Climate Change: Labour's policy of murder

Floods in Pakistan have killed more than a thousand people this week and displaced 50 million, and put a third of the country underwater. Locally, Nelson has been devastated by floods. Meanwhile, the latest ice-loss data from Greenland says we're looking at at least 27cm (and maybe as much as 78cm) of sea level rise by the end of the century from Greenland alone. And while this is going on, Labour has quietly extended a fossil fuel mining permit, increasing future greenhouse gas emissions for another 13 years.

The permit is number 38159 ("Surrey"), held by Greymouth Petroleum. It expired on April 4. But its owners applied for and were granted an extension until 2035. According to MBIE, the permit produced 65,000 barrels of oil in 2021 (which means about 32,500 tons of CO2). If that rate of production continues, then the government's decision has just allowed an extra 420,000 tons of CO2 to enter the atmosphere - all of which was completely avoidable. I wonder how those 50 million displaced Pakistanis feel about that? Or the people of Nelson?

But Surrey isn't the only permit. There are two more permits (53803 and 55491) which have also recently expired, and where the owners have also applied for extensions. And based on their current behaviour, it looks like Labour will grant them. Its clear from this that they have no intention of enforcing the Crown Minerals Act against polluters, and no intention of allowing even a gradual shutdown. Instead, they're going to protect the status quo, and let them keep polluting forever. And in the current situation, this is simply a policy of murder.

Climate Change: Labour's hopeless helplessness

Writing in the Herald, government minister Megan Woods asks what are we going to do about climate change? I don't know - what could the number four-ranked Minister in Cabinet and holder of the housing, energy and resources, building and construction, and other key ministerial portfolios possibly do to deal with this problem?

Well, for a start, she could stop handing out oil and gas exploration permits, and draw up a plan for the rapid and orderly shutdown of the fossil fuel industry in Aotearoa, to stop making things worse. She could also draw up a plan for the rapid electrification and cleanup or shutdown of polluting industries, to kill industrial emissions at source. And she could provide government funding for a rapid expansion of wind and solar generation, to drive polluting gas and coal completely out of the energy market.

She could ensure that all newly built houses are zero-energy and whereever possible have inbuilt solar generation, further reducing electricity demand. And she could impose stricter requirements on commercial and industrial buildings, while requiring older buildings to be rapidly retrofitted and upgraded.

She could ensure that the agencies under her control support rather than consistently opposing climate change action (MBIE is one of the worst offenders here, and Woods could end that with a sharp word to its CEO).

Most importantly, she could use her position as a top Minister in Labour's Cabinet to constantly push for stronger action, rather than consistently dragging her feet.

But all that would be hard work, and worse, mean change, upsetting the status quo and established interests, who might kick up a stink at the thought of having to change what they're doing to avoid destroying the world. So I guess its just much easier for her to wring her hands and say "what are we going to do" and spout twaddle about "lifting the conversation" - rather than thinking about all the things she can do. Its a perfect example of Labour's learned helplessness - and a perfect example of why they're absolutely hopeless in the face of our biggest challenge.

Climate Change: Suing for a future

Back in May, the International Energy Agency, traditionally a pro drilling and digging organisation, called time on fossil fuels, saying that exploration must stop immediately and no new projects can be approved if we are to avoid burning the planet. Despite this, in June Energy Minister Megan Woods approved two more permits for oil exploration in Taranaki. Its an irrational decision completely at odds with the international advice on how to meet our climate change obligations. And now, a group of students are going to court to get it overturned:

Students are taking the Government to court for approving new oil and gas exploration.

A major energy report by the International Energy Agency says exploration permits must end immediately to keep global heating inside 1.5 degrees Celsius, yet the Government this year granted new onshore permits, saying it was fulfilling a promise made when it banned offshore exploration.

Students for Climate Solutions served Energy and Resources Minister Megan Woods​ with the lawsuit, as the UN climate summit continued in Glasgow.

[...]

The lawsuit alleges the minister “erred in law” by granting oil and gas permits to Greymouth Gas Turangi and Riverside Energy.

The group hopes the court will declare the decision to grant the permits unlawful and quash them. In addition, they are asking the court to declare the minister acted unreasonably.

From the sound of it it looks like this will be relying on the Zero Carbon Act's clause allowing decision-makers to consider climate change. NZPAM's advice to the Minister to approve the permits purported to consider climate change, but actually took the piss, claiming that as any oil found would likely be burned offshore it wouldn't count and that our 2050 greenhouse gas target has nothing to do with emissions anyway. Which might sound fine to an agency totally captured by the fossil fuel industry, but to the rest of us makes it sound like NZPAM has been huffing their captors' product. Hopefully this poor quality advice will see the permits overturned; if not, at least it will raise the cost to the government and the industry of trying to drill further, while hopefully delaying any exploration until the politicians can just ban it.

Climate change: Two-faced

Back in April, the government put a bold stake in the ground for decarbonising New Zealand, by announcing that they would end offshore oil exploration. Now, they seem to be trying to roll that back:

Energy Minister Megan Woods has opened the door to giving oil companies more time to decide whether they "drill or drop", potentially breathing life into the sector.

Just hours before announcing a law change to give effect to the new offshore oil exploration ban on Monday, Woods met with oil industry figures to discuss their request for more leniency on the conditions of existing exploration permits.

Woods said she agreed that on a case-by-case basis, she will consider giving the oil companies more time to fulfil their commitments on the permits, describing it as "a little bit of a pause".

Although she did not put a time limit on the pauses or say under what conditions they might be granted, Woods said the pause was designed to give the industry time while the Government considered more wide-ranging changes to the Crown Minerals Act.

But why would we want to do that? The whole point of the offshore exploration ban is to kill off a destructive industry whose environmental costs vastly exceed its benefits. This is something which needs to happen if we want to mitigate the climate crisis into something merely horrific rather than absolutely catastrophic, and the only question is how fast we can do it. Interestingly, drill or surrender obligations put the speed of that phase-down in the oil industry's hands: if they want their industry to last a bit longer, they can gamble on finding something and drill. If they don't, they can surrender their permit and fuck off. Its entirely up to them. So this special pleading is... special. And Woods giving in to it is simply two-faced, a blatant undermining of the ban her government so proudly announced. But I guess that's Labour for you: two-faced, dishonest, and moronic enough to try to bargain with people who will never be its friends.

Meanwhile, Woods' Ministry is busy showing how badly it has been captured, with advice on the cost of the ban which ignores the costs of climate change and assumes no other country will do anything. Which is what happens when they base their advice on talking points sent to them by New Zealand Oil & Gas. Its also worth remembering that the demise of the oil industry will also mean that its regulator will no longer be necessary, so the people who wrote this advice are basicly arguing for their own jobs. Their "advice" should be viewed accordingly.

Ministerial briefings: Energy & resources

What's the Minister for Energy and Resources been up to? I submitted an OIA request for their weekly ministerial briefings. They responded by claiming they were "confidential advice" and refusing to release them. I complained to the Ombudsman, and the Minister has issued a partial release. But she is still withholding all briefings from December as "confidential", even though a quick glance at the released material makes it clear that much of it (e.g. lists of meetings, lists of briefings received, lists of mining permits approved) is not advice and is not covered by that section. So I guess its not just a matter of waiting for the Ombudsman to educate the Minister about the law and the requirement to assess everything line by line on its merits and weigh the interest in withholding against the public interest in release, rather than trying to pretend that there's a class-based exemption allowing Ministers to keep secret anything they've seen for three months.

Meanwhile, while we wait for that, here's the Minister's briefings for November 2017:

• Energy and Resources Weekly Report - 6 November 2017
  
• Energy and Resources Weekly Report - 13 November 2017
  
• Energy and Resources Weekly Report - 20 November 2017
  
• Energy and Resources Weekly Report - 27 November 2017
  

Again, its an interesting look at what's happening in the portfolio, but there's also some real news buried there, in that Oceana Gold has apparently applied to extend some of its existing exploration permits in the Coromandel to cover Schedule 4 land. I don't recall seeing anything about this in the media, and unfortunately the briefings which would presumably contain further information have been withheld. I guess that's what the Minister didn't want us to see then.