The real reason for the BP oil spill

What can I say? Selfishness isn't bad. Neither is water. We need both to survive. When we have too much of either there starts to be big problems.

Happy Biodiversity Day!

It's International Biodiversity day today! It's also the year of Biodiveristy. Of course everday is a biodiversity day. So what is it? The UNU university mentions that Biodiversity, "the earth's diversity of habitat and species — is vital for sustainable development, societies, and culture. Yet, like the climate, it is being lost more rapidly than ever before and this loss is most affecting the poor. Unlike climate change, the urgency, scale and impacts of biodiversity loss are poorly understood and the political will to tackle this issue is weak."You can't buy nature as a whole, just what it produces. Nature is not easily replacable.

Biodiversity is important to New Zealand too. As DOC mention: "New Zealand has a vast wealth of unique animals, plants and ecosystems, but we also have one of the highest percentages of threatened species in the world. We have much to lose so we need to do more to protect them."

Biodiversity is important for our food supply as well. It was one of the reasons for the Irish potato famine and it protected rice growers from the grassy stunt virus. 80% ofo ur food comes from 20 plant kinds, however we have 40,000 plants and animals we use as food. Diverse food gives diverse nutrition, which is important for our bodies to stay healthy. For instance Vitamin C that comes from kiwifruit, oranges or even other animals.

A report that's come out of the UN tells us that natures animals, trees and oceans are under threat. It's the third edition of the Global Biodiversity Outlook, which is produced by the Convention on Biological Diversity. The secretary general BAN Ki-Moon has a good summary(p. 3): "[T]he principal pressures leading to biodiversity loss are not just constant but are, in some cases, intensifying... In several important areas, national and international action to support biodiversity is moving in a positive direction. More land and sea areas are being protected, more countries are fighting the serious threat of invasive alien species, and more money is being set aside for implementing the Convention on Biological Diversity. However, these efforts are too often undermined by conflicting policies. To tackle the root causes of biodiversity loss, we must give it higher priority in all areas of decision-making and in all economic sectors."

In the report has been a discussion of tipping points. A point where it's difficult or impossible to recover these ecosystems. They are:

A - The dieback of large areas of the Amazon forest, due to the interactions of climate change, deforestation and fires, with consequences for the global climate, regional rainfall and widespread species extinctions.

B - The shift of many freshwater lakes and other inland water bodies to eutrophic or algae-dominated states, caused by the buildup of nutrients and leading to widespread fish kills and loss of recreational amenities.

C - Multiple collapses of coral reef ecosystems, due to a combination of ocean acidification, warmer water leading to bleaching, overfishing and nutrient pollution; and threatening the livelihoods of hundreds of millions of species directly dependent on coral reef resources.

Biodiversity is something you can get involved in .

“In the long history of humankind (and animal kind, too) those who learned to collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed” - Charles Darwin, father of evolution.

What's Up, DOC? Conservation in the name of efficiency

NZ's Department of Conservation(DOC) plans to have more business on conservation land. They want to make reviews for businesses more "efficient" and monitor their progress on working with standards. They'd also release the progress report publicly. This seems to contrast with the last system where: "Large or small, all concessions are carefully vetted through regular reviews and public consultation. The environmental impact is a primary concern. But the department also assesses how appropriate activities are, the safety standards involved, how it impacts on other users, and the local community's view."

Well this doesn't really surprise me much since director-general Al Morrison wrote that "Conservation is good for the economy and DoC is focused on activity that is good for both." Al Morrison has been onboard DOC since 2002 and director general since 2006. But like the Auckland Supercity the public are getting less democracy in the name of efficiency. I think business and conservation can co-exist with democracy.

David Farrar LOL

There's a big protest against conservation land mining and Farrar asks why they were marching. "Everybody marched for different but similar reasons. Also some random woman out of the 1000s there compared John Key to Hitler. So the march was pointless!" You saw it here folks.

Protest against mining one of the biggest in New Zealand's history

Backstory: Recently in New Zealand, there's been controversey surrounding mining of national park conservation land, or schedule 4 land. This is land put aside for conservation. Not land used for building or mining. The current government wants to change this so the conservation land can be used to mine coal or other minerals. The head of the reserve bank has stated this is a fruitless thing to do. There has been plans to mine several areas.

Today New Zealand had one of the biggest protests in its history. Around 50,000 people marched against the mining of conservation land. Congratulations everybody, I wish I could of been there to feel the energy and contribute. It sends a strong message that this land is precious to our enviornment and the ancestors of this country. The government has tried to give the impression that anyone protesting mining of schedule 4 land is against all mining. People aren't falling for it. Many recognise we need minerals for things like cars or computers. But mining for the sake of mining is pretty useless. These are overseas companies that want to take nearly the whole cake and leave us with some crumbs.

Our Prime Minister, John Key has said: "National will be on the lookout for new and innovative solutions to environmental challenges." Mining our conservation land is not a innovate solution to our enviornmental challenges. He's also said: "Our environment isn’t just a bonus. It’s part of being a Kiwi. It underpins our enviable quality of life. It gives us an in-built edge over many of our economic rivals. I’m thinking, for example, of what Australia would do for our abundant water resources. And, increasingly, New Zealand’s environmental credentials will underpin our prosperity and our trade profile." Now this inbuilt edge is under threat for the sake of a few cents, in the bigger picture.

Many New Zealanders are disappointed with John Key's stance on the enviornment. General Manager of Forest and Bird explains this: "In the past six months, environmentalists have observed with increasing disquiet a range of announcements from the Government that threaten damaging consequences for the environment. For example, Mr Key's pre-election promises on climate change have not been followed through by his actions in Government."


Thank you to everyone who showed up or supports it. Mining for the sake of mining is not what this country needs. If you're wanting to get involved or more involved, check Forest and Bird for ideas.

Cantabrians, don't lose our trump card!

I'm proud of the people in my city who have stood up to the bullying of ECAN. Yesterday many met in protest against ECAN's disassembling. Rodney Hyde has spoken a lot about individuality and individual choices. But his authoritarian posistion makes him look hypocritical and ignorant. What these dictators fail to understand is that pure water is Canterbury's trump card. Regions and places around the world face water scarcity issues like I've discussed on this blog. It is not just in third-world countries. Britain, Australia and the United States are not immune to water scarcity. They do not have the same amount of clean, accessible water like we do. Our government has taken our water for granted.

Rodney Hyde seems to present himself as a calm and intelligent man who means well. But his statement on politicians reveals much about himself: "Politicians are vulnerable to interest group pressure, and at times invite that pressure by pandering to various interest groups in search of votes. It's unfortunate, but it's a fact of life in a democracy."

He has taken Canterbury's local democracy over an interest group while collaborating with David Carter. "I would have thought what happened recently with Environment Canterbury would be a signal to all regional councils to work a bit more constructively with their farmer stakeholders." - Agricultural Minister David Carter. He isn't for people having opinions if they don't suit his and the members of Rodney's party agree.

This government has been acting somewhat irrational. For instance in their report on why ECAN was getting the sack it's stated "[ECAN is] Science led rather than science informed." Science led is science informed. If I am a surgical doctor and you need surgery, you want me to be led by medicine. If you need your appendix out, you do not want me to be led by guesses by cutting your leg off and hoping for the best. So why would we do this to our enviornment? Why play dangerous guessing games that could destroy our ecosystems all for some profits?

The report uses vague and emotive words. "There is national risk of failure to act and get an effective framework for managing water." They don't fully define effective. Effective to who? Is this a risk of everybody dieing or just some businesses dieing because they can't sustain themselves? Our water is precious and shouldn't be handed to just anybody for anything.

But this appears to be what the governemnt is doing. "ECan has some economic capability in-house but appears to provide insufficient economic consideration in its RMA decision making in both a planning (including consideration of alternative policies through section 32 analyses) and resource consent context." Insufficient economic consideration? Just because a lot of money can be made by using one part of our enviornment, doesn't mean we should do it. We can replace money easily. We cannot replace the enviornment very easily.

There is conflicting information on what local councils think of ECAN as well in the report. "The [Territorial Authorities/]TA sector describes ECan as an organisation that is always right, arrogant, overzealous and litigious. The litigious claim is not supported by statistics as noted later in the report." The use of "TA sector" creates confusion, as if all councils thought alike. In the paragraph after that statement you quote one of these councils who has this to say: "We would like to record that we have found the environmental science and technical section of the Council to be helpful in providing information for our planning. Where we have dealt directly with these staff they have been knowledgeable and very good at being flexible and working in with our requirements. We have appreciated their efforts in providing an efficient service and quality information.”

We deserve an enviornment that will support us and our future Canterbury.

Worrying, disturbing oil spill in America

On Earth day an oil rig sunk in the gulf of mexico. There are around 5000 barrels of oil being released into the ocean each day. From Stuff/Associate Press:

An oil spill that threatens to eclipse the Exxon Valdez disaster is spreading out of control and drifting inexorably toward[s and is already at] the Gulf Coast of the US, as fishermen rush to scoop up shrimp and crews spread floating barriers around marshes.

"It is of grave concern," said David Kennedy of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "I am frightened. This is a very, very big thing. And the efforts that are going to be required to do anything about it, especially if it continues on, are just mind-boggling... The oil slick could become America's worst environmental disaster in decades, threatening hundreds of species of fish, birds and other wildlife along the Gulf Coast, one of the world's richest seafood grounds, teeming with shrimp, oysters and other marine life. "

The spill was both bigger and closer than imagined - five times larger than first estimated, with the leading edge just 5km from the Louisiana shore. Authorities said it could reach the Mississippi River delta by Thursday night (Friday NZT).


From The Wallstreet Journal:

The slick was expected to make landfall at any time. The spill could turn into one of the biggest in U.S. history. An estimated 5,000 barrels a day of oil are flowing from the well, and officials said it could take up to 90 days to cap it, making for volumes that could exceed the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska and a 1969 accident in Santa Barbara, Calif.

People along the Gulf Coast braced for environmental damage and disruption to businesses, such as the rich shrimp and oyster fisheries along southern Louisiana. President Obama said he will commit "every single resource" the federal government had available to combat the spill, as the military began mobilizing Thursday to help prevent environmental damage.

"Regulators will want to understand how this occurred and quite reasonably wish to introduce additional regulation, if that's appropriate, to prevent it happening again," Chief Executive Tony Hayward told The Wall Street Journal. "You certainly won't see BP standing in the way of that."


An eco system, a regions industry and source of employment practically destroyed overnight. Not to mention the lives lost on that rig. This is a terrible tragedy. BP is going to receive a huge backlash for this. The plane has crashed, we can find the fault but the damage is done. This is all the more reason to find cleaner alternative energy systems and make oil companies more accountable.

Peak Oil VS Peak Water

I hear about Peak Oil. There is growing concerns that the world will not meet its energy supply needs. It seems to me that we have a much bigger problem on our hands. Humanity's water supply is limited right now. But let's compare Oil and Water first.

Let's look at Oil first.



Oil

How much do we have?

According to the US Government's Energy Information Administration, at least 1184.208 to 1238.892 billion barrels of oil. Infact according to the International Energy Agency: "The world’s energy resources are adequate to meet the projected demand increasethrough to 2030 and well beyond." In 2006 we were consuming 30 billion barrels a year. Of course I'm not saying we own the earth(Private property is theft rar rar. Just kidding.). I'm talking about the oil we have available.

So why the fuss?

Well, according Kjell Aleklett(Professor of Physics at Uppsala University, Sweden, and President of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas): "The oil industry and IEA accept the fact that the total production from existing oil fields is declining."(World Watch 2006, p. 10) As well as this, the US military says our surplus oil production capacity could disappear as early as 2015. This means while we have lots of oil, we aren't able to get to it enough to meet our needs.

The use of oil also contributes to the widely academically accepted fact of man-influenced climate change. As well as this the oil we mostly have is in countries with a track record of corrupt government.

























Now I think we need to eventually switch to an alternative. But right now there's just not anything like oil to help us. We need it for our ships, our planes, cars and buses.

So what can be done?

Well I think we can do quite a bit. We could invest more money into energy research instead of war. We can make use of economical vehicles. Yeah this is pretty basic.

So here's something complicated: "[Government] Policy[s] should impose a large Btu or carbon tax on energy that is phased in over a long period, perhaps 20 years. This would signal entrepreneurs that there will be a market for alternative energies. Furthermore, increases in the energy tax should be offset by reducing other taxes, such as payroll or corporate taxes. Economic studies show that such an approach can generate a win-win solution—reduce energy use (and the environmental damages not paid by users), stimulate research and development on alternative energies, and speed economic growth."

So what is Rober Kaufmann(World Watch 2006, p. 20-21)(Professor in the center for Energy & Enviornment studies at Boston University) saying? Make a oil tax that slowly increases over a 20 year period. At the same time, personal and business taxes would slowly be reduced. Entrepreneurs will try to make alternative economical fuels or very economical engines, hoping to get rich. It'll be win win for both of us. Personally, I'd prefer for governments to do the research. If there's an alternative energy business monopoly it could screw everybody over. It could be more expensive than oil, though more enviornmentally friendly. However this is something we could do.

Now let's look at water.



Water

How much do we have?

They say if aliens discovered earth, they wouldn't call it earth. They'd call it water. That's because at least 70% of the earths surface is covered in water.

So what's the fuss?

Canada's Enviornment Department says our drinkable rivers, aquifer and lakes are limited. They are 2.5% of the water in the world. It's scattered and not everybody has access to it. Over 1 in 6 people don't have access to safe drinking water. Nearly 5/12 people have no water sanitation (UN 2005). As well as this, 2/3 people could face water scarcity in the next 20 years due to political and climate issues. (UN 2009)

So what can be done?

The World Health Organisation states that a clean water supply and sanitation is one of the greatest things we can do to reduce poverty. Infact they state for every dollar put into drinkable water and sanitation, we would achieve a return of 3 to 34 dollars. That's a 1:3-34 cost to benefit ratio. The cost of drinkable water and sanitation is $11.3 billion a year. Considering the world has around 2.5 billion people without proper sanitation, that would be $4.52 per person. $4.52 a year to give someone a basic necessity of human life (WHO 2005, p. 32). United Nations Deputy Secretary-General Asha-Rose Migiro has also warned we need to insure we have integral ecosystems. This "means promoting peaceful collaboration in the sharing of water resources, particularly in the case of boundary and transboundary water resources.” (UN 2009)

Now let's draw a conclusion.


I think we could live in a country where oil is strictly regulated if we end up with not much oil. It would annoy us at first but we could adjust. I doubt we'll be doing that however. It's too authoritarian for peoples tastes. But the fact is oils likely to get more expensive. I don't think we could live without water. One of my biggest fears is that we will neglect the issue of accessible drinkable water in favour of looking for alternative energy. Political corruption and terrorism is affecting humanitys supply of water. Lack of water is affecting humanity far more right now than a lack of oil.

"Human ingenuity is one resource that won’t peak—but whether it can be mobilized quickly enough to surmount these challenges is not yet clear." - Christopher Flavin, President of the Worldwatch Institute.

They say a picture's worth a thousand words.

Credit goes to Joel Pett, who drew this for USA Today