New Zealand has extensive lignite deposits in Southland and Otago. Some think that we should be using this “mineral wealth” for economic good. For example, Solid Energy, a state owned enterprise, want to mine Lignite in Southland. They’ve proposed converting the former Mataura mine site into a $25 million briquetting plant. This would make about 90,000 tonnes of briquettes a year from 150,000 tonnes of lignite.
I’m opposed to this proposal because, from an environmental perspective, it just doesn’t make sense. Dr Jan Wright, Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is correct, when she observes that “the plans to increase lignite use are extremely concerning as they would produce huge quantities of carbon dioxide which contributes to climate change”.
We won’t be arbitrarily prohibiting such mining operations simply because we don’t happen to like them. We will apply an appropriately calibrated Emissions Trading Scheme to them. Under any such scheme, its highly unlikely that the Southland proposal by Solid Energy would make the cut.
Lignite mining and conversion would only be likely to be viable under a properly calibrated ETS if forests of new trees were planted to off-set the increased emissions, and currently experimental carbon capture and storage technology were deployed commercially.
Unfortunately, we have a government that believes that the environment should be sacrificed for economic growth. John Key is on the record as saying, “At the moment companies like Solid Energy are growth companies and we want them to expand in areas like lignite conversion”. What he needs to realise is that for New Zealand, economic and environmental well-being are intertwined, not two separate, competing considerations.
Charles, you’re negative!!
Ummm sorry, but how on earth is that “negative”. Charles is simply applying common sense that in New Zealand we have to remember that our economy and environment should be considered simultanously…
And, Charles, I think it’s a great he approach you’ve taken. You wouldn’t just ban it, you’d follow a good process through a decent ETS and it’s not rocket science that good process is the road to good policy.
Dig baby, dig!
Burn baby, burn.
Okay, here’s the bombshell.
The volcanic eruption in Iceland, since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet.
Of course you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress its that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow, and to synthes! ize into oxygen for us humans, and all animal life.
I know, it’s very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of: driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kid’s “The Green Revolution” science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cent light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs…well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.
The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere in just four days – yes – FOUR DAYS ONLY by that volcano in Iceland, has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon.
And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud any one time – EVERY DAY.
I don’t really want to rain ! on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in its entire YEARS on earth.
Yes folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year think about it.
Of course I shouldn’t spoil this touchy-feely tree-hugging moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keeps happening, despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.
And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud but the fact of the matter is that the brush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years.
And it happens every year.
Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping new carbon tax on you on the basis of the bogus human-caused climate change scenario.
Hey, isn’t it interesting how they don’t mention Global Warming any more, but just Climate Change – you know why?
Its because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.
And just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme that whopping new tax imposed on you, that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer.
It wont stop any volcanoes from erupting, thats for sure.
But hey, relax, give the world a hug and have a nice day!
PS: I wonder if Iceland is buying carbon offsets?
Labours jobs programme – Ban Industry! nice Charles.
If you want to know what happens when coals is used to make briquettes go to the old Carbo site at Rotowaro. This factory left a very serious legacy of environmental destruction which the Waikato Regional Council [Environment Waikato] has had to spend a lot of money to clean up.
The effects of this factory on the streams and nearby lake were quite serious
Link please.
because I suspect that you’re wrong, especially once you take into account the cooling effects of the eruption.
You better learn to read, no bans are being put in place, just a high bar for Southland lignite to meet.
(Which I think it can, personally).
Redneck posturing aside. I must also point out that from what I understand, it would take more energy to produce these ‘briquettes’ than would be released by them.
Same with making diesel out of lignite.
@George
! Interesting!
@Dave – Cough, cough, Hillside, cough
Hey, George, I suggest you read what the scientists say and not what the astroturfers, such as Monkton, say because they’re paid to mislead and lie to you.
Sorry George:
Q: Did carbon dioxide emissions from the volcanic eruption in Iceland negate five years’ worth of effort to control CO2?
A: Not even close. Carbon dioxide emissions from the volcano were small relative to human activity, and partially offset by the shutdown of European air travel.
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/06/eruption-corruption/
Hi Charles,
Here’s a better reason to prohibit such mining operations than that you “don’t happen to like them”: prohibit such mining operations because the net effect on the environment and our welfare, as opposed to making comparable investment in renewable energy, is deleterious. Assuming that Labour is concerned by at least our welfare, and I hope, the environment, then in Government you should absolutely prohibit such operations.
What’s so wrong with boldly saying that New Zealand’s energy future, and where we will be creating high-skilled, long term jobs, is in renewables? Close the door off to fossil fuels completely, and make renewable energy the default option for Government and private investment.
Such a move isn’t about “banning industry” as Dave posted. It’s about ensuring that jobs are created in sustainable industries that contribute positively to our country, and that our energy requirements are met with as little environmental impact as possible.
I agree with Zach, in the sense that there is absolutely no reason to be building more fossil fuel power generation plants, and that the only responsible option for expanding New Zealand’s electricity generation is through renewables.
We should be doing everything we can to ensure that every time we turn on a switch, there isn’t any crap going into the atmosphere at the other end.
And instead of exporting coal to power other countries, we should be stepping up and exporting windmills and solar panels, cashing in on the world’s much-needed transition to renewables. By doing that, we could be driving down the price of renewables at home, making electricity cheaper and better for the environment.
Charles, I’m pleased to see, at last, a clue as to Labour’s thinking on this issue, but your stance is far too timid and, we need definite policy to vote on, not blog musings, sorry.
This is nonsensical, surely. We prohibit many activities, generally for very specific, compelling reasons, and we allow many others that we may, indeed, dislike.
In this case you support your stance by quoting the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, but you should read the whole report, because her primary recommendation was to leave the lignite in the ground.
Solid Energy may well claim to have covered its emissions by planting forests, but it would have no control over the emissions of the low grade coal exported and burnt elsewhere.
I do wonder just how informed you are about the latest science which points to a grim future for humanity and other species under the Business As Usual scenario that is looking increasingly set in concrete. While there may be a few carbon trading or ETS schemes floating around the place, emissions are increasing anyway and unlikely to reduce significantly anytime in the near future.
Furthermore, our so-called clean, green image has been sullied by dirty facts coming out of the woodwork, and a clear statement that this dirtiest of coal deposits will be left in the ground would be a welcome step towards re-instilling credibility into our overseas marketing.
We owe this much, at least, to our future generations.
Quite frankly, Charles, this is the stance you must take if your pronouncements are to have any credibility as well.
If we want a sustainable future then we need to minimise exports and only take that which the environment can replace.
Jan Wright, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and author of the excellent report on lignite mining, appeared this month before the Environment select committee. All my questions to her were on lignite. Two things stood out. 1/ It’s already very unlikely we as a nation will meet our carbon emissions reduction commitments; with two or even one lignite-to-diesel plants it would be impossible. 2/ It appears the plants, while ending any hopes of reducing our emissions, would under National’s ETS qualify for hundreds of millions of dollars of carbon credits funded by taxpayers. What happened to polluter pays?
I agree with Zach and some others in their comments on the folly of mining lignite – it’s rubbish stuff that produces almost no energy in relation to its emissions. Charles, we would have to practically cover a huge part of the country in forest to offset the emissions, and keep on planting every time the trees matured and ceased taking up CO2. Our ETS is scarcely adequate now, and we haven’t even begun paying what we signed up to at Kyoto. As for volcanic eruptions – read the science!
The meeting in Auckland on Monday 25 July could be crucial for our planet – if government and their officials are brave enough. Kia kaha, Aotearoa!
What happened to polluter pays?
krazykiwi (7,154) Says:
July 24th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
Carbon offsets have already run out of credit
:::
On December 28, 2010, the European law enforcement agency EuroPol issued a media release about extensive defrauding of the European Union emissions trading system.
EuroPol reported that it had raided several hundred offices throughout Europe and had arrested more than 100 people.
In one operation in Italy, the police conducted raids on 150 companies in eight regions as part of an investigation into huge volumes of suspected fraudulent transactions on the Italian Power Exchange.
EuroPol reported that raids also occurred in Norway, Switzerland, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Latvia, the Netherlands, Slovak Republic and Portugal.
After these actions, trading volumes in Europe dropped by 90 per cent.
It appears that 90 per cent of trades in the European Union emissions trading system were fraudulent, resulting in a loss to European taxpayers of more than $6.6 billion.
:::
Prime Minister Gillard is proposing in her carbon tax policy that an estimated $57 billion of Australian taxpayer funds will be sent offshore to buy “carbon offsets” to enable this country to reach Labor’s new target of an 80 per cent reduction in emissions by 2050.
The logic of her proposal is that Australians should pay people overseas tens of billions of dollars for the right to burn our own coal and to meet her commitment that the coal industry has a “bright future”.
This is apparently to be achieved through a non-existent (at this stage) international trading system.
Absolute madness.
Charles, it’s good to see this matter raised here, I wonder if partly in response to a letter I sent you not long ago? However, your policy reeks of compromise and wishing to have it both ways. As others have noted, Dr Jan Wright said, and Dr Hansen, just leave it in the ground. It’s simple, robust, accords with the science and the morality of looking after our planet for future generations. By offering a cop out of “forest offsets” you are suggesting such a thing is possible, when we know that such offsets are almost always cons. In addition, CCS is not appropriate, because you will know that such, even if possible, are only related to the processing of the lignite to liquid fuels, the emissions as those fuels are burnt will still occur. Saying you are opposed but then offering these unlikely options is not giving Don Elder and other companies the plain message that is obviously needed.
Your comment “we won’t be arbitrarily prohibiting such mining operations just because we don’t like them” is painfully absurd. We’re facing a major planetary crisis. Dr Hansen visited here just recently and gave us a pretty plain warning. How can such a prohibition be arbitrary?? It’s based on sound science and sound reasoning. How can you say “just because we don’t like them”, it’s nothing to do with personal preference, but because this mining proposal flies in the face of the reality of our present predicament.
Honestly, Charles, what is going on in the Labour Party, and you wonder why you may have problems getting back into power?
Someone quoted Factcheck? Oh dear. They should check the funders, and the board members. Bias? Yes I think so.
The NAct government did. They much prefer taxpayer subsidies to their rich mates.
It would make a lot more sense for New Zealand to invest in green jobs and to focus on building a low carbon economy. That means investment in clean energy and green technology, not high carbon development like dirty lignite and dangerous deep sea oil drilling.
New Zealand should be looking @ investing more in rail and maybe doing some joint partnerships with overseas companies and countries. Denmark is a world leader in wind technology, Scotland is becoming a world leader in wind turbine technology.
Look fwd to hearing more forward thinking ideas from labour. Keep up the good work Charles… and: more details…
I generally feel NZ’s economy needs to base its economy on a mix of agriculture, tourism and mining in selected regions in particular parts of the W.Coast and Southland. In my opinion Lignite is a resource that can not be left in the ground for ever and if it took away a bit of dairying land it might be for the better.
On global warming. It may well be true-but in part I agree with Tony Abbot that practical political action to do anything significant about global warming is impossible. Obvious many of the secondary things opponents of global warming want to achieve, more use of electric public transport, cleaner cars and cities are immensely desirable and should be done. But I don’t think their are political answers to prevent or significantly amelerate global warming and I don’t agree with the Labour policy on coal mining and if I had the power I would rather approve a coal powered electricity producing plant than more hydro or electric. On the energy issue I actually think a better transmission system to move power around with less loss, the critical issue.
What meeting?
Please.
Excellent start! But carbon capture just doesn’t work, and trees take too long. Better by far to ban lignite mining, turn to renewables, and introduce a carbon tax. See Keating explain the Australian win-win carbon tax on http://climatechangeaction.org.au/labors-proud-history-of-economic-reform/
Charles, you say “Lignite mining and conversion would only be likely to be viable under a properly calibrated ETS if forests of new trees were planted to off-set the increased emissions, and currently experimental carbon capture and storage technology were deployed commercially”
I used the MAF “Guide to look-up tables for Forestry in the Emissions trading scheme, Dec 2010″ to estimate how many hectares of new forest plantings would be needed to deal with carbon emissions from Solid Energy’s proposed projects.
NZ’s fastest growing tree in the table (eucalyptus nitens) are presumed to absorb 618 tonnes of CO2 per hectare over 25 years, equivalent to 24.7 tonnes CO2 per hectare per year.
Pinus radiata comes out at 24.16 tonnes per year, indigenous forest averages out at 8.6 tonnes per year over 25 years.
Solid Energy estimates of CO2 emissions from their proposed projects are 10-20 million tonnes CO2 per year. So my calculations show that to use eucalyptus tree planting to deal with 10 million tonnes of C02 per year, it would be necessary to plant 404,858 hectares of new eucalyptus forest (or 1.6 million hectares of indigenous forest)
The MFE NZ land cover database shows NZ’s total land area as 26.8 million hectares. Is there a spare half to one and a half million hectares of land available to do this? And this is based on Solid Energy’s lower figure. Who would purchase the land? The trees would need to be already planted and growing when the first emissions were released.
Some may suggest that overseas carbon off-sets could be purchased to account for this, but where in this world of food shortages and ‘land grabs’ is there suitable spare land to do this? Carbon capture is a pipe dream. You would need to capture it at source, pipe it underground and you’d be dreaming if you think it’s going to stay there.
There is only one ethically sound position to take on lignite and that is to leave it in the ground. Come on out and say it please.
Labour was courageous to introduce the idea of a capital gains tax to New Zealanders, so you’re not afraid to take bold steps when you know it’s right. Please do the same and oppose all new coal mines.
The polluting effects of making briquettes on the immediate environment have not been outlined. This is a highly industrialised – chemical – process and not enough is being told about how the side effects or products will be dealt with.
NZ MUST begin to focus on renewable energy practices. To overcome the ‘motivation hurdle’ there needs to be some sort of incentive put in place. Build on the subsidies made available for insulation. What about a 100% subsidy for anybody who puts a solar system in their house for heating water? And what about busines’s making a 10% saving by removing 10% of the light bulbs they have burning needlessly? And what about Councils and Transit removing 10% of the lights burning needlessly for half the night and sometimes into the daylight hours?
The polluting effects of making briquettes on the immediate environment have not been outlined. This is a highly industrialised – chemical – process and not enough is being told about how the side effects or products will be dealt with.
NZ MUST begin to focus on renewable energy practices. To overcome the ‘motivation hurdle’ there needs to be some sort of incentive put in place. Build on the subsidies made available for insulation. What about a 100% subsidy for anybody who puts a solar system in their house for heating water? And what about business’ making a 10% saving by removing 10% of the light bulbs they have burning needlessly? And what about Councils and Transit removing 10% of the lights burning needlessly for half the night and sometimes into the daylight hours?
Now that is something I agree with. Something like 50% of our residential power bill goes to heating water and so putting solar hot water heating in place on all homes would decrease power use significantly saving millions per year.
Charles, you and Labour need to take climate change and its threat to the future of our children much more seriously. If we want to save civilization we have to drastically reduce carbon emmissions urgently. Coal is the most carbon dense energy source, and lignite is the worst form of coal. Phasing out coal use is the most effective way to make serious progress in emmissions reduction. (Dr. James Hansen)
It is criminal to invest in increasing use of coal when we know it will contribute to major problems for our children.
It is time for Labour to come out with a clear committment to a low carbon economy. If the Tories in UK can, why can’t Labour in NZ?
A good starting point would be to use Government departments and publicly owned companies to minimise the carbon impact of all their activities. Why can’t Solid Energy be encouraged/ordered to invest in carbon free energy projects and phase out its coal mining over 20 years?
I applaud the suggestion to promote solar water heating. In the 1980′s Government provided low interest loans for the installation of solar water heating. These were repaid via a charge on the monthly power account over the subsequent five years. It is also time NZ caught up with the rest of the developed world by creating feed-in tariffs so that people who install photo-voltaic panels or wind turbines can sell the surplus power back to the grid at an enhanced price. We are looking in vain for bold leadership from Labour. BE BRAVE