Local input into mining debate important

(Letter to the editor of the Southland Times today)

Invercargill Mayor Tim Shadbolt is no stranger to mining, having spent plenty of time tunneling through Fiordland rock when he was a younger man.
  Nowadays he seems to be taking a more cautious approach to industries that impact heavily on the environment and asks, in his Mayoral Moments column:
"Should Southlanders accept mining or should we fight tooth and nail to protect our environmental heritage and clean, green image?"
  The answer is obvious to me, but the National Government seems to have dismissed it and grinds-on with its pro-mining agenda in our region, despite what Southlanders might think about it.
  The mayor, referring to Southland's goldmining past adds: "Our wealth is based on exploiting the environment, and now we have to reverse our mindset and collective memory."
  District Mayor Frana Cardno echoes his disquiet.
  She says on her mayoral blog;
"Of grave concern to me personally and to many others I talk to in Southland is the mining of our lignite resources."
  Could someone please tell John Key and his pro-mining ministers that Southlanders, especially our mayors, want to have their say about his plans to tear up the place?

Missed comment from Bernie from Straterra

(Sorry Bernie - your comment was languishing in my spam bucket and I only found it this morning. I'd like to add my thoughts later.)


I am happy to debate climate change issues with anyone, including Mataura meatworkers. I respect Jeanette Fitzsimons, however, cannot agree with her views, and views like it, on the global climate change response. On CCS, I suggest you read the Transfield Worley report on our web site. Commissioned by the NZCCS Partnership, it was written by people who know a lot about CCS, and that forms a counterpoint to your source. To the bigger issue, what NZ should do by way of a climate change response, at issue is that taxes from the direct and indirect economic activity arising from Fonterra pays for one in four hospitals, and schools in New Zealand. Much of Fonterra's wealth is earned by using coal and gas to turn milk into milk powder. Fonterra competes against subsidised producers of dairy products, so it uses cheap energy and other inputs. Sure, we could be more aggressive with our climate change response, put a much bigger price on carbon in our domestic economy, and then risk the collapse of our economy, because no one else is doing anything significant. New Zealand, in fact, has the most comprehensive framework for any ETS in the world; on that sense, we are the world leader on the climate change response. Meantime Canada pulls out of the Kyoto Protocol, there is no guarantee Australia will introduce its fixed price carbon scheme, Japan and Korea are dragging the chain, the US is not doing anything worthwhile, etc etc. Yes, we should be prepared to take serious action, but this is only worth doing if everyone takes action. It's the classic Prisoner's Dilemma, granted. How to get around it? James Hansen's global carbon tax is hopelessly naive. For now, CCS has to be a crucial part of the global response. Jeanette, and others, should get behind this technology, instead of criticising it at every turn. Regards, Bernie Napp, Straterra

Our visionary mayor - Frana Cardno

Keeping our resources for future generations

Mayor of Southland District, Frana Cardno today wrote an extraordinary opinion piece for The Southland Times - one that deserves to be broadcast as widely as possible and through it, our wonderful mayor should receive comment from around New Zealand for her clarity of vision and bravery in speaking from the heart where our other mayors seem to be mumbling from their wallets.

Frana writes:

"In today's world it's all about the global economy and global environment, but I think we must start being aware of possible issues in our own country first. New Zealand is sold overseas as 100% Pure, but that marketting slogan is very much at risk.
  We are a wealthy country compared to the Third World and we should be looked upon as leaders. I believe strongly we are only borrowing the land from future generations and as such , the resources we are so fortunate to have in Southland do not have to be used by this generation. In the future I am sure we will come up with alternative energy sources that are environmentally friendly. New Zealand is responsible for only 0.2 per cent of global greenhouse emissions, but that is still quite high per head of population, compared with other countries.
  We cannot expect to continue to market our agricultural exports to the rest of the world, using our clean, green image to promote them, unless we show some commitment to reducing those emissions.
  Of grave concern to me, and to many others I talk to in Southland, is the mining of our lignite resources. I know there are sceptics in the world who do not believe in climate change and the effects on our environment, but why take the risk?
  Lignite mines of the scale proposed will be visible to any visitor and will affect our landscape and reputation to tourists and consumers in our overseas markets.
  I guess it's hard to believe on a beautiful day in Southland that there are problems, but I am equally certain in the reality of climate change, particularly after the large number of of in-depth studies on climate change and the various side-issues, including fuel-use, that surround it.
  Not least in this list of studies is that recently released by Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Dr Jan WRight.
Lignite and climate change: the high cost of low-grade coal discusses lignite as a resource, New Zealand's climate change obligations, options to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and the impact of lignite use on those emissions.
  In her overview, Dr Wright states the Government agreed to reduce its annual greenhouse gas emissions to between 10 per cent and 20 per cent below the 1990 level by 2020. At the rate we are going at the moment, the emissions are on track to be 30 per cent above that level in 2020.
  "The production of diesel from lignite on the scale contemplated would increase New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions significantly," she says.
  The report goes on to say that lignite is a carbon-intensive energy-source and large-scale lignite use can result in green house gas emissions much larger than other fuel sources. However, the production of diesel and urea from lignite are both new activities that could qualify for support from the Government in the form of free carbon credits.
  "But it makes no sense that the Emissions Trading Scheme rules would lead to taxpayers subsidising, even at a modest level, new investment in outdated, dirty technology.," the report states. Dr Wright goes on to make recommendations to the Government, but I want to emphasise to all Southlanders that if they do not want large-scale lignite mining, they need to voice their opinion to central Government now.
  Importantly, lignite will not deteriorate while left in the ground until future generations discover technology to use it with less environmental impact.
  For now we need to capitalise on our New Zealand Pure image to maximise returns for the food products we produce so efficiently from Southland for the markets around the world.

FRANA CARDNO

Jan's in Southland - all's Wright with the world

This morning I met the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Jan Wright and had a wee chat with her, before she began her adress to the combined councils of Southland. I have long admired her work, especially her findings and conclusions around lignite mining. Today, my admiration for her grew, both from what I heard from her in our little tete a tete, and from the presentation she gave to the assembled be-suited councillors.
Her message on lignite? It's the very worst of the fuels and presents too many problems with it's production. Jan was very clear that she doesn't find credible, Solid Energy's (Don Elder's) assurances that they will sequester the CO2 produced beneath Southland's green pastures, or under the seabed of the Great South basin, or that they will off-set the huge volumes of gas produced, by planting trees. She managed the climate-denier from the Gore council, he's the Deputy Chair I believe, well, by presenting the reasons for her firm belief that climate change is real, and comforted him by saying, 'I commend you for taking an interest', but that's as much as she was prepared to concede. Southland's Mayor Frana Cardno spoke powerfully about her concerns around lignite, saying that buried lignite was, 'money in the bank' and that that is where it should stay for the meantime. Jan described the extraction and use of lignite as a fuel as, 'truly unsustainable', and gave it no quarter. Those in attendance must have been struck by her clarity of purpose and depth of knowledge of the lignite issue.
I've not had a chance to hear what their reactions are but will be asking around for their opinions later.
She, incidentally, described the situation with the Waituna Lagoon, as 'truly alarming'.

On briquettes

Rex, a commentator at Red Alert had this to say about factories that turn coal into briquettes:

"If you want to know what happens when coals is used to make briquettes go to the old Carbo site at Rotowaro. This factory left a very serious legacy of environmental destruction which the Waikato Regional Council [Environment Waikato] has had to spend a lot of money to clean up."

His comment, which should interest Southlanders thinking about Solid Energy's briquetting plant, now under way near Mataura, follows this post by Charles Chauvel, that describes Labour's approach to the lignite mining issue facing us down here at the moment. I've cut'n'pasted the whole thing believing that Charles'd not mind.

Mining lignite doesn’t make the cut

Posted by Charles Chauvel on July 22nd, 2011 New Zealand has extensive lignite deposits in Southland and Otago. Some think that we should be using this “mineral wealth” for economic good. For example, Solid Energy, a state owned enterprise, want to mine Lignite in Southland. They’ve proposed converting the former Mataura mine site into a $25 million briquetting plant. This would make about 90,000 tonnes of briquettes a year from 150,000 tonnes of lignite.
I’m opposed to this proposal because, from an environmental perspective, it just doesn’t make sense. Dr Jan Wright, Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is correct, when she observes that “the plans to increase lignite use are extremely concerning as they would produce huge quantities of carbon dioxide which contributes to climate change”.
We won’t be arbitrarily prohibiting such mining operations simply because we don’t happen to like them. We will apply an appropriately calibrated Emissions Trading Scheme to them. Under any such scheme, its highly unlikely that the Southland proposal by Solid Energy would make the cut.
Lignite mining and conversion would only be likely to be viable under a properly calibrated ETS if forests of new trees were planted to off-set the increased emissions, and currently experimental carbon capture and storage technology were deployed commercially.
Unfortunately, we have a government that believes that the environment should be sacrificed for economic growth. John Key is on the record as saying, “At the moment companies like Solid Energy are growth companies and we want them to expand in areas like lignite conversion”. What he needs to realise is that for New Zealand, economic and environmental well-being are intertwined, not two separate, competing considerations.

The bedrock of democracy

More letters in today's Southland Times, from people at Wednesday's 'lignite' meeting, at which, briefly and unsuccessfully, the past-chairman of Environment Southland attempted to subvert the democratic process. These 3 letters describe his failure as well as some values the letter-writers got from the occasion. The editor chose the 'bedrock' heading.

It was disappointing to hear Cr Robert Guyton being criticised for his initiative in organising a meeting to gauge the depth of feeling over Solid Energy's proposal to mine Southland's lignite. (July 7)
  I have always believed that public consultation is the bedrock of democracy and must be employed whenever controversial issues arise.
  It serves the dual purpose of clearing away misunderstandings by providing people with accurate information while also providing the decisionmakers with an insight into the feelings of the people they represent.
  This step may prove to be an inconvenience to those groups that have their own agendas but it is the process that saved the old Southland Electric Power Supply from privatisation and succeeded in retaining it as a consumer owned non-profit trust.
  Robert Guyton obviously shares this view, as well as appreciating the need to avoid breaking the conflict-of-interest protocols or showing any preference.
  In my opinion he succeeded in doing this throughout the meeting by taking a completely disinterested stance, encouraging everyone present to speak and refraining from adding any leading comments. He was there to listen and learn but not lead the discussion.
  This lignite mining issue deserves widespread public debate, because whatever decisions are made today will prove to be highly praised, or roundly condemned, by future generations.
ALAN SWALLOW
Invercargill

Collie questioned

I question Mr Collie in his chastisement of Environment Southland councillor Robert Guyton for what he says are predetermined views, and outspoken viewpoints.
  In Mr Collie's point of view, this means Mr Guyton should not be on a consent hearing committee.
  So how can Mr Collie be so sure that the other Environmnet Southland board members don't also have strong-held predetermined views?
  They may have viewpoints that are totally opposite to Mr Guyton's.
  I suggest to him that just because they are not outspoken doesn't mean they don't have strongly held political and personal biases, that are revealed in their decisionmaking with resource consents.
  Mr Collie's own political biases are well known. I ask Mr Collie, when he was in the position on Environment Southland could he honestly say he never once allowed this to affect the decisions he made or his stewardship as its chairman.
  Thankfully, with Robert Guyton, at least the community knows what he represents.
  Personally, like many at Mr Guyton's meeting, I was appreciative for his giving the public a chance to have a say on the many important environment issues which do now and will affect Southland in the future.
PAULINE MACINTOSH
Invercargill


Attacks don't work

Mr Collie (July 7) needs to stop grandstanding and accept that he is not the chairman of Environment Southland now.
  Attacks on Robert Guyton's integrity did not work at the local body elections. They do not work now.
  Mr Guyton was elected as a well-known environmental activist, just as many well-known farmers and those of other persuasions have been elected in the past.
  Guidelines around conflict of interest are quite clear. It is up to the current chairman of Environment Southland to decide if they exist and have not been declared.
  There is a reason lignite has stayed in the ground so long.; the worst, lowest-energy coal gets mined last, if at all.
  People at Wednesday's meeting wanted to talk about more than briquettes.
  They wanted to talk about why lignite to liquids might not be a good long-term answer; about environmental impacts; about what might be better in energy economics; about the fact that there are more jobs in renewables and in agriculture than in unsustainable mining.
  Fortunately, apart from Mr Collie's interruption, that was what was discussed.
  Good on Robert Guyton for organising such a meeting, and I hope it is not the last such.
LESLEY SOPER
Labour candidate, Invercargill.

Councillor holds own meeting

Councillor holds own meeting on miner's plant

An Environment Southland councillor says it would be futile to sit on the committee hearing the case for a briquetting plant at Eastern Southland, and will hold his own public meeting instead.
  Robert Guyton, a member of the council's resource consent hearing committee, said yesterday he would hold an informal meeting to gauge public opinion on Solid Energy's plans to build a $25 million briquetting plant near Mataura, as legislation meant he would be unable to "ask the questions I feel are most important" at tomorrow's hearing.
  A clause in the Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill meant councils could not consider climate change and the impact of greenhouse gases when granting consent applications, so the public was unable to question the potential environmental impact of lignite mining at tomorrow's hearing, he said.
  Rules that meant regional councils had to look at conset applications on a case-by-case basis was flawed - as shown recently at the waituna Lagoon, he said.
  "It's death by a thousand cuts" and I'm not happy to sit and allow that to occur." Mr Guyton said.
  That clause made him wonder how much sway industry had on the country's policy-making, and what direction the National-led Government was heading, he said.
  Last month the Gore District Council approved a resource consent application from the Government-owned energy company, and Prime Minister John Key has backed plans to mine Southland's lignite.
  Tomorrow's Environment Southland hearing is for water and discharge permits.
  Mr Guyton said he believed the committee would approve the application, but it was important councillors heard a range of viewpoints and were not close-minded.
"[At meetings organised by stakeholders] I've found they can't really have a say too easily. They're more there to be told, to have the case presented to them, rather than back-and-forth sharing of information," Mr Guyton said.
  He wanted to hear from those in support of mining plans just as much as he wanted to speak with others in opposition, and planned to present the findings of tomorrow's discussion when Environment Southland attended a presentation by Solid Energy later this month, he said.
  Environment Southland chief executive Ciaran Keogh yesterday declined to comment on whether he believed Mr Guyton should be attending the consents hearing, rather than holding his own meeting.
  "It's actually a substantial political argument, and it's not up to me to be involved in that realm," he said.
  However, Mr Guyton and other committee members were under no obligation to attend every single hearing, and what each councillor chose to do as a private individual was their business, he said.
  Mr Guyton will hold his meeting at the Invercargill Public Library from 1:30pm to 3:00pm tomorrow. The resource consent hearing will begin at 1:30pm at Environment Southland.

 alana.dixon@stl.co.nz

The other lignite meeting

I'm spending some time at the library - the Invercargill Public Library and I won't be alone (I hope!)

Rather than sit through the Solid Energy consent application being held at Environment Southland at the same time where I doubt I'll be able to raise the concerns I have, I've opted for a meeting of my own - an informal 'meet your councillor' event in the city, where I hope concerned citizens (and rural Southlanders) will come and talk with me about what they feel about the proposed lignite mining by Solid Energy. I've no intention to lecture - I'm not learned when it comes to the issue but I'm willing to listen to those who will be most affected by the mining. The Southland Times have shown a lot of interest in the 'alternative' meeting and sent their journalist and photographer out for a chat and a shot. Tomorrow's rag will, with any luck, carry the story. If they do, I'll post it here.

Highs and lows

I'd wondered if the the recent publicity for this blog through the Southland Times and Southland Express might have had an effect of readership - I imagined it might have a beneficial effect but there was no way of knowing whether it would boost or kill off my readership, so I took a look behind the scenes at the 'stats' facility that Blogger provides for its bloggers and found that it's climbing strongly. That's very pleasing and I know what to do if at some stage it begins to dip - wind up my fellow councillors to such an extent that they throw me into the spotlight again! It won't be difficult - they're getting very tetchy about my expressed interest in Solid Energy's plans for mining Mataura, even though I assure them, quite genuinely, that our role as councillors is to unearth (sorry for the pun) all of the facts from all sides of the argument, before making any decisions. Hasn't placated some of them though and they continue to simmer :-)

Kickin' Nick

Best stop-him-in-his-tracks question at tonight's 'Meet Mr Smith Meet' went to the lovely lady from Lumsden, who asked the Minister (who had just described how important the Government felt it was to follow Best Practice with all mining and drilling projects in NZ, based on overseas models),

"Minister, can you tell us, where is the world's best practice example of lignite mining?"

A stunned and awkward silence enveloped the Minister before he claimed that he 'wasn't willing to say'.

The complimentary bag of dirty ol' lignite goes to Chris Henderson for both the quality of the question, and the timing!

Key loves lignite

Today's Southland Times editorial explores the Government's 'born too soon' energy paper and finds it soaked in oil and coal dust.

"Acting Energy and Resources Minister Hekia Parata is at pains to emphasise the energy strategy mistakenly published online is just a draft. But it would be only a slight misapplication of that word to read it as a strong indication of which way the wind is blowing. It certainly isn't a first draft"

Parata's first public task defending the indefensible is going to paint her black, despite the colour she was reportedly bringing to the coal lovin' Nats. This leak of the Government's energy strategy shows them ignoring all submissions and continuing their bulldozer-push toward digging up every resource they can get to - Southland lignite especially.

"As far as the lignite issue is concerned, Ms Parata hammers the point that "for too long now we have not made the most of the wealth hidden in our hills, under the ground and in our oceans. It is a priority of this Government to responsibly develop those resources."
Mine mine mine Ms Parata!
We had hoped you would resist the disease of greed, but seems you too have succumbed.

Shooting down the Nats

"This is a Government who are allowing Solid Energy to build a lignite production facility in Bill English's electorate to power his Brother's Federated Farmer's industry cheaply."

Ah Tumeke!
You've done it again!

That clear?

Solid Energy has plans to start mining lignite in Southland, turning low-grade coal into diesel, urea, electricity, and briquettes. If the projects go ahead, our carbon emissions will go through the roof.

We cannot develop a sustainable economy by subsidising activities that intensify climate change and dig up our environment in the process.

The Government should be looking for clean green energy solutions. We need to amend the ETS so that there's a price on all new activities that increase carbon emissions and support for sustainable alternatives.

Kennedy Graham, Green MP

Kiwi of the Year

What does New Zealander of the Year Sir Paul Callaghan, have to say about the country that bestowed the honourific upon him?
Amongst other things, he says New Zealand had reached its limit on how it can exploit its natural resources.
"Mining our national parks may get us a few billion [dollars] but it's paltry in comparison to the damage to the brand it will do."

Coal action!

This is what the Coal Action Network has to say about the report from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment's report (just released) on lignite.

Lignite Costs The Earth


MEDIA RELEASE
Coal Action Network
Thursday 9th December 2010


The Coal Action Network today praised the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE) for exposing the high environmental cost of Solid Energy’s plans to exploit South Island lignite reserves in her new report ‘Lignite and climate change: The high cost of low grade coal.’
“For too long, Solid Energy has used greenwash, contradictory statements and snazzy promotional videos to obscure the reality of what they are planning to do in Southland,” said Coal Action Network spokesperson
Frances Mountier. “In her report, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has clearly shown how digging up and using South Island lignite would incur a prohibitively high environmental cost.”

“The reality is stark,” continued Ms Mountier. “Solid Energy has managed to lay its paws on 1.5 billion tonnes of lignite reserves. The PCE’s report states that there are over 6 billion tonnes of economically recoverable lignite deposits in Southland and Otago.[i] If Solid Energy, L&M and the other companies exploit all 6 billion tonnes, they will be responsible for releasing 8.89 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent into the atmosphere.”[ii]
“It’s not true that New Zealand is too small to make a difference on climate change. We can let these companies go ahead with their plans, and bring the world closer to the tipping point of runaway climate change, or we can stop them in their tracks, and make a major contribution to the stability of the world’s climate.
“We need to keep the coal in the hole,” Ms Mountier concluded. “We need to send the message that the mining companies must abandon their plans to mine and burn Southland lignite.”

Urea from wood?

"There is a pretty wide agreement that if we don't reduce the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, we are all going to hell in a hand basket. Some people believe that we have already gone too far and no matter what we do, it is too late."

Willian Huges-Games at Thoughts on the Roof. describes his thoughts on lignite, urea and ...wood waste!

His ideas are well worth exploring. He says,

"It has been proposed by our New Zealand Solid Energy that they turn their lignite deposits into urea for the farmers. At present we import much of our urea so this would help our balance of payment, provide jobs and enrich holders of shares in Solid Energy (MP's???). So far so good. However, it would become our largest emitter of Carbon Dioxide in the country, even surpassing our large coal fired power station at Huntly."

And asks, then answers this question,

"Is there another way. Well, yes there is. You can make urea from almost any carbon based substance from methane to pure carbon. You can also produce urea from wood wastes."

If you've an interest in the proposals to mine and convert the lignite that lies below the farmland near Mataura, read this guy.

More on coal

Treesoftommorow has this to say over in Frogblog's pond -


"Jeanette Fitzsimons has announced a six-point plan to effectively shut down NZ’s coal industry, which includes converting Solid Energy into a renewable energy company and closing the Huntly Power Station.

She suggested a change in direction for SOE Solid Energy too:

Fitzsimons believes Solid Energy should cease investigations into converting Southland lignite to liquid fuels and instead focus on becoming a renewable energy company, building especially on its expertise in waste wood. She notes Solid Energy has recently invested in a wood pellet and wood stove business, as well as a solar water heating business, and is also producing bio-diesel from rape seed.
 
And here's the article he cites:
 
Greens Want To Close Down NZ’s Coal Industry


April 30th, 2008

The Green Party has outlined a radical policy that includes a ban on new coal mines, with a view to phasing out coal production in NZ apart from a small amount for specialist non-energy uses. Co-Leader Jeanette Fitzsimons has announced a six-point plan to effectively shut down NZ’s coal industry, which includes converting Solid Energy into a renewable energy company and closing the Huntly Power Station. Thankfully for Labour and National, Fitzsimons says the Greens won’t make the coal mining policy a bottom-line issue in any post-election coalition talks. But she has accused both parties of “greenwash and spin” over coal, noting the Govt has banned new coal-fired power stations in NZ but is happy to export coal to be burned overseas. Fitzsimons argues there is sufficient coal in existing mines, which the Greens are not proposing should shut down, to keep market contracts supplied and the workforce employed. But she believes a Govt that aims to be carbon neutral can’t allow its own State Owned Enterprise to carry on expanding coal production, either for domestic consumption or for export.

The only exemptions would be for specialty coals in small quantities for uses such as carbon fibre and activated carbon, and for enough local coal of a sufficient quality to keep NZ Steel supplied. The Greens will also try amending the Emissions Trading Bill to include coal seam methane in the climate change obligations of coal mining companies. Fitzsimons also dismisses the idea of “clean coal” as “a highly misleading slogan” of the coal industry. While carbon capture and burial may be possible one day, she sees this as “a hugely expensive red herring” which is diverting funds away from renewable energy research.

Fitzsimons believes Solid Energy should cease investigations into converting Southland lignite to liquid fuels and instead focus on becoming a renewable energy company, building especially on its expertise in waste wood. She notes Solid Energy has recently invested in a wood pellet and wood stove business, as well as a solar water heating business, and is also producing bio-diesel from rape seed. About 5m t of coal is mined each year in NZ, most of it by Solid Energy. Almost three-quarters is high-quality coking coal, which goes to Japan, India and other countries for steel making. Huntly burns 44% of NZ’s coal. About half is imported from Indonesia and the rest comes from the Waikato coal fields. NZ Steel uses about 31% of domestic coal, and Fonterra uses it at several dairy factories to dry milk, as well as other big industries such as cement and aluminium.

Fitzsimons on coal

(Required reading for Southland Regional councillors)

Jeanette Fitzsimons, post parliament, reflects on her work in energy and climate change, and makes a confession.

For 35 years I have been wrong about how to prevent climate change. It’s time I confessed.



For 35 years I have worked to improve energy efficiency – insulating homes, efficiency standards for appliances, better light bulbs, fuel economy standards for cars, energy saving technologies in industry and farming. The assumption was that this would result in less fossil fuel being burned and less carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere. Well, it doesn’t.



For 35 years I have promoted renewable energy – solar water heating, solar electricity, wind power, log and pellet burners, biogas – assuming that these would result in less fossil fuel being burned and less carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere. Well, they don’t.



We would be stupid not to make those changes, which achieve cost savings, health benefits, warmer homes, jobs, more affordable energy, more profitable businesses and a stronger economy. But to protect the climate, we have to change tack. I’m changing tack.



Imagine you own a coal mine or an oil field, and demand for your product drops because people are using alternatives. Do you shut up shop? Not likely. Your job is to ensure that those resources get burned one way or another. So you look for a whole new use for the resource.



The key issue for the climate is how much greenhouse gas we allow to accumulate in the atmosphere. That total depends on how much fossil fuel is mined, and determines whether we cross the tipping point into dangerous levels of warming, with associated ice melt, acid oceans, storms, droughts and floods.



We are focussed on annual emissions to the atmosphere. We need to focus on how much of the total stock of oil, coal and gas in the world we can burn without destabilising climate, and therefore how much must be left in the ground forever.



Leaving a resource in the ground forever goes against the grain – our whole history and culture is built on making use of resources. It sounds daft to deliberately leave economically recoverable resources unmined. But let’s get used to the idea, because our survival depends on it.



James Hansen, renowned NASA climate scientist, has calculated how much more fossil fuel we can afford to use if we are to get back to 350 parts per million of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the level that he calculates will allow climate to stabilise. His recipe, set out in his 2009 book “Storms of My Grandchildren” allows us to use all the conventional oil (though not tar sands or shale or oil from extreme environments like the Southern ocean) but coal must be phased out completely by 2030, starting now.



New Zealand is heading in exactly the opposite direction. In addition to intense oil and gas exploration there are well advanced plans to use more than 3 billion tonnes of economically recoverable lignite from three fields in Southland.



These plans are big, and New Zealanders are hardly aware of them. Because we don’t need coal for electricity, State owned coal company Solid Energy has developed plans to use the lignite for fertiliser and diesel. This is why changing your light bulbs will not reduce greenhouse gases – Solid Energy, and its government owner, are determined to use that coal somehow.



The company wants to build a pilot plant next year to make briquettes, taking the water out of lignite so it burns cleaner and hotter (but with no less carbon emissions) for Fonterra’s milk processing plants and for export. The pilot plant will produce “only” 100,000 tonnes a year of briquettes. The full scale plant would be many times larger.



Next off the blocks is a plant to convert coal to crude oil and/or diesel. They claim they could produce all New Zealand’s diesel this way. Depending on the technology used, it is likely to double the carbon emissions of every litre of diesel compared with petroleum sourced fuel.



The third leg of the trifecta is coal to urea, a nitrogen fertiliser. More urea is more cows per hectare so more effluent in rivers and more nitrous oxide emissions – another powerful greenhouse gas.



Solid Energy say all the emissions will be “offset”. But increasing the amount of biological carbon that cycles between atmosphere and plants can’t compensate for long for putting more fossil carbon into the system, even if our ETS scheme pretends it can. Paying money is, in the end, not a get out of jail free card for increasing pollution.



These huge lignite developments are very close – Solid Energy intends to start building next year. Any hope we had of actually reducing our greenhouse emissions would go out the window.



We need to refocus international negotiations to keep most of the remaining coal in the ground, world wide. We need to refocus our domestic action as citizens to tell Solid Energy and the Government by every means available to us to keep the coal in the hole. Every tonne of lignite NZ keeps in the ground forever is 1.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide that doesn’t get into the atmosphere - ever.



We can do this and let energy efficiency and renewable energy give us a good standard of living, a prosperous economy, more jobs and a clean green marketing brand. But if we mine the coal, we are fooling ourselves that those “green” developments will do anything for the climate.

Mixed signals from Gore's mayor

Today's Southland Times reports that mayor Tracy Hicks has made some good decisions over potential conflicts of interest in his new council and has signalled that some councillors who have close connections with the proposed lignite developments at Mataura, should not sit on committees involved in those issues.
Good thinking Tracy.
He says that the planning and regulatory committees in particular are not suitable places for such individuals to sit.
"Cr Watt is director of farmer cooperative Ravensdown, which is a joint venture partner with Solid Energy in its lignite to urea.." seems some good judgement there Tracy, however..."Cr Bolger is one of the few landowners in the Mataura lignite field who has not sold to Solid Energy." ... which is, I suppose, reasonable enough.
The mighty clanger for me though, comes where Cr Bret Highstead, about whom I've written before, has been elected to the chair of the planning and regulatory committee!
Cr Bret Highstead's 'family involvement in the coal industry' (they sold their coal mine at New Vale to Solid Energy!) seems not to be seen as a factor that might affect his performance on that 'sensitive' committee!

I must be missing something here.

Someone might like to clarify for me what it is Tracy is doing.

Pundit - Leave it in the ground

"James Hansen, renowned NASA climate scientist, says we should cut off access to coal at source, because it is “the single greatest threat to civilization and all life on our planet”. Tim Flannery, who visited NZ recently, has said the same: “There is so much carbon buried in theworld’s coal seams [alone] that, should it find its way back to thesurface, it would make the planet hostile to life as we know it.”

Climate carbon negotiations: a black hole, and a new idea

by Claire Browning