areas, and if none is being made, use my powers under the Resource Management Act to force action by councils. The Government wants a standard that achieves material improvements in air quality without imposing unnecessary costs on businesses and communities.

“This proposal sees central government setting a credible baseline standard but provides enough flexibility for councils to find local solutions to local problems. We look forward to public submissions on the discussion document by 9 July 2010 before making any final decisions.”

ENDS

For the TAG report, Cabinet paper and discussion document go to: http://www.mfe.govt.nz/news/2010-06-09-air-quality-review.html

Green Ribbon Award finalists announced

nospam@example.com (admin) — Tue, 25 May 2010 21:59:16 +1200

Environment Minister Nick Smith today announced the 27 finalists for the 2010 Green Ribbon Awards which honour outstanding contributions to protecting New Zealand’s environment.

“This year marks the 20th Green Ribbon Awards. During this time more than 100 environmental champions have been awarded for their initiative, commitment and dedication to tackle environmental issues,” Dr Smith said.

For the 2010 awards 143 nominations were received across 12 categories. The categories reflect the broad range of environmental challenges that New Zealand faces and the extraordinary range of actions taken to address them. The nominations recognised individuals, businesses, communities and youth as well as larger organisations.

“The large number and diversity of the nominations is a testament to the hard work and the many different ways that New Zealanders are working to protect our environment,” Dr Smith said.

The winners of each category and an overall supreme winner will be announced during an awards ceremony at Parliament on Thursday 3 June.

“With so many outstanding and compelling nominations, it was difficult to pick out these finalists. I wish them all the best of luck.”

The finalists are:

• Accor Hospitality (Auckland)
• Banks Peninsula Conservation Trust (Christchurch)
• Buller High School (Westport)
• Charlie B’s Backpackers (Christchurch)
• Environmental Education for Resource Sustainability Trust (EERST) – Paper4trees programme (Tauranga)
• Envirofert Ltd (Auckland)
• Friends of Flora Inc (Tasman)
• Henley Trust 2003 (Masterton)
• Hukanui Primary School – Eco-classroom (Hamilton)
• Kaharoa Kokako Trust (Rotorua)
• Karen Warren (Nelson)
• Landcare Research – carboNZero programme (Canterbury)
• New Zealand Pork (Wellington)
• North Shore City Council – Corporate Sustainability Team (North Shore City)
• Palmerston North City Council – Awapuni Sustainable Development Centre (Palmerston North)
• Plastics NZ – Best Practice Energy programme (Manukau)
• Resene Paints Ltd (Lower Hutt)
• Sleepyhead Manufacturing Co Ltd (Auckland)
• Splashroom Ltd (Dunedin North)
• Sustainable Coastlines Inc (Auckland)
• Taikura Rudolf Steiner School (Hastings)
• Te Wai Pounamu Foundation (Dunedin)
• Thames Coromandel District Council and Tairua/Pauanui Community Board (Thames)
• The New Zealand Wine Company (Marlborough)
• Waitakere City Council – Project Twin Streams (Waitakere)
• Wellington Zoo Trust (Wellington)
• Whangateau Harbour Care (Warkworth)

ENDS

Nick Smith: "Better Water Management"

nospam@example.com (admin) — Tue, 25 May 2010 15:42:11 +1200

"Better Water Management"

Hon Dr Nick Smith
Minister for the Environment

22 May 2010

New Zealand’s freshwater resource is at the heart of our competitive advantage, our great lifestyle and our clean, green environmental brand. It is our most important natural resource. Today I want to outline how your Government is focussed on improving its management.

Few New Zealanders appreciate just how blessed our country is with freshwater resources. We are all instinctively aware how green New Zealand is compared to so many parts of the world, but we don’t always make the connection with our abundance of freshwater. We are to water what Saudi Arabia is to oil and Australia is to minerals. And the great advantage over both is that one day the oil and the ore will be gone, but wisely managed, the freshwater will be there for generations to come.

It is also true though that this abundance has meant we have been too casual about how we have managed the resource. We have not been too sophisticated historically about the choices between use for power generation, use for irrigation and ensuring minimum flows for environmental and recreational purposes.

We have also been quite careless about using and abusing our waterways and water bodies with nutrients and waste such that water quality deterioration has become a significant issue in some catchments and lakes.

The task that your Government is focussed on is delivering a step change in how we as a country manage these freshwater resources.

We have got three objectives:
- improving systems for allocation
- addressing deteriorating water quality
- facilitating opportunities for storage

Let me first canvass the issues around allocation.

This is very much a South Island issue. 56% of all of New Zealand’s resource consents for water takes are in Canterbury. It is obvious from this that you can’t fix New Zealand’s water problems unless you fix Canterbury’s water problems. Another 20% are in Otago. Include Nelson, Tasman, Marlborough and Southland and we are talking about 81% in the South Island.

The key mechanism in law for managing the allocation of water is the Resource Management Act passed in 1991. It is a very broad framework and it relies almost exclusively on effective resource plans for it to work.

It is an indictment on our country that 19 years after passing the Resource Management Act, Canterbury still has no plan.

This issue caused such frustration for the previous Government over the Waitaki River that it stepped in with special legislation that had a special board write a water allocation plan for the Waitaki.

The bulk of Canterbury’s remaining 100-plus rivers and aquifiers still have no operative plan. Had Government not intervened our advice was that it would be at least three to four years away, probably a lot more. No Government serious about improving water management could turn a blind eye to this gapping hole.

This, while the primary concern, was not the only issue that lead the Government to intervene in Environment Canterbury.

The problems were highlighted in the briefing to me as incoming Minister for the Environment by the Environment Ministry.

The biennial report of all councils on the Resource Management Act in July last year showed that the Council was breaking the law 71% of the time in processing consents, the worst of all 84 New Zealand councils.

There were also multiple critical comments from the Environment Court and Hearings Commissioners on Environment Canterbury’s processes and capacity to manage water issues.

I must pay tribute to the quality of leadership from Canterbury’s 10 Mayors and Councils. I contrast it with the challenges Auckland has faced over developing its waterfront and fixing its transport problems where their eight councils have been unable to agree. That all 10 Mayors and Councils not only had a common view on the need for Government intervention, but also on the Canterbury Water Management Strategy, has provided the foundation the region needs to make progress on water.

The Government responded to these concerns by initiating a formal performance review of Environment Canterbury.

The review report was comprehensive and damning. It found the council was polarised and stakeholders viewed it as dysfunctional. It concluded that the gap between the water problem and their capability was enormous and unprecedented, and that central government intervention was not only warranted but urgent. It warned that failure to intervene would lead to continued lack of progress in water management in Canterbury.

The Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act was the Government’s response. It replaced the Council with commissioners. New powers have been given to fast track completion of a Canterbury plan for water, to enable moratorium to be placed on new water takes in areas lacking water and to manage water conservation orders in the region. The Act also gives statutory recognition to the Canterbury Water Management Strategy put together by stakeholders and councils as a way forward on water.

I don’t doubt how difficult this process has been for some brave regional councillors who knew it was broke, but felt unable from the inside to drive reform.

I’ve taken my fair share of bullets in driving these changes through, but want to also acknowledge all my Canterbury Parliamentary colleagues who have shown leadership and great teamwork as we’ve worked through these difficult issues.

Our job is to now work with the Commissioners, to get a plan for water in Canterbury as quickly as is possible.

This legislation is a constructive first step in the bigger challenge around water management. We’ve got other mechanisms under way to also make a difference.

First up, is improving measurement. We cannot begin this job in Canterbury or further afield without actually knowing how much water is being extracted. Currently, just 31% of water takes by volume are measured. It goes without saying that you can’t manage what you don’t measure.

Last month I announced new national regulations under the Resource Management Act to require water metering. We’ve been mindful of not unnecessarily driving up compliance costs so we’ve excluded water takes of less than five litres per second. That’s the equivalent amount of water taken by 250 houses. While that is 39% of water takes, it only involves 2% of the water used.

These regulations will progressively lift the information we have to manage water from 34% to 92% by 2012 and to 98% by 2016.

The second big issue confronting us on water is how we better manage water quality.

This is an area fraught with high emotions and strong opinions. We need to stick with our Bluegreen principles and ensure our decisions are founded on good science.

New Zealand’s water quality by international comparison is actually very good. The 2010 Yale and Columbia University Environmental Performance Index ranks us second in the world only to Iceland with a water quality index of 99.2. This is not to say we do not have water quality issues. Many of our lowland streams and our shallow lakes, especially in areas of intensive farming like Lake Ellesmere, have significantly deteriorated.

The worry is the pressures on New Zealand’s freshwater is increasing at a hugely faster rate than other countries and puts our clean freshwater at increasing risk.

For instance, the growth of nitrogeneous fertilizers grew in New Zealand by more than fivefold over the last two decades. Australia’s doubled but the OECD average was only 10%.

The dairy herd nationwide has grown from 3.4 to 5.8 million cows. The increase in Canterbury has been from 113,000 to 831,000, a seven fold increase. In Southland, from 37,000 to 500,000, 13-fold increase. This increase nationwide is the equivalent of adding an extra 34 million people in effluent and nutrient flow terms, noting cows produce 14 times as much effluent as a person.

The third and related pressure has been the growth of irrigation. The irrigated area in New Zealand has gone from 600,000 ha in 1999 to more than a million today. This has brought about huge productivity improvements, but with it environmental impacts.

The real challenge with water quality is the time lapse between pollution and its consequences. This is so self-evident as we grapple with the quite serious water quality issues in Lake Rotorua, Lake Rotoiti, Lake Taupo and the Waikato River. All of the analysis shows the problems have been decades in the making, and even with the tens of millions that we are spending to fix problems, water quality will deteriorate for many years before it improves.

We in the South need to learn from the North’s poor experience and ensure we recognise the risks to our own water and start tackling the issue now.

That’s why I took a cautious approach at the beginning of the year and called in the 18,000 cow cubicle dairy farms proposed in the fragile environment of the Mackenzie Basin. We did not say no. We did say that we had to be satisfied that the water quality implications needed to be thoroughly examined.

Both David Carter and I have taken a tough line on farms who blatantly breach their resource consents. Last year we doubled the fines for breaches under the Resource Management Act. I also commend David Carter for his leadership in responding to the disappointing reports on the Clean Streams Accord that showed deteriorating compliance. Your Government will be pushing hard for the minority of farmers that are not doing their bit to lift their game as this issue poses a risk to the long term viability of New Zealand’s most important industry.

Your Government is also putting serious money into addressing freshwater quality. The combination of this year’s and last year’s Budgets means that over the next five years, we are committing $93.5 million to water quality clean ups. That’s more than five times the amount spent during the previous five years.

The last dimension I want to cover is storage. This Government is committed to facilitating the opportunities for storing water.

The concern I have about the path of irrigation development in Canterbury over the past two decades, is that the bulk has been through the increased extractions from groundwater resources. This is not sustainable.

It is a little known fact that 88% of Canterbury’s water is in those seven alpine river systems, from the Clarence in the North to the Waitaki in the South. We need to shift the pressure off the dozens of foothill rivers and streams and the aquifiers, and invest in the storage and distribution of water from this far larger alpine resource. Only a small fraction of the massive flows is required to meet Canterbury’s foreseeable needs for irrigation.

There is an added advantage to this strategy. Many gigawatt hours of electricity is used to pump billions of litres of water for irrigation, yet well designed augmentation water schemes have the potential to be gravity fed. If we are smart, we can save farmers money on power bills, free up electricity for other users and put water back into some of the lowland rivers to restore in-stream values.

Our changes last year for national consenting in our first resource management reform bill will make a huge difference in processing such consents in a far more timely way.

These steps to fix Environment Canterbury, to better measure water use, to toughen up on enforcement, to put more than $90 million into clean-ups and to streamline consents for storage are a good start, but much more needs to be done.

There are real lessons to be learnt from the success of Bill English’s tax reforms. The Tax Working Group provided the solid foundation for good policy and facilitated a public dialogue that built a large constituency for reform.

We need to do a similar job with water and that is why in 2009 we set up the Land and Water Forum.

We’ve invested more than $1 million in the process. We’ve got diverse groups from irrigators to recreationalists, generators to environmentalists, farmers to iwi engaged in a serious process on how we can lift New Zealand’s water management. They will report in late July.

I invite party members to join us in Akaroa at the Annual Bluegreens Forum in October so we can really engage on how we progress this work forward.

Our ambition is to deliver a step change in water management that will see improvements in water quality, water allocation and us taking up the opportunities for water storage.

It is critical work. There is potential for big environmental and economic gains. This party, your team, are up to this challenge.

ENDS

You can find a copy of the Minister's presentation on water to the Bluegreens Breakfast at the Mainland Regional Conference here: www.bluegreens.org.nz/uploads/BetterWaterManagement-MainlandConference2010.pps

Nick Smith: "Our National Interests and the ETS"

nospam@example.com (admin) — Tue, 25 May 2010 09:27:18 +1200

EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME

Public MeetingsClimate Change Minister Nick Smith is talking to New Zealanders about the emissions trading scheme. If you would like to attend one of the public meetings being held across the country, please get in touch with the contact provided.

Where	When	Venue
Auckland	Tuesday 22 June at 7.30pm	Concert Chamber, Auckland Town Hall, 303 Queen Street
Christchurch	Wednesday 23 June at 7.00pm	Conference Room, Level 1, Christchurch Town Hall for Performing Arts, 86 Kilmore Street
Nelson	Thursday 24 June at 7.30pm	544 Waimea Road, Annesbrook, Nelson
Blenheim	Tuesday 29 June at 7.30pm	Marlborough Convention Centre, Alfred Street, Blenheim
Wellington	Wednesday 30 June at 7.00pm	Ballroom, Level 6, Duxton Hotel, 170 Wakefield Street
Darfield	Thursday 8 July at 7.30pm	Darfield Recreation Centre, North Terrace, Darfield
Gore	Thursday 15 July at 5.30pm	Heartland Hotel, Waimea Street, Gore
Tauranga	Monday 19 July at 7.00pm	Call 07 5799016 for venue information
Timaru	Tuesday 20 July at 7:30pm	Call 03 6831386 for venue information
Tamaki	Thursday 22 July at 7.30pm	Call 09 5759842 for venue information
Dunedin	Monday 26 July at 7.30pm	Coronation Hall, Gordon Road, Mosgiel

The Minister's speech "Our National Interests and the ETS" can be found below. Click here for a copy of the presentation and all press releases related to the ETS are on the Beehive website.

If you have any queries about the ETS, you can contact the Bluegreens at bluegreens@national.org.nz or go to our comments page.

"Our National Interests and the ETS"

Hon Dr Nick Smith
Minister for Climate Change Issues

Introduction

I have been fortunate to have held many portfolios during my 20 year Parliamentary career but none get close to the complexity and difficulty posed by climate change and the ETS. Few issues spark as much passion or divergence of views as climate change. There is debate over the science, the economics and over the international politics of who should do what and when. It’s not something you can explain in a 30 second sound bite.

Today, I want to set out why it's in New Zealand's interests on 1 July for your Government to be introducing the transport, electricity and industrial sectors into our moderated emissions trading scheme. It was inevitable that implementing the next phase of the ETS on 1 July would come with its share of contention. This is the same challenge faced by every country in the world that has, or is, putting a price on emissions.

The Science

First, can I give you the Government’s view on the science. We don’t claim a consensus or a perfect scientific understanding of the earth’s climate system. But we are satisfied that enough is known to be of concern and that action is justified to curb our growth in emissions. This is about sound risk management. New Zealanders expect governments to prudently manage risk of phenomena like earthquakes. We all pay EQC levies even though we may not need the billions that have been collected. We see managing the risk of climate change in a similar context.

The global problem is that mankind is burning fossil fuels and clearing forests at increasing rates, and this is changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere. CO2 levels are up 35% on pre-industrial levels already. As developing countries industrialise, these levels are set to be double by 2050 and double again by 2100.

To put our fossil fuel emissions in perspective, every New Zealander emits an average nine tonnes per person per year. Nine tonnes of CO2 is three times the volume of this auditorium. That's each year, and is for every one of us. And the science tells us that the CO2 will be around in the atmosphere for thousands of years. It would be a brave person who would say we can carry on indefinitely doing this and expect it to have no effect on the atmosphere or climate. The considered science tells us it's a problem.

The International Politics

The international politics of this issue is as hard as the science. Two stark facts dominate the global debate. 80% of the increase to date has been caused by developed countries that make up only 20% of the population. This is why there is such a rigid position from developing countries that we must move first to curb our emissions. They say: “You caused the problem, you're wealthier, you need to take the lead”. It's on this basis that Kyoto was stitched together. But there is an equally compelling statistic on the future. More than 80% of the increase in emissions this century will come from developing countries. That's why countries such as China, India and Brazil are pivotal to the post-Kyoto framework.

The Global Research Alliance

That's also why the Global Research Alliance on agricultural emissions initiated by New Zealand is so important. It is a tribute to the work of the Prime Minister, Tim Groser and David Carter that so many countries have come on board. This is an area where it makes sense for New Zealand to take a global leadership role on climate change. There are multi-billion dollar research budgets going into alternative transport, electricity and industrial technologies, but far too little in the agriculture emissions space. There is a massive problem as to how the world is going to feed an additional three billion people by 2050 without further increases in greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. Apart from Labour, the Global Research Alliance enjoys broad public and political support.

The Domestic Politics

The ETS is more challenging. People question the merits of a market tool and their eyes glaze over at the notion of trading in something as nebulous as carbon credits. Others are unconvinced that we should do anything unless the rest of the world is also acting, and are particularly nervous following the political problems in Australia of them making progress. We have Labour and the Greens arguing our ETS is too soft, too slow, and too generous to business. ACT has an intriguing take on the ETS.

ACT has championed the cause of the Kyoto forest owners. They argue that carbon credits are a "property right", "belonging to those who planted them" and must not be "confiscated". That's fair enough, but paying these out is set to cost about $1.6 billion over the Kyoto period until 2013. It's odd then for ACT to argue the carbon debits that rest with emitters under Kyoto through to 2013 don't belong to them and must be paid for entirely by the taxpayer. This is the 'socialise your losses, capitalise your gains' ETS. It is a recipe for a Greek-style fiscal tragedy.

New Zealand's Interests

The question we must answer in proceeding with the ETS on 1 July is why it makes sense for New Zealand. There are good strategic reasons for an ETS as a small trading nation that has branded itself as clean and green. Just read The Economist's editorial in March highlighting the risk of a backlash over our "100% Pure" brand and our significant increase in emissions. We must be aware of the power of well-heeled consumers who are our most profitable customers. The food miles argument is the forerunner to a bigger debate. Doing our bit now to curb emissions growth puts us in the right space long term to protect our brand and market access.

The world is set on a path to constraining emissions. At some point we are going to have to adapt to this. The sooner New Zealand starts that process, the easier the transition will be. And the most efficient way to make that transition is through an ETS.

Renewable Energy

Take the electricity sector. It's been the source of our greatest percentage increase in emissions – up 120% since 1990. New power plants have a life of at least 30 or 40 years. It's in New Zealand's interests that we invest in renewables in preference to new thermal generation, and the ETS is the best tool to deliver this. Labour failed abysmally in this area. Two thirds of the new generation capacity built during the last decade was gas and diesel, and the use of coal more than doubled. The ETS is shifting investments. More than three-quarters of the new consents lodged since we became Government are for renewable wind, geothermal, hydro and marine generation projects.

Forestry Incentives

The price signals are equally crucial for the forest sector. New Zealand lost 30,000 hectares of trees in Labour's last four years in office, more than in any period since records began in the 1930s. Their confusing and shifting policies on the ETS contributed to this. Again, like electricity these are long-term investments that need certainty. In 2009, the deforestation stopped and there was a small gain in forest area of 500 hectares. Forester's intentions indicate increased plantings of 4700 hectares this year, 5700 hectares next year, and still more of 7700 hectares in 2012. This confidence will be lost if we blink on the ETS, yet these plantings are crucial to New Zealand's long-term climate change targets.

Honouring Our Commitments

Proceeding with the ETS is also about honouring our word to voters, to investors and to the international community. We campaigned quite explicitly on a policy of proceeding with a moderated ETS in 2010. We've halved the cost to businesses and consumers. We've slowed the pace, deferring sector entry dates. We've removed the disincentives for businesses to grow and ensured that small and medium businesses are not discriminated against in the allocations to trade exposed businesses. We’ve put regular reviews in the law in 2011 and regularly thereafter so we can reassess our approach relative to international progress and the latest science.

It's also important we honour our word to foresters. Both National and Labour Government's exhorted them to plant trees with the promise they would receive the benefit of the carbon credits.

New Zealand's emissions are up 23% on 1990 levels and the only reason we don't face a whopping great Kyoto deficit is these plantings. Investment confidence requires we honour our word.

The ETS is also crucial to meeting our Kyoto target. Without the scheme, we would exceed it by 11 million tonnes. As a small trading nation, we more than most rely on countries honouring their international commitments. Regardless of whether you like Kyoto or not, it is in New Zealand's interests that we honour those commitments.

Alternative to an ETS

We could meet our Kyoto commitments with other policies. You could regulate and tell citizens what sort of light bulbs they must use, how much water they can have in their shower, what sort of cars they can buy and tell business what sort of power plants they must build. An ETS encourages emissions reductions without reverting to a Nanny State.

ETS Is Not A Tax

An ETS is also quite different from a carbon tax which would generate billions of dollars in revenue for the Government. The ETS involves payments from polluters to those who reduce emissions mainly foresters. The difference is highlighted by the fact that post-1989 foresters will receive $1600 million in carbon credits in the Kyoto period to 2013 whereas the cost to business and consumers will be $900 million – leaving about $700 million during the Kyoto period to be met by the Government. Far from the ETS scheme being a tax in disguise it will actually cost the Government money.

Australian's Still Face Kyoto Costs

Recent events in Australia where they have not been able to get their ETS through their Senate has people wrongly assuming there will be no cost for Australian businesses and consumers. The Rudd Government has committed another $5.1 billion to clean energy initiatives. This money, of course, has to come out of the pocket of Australian consumers and businesses. They are also taking a regulatory approach that requires all power companies to invest heavily in converting to renewable electricity. The cost per unit of power of these requirements is actually greater than the cost of the New Zealand ETS.

The crucial point here is that countries face a Kyoto cost either as taxpayers or as emitters, and all of the economic advice is that it is more efficient and cost effective to put the cost on those who can do something about how much they emit.

New Zealand Is Not Leading The World

A common complaint with our policy is that the ETS is now leading the world. This is completely untrue. 29 of the 38 countries with Kyoto commitments have an ETS. That's more than three quarters - the bulk who are in the EU. The EU scheme covers 43% of their emissions, as compared to 23% of ours. Theirs has been imposing costs on businesses and consumers since 2005 – ours starts in 2010. It's worth noting that the EU's per capita emissions are about half ours and are 9% below 1990 levels as compared to our 23% increase. The truth is we are closer to leading the developed world in increasing our emissions than in reducing them.

Progress internationally on climate change is continuing to advance. President Obama stated on Friday his ambition to have the Senate pass their cap and trade scheme, already approved in the House, by years end. Already in the US there are state schemes operating. The 10 north-eastern states are already part of a cap and trade scheme, and a further 13 have schemes at various stages of development. Four Canadian provinces have similar schemes. Japan too has announced plans to make progress on the same sort of approach.

The claim of New Zealand leading the world would be true if we were insisting on implementing an all gases, all sectors scheme on 1 July. We're not. The scheme only provides for a half-obligation. Our plans to move to a full obligation in 2013 and to include additional sectors are conditional on progress being made internationally. We've got reviews of the ETS in our legislation scheduled for 2011 and regularly thereafter. A key test will be in ensuring New Zealand does not carry an unfair burden of the cost of constraining emissions and that our approach takes the least cost way of meeting our international obligations.

National Has Halved ETS Costs

Our Government has halved the costs to businesses and consumers of Labour’s ETS, with an increase of about 3.5 cents a litre on fuel and 5% on the price of power. These cost impacts need to be kept in context. The cost to an average dairy farm of the fuel, power and processing impacts of the ETS is 0.5% of returns. The ETS will impose less cost on the average farmer than a 0.1% increase in interest rates.

Opportunities To Offset ETS Costs

The obvious way a farmer could offset the cost of the ETS for the average farm is to plant on unproductive areas of the farm in forest. An area of only 6 hectares would offset the 1 July 2010 electricity and power costs of the ETS by generating $4000 per year over 30 years in carbon credits.

There are many new technologies available to reduce on farm energy costs. For example, the installation of heat pump technology in the dairy shed can deliver more than $2000 a year in savings in electricity. Studies of irrigation also show thousands of dollars of savings from modest efficiency improvements in systems.

We've got a big job ahead over the next two months in communicating to households not just the cost of the ETS, but the opportunities to make energy efficiencies and savings. For instance just correcting the tyre pressure on the average car can save $130 per year. Changing driving habits for the average motorist can save $300 a year. The Government is helping to offset the ETS cost for a household by providing an $1800 home insulation grant and a $1000 grant for solar hot water systems. These would each save an average household $400 a year in energy costs, greatly exceeding the ETS costs of a $165 per home.

Business Needs Steady, Consistent Approach

One of the reasons our emissions growth compares so poorly to other countries is that for two decades public policy has been all over the paddock. We in National proposed a carbon tax in 1994, but then switched to work on an ETS in 1999. Labour proposed a carbon tax in 2004, and then switched to a very ambitious ETS in 2006. We campaigned and have delivered on a much more moderate and realistic ETS. It's no surprise Business New Zealand and the newspaper editorials from Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin are saying stay the course. Businesses and the economy need a steady and consistent approach, and that's what your Government is delivering.

Conclusion

We Kiwis value our clean green brand and want to be part of the solution, and not the problem, on climate change. We don't want to lead the world in emissions growth anymore than leading the world in emissions cuts. We know we need to be planting more trees. We know we should be building more renewable power stations. And we know we should be investing more in energy efficiency. Doing nothing is not an option. Our very moderate ETS is the sensible way for a National government to make progress.

ENDS

You can find a copy of the Minister's presentation on the ETS to the Central North Island Regional Conference here: http://www.bluegreens.org.nz/uploads/NickSmithETSpresentation.pdf

Time to reward our environmental heroes

nospam@example.com (admin) — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 13:28:00 +1300

Environment Minister Nick Smith is calling for nominations for the 2010 Green Ribbon Awards which honour New Zealand’s environmental champions.

“The Green Ribbon Awards acknowledge the outstanding contributions that many New Zealanders make in caring for our environment,” Dr Smith said.

“Nominations are open to all individuals, businesses, community organisations, media and public sector initiatives which demonstrate visible results from their commitment to the environment.

“This year marks the 20th year of these awards and they have been refreshed with a stronger focus on practical environmental initiatives that will make a positive difference to the New Zealand environment. There are six categories covering different environmental challenges from land to sea and six categories for different contributions from individuals to large organisations.”

The 12 categories this year are:

Protecting our biodiversity
Reducing our carbon emissions
Caring for our water
Managing our waste
Improving our air quality
Protecting our coasts and oceans
Community action for the environment: Young people
Community action for the environment: Volunteers and not-for-profit organisations
Environment in the media
Small businesses making a difference
Environmentally responsible large organisations
Public sector stepping up

“It takes initiative, commitment and dedication to tackle environmental issues. The Green Ribbon Awards recognise the incredible efforts being undertaken at all levels across the country to address some of the environmental challenges and opportunities that New Zealand faces.”

Nominations close on 16 April 2010 with winners announced on 3 June 2010. For more information visit www.mfe.govt.nz/withyou or email green.ribbon@mfe.govt.nz

Govt consulting on tree weed exemption

nospam@example.com (admin) — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:54:00 +1300

Minister for Climate Change Issues Nick Smith today announced the Government’s proposed regulations for allowing the clearance of some tree weeds without penalty under the Emissions Trading Scheme.

“A flaw in the previous Government’s ETS was that it heavily penalised landowners for clearing tree weeds. These regulations fix this problem and ensure that the ETS does not inadvertently result in more tree weeds.

A discussion document on the exemption and the regulations that govern it was issued today. Submissions close on March 29.

“Forestry is internationally recognised as an essential part of the solution to climate change, but despite the positive benefits of carbon sequestration, some areas of forest are considered tree weeds due to their ability to spread and colonise other land.

“This exemption will mean groups such as the Mid Dome Wilding Trees Charitable Trust in Southland will be able to continue its good work in eradicating wilding pines from delicate high country grasslands without facing financial penalties under the ETS. There are other areas like the Marlborough Sounds where this too is a problem.

“These changes are part of the Government’s pragmatic approach to climate change and ensuring the ETS is more workable.”

All consultation documents can be downloaded from http://www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/consultation.htm

Govt releases resource management reports

nospam@example.com (admin) — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 12:07:43 +1300

Environment Minister Nick Smith and Local Government Minister Rodney Hide today released the findings of independent reviews initiated in October last year into the performances of Environment Canterbury and the Far North District Council.

“These reports were initiated as part of the Government’s broader agenda of taking a more active role in the performance of local government on resource management issues. The two councils performed poorly in the 2007/08 survey of resource consenting processes,” Dr Smith said.

Mr Hide said: “The review of Environment Canterbury was broadened to include Local Government Act issues in response to a joint delegation of Canterbury Mayors seeking wider Government intervention.”

Dr Smith said he was pleased the Far North District Council, while having performed poorly in the past, had made an impressive effort to lift its game.

“Significant changes have been made by the Mayor, Council and its Chief Executive to their resource management process that has resulted in a much improved performance. We see no need for further Central Government involvement but I encourage the Council to progress the minor additional improvements identified in the review. I commend the Council for the efforts it has made to fix what has been a serious problem in the Far North for a long period.”

Mr Hide said the report on Environment Canterbury was concerning and challenging.

“It is difficult for the Government to ignore the unanimous conclusions of the four reviewers and the major issues they raise about its capacity to manage water in Canterbury.”

Dr Smith said the Government recognises water issues in Canterbury are of national significance.

“Changes are needed to address water quality concerns, processes for allocation and provision for storage. Our response to this report will need to be aligned to the important work programme of the Land and Water Forum and the Canterbury Water Management Strategy.”

The Ministers said the Government had not formed a view on the major changes proposed in the report.

“We will be consulting with Environment Canterbury, Canterbury Mayors, Ngai Tahu and key water stakeholders before making any decision. Our considerations will be mindful of the recommendations for urgent intervention but also of the huge significance to the long-term well being of Canterbury of these proposals,” the Ministers said.

Dr Smith and Mr Hide expressed their thanks for the positive way the two councils had engaged with the review process and for the professional job undertaken by both review groups.

The two review reports can be downloaded from the Ministry for the Environment website at http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/rma/investigation-performance-environment-canterbury/index.html and http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/rma/review-far-north-dc-consent-performance/index.html

Efficiency incentives proposed for RMA

nospam@example.com (admin) — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 12:05:00 +1300

The Government is determined to improve the processing of resource consents and will introduce incentives to ensure this occurs from 1 July 2010, Environment Minister Nick Smith says.

Dr Smith today released details of the regulations for consultation.

“Last year’s report on resource consent processing identified that 31% of resource consents were processed late and another 28% involved an extension of time," Dr Smith said. “The report also identified that this problem had got progressively worse over the last decade.

“This new policy of a financial penalty on councils for late consent processing is designed to reverse this trend and get councils focused on providing a timely service.”

The discount regulations suggested approach is that councils must provide a discount of 25% for a consent one week late, with an additional 5% per week up to a maximum of 80%. The regulations also set out procedures for determining fault, and definitions to ensure the incentives are workable.

“It has long been councils’ policy that a penalty is loaded on ratepayers for failing to pay rates on time. If it’s good enough for the goose; it’s good enough for the gander. This new policy applies the same principle where the council fails to meet statutory timeframes.

“These regulations will set the minimum discount for lateness but councils will have the option of developing their own tougher regime if they wish. For instance, some councils already offer a free consent if late (i.e. a 100% discount) and will be able to continue to do so.

“This new policy is about recognising that time is money. New Zealand’s economic recovery cannot be held back by inefficient and costly red tape.

“The Government is seeking feedback on the details of these regulations and will then work to have them in place by 1 July this year.”

For more information, go to http://www.mfe.govt.nz/rma/central/regulations.html.

New standards proposed for soil contamination

nospam@example.com (admin) — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:47:00 +1300

New standards are needed to assist councils in dealing with contaminated sites, says Environment Minister Nick Smith.

Dr Smith today released a draft National Environmental Standard on assessing and managing contaminants in soil.

“The past use of chemicals or hazardous substances in industry, agriculture and horticulture has left a legacy of soil contamination,” Dr Smith said.

“Soil contamination in New Zealand is not as serious a problem as many other industrialised countries but we do have sites that pose risks to public and environmental health.

“Our track record of dealing with these at places such as Mapua and Waiwhetu Stream is chequered. Councils need greater guidance from Government to assist them and that is what the National Environmental Standard is all about.

“The standards will provide clear guidance to councils on the appropriate use of land depending on the soil contamination. Affected properties should only be regarded as safe for use if they have been systematically identified, assessed, and if necessary, cleaned up.

“The standards also define the level of concentrations at which the risk to human health is considered acceptable. This is based on the latest toxicological findings from international research.”

A 10-week consultation on the proposed National Environmental Standard for assessing and managing contaminants in soil begins tomorrow (6 February). For more information go to: http://www.mfe.govt.nz/laws/standards/contaminants-in-soil/

“These standards are about ensuring the public and landowners that district planning controls are appropriate, are nationally consistent and that councils gather and use the appropriate information,” Dr Smith said.