Cannot Eat Money

The dogmatic resistance of Federated Farmers to any measure to protect the environment is, rather than gradually ebbing as more evidence comes to fore, reaching a crescendo. This week one of their lunatic fringe (I say that because I know of many moderate members who were probably squirming like I was) appeared on television denying the link between dairy farming and poor water quality. Far from an isolated perspective, this is a view shared by the likes of the head of DairyNZ (a feature of ignorance more befitting an advocacy organisation than a legitimate research group)

I put this level of denial in the same category as those who argue against anthropogenically forced climate change and for intelligent design. I see emotional rhetoric steeling them against hard science. Not only is it ridiculous but it is downright embarrassing. That a nation known as being clean and green might get this far and have people in positions of power spinning this uttter claptrap is just plain painful.

It perhaps does not help that our own Prime Minister the Rt Hon John Key doesn’t correctly delineate science and opinion. In his recent diabolical appearance on BBC Hardtalk he looked like an utter moron. Pulled apart effortlessly by a journo well-used to those who think they’re bulletproof. If only New Zealand’s media interrogated more deeply, it may have been apparent earlier that he is better a CEO than a PM. He did not choose his opponent wisely however. In dismissing the thoroughly reasonable views of Massey freshwater scientist Dr Mike Joy he has met his match. Long may that battle continue, I am enjoying watching it unfold.

But what is a man who spouts the value of science and innovation think he’s doing? What is the man behind the Prime Minister’s Science Prizes going to make his selection on? What is the man who triumphantly announced a significant focus on science and innovation think he’s paying for? What is the man who appointed the distinguished Peter Gluckman as his Chief Science Advisor think a scientific background means? Perhaps he may consider that  pushing science aside under National Standards, dismissing empirical data of an eminent scientist and putting the upcoming hard squeeze on the technical corners of the tormented Department of Conservation may be slightly counter to that soapbox?

The point is really, that it’s time the old guard stepped down thanks. We have appreciated your efforts in raping and pillaging the nations resources for a couple of centuries and it’s time you toddled off. By the old guard, I refer not to age but to perspective. It is little less than frightening when someone barely out of their teens rabidly defends the right to destroy in the name of economic triumph. The fact is, if you continue to be of the view that the natural world is there for your use, no compensation payable; if you think you have the right to all you need and all you want, irrespective of what that means for ecosystems and those poorer than you; or if you resent regulation of your activities on your land where you destroy commonly owned resources for your own pecuniary gain, then I would like to show you the door.

This is particularly pivotal if you are in a position of power….if you are a local body councillor who shields your mates (or yourself) from prosecution following repeated RMA offences…if you are a manager in lower government who intentionally disregards elements of your work portfolio that would see you give a voice to that which does not have one….if you are a scientist who is able to be purchased to advocate for an idea plainly wrong, that conflicts with the fundamental principles of your discipline….or, most importantly, a politician that leads a nation of sheep and livestock…then be warned.

Because such perspectives are no longer valid, nor welcome. Please do this generation a favour, and allow us to relieve you of your duties. It is and you are, simply not good enough any more.

The consents for the lignite briquetting plant in Southland will not be notified because their effects are ‘de minimis’….apparently. They will be processed with delegated authority through the regional and district council for the respective plan infringements. This means that the public will have no opportunity to challenge one of the worst prospects for economic development, possibly in the nation’s history.

And inevitably questions will be raised over the RMA and it’s failure to provide for this input. And rightly so…the 2004 Energy and Climate Amendment provided for the consideration of the effects of climate change, except in relation to discharge of greenhouse gases. Greenpeace and Genesis squabbled about the same issue in 2009, all the way up to the Court of Appeal, with all but Chief Justice Elias finding in favour of Genesis’s contention.

It seems now that we are stuck… There was an opportunity in 2006 when a members bill from the lovely Jeanette Fitzsimons was tabled, suggesting the provision be repealed in light of the gravity of climate change…but that did not forge ahead of course. And it seems that such things, according to Environment Southlands plaintive press release, will be dealt with at a national level.

By what mechanism and when and how is not made clear. I fear what we will see is a quiet approval through a big gap in the net…and we will wait for the rest of the world to ridicule our decision….now or in the near future. Brace yourself for criticism…it is inevitable when one fails to provide recourse to challenge a ludicrous proposal such as this. Gutted.

I was chatting  to someone recently who was speaking of the importance of maximising the role of indigenous species in New Zealand. It made a lot of sense, and articulated the concept very simply with the word maximise. To me that meant using every opportunity to plant or allow to regenerate the indigenous ecosystems we have lost on such a grand scale. New Zealand stands stripped badly of the incredible and largely endemic biodiversity that gave us such treasured relics as the kakapo. And (pontifying Australian ecologist’s opinions aside)…I would like to bring back the magic.

Again, it’s not a new idea…but it holds much merit. It would mean that degraded ecosystems are restored instead of completely destroyed because they ‘lack significance’. It would mean that production landscapes become a hub of opportunities to reinject indigeneity into the landscape. Native shelter belts, more covenants, more fencing, larger riparian strips and a slew of other efforts could do wonders to battle the environmental woes our agriculture based economy generates.

Urban vegetation has a whole stack of well-noted benefits, and vegetation reserves, corridors, green belts and the like through and around our growing cities could be just the ticket. Just as the loss of these ecosystems has had unintended negative consequences, the rebuilding of these elements on the landscape would likely have significant unexpected positive consequences.

To counter the cost argument at the outset…if rebuilding indigenous ecosystems is seen as an opportunity not a cost, the attitudinal shift will make this question somewhat less pivotal. But, assuming it remains the chief concern, then there’s any number of ways to pay for it….clever use of biodiversity offset mechanisms is one, more use of natural solutions to environmental issues previously addressed by concrete and steel (bioretention vs stormwater), money re-routed from expensive (and imminently defunct) large scale transport projects into ecosystem recreation….’nature highways’…and of course the input of every citizen. Expansion of plant giveaway projects and free advice from regional councils doesn’t cost much, for the outcomes they generate. National campaigns along the lines of ‘rebuilding paradise’ could engage the public, and go someway in repenting for our decades of misleading tourism advertising. There’s so many options spilling out of my head….

There are ways and means of doing anything…with political will, community uprising, policy support and the weight of four million minds and sets of hands….can we fix it? Hell yeh we can….

I find myself at odds with the direction of my own country. It’s disturbing to note that we are substantially failing to prepare ourselves for the future and the challenges it holds. It makes me shiver to see that NZ is seemingly careering backwards on all fronts: economic, environmental and social.

This is not an endemic situation, the rest of the globe is gripped with the same levels of profound inaction, or counter action to building the resilience we need to ride  the waves of change that approach. But perhaps it seems more striking when it’s your own nation, or you find yourself getting older and wiser and better able to understand the issues….or perhaps the urgency to force changes in the way we live out lives on this planet seem just that bit more palpable. Whatever the case, it worries me….

I find myself coming back to first principles in considering the issues we face. My first principles are this:

1. Economic arguments are not the only dimension of a decision. Not all that can be counted counts, and not all that counts can be counted. Humans do themselves no favours by justifying actions with figures.

2. The economy is utterly dependant upon the environment….and in NZ our environment is so damaged that we must go beyond maintaining our biodiversity, and into large scale reconstruction of our ecosystems. This should be a national goal.

3. Beyond the necessities of life, money brings a great deal less happiness and wellbeing than it is purported to. Social constructs must be rebuilt because nebulous communities do not own their future.

4. Politicians and others in power have a role to lead us, even if it means some must be dragged. They will one day see the light….and the gravel rash will heal

Noting that the problems and solutions we see splayed across the press now, first came to light before I was born is frustrating. Peak oil and resource depletion on all fronts, resource wars, increased incidence of stochastic weather events, flooding and other effects associated with climate change, are no surprise. They have been long discussed, predicted, debated, dismissed and resurrected. They just have not been addressed. And I want more….I want decisive action from the top down and the bottom up….and I want my generation to do it. So, let’s go….

In this blog I will rant….but constructively. And anonymously because I feel so much less constrained that way. And do comment, and challenge me….let’s debate this but create change afterwards….instead of letting the sleeping dog go back to his cosy slumber. This blog is political, it’s environmental, and the writer is a twenty-something who thinks we could do the same things better, and better things sooner….