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.