Regenerative Livestyle Blog

Sharing my regeneration journey, enjoying living in harmony with nature

Category Archives: Pollution


by 1 Comment

Climate Change Mitigation

This is a summary/extracts of the Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change, Summary for Policymakers, IPCC. I’ve added some indicators: In red are the people’s potential for action, in green are the co-benefits.  I did not add any comment or anything that is not in the original 31-pages document.

Mitigation is a human intervention to reduce the sources or enhance the sinks of greenhouse gases.

Climate policies, to be effective, need to cross over all sectors and societal goals, include all countries and collective interests, based on sustainable development and equity. Addressing climate change creates co-benefits or adverse side-effects. No one action can itself solve the problem but working on all aspects has the potential to keep temperatures within 2 degrees increase (that is 450ppm) over the century, on which this report focuses.

Without additional effort to reduce GHG emissions, temperatures will have increased from 3.7 to 4.8 degrees celsius by the end of the century.

Anthropogenic (=man-made) greenhouse gas are CO2, methane, nitrous oxide and fluorinated gases. They’ve accumulated at an ever increasing rate in the atmosphere (+2.2% per year in the last 10 years).

GHG emissions

Now these gases come from these activities:

GHG by economic sector

It is demonstrated that the increase in population itself has not increased the CO2 emissions. It is the GDP per capita increase that has. Consumption has grown between 300% to more than 900% over the century.

Adverse side effect of mitigating climate change (within 2 degrees) is to reduce consumption growth by 0.04 to 0.14 percent points per year. Co-benefits include reduced costs for achieving air-quality and energy security,  significant benefits for human health and ecosystems. Overall, the potential co-benefits outweigh the adverse side-effects. Mitigation costs vary between countries.

Mitigation policy could devalue fossil fuel assets and reduce revenues for fossil fuels exporters.

 

ENERGY PRODUCTION

Energy demand will be reduced by efficiency enhancements and behavioural changes.

Energy use will be reduced by behaviour, lifestyle and culture change, complemented by technological and structural change.By Rama CC BY-SA 2.0

Decarbonizing (i.e. reducing the carbon intensity of) electricity generation is a key component of cost effective mitigation. The share of renewable energy, nuclear energy and carbon capture and storage (CCS) needs to increase to more than 80% of electricity generation by 2050 and fossil fuel power generation without CCS is phased out by 2100.

Renewable energy performance has improved and costs have reduced substantially, enable deployment on large scale.

Nuclear energy is a mature low GHG emission source of energy but barriers and risks exist: operational risks, and the associated concerns, uranium mining risks, financial and regulatory risks, unresolved waste management issues, nuclear weapon proliferation concerns, and adverse public opinion.

Natural gas power generation could act as a bridge technology.

Carbon dioxide capture and storage technology could reduce GHG emissions but has not yet been applied at a large scale. Also it raises concerns about operational safety and long-term integrity of CO2 storage.

Combining bioenergy with CCS offers prospects while it entails challenges and risks.

 

ENERGY USE

Transports

  • Technologies existing and in development improve vehicles performance: electric, methane-based fuel, biofuels (with CCS)
  • Integrated urban planning: investment in public transport systems and low-carbon infrastructure, transit -oriented development, more compact urban form that supports cycling and walking, high-speed rail systems…
  • Behavioural change to adopt these

A combination of the 3 strategies not only halve the transport contributions but also provide important co-benefits: improved access and mobility, better health and safety, greater energy security and cost and time savings.

Buildings

The energy demand for building is in expansion, as wealth, access and lifestyles improve. Opportunities to stabilize or reduce global buildings sector energy use by mid-century exist:

  • Energy efficiency policies, strengthening building codes and appliance standards
  • Implement recent advances in technologies and know-how
  • Retrofit existing building can achieve 50-90% of reductions of heating/cooling energy use.
  • Life, culture and behaviour significantly influence energy consumption in buildings (three- to five-fold difference).

Co-benefits: savings, energy security, health, environmental outcome, workplace productivity.

Industry

Currently the biggest emitter; Opportunities to reduce Industry GHG emissions below the 1990 baseline exist:

  • Energy efficiency can directly reduce emissions by 25%.
  • Process optimization, substitutions,
  • Resource use improvement, recycling, re-use

It is not only cost effective but it also comes with co-benefits for the health and environment.

Waste reduction and recycling are key to reduce landfill emissions.

Agriculture, forestry and other land use

A quarter of global emissions come from deforestation, emissions from soil, nutrient (fertilisers) management and livestock. Therefore solutions are: By DarKobra Urutseg Ain92 (File:Tango icon nature.svg File:Blank_template.svg) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

  • afforestation (planting trees), and sustainable forest management
  • building humus,
  • improving cropland and livestock management
  • changes in diet and reduction of food loss

These strategies also benefit biodiversity, water resources and limit soil erosion.

Bioenergy can reduce GHG emissions only if fast growing species are used, land-use is well managed, biomass to bioenergy systems are efficient and biomass residues are well used.


Human settlements, infrastructure and spatial planning

Urbanization is a global trend and will include 64-69% of the world population in 2050. It comes with income increases which are correlated to higher consumption. The next 2 decades are a window of opportunity to get it right as a large proportion of urban areas will be developed during this time and it’s quite locked in. Mitigation strategies involve:

  • co-locating high residential with high employment densities (reduce urban sprawl),
  • high diversity and integration of land use,
  • increasing accessibility in public transport and other demand (access oriented development).

Advantages are better air and water quality, time and health benefits.

Mitigations policies and institutions

Sectoral and national policies

Currently USD1,200 billion are invested each year for energy security. Large changes in investment patterns are required:

  • decrease of 20% in fossil fuel technologies (-USD 30 billions per year). The complete removal of subsidies for fossil fuels in all countries could result in reductions in global emissions by 2050.
  • renewable energy investments double (+USD147  billions per year)
  • investing in upgrading existing transports, buildings and industry systems require another USD 336 per year.
  • achieving nearly universal access to electricity and clean fuel for cooking and heating are between USD72 and 95 billions per year until 2030 with minimal effects on GHG emissions while improving lives, environments and equity throughout the world.

That is plenty of opportunity for business and growth and it creates large energy efficiency gains.

Policies integrating multiple objectives, increasing co-benefits and reducing side-effects have started to be experimented and reveal that:

  • Regulations and information (education) widely used are often effective.
  • Cap and trade systems for GHGs (carbon offsets) could be effective if the caps are constraining.
  • Tax-based policies (for example on fuels) raise governments income and allow them to be proactive or to transfer to low-income groups.
  • Technology policy include public funded R&D and governmental procurement programs.
  • By lumaxart (Working Together Teamwork Puzzle Concept) [CC BY-SA 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia CommonsPrivate sector can contribute to 2/3 to 3/4 of cost of mitigation with appropriate and effective policies, i.e credit insurance, power purchase agreements, feed-in tariffs, concessional finance and rebates.

 

International cooperation

Various cooperation arrangements exist yet their impact on global mitigation is limited. Many climate policies can be more effective if implemented across geographical regions.

 


by Leave a comment

It’s time to talk about climate change

Surely you’ve heard of it: the United Nations are having a conference in Paris in December to talk about climate change. And hopefully make some decisions. Well, they need help because they are going in the right direction but far too slow.

What we need to know:

ErosionStClair beach98% scientists agree and the IPCC reports are peer-reviewed and include “skeptics” point of view. The IPCC report “Climate Change 2013: Physical Science Basis” summarizes all data with a level of confidence (depending on amount and quality of data as well as degree of agreement) and a measure of probability (based on models results and expert judgement).

Therefore any data or projection that comes with a high confidence and a very likely probability has -virtually certainly- happened or is going to happen. This is what the report states:

Climate change IS happening

  • Data collection around the world averages nearly 1°C increase in temperatures since 1870.
  • Extreme temperatures, droughts, floods, storms, have doubled or tripled since 1880.
  • Sea levels have risen 250mm since 1880
  • Glaciers have lost an average of 14 meters depth since 1950, particularly since 2004.
  • Wildlife has declined and species have migrated. Biodiversity main threat lies more in habitat destruction and wildlife trade than in climate change. However, the coral reef demise (only 12% of coral reef is left) is directly linked to ocean acidification which is due to CO2 increase.

Climate change IS human induced

Climate change is caused by the release in the atmosphere of vast quaE48400 - Lower part of Fox Glacier with glacier mouth, February 2013ntity of CO2 from coal and oil extracted by humans to create the extraordinary unprecedented growth since last century. Massive deforestation and other land use have also contributed to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. In the last 800 thousand years, atmospheric CO2 has varied between 100 and 300 ppm. Today it is nearly 400 ppm.

Methane and nitrous oxide (also created by humans – agriculture) are less concentrated but have a higher greenhouse effect than CO2 and therefore need to be considered as seriously as CO2.

Now, for people who still wonder why we should worry, click on the image below. Early humans appeared sometimes in Pleistocene and all the civilizations we know have developed in the relatively regular Holocene period. If we don’t prevent this sharp heating of our planet to happen, the world as we know it is GONE.
All palaeotemps

There is hope though. If we choose the right scenario, we can help make this temperature rise go slower, enabling as many as living creatures (includes humans) as possible to adapt…

What will happen?

Projections have been made for 4 scenarios (called Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs).

  • RCP 2.6 is a mitigation scenario which aims at, with active policies, stabilizing then decreasing the CO2 emissions before 2100.
  • RCP 4.5 scenario aims at stabilising the CO2 concentrations by 2100.
  • RCP 6 scenario aims at stabilizing the CO2 concentrations after 2100.
  • Now RCP 8.5 is what will happen if we continue business as usual.

So I’ve been very nice and read everything for you and here is a summary of the effects, depending on the scenarios we choose:

Today RCP 2.6 RCP 4.5 RCP 6.0 RCP 8.5
Goal Reduction by 2100 Stabilisation before 2100 Stabilisation after 2100 Business as usual
CO2 concentration in 2100 398 ppm 421 ppm 538 ppm 670 ppm 936 ppm
Average air and ocean temperature

(since 1870)

 +0.85°C +1.8°C stabilised +2.5°C +3°C +4°C

(possibly +6°C)
Glaciers (cryosphere) 2% reduction since 1950 and accelerating 15 to 55% reduction 35 to 85% reduction

(ice free Arctic ocean in September by 2050)
Ocean acidification 8.1 8.05 7.95 7.9 7.8
Sea level rise (does not include the “not agreed on” possible Antarctic shelf collapse) +1.7 meter since 1900 +0.26m to 0.55m (compared to the average sea level between 1986 and 2005) +0.32m to 0.63m

(id)

 +0.33m to 0.63m

(id)

 +0.45m to 0.82m

(id)

And in Wanaka?

Just like Wanaka is a “lifestyle reserve“, Wanaka is also likely to be far less affected by climate change than many other places in the world. Not worried by sea level rise! And a bit warmer wouldn’t hurt, would it?

However…

In our mountains, the biggest worry will be a shortened duration of seasonal snow lying, a rise in snow-line and a decrease in snowfall events. Glaciers will continue to melt.

KeaThe Ministry for the Environment Climate change projections for the Otago region page is worth reading. They predict:

  • around 0.9˚C warmer by 2040,
  • it will be wetter in winter and spring (more 29 % in Queenstown by 2090), drier in summer and autumn.
  • very heavy rainfall events are likely to become more frequent in Otago, increasing the risks of floods.
  • more often and stronger storms in winter (less in summer), with winds increasing between 2 and 5 per cent in winter, increasingly westerlies.
  • About the snow, “at heights between 1000 and 2000m:
    • the maximum seasonal snow depth is likely to decrease by approximately 20 per cent by 2040 and approximately 40 per cent by 2090
    • a low snow year is expected to be five times more likely by the 2090s.”

Unfortunately Treble Cone summit lies at 2088m and Cardrona at 1860m…

In the NIWA Natural hazard 2008 report, landslides, hailstorm, snow storms and electrical storms are all described for Otago. The fruit industry in Otago will be affected by summer droughts. The winter frosts will decline therefore bugs are likely to thrive.

And climate change is going to affect our native species, and their habitats in many diverse ways, states the Forest and Bird website. Birds and natives may have to move up to survive in their usual temperature but it is not always possible so it may mean they are out. Also some species, like tuataras -we don’t have any in our area to my knowledge- need a specific temperature for incubation therefore climate change is adding a threat to their survival.

Conversely, pests and insects are opportunist creatures and will make strides in changing conditions.

There is a last aspect I think is significant for our area: the impact of climate refugees, coming to live in our town because theirs is doomed. This is why it is not only altruistic to act for the climate. We are definitely all in there together!

Solutions are well-known

We all urgently need to stop our petrol and coal consumption. There are so many other ways to produce energy (eg. solar panels), to save energy (e.g. insulate), avoid useless motorized traffic, buy local… And we need to make pressure on our local bodies so they create effective public transport systems, safe cycle lanes, better housing regulations. And we can put pressure on governments so that they encourage renewable energy rather than support fossil industry.
Worms-from-coffee-compost-pile
Agriculture and forestry also need to improve their practices. An IFOAM report explains in 2009 that “agriculture currently accounts for 10-12% of global greenhouse gas emissions” (ruminants and deforestation mainly) whereas, “global adoption of organic agriculture has the potential to sequester up to the equivalent of 32% of all current man-made GHG emissions“. So we can choose to buy organic, plant trees, drink less milk… and again pressure governments so that they promote organics rather than throw some sand into their wheels.

We can choose to avoid plastic, to recycle, to grow our own food to build up our own soil… In fact, there are so many solutions, that it will be the object of another article!

Mostly, we need governments to take the right decisions at the next Climate Conference, to choose effective mitigation of climate change and we have the opportunity to tell them :

Come and participate in the Climate March here in Wanaka, on Sunday 29th November, at 2pm in the Dinosaur park.

We can choose to change our lifestyle OR the climate will change our lives.

Sources:


by 1 Comment

We bought a Prius!

100_9451It’s been for a long time on my mind, so when in August we got a family tax credit lump sum, we decided to invest it in a good petrol-saving family car. Studying the market showed that the Prius is very reliable and cheap to run and maintain.

It comes in 3 generations (now in 4 but I did not look at the latest at all – not my price range).

  • The first version until 2004, was revolutionary but is oldish now.
  • The 2nd version 2004-2009 is super efficient – the best on the hybrid market by far.
  • The 3rd version is as efficient as the previous Prius and it is larger. I can’t afford a car that recent and I don’t really need larger.

3prius

There are plenty of 2009 Prius cars on TradeMe. I found one that had only 82,000km and costs NZ$12,000 (delivery to my door included).

It arrived on a beautiful day and was not easy to start (a combination of foot and button press is required and all  explanation is in Japanese). It was quite hilarious to have a new car that could not start and we had to take the truck transporting it to the garage!

Then I loved it. It is smooth and easy, it has an excellent handling, fun to drive. It is near silent while having a good sound system, making trips a pleasure. There is absolutely no change when the engine kicks in or stops. Seamless.

And, yes, it has an amazing low petrol consumption. So much that I forget to refill it! It has a display showing how many kilometers you can drive with 1 litre of petrol and if/when the battery get refilled or feeds the engine. I think it is quite a mind shift to count in km per litres, instead of the usual litres per 100 km. When it says I can only go 2 km away with one litre, it’s quite an incentive to stop accelerating. On average, with my main use being short distances in town, a full tank goes more than 850 km.

Prius_consumption

In average on the first 1,000 km the car drove 21.3 km per litre. The next 1,000 km, it managed 23.4 km per litres. Just changing the way I drive. An evening when streets were empty, I managed to cross the town only on the battery at about 40km /h. Yet, when there are cars behind me, I make a point of accelerating as required so that they don’t think my hybrid car is useless! It does have an excellent acceleration which consumes quite some petrol. Going uphill too, it can be quite fast, using energy accordingly. Which reminds me, all cars do use a lot of energy going uphill or in acceleration but they don’t have the screen to tell you so it’s easier to forget.

Beyond the car design, there are many ways to reduce petrol consumption. Awareness, awareness…

100_9453Since I have it, I’ve heard positive and envious comments and also denial ones. I was told that changing batteries cost a fortune yet found out that batteries are designed to live the car lifetime so exceptionally need to be changed. I was told it takes more than a normal car to build and dispose. That’s wrong, Toyota makes a point of having this right too.

When I see my petrol bill, I simply wonder why everyone does not have one. So go for it!


by 3 Comments

1080, diquat and co.

100% Pure NZ is systematically sprinkled with persistent organic pollutants, but don’t worry! All the studies prove it’s OK.

Actually, independent source Pesticides Action Network PAN declares it’s not OK, these products are on the Highly Hazardous Pesticides list (HHP list).

What’s the problem?

They do not disappear despite some biodegradability, they enter the food chain and they accumulate. From highly acute toxicity to long term toxic effects (carcinogenic and mutations), endocrine disruption, environmental degradation (ozone layer, effects on animals…), to hazard to ecosystems services (bees), HHP effects are varied. Cause and effects are not always obvious, often long term. Only highly acute toxicity is tested in most cases.

DiquToxicat dibromide is on HHP list. It can be fatal if inhaled ; Also toxic by ingestion and  dermal contact, including neurologic effect. It is chemically close to agent orange and was used in Vietnam too. It makes rats infertile. It is often found in cow milk.  It is unlikely carcinogenic but is known as a potential ground water contaminator. Diquat is used every year in Lake Wanaka in an attempt to stop lagarosiphon spread. It doesn’t stop it nor prevent it to grow again. In fact, lagarosiphon is not toxic, it is a habitat for native species, it absorbs nitrogen. It does annoy boaties, getting stuck in propellers. It does disrupt hydro dams (turbine shutdown and lost energy production), obliging hydro companies to invest in expensive measures against the plant.

ToxicGlyphosate (RoundUp)  is listed on the HHP list. It is not as biodegradable as Monsanto says. Not only it is quite persistent in water and sediments but also its degradation creates other toxic substances. It is known to have long term health effect on kidneys and reproduction organs. Its massive use also leads many weeds to become resistant and it is present in many surface and ground water tables. Besides, glyphosate is often associated with other chemicals for the weedkiller to be more efficient so you get the perfect cocktail for unknown consequences. Actually not so unknown as many many studies show severe effects but Monsanto’s powerful marketing machine is still winning.

ToxicPindone (not on the HHP list), however on PAN database, it is listed as highly toxic, causing nosebleeds, bleeding gums, bloody urine, extensive bruising in the absence of injury (ecchymoses), also fatigue, shortness of breath (dyspnea) on exertion. It may cause fluid in lungs (pulmonary edema). It is fatal or highly toxic for fish. Toxicity data is missing (no study done/recorded) as to cancer, water pollution potential and the bees. It is used to kill rabbits, with some success, although rabbits invariably spread again, possibly getting resistant.

Toxic1080 (Sodium fluoroacetate), is on the bad guys list as Extremely hazardous (Class 1a) according to World Health Organisation and fatal if inhaled. May also be absorbed through the skin. Leads to convulsions, laboured breathing, unconsciousness and death if untreated. DOC says 1080 is OK for NZ because it targets mammals and there is no native mammals in this country. 1080 is not used in any other country in the world because it would destroy mammals. Well, sorry but I AM a mammal and my children too. More and more research show that it accumulates and that it has long term carcinogenic and reproductive effects… In the local papers today, DOC kindly reassures us that fish ingesting 1080 are safe to eat because you need to “eat several tonnes of affected fish” to get a fatal dose. For me, “not fatal” does not equal “safe”. What about everything in between?

2014 is a mast year

In 2011, the Parliamentary Commission for the Environment publishes a report that supports the use of 1080 as the best solution available to help protect our native birds. Interestingly, independent scientists demonstrate just the opposite on their site 1080science.co.nz. A lot of information is on the Ban 1080 website.

Solidly based on the PCE report, DOC launches the “Battle for our birds”, with a record dropping of 1080, when we know that 1080 kills about as many birds as it protects them.

Which to believe?

I am not a scientist but I see clearly there is not enough consensus on that matter among scientists to keep using these HHP without questioning.

I know about Rachel Carson landmark book, Silent Spring, which warned, in 1962, that the use of pesticides would lead to wildlife destruction and a dramatic increase in cancer cases.

I have read Our Stolen Future, by Theo Colborne, which demonstrated in 1996, that even tiny doses of pesticides can alter human development and reproduction, as they are endocrine disruptors.

So I wonder… and I worry…

What do the pro 1080 win? Lots of money $$$ from selling and applying their product. Pro-1080-diquat-and-so-on justify themselves by any mean to keep doing business as usual.

What do the anti 1080 win? Nothing! They must have good precautionary reasons to spend so much time and energy fighting this!

Solutions?

I am not saying I have solutions. I just want people stop saying these substances are solutions. They are not. They are dangerous and don’t solve problems, hardly mitigate them. Saying they are solutions prevents everyone from searching for better ways -non toxic please.

I think we must stop thinking in terms of pests that we need to eradicate. Maybe consider them as resources? Lagarosiphon is excellent composted. Possums of course have made the fortune of many trappers. Some rabbit terrines are served in the best restaurants in some countries…

Maybe widen the issue to the whole system? We don’t have a “pests” problem in an otherwise perfect world. I know this may shock but it strikes me that National Parks are protected (from destruction by humans) and DOC is sole responsible for their maintenance yet forests are becoming silent. I know of some valleys that are privately owned and well looked after by their owners. No possums, no stoats, lots of birds, lush native bush. Maybe the system needs revisiting…

What if humans became again guardians of the land, respectful of nature, not consumers and controllers of nature? This does require quite a mind-shift and a lot of open-minded discussions. I don’t have solutions. But if we don’t look for them, we won’t find any and we’ll keep doing the same things with the same results.

What you can do

  • Take the warning signs seriously! It IS dangerous!
  • Join groups who set traps
  • Take photos of abuse and send them to the media, OSH, local authorities and beyond
  • Love your weeds instead of poisoning them
  • Generally avoid using chemicals, they all add up!
  • Prompt debates…

PS- I could make a very similar article about the pesticides used in agriculture, less visible but more widespread…


by 3 Comments

Open letter to New Zealand Oil and Gas stakeholders

Oil is black gold. It has brought unprecedented growth in technology and innovations, easing lives, improving health in most countries, and much more… I have calculated: Less than 10 litres of petrol can bring my family, my shopping and my car home from our nearest city 80 km away in less than one hour. It would take me 3 years to walk the same distance carrying my kids, my shopping and the ton of steel and plastic that is my car! Oil is fantastic and I thank you all, the oil industrialists, for this wonderful era of success.

But it comes with serious side effects, which I summarize below. Knowing this, is “growing NZ Oil and Gas capability” really the best thing to do? I am just asking you to reflect, to think. And I suggest ideas on how you could you use your skills and inventiveness, your investing capabilities and your leadership, to continue to innovate and bring progress while restoring life-sustaining resources and at the same time, improving your profits.

Take

Extracting substances from the Earth’s crust leads to a concentration of substances outside of the crust that nature cannot process. You are well aware of the first law of thermodynamics that states that both energy and matter cannot disappear. So extracting these materials that are normally tucked away in our Earth’s crust leads to their build up in the atmosphere and throughout nature. This results in, for example, rising levels of heavy metals in the soil, phosphate in lakes, cadmium in our kidneys and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The latter is our concern here because it comes inescapably from coal and oil combustion and it creates a greenhouse effect that has been proven to have devastating impacts on life on Earth. 97% of scientists agree that climate change is human induced. And this is a good news: it means we, humans, can actually do something about it.

There is enough oil left in the soils to raise the atmosphere’s temperature far above temperatures the biosphere can adapt to. Instead of focusing on extracting as much as possible, you can choose to help the world depend less on oil, for example by developing different engines or renewable energies generators.

Make

Oil is the raw material of many products that accumulate on Earth because they cannot be broken down and recycled by natural systems. Be it plastics that endure and pollute the oceans and its living creatures or PCB and fertilizers that are toxic to soils and concentrate in our bodies causing cancers, decreased fertility and other damage. Complexity and time-lags make it difficult to assess safe limits. Therefore the only precautionary option is to gradually phase out all non-biodegradable products. Your industrial capabilities could focus on replacing these artificial compounds with biodegradable substances with similar or better performance.

Break

Your activities result in degradation of the ecosystems by physical means and even worse, devastating spills, as in the Gulf of Mexico and other places, the toxic effects of which continue for decades. In a world where biodiversity has been reduced by more than 20%, it is time to choose what is important -the short term profits or ecosystems and their vital services, says the Convention on Biological Diversity, a United Nation agency

Moreover, as the easily accessed oil reserves are mostly emptied now, the techniques to extract oil are increasingly damaging to the ecosystems (e.g. fracking), or take place in increasingly difficult and sensitive places (poles or deep seas). These circumstances mean the effects of accidents will be more and more severe. Particularly in New Zealand, sitting on the Ring of Fire, any installation can, at any time, be toppled despite all the precautions taken. Instead of putting the Earth at risk, the responsible attitude is to start reorienting your activities now.

Share

Even socially, oil and gas production does not need to continue to increase. While some people still overuse petrol unaware of the issues, most people are unhappy to pay ever increasing prices at the petrol station and have started to reorganise their lives to travel and entertain differently, to buy locally and avoid using petrol based products. While the oil prices keep going up, its unaffordability becomes a social injustice. Arguing that emergent countries will need large amounts of oil simply does not work, as the Earth cannot sustain the consequent temperature levels. It is far smarter to invest now in renewable and affordable techniques rather than to make people believe that they can have all the benefits of oil without the consequences.

Financially, the oil and gas industry delivers shrinking profit margins due to the need for increasing investment required for each oil unit. Besides, its return on investment is insecure and also at stake is the relationships with with people, communities, associations and even governments. Social media enables increasing awareness and social action, and engenders unwanted side costs like the Denniston plateau lawsuit and many others. Meanwhile, you are subject to political change which can mean a revocation of contracts, such as in April 2013 in Belize.

Business for future generations

In this post-industrial era of change, carrying on with business as usual is not an option. However, if you think in terms of services (selling transport options, warmth, light, etc) rather than products  (oil, gas and electricity), then you can dream about creating energy efficient vehicles, insulating building materials, widespread solar and wind power and much more.

Many people are already working in these directions but are often lacking the necessary capital capabilities. There is huge opportunity in the economies of scale. If you want to learn more about these, watch this entertaining Amory Lovins TED talk and contact the Rocky Mountain Institute for advice.

In New Zealand, contact the Centre for Sustainable Practice, or you may be helped by the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority.

How could YOU use your finances, skills and creativity to bring energy breakthroughs?
I am looking forward to hear if you intend to ignore this information or to explore it and make your grandchildren proud of the difference you made to their world.

Thank you for your attention.
Kind regards.

Florence Micoud

A New Zealand citizen who cares
PS. Feel free to forward this letter to everyone involved, to your staff distribution list, to your shareholders… Feel free to reuse and discuss with colleagues… 


by 2 Comments

Global Change for Beginners

Puzzle ClipArtSo you sort of sense there are some issues looming, but it is quite confusing, seems still controversial and certainly helpless… Here are some basic elements and inspiration to help you assemble the puzzle.

The links and organizations mentioned in this article (in maroon) have credentials, are reputable and are important sources for further information. I recommend you read the whole article first and then click and explore the links.

Hard facts

There is proven human induced climate change. In its latest Climate Change Report dated 2007, the IPCC states that temperatures had already increased by an  average of 1 degree in the 20th century, and will continue to increase by 2 to 4 degrees by 2100 if greenhouse gas emissions are not curbed. Climate changes also include an increase of extremes, draughts, winds, floods, colds and heatwaves. Some places will become colder. The next report is in progress but intermediary announcements have underlined that the projections and scenarios are lower than what is actually happening. People who cast doubt about it have either an interest in keeping business-as-usual or are looking for excuses, being unable to consider change yet.

Human activity and settlement is creating irreversible damage on world biodiversity, jeopardizing its capacity to regenerate itself.  It is not only sad that many species disappear but it is also hugely harmful to human society as biodiversity provides us with a wide range of services, free and taken for granted. Here is the summary of the very official Convention of the Global Diversity.

Resources are running out, whether it is water, oil, or minerals… Clean air too! Some, like phosphorus, are not directly essential for us but their rarity would have dire consequences… The nitrogen cycle change is another example of the human activities tremendous impact.

There is a global economic and social crisis -just watch TV!- and despite rebounds, we all know that doing more of the same thing is not going to improve anything.

Well, the reality is that our earth has boundaries and we have been in ecological overshoot for many decades.

I have a “Drivers of Change” set with 175 cards each detailing different aspects of energy, waste, climate change, water, demographics, urbanisation, poverty. One group game consists in picking up one card each and meeting every other participant and discussing the links between the two seemingly totally distinct subjects. An amazing eye-opening experience.

Everything is connected. For example, the practices of modern agriculture, combined with the world demographics, creates a catch-22 to feed the everyone when productive land is being depleted or constructed for human expansion, resulting in rocketing food prices, worsening the social crisis and the state of the environment… “Whatever befalls the Earth – befalls the sons of the Earth. (…) Whatever Man does to the web, he does to himself.” Says Chief Seattle in his famous 1854 speech.

Ostrich clipartFlight or Fight!

Too much!! Panic!!!

You may prefer to ignore or escape in consumerism, in drugs, in hopes that we will go on Mars…

Or read on…

There are solutions! Lots! And we need lots of people to make them happen. It is a team work. Everyone’s little action at his level contributes.

30 years ago, we were wacky… or pioneers. And yes some of us are extremist! Many people like me worked to identify, analyse and communicate the issues; many people have been experimenting and finding solutions. It may be new to you, but it not new and many solutions have been tested and approved.

Today, we are innovators and there are many early adopters. Be part of them!

It has been demonstrated that when 13.5% of the population has embraced a change, then the majority engages. No need to spend energy to convince people, they will come on board. Just Change yourself, what you can, when you can. That is your part of the Global Change.

Change is not easy and everyone is not venturesome. Around us, many people act to make change easier, for example creating cycle lanes to enable people to cycle to work safely. So while more and more people embark on the boat- bike!- , more and more change is possible in a virtuous spiral. Listen to Elizabeth Sahtouris inspirational talk.

Change for what?

Here I introduce the sustainability principles as guidelines for change, from the Natural Step (explained in 2mn, or for kids)

  1. Is a choice/ an action taking always more resources from the earth crust?
  2. Is it creating things that the earth cannot digest and therefore persist and accumulate in our ecosystems or atmosphere?
  3. Is it somehow destroying part of the biosphere, undermining its regenerative capacity?
  4. Is it preventing other people from having a decent life?

If an answer is Yes, then try and change it. If all answers are No, then your choice / action is sustainable. Simple, no?

Solutions levels

Intergovernmental and governments decide on rules and laws

I do not expect much from them as they are very lobbied.  However we can influence these:

  • with online activism following Avaaz, Choice and many others ;
  • write submissions and get involved politically;
  • or for the bravest, stand as a candidate for the Local Government elections

Business and industry profit more when saving the planet

Business is driven by profit, which derives from the difference between the selling price and the cost to produce a good or service. Therefore,  for many MANY years, business has tried to get the cheapest resources, get more work done by workers paid minimally and externalizing costs.  Today resources are increasingly expensive. Delocalisation for cheap labor reaches its limits, polluting is getting to visible, laws and consumers are more demanding…

Paul Hawken demonstrated way back in 1994, that business and industry can be restorative of the environment. Because it is more profitable, more and more businesses, like InterfaceFlor,  are redesigning the way of producing. Sustainable and socially responsible business is the way of the future.

Community level can be very effective

Together, we achieve lotsBe part of or create associations that promote energy descent, nature restoration, social justice… The Transition Town movement is getting momentum and induces a lot of change. In New Zealand, Transition Town Aotearoa networks and support communities, responding to the twin challenges of climate change and peak oil.

Also locally, write submissions and get involved politically. It may be worthwhile participating in Community Associations to bend them in a sustainable direction.

There are many global-change-friendly communities in the world, even some large ones like Whistler in Canada, Curitiba in Brazil or Nelson in New Zealand.

Individual level is the most reachable

How you spend your money is a powerful tool with which you can really make a difference. For example, you choose to support an industrial farmer using pesticides, polluting water, harming his animals etc when buying his produce at the supermarket OR you support the living of a friend at the local farmers market. Do you see how strong your choice is?

Changing requires a mind shift, a change in yourself. It requires you realize that you are a human,  part of the society, itself part of the environment. Economy is not an aim nor the ruler of all life, but the mere tool for societies to function.

From  to 

It requires that you realize that you ARE either contributing to the problem or you ARE part of the solution, from “what can I do anyway-I’d better keep going as usual” to “Wherever I am on this track, it is worthwhile for me, for the planet and for future generations, and I am going there”. And just start.

Think on how you eat (best is organic, local, vegetarian food), how you move (prefer bike or collective transports), how you heat your dwelling (reduce your energy consumption). And sieve them through the 4 questions above. Here is a Sustainability at home comprehensive  Checklist, courtesy of The Natural Step Canada.

We are all at a different stage on the path, and depending on circumstances one may have to go backwards. No judgement. It is not an excuse not to “keep aiming at” sustainability.

working together4

I hope that by now, terror and oblivion has been replaced hope and determination. The only problem left is “Are we early enough?” but better late than never...

Lots of actions and initiatives have already contributed to mitigate the issues, giving nature and beings more time to adapt to change. For example, the ozone layer depletion has started to reduce since 2009, thanks to the 1987 Montreal protocol.

Remember, you are not alone, we need many hands to go faster and also”the more the merrier“!

Here are some resources to give you information in specific domains and a lot of inspiration. Have a wonderful voyage!

More main resources

For positive news: Happyzine in NZ ; Guardian Green Living blog (Yes UK but quite worldwide) ; Tree Hugger with humour ; Celsias NZ, solid source but not always fun…

For news about New Zealand nature : Forest and Bird

Check out the resources from the Centre for Alternative Technologies in Wales and Terre Vivante in French

Here are Sustainable Initiatives and projects in NZ, mainly by the Centre for Sustainable Practice students.

Here is the American Earth Policy Institute Action plan B.

Lots of cool stuff on RSA Animate and TED talks

 

Agriculture, gardening, food and health

Organic New Zealand and Permaculture New Zealand

Information about Pesticides, in New Zealand and internationally, also What’s wrong with Pesticides?

Energy, transport, building

Rocky Mountain Institute, US based but lots of positive information about energy, transport and housing. See Amory Lovins inspiring TED talk here.

Renewable Energy World blog

The Future From black oil to a green future

Economics

Living Economy website in New Zealand

New Economics Foundation, Economics as if people and the planet mattered

Here a New Zealand online guide to eco-accommodation, organic cafes, food supplies, Māori cultural tourism, and environmental tourism activities.

Sustainable business network in New Zealand

Here are many more interesting links . It is also worthwhile “Liking” some organisations of your interest on Facebook and exploring their “Likes”. Focus on the good news and practical how-to aspects.

Please leave a comment if you find inaccuracies or to suggest too-good-to-miss links.


by 2 Comments

Tunnel vision…

Submission to the proposed Milford Dart Tunnel

To the Director General
Attention: Robyn Roberts
Southland Conservancy Office,
Department of Conservation,
Box 743, Invercargill 9810.
Email: invercargill@doc.govt.nz,
southlandconcessions@doc.govt.nz

I am writing this submission against the Milford Dart Tunnel as information manager specialised for 20 years in environmental issues, as I have seen many stories of private interest wanting to nibble and encroach on public conservation land, whether for resources extraction, access or use. The proposal will particularly affect two of my favourite places in New Zealand, Glenorchy and Hollyford Valley, both of which I value for their pristiness,  remoteness and quietness, all qualities that will irremediably disappear if the project is  granted.

Duty of Protection

The National Parks Act 1980(section 4 (1)) states that the role of National Parks is to preserve in perpetuity, the scenery, ecological systems and natural features of the parks for the benefit , use and enjoyment of the public.

Besides, The Resource ManagementAct Section 6(b) makes the protection of Outstanding Natural Landscape a matter of national importance.

Both sides of the proposed tunnel are so far outstanding natural landscapes with no human constructions in sight. The entrance of a tunnel will create an everlasting scar in the landscape. No amount of tree planting can ever mitigate such a visual impact.

Furthermore, it is within a World Heritage Area http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/551which place the responsibility to protect the zone in the New Zealand state who signed the convention http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext  to “ensure the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of the cultural and natural heritage”.

Adverse effects

Noise, air pollution and dust resulting from the transit of an estimated average of 23 buses a day (peak 40) will not anly affect the peace of the other Park users but also the wildlife, that includes in the areas, the mohua, an endemic species in grave danger of extinction on the mainland. A few numbers still live in the canopy in the first three kilometres of the Routeburn Track, that is very close to the proposed tunnel entrance.

On the Hollyford Valley side, I remember hearing each car that would from time to time pass on the remote road, when resting near the river. I remember the birds stopping to sing for a while after each noise in the evening. I also remember noticing the smell of the scarce cars’ fumes when walking on the road and the inconvenience of the dust each created. The passage of buses will be heard and smelt which severely affect the peace for the National Park users.

In particular, noise from buses will impact on Routeburn track and visitor centre and can’t be adequately remedied, avoided or mitigated.

Effects of noise, vibrations, air pollution and dust on fragile and sensitive animal species are not known and I require studies to be carried out to determine whether there are adverse effects or not on all the native animals of the area, including mohua, whio, kākā, bats and parakeets to name a few.

The works for the proposal involve removing potential habitat of threatened species:

• Clearance of 8,500m2 (80m by120m,) of mature mixed broad leaf forest, including 6 large podocarp trees (probably kahikatea) for portal and staging area Hollyford Road. This is the  preferred nesting or roosting habitat for 2 species of bats and kaka and rifleman. I require a survey to be done to prove that none of these native protected animals actually live in the designed area. And if there are, they would need to be protected and the works not done.

I note that some native trees planting is planned to remedy to the clearance. Planting trees does not compensate for the loss of 300 years or more of growth for trees.

• Removal of vegetation from Hollyford Portal and Hollyford airstrip construction staging an area over about 7ha. Hollyford airstrip area includes vegetation important for red admirals and a small area of intact conifer/broadleaf forest. It should not be allowed to be destroyed.

New way not desirable

New roading is inconsistant with both the Mt Aspiring National Park Management Plan (policy 1 section 6.6.4)http://www.doc.govt.nz/upload/documents/getting-involved/consultations/current-consultations/otago/draft-manp-management-plan.pdf  page 69 and the Fiordland National Park Management Plan (part 5.7) http://www.doc.govt.nz/upload/documents/about-doc/role/policies-and-plans/national-park-management-plans/fiordland/part-five-5.7.pdf as it is in the back country zone, it will spoil the enjoyment of theNational Parks by other users, and it is not required for access to departmental visitor facilities, thus making the proposal outside any exceptional circumstances for allowing new roads.

Part 3 of the Conservation Act 1987, section 17U states that “the Minister shall not grant any application for a concession to build a structure (…) where the activity could reasonably be undertaken in another location that is outside the conservation area (…) or  could reasonably use an existing structure of facility”. Which is the case as the Milford Road http://www.nzta.govt.nz/projects/milfordroad/ State Highway 94 is one of the highest and most scenic state highways in New Zealand. Part of the magnificience of the Milford Sound destination is definitely the journey, with its many well maintained tracks and facilities.

The excursion does take more than 4 hours from Queenstown but is scenic all the way which contributes to the WOW factor of the experience. Surely the road to Glenorchy is scenic as well but I doubt the experience of travelling in a 11 km tunnel will be enjoyed by many. The disaster of the Mont-Blanc tunnel is in all the minds, as well as 2009 Chunnel fiasco. I require studies of people stress when going through long tunnels, demonstrating it is not significant, as it will impact on the tourist in New Zealand average experience and overall level of satisfaction.

The planned road and tunnel is not for the general public but will be for private, sole operator access through/under a national park, so there is no added benefit to users of Mt Aspiring National Park. Although it is beyond DOC responsibility, I want to underline that this tunnel will externalise costs on the general taxpayer.  New Zealand Transport Agency is currently maintaining the Milford road to a high standard, at a high cost for the nation. The proposed tunnel will oblige NZTA to also improve and maintain the Queenstown/Glenorchy/Routeburn road, which ill be costly (for example at “the Narrows” site).

Enormous works impacts

Even of temporary, effects of the construction activities are huge and are planned for several years and yet, can’t be adequately remedied, avoided or mitigated.

They include, but are not limited to:

• Clearance of at Hollyford for   construction – includes concrete batching plant, gravel crushing   , workshops, generators, water treatment plant, office   accommodation, fuel storage, sedimentation and water treatment   ponds. (80-100 people on site during construction).

• 12m   diameter 4m high spoil surge pile and settling ponds and tanks at   Routeburn portal site

• Noise, dust and lighting effects on   wildlife not known

• Spoil disposal will raise airstrip by   7-7.5m – potential flooding risks

• Sediment flowing into   waterways and thence into Hollyford River

• Taking gravel   from river for concrete making

• 30 -35 truck movements per   day from portal to airstrip on Hollyford road

• Acid leachate   – 1% of tunnel spoil may contain sulphide rich rocks. I require   further studies to  find engineering solution to this problem, or   a study that proves that it will not have any negative impact on   nature.

• Tunnel discharge water into Hollyford River

•   Weed invasion to disturbed sites

• Intensive trucks   circulation on both sides, implying pollution and insecurity for   other road users

Private vs Public

Last but not least, the fact thatit is solely for private use and to capitalise on surplus mining equipement http://www.tunnelandminingnz.co.nz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=308&Itemid=49 , the fact that project’s website  www.milforddart.co.nz or the consultants’ once existing websites http://www.brownandcompany.co.nz/projects/milford-dart-tunnel/(Nearly same page on http://www.brownpemberton.com/projects/milford-dart-tunnel/ ) do not work, are signs of  transparency avoidance and confirm that there is nothing for the interests of the public in this idea.

Such a massive project is inapropriate in National Parks and will have enormous long lasting visual effects and bring irremediable destruction. I hope you will consider the responsibility we have to maintain natural resources for future generation to enjoy and will therefore refuse this application.

I do not wish to be heard, mostly because I do not have time nor money to go to the hearing, but I trust like-minded associations will support my view point in the hearing.

May my submission add weight to their evidence and submissions.

Kind regards.

Florence Micoud

References:

http://www.doc.govt.nz/getting-involved/consultations/current/notified-concession-applications/dart-passage-tunnel-milford-dart-ltd/

http://www.forestandbird.org.nz/what-we-do/news/submissions-needed-on-proposed-milford-dart-tunnel-and-fiordland-link-monorail

http://www.fiordland.org.nz/Files/Submission-guide-on-Dart-Passage-Tunne.pdf


by 1 Comment

Formal opposition to dairy farming in Hawea Flat

Open letter to the Otago Regional Council

 I am startled by the prospect of intensive dairy farming in Hawea Flat, a high quality rural lifestyle area. Feeling that it can damage beautiful Hawea river and far beyond, I did a bit of Internet research to understand… Here is gathered and summarised relevant information. Press Ctrl key and click on the blue underlined words to open links to internet documents. I am not a farming specialist and I do not even live in the vicinity… I just hope this letter contributes to an important debate. I also ask some important questions and I hope you will take the time to answer to them.

I have read in the News that it will be done the “Best possible way”. Everything is done by the rules, Otago Regional Council is setting up some monitoring tools, and there will be some jobs (Wanaka Sun 25th August). Great. But in the 25th September meeting in Hawea, ORC acknowledged that it cannot guarantee water quality.

Intensive dairy farm “the best possible way” does not mean it is good enough. Laws are too loose to protect our waters as detailed in this submission against the Freshwater management act by the Guardians of Lake Wanaka and The Cawtron report on National Policy Statement available from Fish & Game website.

To summarize the issues, Regional councils can let water quality degrade as long as some others are improved. In the case of our pretty good water quality overall in our upland area, it simply means that the law allows our waters to be degraded. It is important to be aware of the fact that the current laws do not set any limits to freshwater pollution. Water quality standard, mainly compliance criteria exist only for public drinking water.

National laws let the Regional Council decide. Now I ask you, my Regional Council, to decides on good water quality levels.

Intensive dairy farming is the main water polluter in NZ

Damming is partly responsible for freshwater species decline when it does not provide migratory routes facilities. Industrial and human pollution are affecting water quality obviously too. But many studies prove that land use intensification is the main cause of water quality decline in New Zealand, in particular intensive dairy farming.

From the detailed article “Clean, Green and endangered” article by David Brooks published in Forest & Bird Issue 341, August 2011, dairy farming leads to:

  • lots of water being removed from rivers,
  • pasture erosion, leading to flows of sediments
  • damaging nutrients from fertilisers and animal waste leaching back into our water bodies.

In a following article “Our Sacred cows”, by Dr Mike Joy says “the number of cows milked in the South Island has increased sevenfold”. He adds:

  • Only shed effluent is controlled by regulation
  • Other effluents are unchecked (uncheckable indeed), just an externality
  • Worse still, cows are fed with imported palm kernel, for which rainforests are massively destroyed
  • In 20 years, the dairy boom has generated a 700 per cent increase in nitrogen fertiliser use, with the consequences detailed in a previous research.

That is a case against intensive dairy farming alltogether, not only in our backyard.

If intensive dairy farming is a national threat to waters, then surely it is not good for Hawea waters, is it? How doing the same thing could have a different outcome?

What happens when the monitoring tools will show an increase of pollution? Can you remove pollution from water tables? Will they then reduce the numbers of cows when the damage is done?

No resource consent needed

If water if not a resource, then what is? Yet, there is no need for public submission to resource consent for land use intensification. This is why there was no resource consent submission for Hawea dairy farming plan, therefore no avenue for people to say what they think. We cannot trust our Council to protect our waters, because laws do not cover it properly. The community interests are not protected by the law. The laws give advantage to dairy farming which is a leading NZ export sector (i.e. lots of $$ for some), provided that they intensify production. Meanwhile in Europe, the catastrophic state of rivers prompted capping intensification and reducing fertilisers use.

I have explored the MFE website, in particular the “Managing Waterways on Farms” section. Now, tell me if I am wrong but the only thing I found is: “The first priority for the management of nutrient contamination should be excluding livestock from streams and stream channels.” Should! It is not even compulsory! I have also skimmed the Otago Regional Council Plan : Water and found the word “livestock” once. In the FAQ however, I find: “while you are allowed to graze all forms of stock near waterways, they must not damage or pug the bank or contaminate the waterway in any way”.

Even this law is not applied. I often witness cows walking in the rivers around the area, for example: Bulls grazing in Cardrona River on Robrosa Station, or cows roaming Motatapu river below the Wanaka-Mount Aspiring Road bridge.

It is also shown in the beautiful award-winning documentary River Dog by James Muir.

Now cows defecation impact on water quality is well documented for example in this study “Water quality impact of a dairy cow herd crossing a stream” by the Royal Society of New Zealand published in 2004 (find the conclusions on page 7)

It is important to note that even if not poured directly in the river, dejections and fertilisers do reach the water table or the rivers as it is acknowledged on the MFE website page Type of Activities that pose a threat to water quality. Check it out. There is no “Best possible solution”. Cows dejections and fertilisers WILL sooner or later end up in our waters.

May I remind some decision making principles detailed in page 27 of the Know How guide to decision making the Local Government Act 2002? http://www.lgnz.co.nz/library/files/store_021/DecisionMaking.pdf

    1. Consideration of community views.

    2. Recognition of diversity.

    3. Interests of future communities.

    4. Impacts on well-being.

    5. Prudent stewardship.

    6. A sustainable development approach.

It seems to me in this dairy farm decision that all these points have been neglected.

So I ask ORC to impose public submission for resource consent before a farm becomes intensive, and to enforce the recommendations about keeping cows out of waterways.

Consequences on our waters

“Just drink the water from the lake” is now a health hazard, as well as swimming in many areas. Water from the tap, is also an issue. The Ministry of health states in an ESR report dated 2006 that “ the actual number of waterborne cases lies between 18,000 and 34,000 a year”! In Hawea flat, residents take their water from bores reaching the aquifer. They will have to dig deeper to reach water and their water will be polluted one day.

Biodiversity is at great risk, with 60% of native fish, threatened with extinction, including the longfin eels. No fish ? No fishing! And many people have sadly observed a sharp decline in our areas in recent years. Also at risk, invertebrates, birds, freshwater crayfish and mussels.

New Zealand “100% pure” brand, a key to our thriving tourist industry is also at stake of course.

I have read the Otago Daily Time Article written to reassure residents about environmental impacts are that “Hawea is different, with low rainfall and different soil structure”. That raises more questions. How are they going to feed their cows on the famously lush- not!- grass of Hawea, without irrigation? Is irrigation not a factor of run-off? Different soil structure? Will it hold nitrogen in its little arms for ever? Or will the nitrogen take longer to reach the water table? Or what?

In other areas in New Zealand, Regional councils have taken steps once the damage was so obvious that it could not be ignored. After the devastating condition of the Waikato river, Waikato Regional council has established regulations to achieve 20 per cent reduction in the amount of nitrogen entering Lake Taupo, which includes 1.82 hectare per cow.

So I ask ORC to establish a sustainable maximum number of livestock heads per hectares.

Not sustainable!

As somebody texted it in a Wanaka Sun, “We, the people of Wanaka, were able to stop the already consented spread of human waste in Tarras by speaking out. (…) In a previous article in ODT, new owners were considering other options too, so we are not preventing them from doing business if we ask them to revert from their lucrative but damaging intensive dairy farm plan. And the stock will not arrive before next year so there is time for action. Let’s do it!

Fonterra can only collect milk for 10,000kg of milk solids a year or more for a farm situated beyond its usual routes (Alexandra, Omarama or Fox Glacier). Some data found on NZ Agritech website calculates that 250 cows produce an average of 315 milk solid per year. So they actually need 8000 cows on their farm…

Besides, this raises the issue of the fodder, fertilisers and milk travels and petrol use implied… Will Hawea flat milk travel to Christchurch to be processed or to Southland? Just not sustainable…

Now, in the Sustainable Development for New Zealand Programme of Action 2003, it is specified that government decisions should ensure the wellbeing of current and future generations as detailed in full in   http://www.beehive.govt.nz/sites/all/files/30199-med-susined-developm.pdf

PRINCIPLES FOR POLICY AND DECISION MAKING

The government recognises that its decisions should ensure the wellbeing of current and future generations. It will take account of the economic, social, economic, environmental, and cultural consequences of its decisions by:

• considering the long-term implications of decisions

• seeking innovative solutions that are mutually reinforcing, rather than accepting that gain in one area will necessarily be achieved at the expense of another

• using the best information available to support decision making

• addressing risks and uncertainty when making choices and taking a precautionary approach when making decisions that may cause serious or irreversible damage

• working in partnership with local government and other sectors and encouraging transparent and participatory processes

• considering the implications of decisions from a global as well as a New Zealand perspective

• decoupling economic growth from pressures on the environment

• respecting environmental limits, protecting ecosystems and promoting the integrated management of land, water and living resources

• working in partnership with appropriate Maori authorities to empower Maori in development decisions that affect them

• respecting human rights, the rule of law and cultural diversity.

It seems to me that the approval ORC gave does not follow these principles. It is just not professional !

You are paid by our rates to do a good job, to think before you sign an application. It is not too late to prevent the damage.

To summarise, I ask ORC:

  • to decides on good water quality levels
  • to impose public submission for resource consent before a farm becomes intensive,
  • to establish a sustainable maximum number of livestock heads per hectares.
  • to enforce the recommendations about keeping cows out of waterways
  • to create all rules with the future in mind. We can decide now on things that will make a good future. If we mitigate now, we will have to repair (if possible! ) in the future. The council is responsible for now and for later.

I thank you very much for your attention and look forward to your answers.

Florence Micoud

021 027 92481

Wanaka

florencemicoud@gmail.com

Sent on the 20/11/2011 to ORC http://www.orc.govt.nz/About-us-and-the-Region/Contact-Us/Contact-Us/, to the ODT odt.editorial@alliedpress.co.nz, to the Wanaka Sun theeditor@thewanakasun.co.nz and to email contacts, link posted on Facebook and sent on Twitter

Click here https://wildclarisse.wordpress.com/2011/09/05/intensive-dairy-farming-in-hawea/ for a previous post on the subject and interesting comments.


by 6 Comments

Intensive dairy farming in Hawea

7000 dairy cows on a 2322ha farm in Hawea Flat…

Startled by this idea, feeling that it can damage beautiful Hawea river and far beyond, I did a bit of Internet research to understand… Here is gathered and summarised relevant information. Click on the maroon words to open links to internet documents. I am not a specialist and invite you to leave comments if some statements are wrong or incomplete… I hope this post contributes to an important debate. Feel free to use any or all of it.

“Best possible way” not good enough

Intensive dairy farm “the best possible way” does not mean it is good enough. Rules are too loose to protect our waters as detailed in this submission against the Freshwater management act by the Guardians of Lake Wanaka and The Cawtron report on National Policy Statement available from Fish & Game website.

To summarize the issues, Regional councils can let water quality degrade as long as some others are improved. In the case of our pretty good water quality overall in our upland area, it simply means that the law allows our waters to be degraded. It is important to be aware of the fact that the current laws do not set any limits to freshwater pollution. Water quality standard, mainly compliance criteria exist only for public drinking water.

Intensive dairy farming is the main water polluter in NZ

Damming is partly responsible for freshwater species decline when it does not provide migratory routes facilities. Industrial and human pollution are affecting water quality obviously too. But many studies prove that land use intensification is the main cause of water quality decline in New Zealand, in particular intensive dairy farming.

From the detailed article “Clean, Green and endangered” article by David Brooks published in Forest & Bird Issue 341, August 2011, dairy farming leads to:

  • lots of water being removed from rivers,
  • pasture erosion, leading to flows of sediments
  • damaging nutrients from fertilisers and animal waste leaching back into our water bodies.

In a following article “Our Sacred cows”, by Dr Mike Joy says “the number of cows milked in the South Island has increased sevenfold”. He adds:

  • Only shed effluent is controlled by regulation
  • Other effluents are unchecked (uncheckable indeed), just an externality
  • Worse still, cows are fed with imported palm kernel, for which rainforests are massively destroyed
  • In 20 years, the dairy boom has generated a 700 per cent increase in nitrogen fertiliser use, with the consequences detailed in a previous post.

That is a case against intensive dairy farming alltogether, not only in our backyard.

No resource consent needed

If water if not a resource, then what is? Yet, there is no need for public submission to resource consent for land use intensification. This is why there was no resource consent submission for Hawea dairy farming plan, therefore no avenue for people to say what they think. We cannot trust our Council to protect our waters, because laws do not cover it properly. The community interests are not protected by the law. The laws give advantage to dairy farming which is a leading NZ export sector (i.e. lots of $$ for some), provided that they intensify production. Meanwhile in Europe, the catastrophic state of rivers prompted capping intensification and reducing fertilisers use.

I have explored the MFE website, in particular the “Managing Waterways on Farms” section. Now, tell me if I am wrong but the only thing I found is: “The first priority for the management of nutrient contamination should be excluding livestock from streams and stream channels.” Should! It is not even compulsory! I have also skimmed the Otago Regional Council Plan : Water and found the word “livestock” once. In the FAQ however, I find: “while you are allowed to graze all forms of stock near waterways, they must not damage or pug the bank or contaminate the waterway in any way”.

Even this law is not applied. I often witness cows walking in the rivers around the area, for example: Bulls grazing in Cardrona River on Robrosa Station, or cows roaming Motatapu river below the Wanaka-Mount Aspiring Road bridge.

It is also shown in the beautiful award-winning documentary River Dog by James Muir.

Now cows defecation impact on water quality is well documented for example in this study “Water quality impact of a dairy cow herd crossing a stream” by the Royal Society of New Zealand published in 2004 (find the conclusions on page 7)

It is important to note that even if not poured directly in the river, dejections and fertilisers do reach the water table or the rivers as it is acknowledged on the MFE website page Type of Activities that pose a threat to water quality. Check it out. There is no “Best possible solution”. Cows dejections and fertilisers WILL sooner or later end up in our waters.

Clutha river

Consequences on our waters

“Just drink the water from the lake” is now a health hazard, as well as swimming in many areas. Water from the tap, is also an issue. The Ministry of health states in an ESR report dated 2006 that “ the actual number of waterborne cases lies between 18,000 and 34,000 a year”! In Hawea flat, residents take their water from bores reaching the aquifer. They will have to dig deeper to reach water and their water will be polluted one day.

Biodiversity is at great risk, with 60% of native fish, threatened with extinction, including the longfin eels. No fish ? No fishing! And many people have sadly observed a sharp decline in our areas in recent years. Also at risk, invertebrates, birds, freshwater crayfish and mussels.

New Zealand “100% pure” brand, a key to our thriving tourist industry is also at stake of course.

In the News

According to the news, everything is done by the rules, Otago Regional Council is setting up some monitoring tools, and there will be some jobs (Wanaka Sun 25th August). Great. But if intensive dairy farming is a national threat to waters, then surely it is not good for Hawea waters, is it? How doing the same thing could have a different outcome? I was confused to discover that the Coopers’ farm consultant, Peter Hook, is also chairperson of Guardians of Lake Wanaka. So it may mean that things are done indeed in the interests of the Upper Clutha waters or, that the laws are well known and used… For whose interests is not sure yet… What happens when the monitoring tools will show an increase of pollution? Can you remove pollution from water tables? Will they then reduce the numbers of cows when the damage is done?

I have read the Otago Daily Time Article about it and wonder why the owners declined a meeting. Do they have something to hide? The answers provided in the article to reassure residents about environmental impacts are that “Hawea is different, with low rainfall and different soil structure”. That raises more questions. How are they going to feed their cows on the famously lush- not!- grass of Hawea, without irrigation? Is irrigation not a factor of run-off? Different soil structure? Will it hold nitrogen in its little arms for ever? Or will the nitrogen take longer to reach the water table? Or what? Many questions are unanswered and a meeting would indeed be great to clarify things…

What can we do?

As somebody texted it in the latest Wanaka Sun, “We, the people of Wanaka, were able to stop the already consented spread of human waste in Tarras by speaking out. (…) so write to or email the Otago Regional Council.” Good idea, thank you for making a stand! I had started to text to Wanaka Sun too but “did not dared”. Now this comment and others published about the subject prompted me to do a bit of research and send it to ORC. In a previous article in ODT, new owners were considering other options too, so we are not preventing them from doing business if we ask them to revert from their lucrative but damaging intensive dairy farm plan. And the stock will not arrive before next year so there is time for action. Let’s do it!

So I ask ORC:

There will be a meeting shortly organised by Hawea residents. Date and venue To Be Confirmed.

The Otago Regional Council organizes a meeting in Cromwell on Tuesday September 13 at the Presbyterian Church from 11am to 2.30pm. Agenda : update local farmers on proposed changes to the Otago Water Plan at a series of upcoming water quality forums. 

For the bigger picture, participate in Forest & Bird Freshwater for life campaign.

* 5.5 times more is planned in Hawea Flat. This rate would imply they “only” put 1277 cows on their land. Now Fonterra can only collect milk for 10,000kg of milk solids a year or more for a farm situated beyond its usual routes (Alexandra, Omarama or Fox Glacier). Some data found on NZ Agritech website calculates that 250 cows produce an average of 315 milk solid per year. 1277 cows will produce 1609 milk solids… Besides, this raises the issue of the fodder, fertilisers and milk travels and petrol use implied… Will Hawea flat milk travel to Christchurch to be processed or to Southland? Just not sustainable…

Florence Micoud, Wanaka

Any other idea? Please leave a comment below…


by 3 Comments

Nitrogen cycle…

In the Core Concept document of our Graduate diploma for Sustainable Practice are listed Nine planetary boundaries, three of which are in the red zone “Li-mit ex-ceeded“! Climate change, Loss of Biodiversity: Yes this is sad, I know lots about these. And Nitrogen cycle. Exceeded by 200% ! What is that???? I need to go back to my biology textbooks and discover that many seemingly different problems are all Nitrogen issues. Acid rain? Water pollution by nitrates? Lakes eutrophisation? Ocean dead zones? Have you heard of them? I had, but had not connected them yet: they are part of the HUGE nitrogen cycle issue…

Nitrogen

Nitrogen is a crucial element in all living things, essential part of the structure of proteins and nucleic acids. Atmosphere is made of 78-80 % of nitrogen gas (N2). But this molecule, N2, is so stable that it is rarely available directly to organisms. It is in mineral form, nitrates (NO3) , that nitrogen is assimilable/available/incorporated to plants and animal tissues.

Natural cycle

How is Nitrogen oxidized to its mineral form: through a several steps process of ammonification and nitrification.

Ammonification: Nitrogen fixing bacteria fix atmospheric nitrogen and transform it to ammonia NH3. These bacteria are either:

  • Azobacter, found freely in the soil, producing 25kg/ha/year of ammonia
  • Rhizobium, living in root nodules of mostly legumes, producing 500kg/ha/year

Ammonia also comes from animal excretions (urea) and the action of decomposers on dead organisms.

Nitrification: Nitrifying bacteria, nitrosomonas, transform ammonia in nitrite NO2, then another nitrifying bacteria, nitrobacter, transforms nitrite to nitrate NO3, which is assimilable by plants and animals.

Of note: Lightning discharges can oxydise nitrogen directly to nitrate which ends up in the soil, but accounts for only 10kg/ha/year.

Denitrification: The last part of the cycle is the process of denitrifying by anaerobic bacteria pseudomonas, that return fixed nitrogen to the atmosphere. They can evacuate only 20% of soil nitrates.

The cycle is imperceptible and yet fundamental to life and growth. I am not sure I will remember these names, but I understood there is a variety of different of bacteria and an order in the process therefore the cycle can be bottle-necked.

Industrial N-fixation

At the end of the 19th century, it was discovered that it was possible to transform atmospheric nitrogen into ammonia. Its role on plant growth was identified but its making was long and difficult. Fritz-Haber discovered in 1909 how to make it industrially (at great pressure, at 600°C, in an iron catalyst and combined with hydrogen). It produced an explosive that is said to have given an advantage to the Germans during the wars.

After the second World War, it started to be used in agriculture as a fertilizer. Agronomists promoted its use to increase much needed food production yields. My Mum recalls when, in the 50’s, her respected teacher had spread nitrate powder on a field on a hill to form the letters A Z O T E (French for nitrogen) , so that a few months later, everyone could see from far away how greener the grass was when fertilized with nitrate. During the next forty years, the quantity of fertilizers spread on fields has increased fivefold. Today 100 millions tons of nitrogen fertilizers are produced and spread each year. The nitrogen deposition has increased:

  • over 200% in ecosystems,
  • 250% in the atmosphere (in various forms),
  • 400% in rivers…

Attention ! Not for the faint hearted!

Problems in waters

Nitrogen that is not used by plants is sent back to atmosphere by pseudomonas at a rhythm of only 20%, as seen above. The rest leaks in stream, lakes and aquifer waters. It causes:

Eutrophisation: in low stream waters, accumulation of nitrates grows algae which consume all the oxygen from the water and lead to the death of other aquatic life.

Water pollution: Human consumption of nitrates is dangerous as it becomes nitrites which inhibits oxygen assimilation in infants and, accumulated as nitrosamines, is carcinogenic.

Because of its long term impacts on food webs, nitrogen inputs are considered a major pollution problem in marine environments.

Problems in the atmosphere

Various Nr outputs in the atmosphere result in a decreased atmosphere visibility due to fine particule matters and an elevated ozone concentration. Both affect human health (respiratory diseases and cancers), global climate change and decrease agricultural productivity (due to ozone deposition). And acid rains further damage ecosystems and contribute to ecosystems acidification and eutrophisation.

Today, over one third of N2O emissions results from human activities, mostly from agriculture. But combustion of fossil fuels, in automobile engines and thermal power plants also produce various nitrogen oxides (NOx).

Nitrous oxide N2O is of particular concern because it lives up to 120 years and is 300 times more effective than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

Problems in soils and ecosystems

Adding nitrates to soils no longer improves productivity because soil also needs carbon and oligo elements to “digest” it. It only acidify the soils and leaks away. It is now counterproductive.

Acidification causes changes in the plant communities, aluminum toxicity, habitat loss, decrease in biodiversity, water turbidity, even hypoxia and dead zones…

We could add that this production consumes 2% of the world annual energy supply and have a thought for this well-intentioned teacher!…

The results of the first European evaluation for nitrogen Report announced during the Edimburg Climate Change and Nitrogen conference in April 2011 show that nitrogen-caused damaged are estimated at 70 to 320 billions of Euros each year, only in the European Union, that is 150 to 740 Euros per person and per year, that is more that the double of the benefits created by nitrate use in European agriculture.

Solutions

Solutions exist even in seemingly desperate situations. David Holmgren explains how in Africa, soils have been exhausted from the growth of a corn introduced to improve food supply. After a short time, nitrates were added to help the diminishing productivity but not only they were not affordable for the community but they also badly damaged local -rare- waters. Nitrogen-fixing legumes were introduced and used in crop rotation, which in two years restored the soil fertility, while adding nutritional value to the locals and the water improved.

Solutions need integrated approach on agriculture, transports, water sewage and individuals choices: work on Nr storage and de-nitrification in all areas, changing agriculture practices, reducing overall animal breeding, so eating less meet and dairy products.

As many years of research have shown, once nitrogen is oxidized, it globally “cascades through the environment” as detailed in this UNEP document http://www.unep.org/yearbook/2003/089.htm and addressing the issue is now recognized as one of the biggest challenge today.

Sources

  • Guide Illustre de l’Ecologie, by Bernard Fischesser. Paris: La Martiniere, 1999.
  • Year 12 Biology 2006 Student Resources and Activity Manual. Hamilton, Biozone, 2005.
  • Permaculture: Principles and Pathways Beyond Sustainability, by David Holmgren. Hepburn: Holmgren Design Services, 2006.
  • Internet links included