Wellington Puts A Freeze On Coal Mining

Around 50 members of CANA, Forest and Bird, Ora Taiao, 350.org, Generation Zero and the Aotearoa Is Not For Sale Hikoi came together in Midland Park, Lambton Quay, Wellington on Tuesday 8 May to call for the Government to put a freeze on coal. The event was part of the “Say No To Coal Mining Day” of the Aotearoa Is Not For Sale Hikoi.

While many people froze in place for three minutes – harder than it sounds, I can assure you – other handed out leaflets and got petition signatures and CANA signups. Several media outlets sent teams along, and Tim Jones from CANA and Kevin Hackwell from Forest and Bird were interviewed by TV3.

There are photos of the event below (with acknowledgements to Forest & Bird). Other coverage is here:

TV3 coverage: http://www.3news.co.nz/Anti-coal-protestors-freeze-in-Wellington/tabid/1160/articleID/253473/Default.aspx

New Zealand Herald: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10804356

Otago Daily Times: http://www.odt.co.nz/regions/west-coast/208447/denniston-protesters-put-freeze-coal

Joint press release from Forest & Bird and CANA: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK1205/S00186/wellington-comes-to-a-freeze-over-coal-mining.htm

Solid Energy Market Research Under Scrutiny

The Coal Action Network Aotearoa today accused Solid Energy of carrying out dubious market research to give the impression that there is massive support for coal – and is considering laying a formal complaint at the company’s refusal to release the full results of the research.

The following letter has been sent to Don Elder demanding answers….

Don Elder
Solid Energy
15 Show Place, Addington
Christchurch,
8024
New Zealand

18 April 2012

Dear Mr Elder

I am writing to in relation to your market research over the last three years.
We are very concerned about:

a) Solid Energy’s statements in your annual reports about public support for coal
b) The nature of the survey undertaken by Colmar Brunton on behalf of Solid Energy which appears to us to be leading the respondent towards supporting coal.

In Solid Energy’s annual reports for 2009, 2010, 2011 you have printed statements quoting research by Colmar Brunton. (http://www.solidenergy.co.nz/index.cfm/1,186,393,0/Annual-Report.html):

• 2009 on page two of your annual report, a statement saying:
“Almost two thirds [of New Zealanders] think we should make greater use of our coal resources… and 84% are more positive if technology is used to reduce pollutant emissions.”
Research carried out for Solid Energy by Colmar Brunton from 14 April to 11 May 2009 (1,000 respondents; margin of error +/- 3%).”

• You have published similar results in its annual reports in 2010 and 2011 and, no doubt, will do so again this year, based on the questions in the telephone survey experienced by one of our members in recent weeks.

The following clauses in the Market Research Society of New Zealand’s Code of Practice for market researchers are relevant here:

From MRSNZ Code of Practice, page 5

Article 11 – Publishing findings

(b) Where any of the findings of a research project are published by the client, the latter shall be asked to consult with the researcher as to the form and content of publication of the findings. Both the client and the researcher have a responsibility to ensure that published results are not misleading.

(c) Researchers shall always be prepared to make available the technical information necessary to assess the validity of any published findings.

(d) Researchers shall not allow their name to be associated with the dissemination of conclusions from a market research project unless they are adequately supported by the data.

I have looked at both your website and that of Colmar Brunton and I cannot find any details about the research mentioned in the Solid Energy Financial Report. I understand that you have also declined to give the research to members of the Commerce Select Committee.

My questions in relation to Solid Energy’s annual reports are:
1) I would like to receive the technical information in order to assess the validity of the published findings and would also like the information to be made publicly available. This would include information about the method for the survey, sampling method, sample size, full verbatim wording of the questions asked and the context in which the question was asked (for example if one statement out of a number of statements).

2) Did you consult Colmar Brunton before publishing the results in your Annual Reports?

3) Did Colmar Brunton agree with the summaries you published?

We have concerns that the polls included leading questions based on two incidents:

a) One of our members was called two weeks ago in a market research survey about Solid Energy. Attached is the set of questions asked in the survey, as taken down at the time by the person surveyed.

b) In 2009 a Colmar Brunton researcher called another of our members, Cindy Baxter, for a similar survey for Solid Energy and the questions were in a similar vein. She complained at the time to Colmar Brunton’s then Chief Executive about the set of questions because they did not agree with Q20 in particular (see appendix).

The objections at the time were around the validity of the statement in Q20, because it was patently untrue. It stated that technology been developed to “reduce emissions to near zero”. However, that technology had not, at the time, been developed to commercial readiness, still hasn’t, and all the reports around it show how it would be so expensive as to be unlikely to be commercially ready for years – certainly not in time to stop runaway climate change.

I am also concerned about the leading nature of the questions in the 2009 and 2012 surveys and that the questions assume some knowledge of the subject in order to answer adequately. The statements present only positive statements about coal, some of which cannot be proved or quantified. Without the technical detail to back-up the survey, the reader of the Solid Energy Annual Reports has no way of judging for themselves the validity of the statements.

I would very much appreciate an answer to the three questions that we have asked in relation to the Code of Practice as shown on the website of the Market Research Society. Not releasing the full research we are requesting is, in our view, a breach of those codes of practice.

Regards

Kristin Gillies
Appendix 1
Questions from recent survey with a Coal Action Network Aotearoa member as a respondent

In the 2012 survey, a set of questions was asked around the mining of lignite in Southland.

Answer with the following scale:
Agree Strongly
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Disagree Strongly

Do you agree or disagree with:
1. Solid energy developing the lignite resource in Southland?
…if it was done without increasing carbon emissions?
…if the earth was returned to its natural state after?
…if it lowered the price of diesel?
…if it created jobs?
…if the local community got special benefits from it?
…if it increased the New Zealand standard of living?
…if it benefited the NZ economy?
…if it was done by a New Zealand company?
…if most of the money raised stayed in New Zealand?

Other questions included:
* Are you aware Solid Energy is planning to develop the lignite resource in Southland?
* Are you aware lignite can be used to make diesel/fertiliser?
* Are you aware lignite can be used to heat homes?

Question asked of Cindy Baxter in 2009

Question 20: “using coal to produce energy can release pollutants into the air. Are you aware that technology can be used to reduce the release of these pollutants to near zero?”

The questions then went on to ask a series, much like the ones above, preceded by the statement:

“Given that technology can be used to reduce the release of these pollutants to near zero…”

This set of questions appears to correlate to this statement in Solid Energy’s 2009 Annual report (page 2):

“Almost two thirds [of New Zealanders] think we should make greater use of our coal resources… and 84% are more positive if technology is used to reduce pollutant emissions”

The Good Times Are Over For Solid Energy

At today’s Commerce Select Committee hearing on Solid Energy’s financial review, opposition members of the committee and a packed public gallery left Solid Energy bosses in no doubt that the good times are over.

Solid Energy’s top brass, expecting to get their tummies rubbed by compliant Government members of the Committee, instead suffered the discomfort of a public grilling by Opposition members on topics including the financial viability of the Southland lignite proposals and the consequences of Asset Sales for the Crown’s shareholding – and health and safety issues.

As if that wasn’t enough, at the end of the hearing, the public gallery left Don Elder and his colleagues and the Government in no doubt of the depth of opposition to Solid Energy’s plans to open up massive new coal and lignite mines by standing in unison with a 5m-long sign saying “keep the coal in the hole: protect the climate.”

Coal Action Network Aotearoa spokesperson Tim Jones, who was present at the hearing, said “Solid Energy and the Government had better get used to this. The massive new coal and lignite mines that Solid Energy plans to open, with the Government’s backing, would be disastrous for the climate and ruinous for the local environment. That’s why we are committed to stopping these proposals going ahead.”

“New Zealanders have repeatedly demonstrated that we do not want our environment ripped apart and the climate ruined by fossil fools like Solid Energy and the current Government,” Tim Jones continued. “Just two weeks ago, Wellington told John Key loud and clear that we do not support his pro-mining agenda when he opened the Wellington offices of Aussie coalminers Bathurst resources.”

“Today, we delivered the same message to Solid Energy. It’s a message that’s so clear even Don Elder and this Government should be able to understand it: Keep the Coal in the Hole.

“Of course, that’s not a message Don Elder wants to hear,” said Tim Jones. “He’s much happier collecting his $1.4 million annual salary and swanning around the stage at international mining conferences. But he’d better get used to it, because until Solid Energy drops its plans for new coal and lignite mines, he’s going to hear it again and again and again.”

PHOTOGRAPHS FROM PARLIAMENT TODAY

Guest post from Liz Springford: Different strokes for different blokes?

A guest post from Wellington based climate advocate Liz Springford, written the day after PM John Key officiated at the opening of Bathurst Resources’ New Zealand office.

Our Prime Minister has said it’s not acceptable for the Hon Nick Smith to write a letter of support for his friend Bronwyn whose case was being handled by a government agency, Nick has to resign his portfolios.

But this same week our friendly Prime Minister officiated at the opening ceremony of the new offices of Bathurst Resources. This mainly Australian-owned company’s case to open up Denniston conservation land to large scale mining is currently being handled by a government agency – and the Environment Court. Doesn’t the fact that the case is being heard by the judiciary make this public show of political support worse?

The Hon Nick Smith’s worst breach of public responsibility was to lead a totally inadequate response to climate change, endangering the lives and well-being of most New Zealanders alive today.

Again, the Prime Minister has not only failed to support his Climate Change Minister to lead scientifically responsible action, but is now encouraging the expansion of global emissions by opening up new mines, deep sea drilling and other dangerous fossil fuel escalation.

So tell me again, why was it that Nick had to go?

Guest post from Climate Justice Aotearoa: reframing ‘realistic’

I – Francie – was interviewed on radio on 30 August, in response to the Government’s (actual) release of the New Zealand Energy Strategy. (You can read the CAN Aotearoa press release). Also on 30 August, the Earthquake Commission revised its liability costings for the Christchurch quakes to $7.1billion, In the interview, I said, as CAN Aotearoa always says, that we need to phase out coal mining in New Zealand and that this means no new or expanded coal mines.

The interviewer said ‘That’s not very realistic though, is it Frances, the Government has an operating deficit of billions of dollars.’

I think this is a question that our movement is increasingly going to face, with the ongoing global recession and the cost of the Christchurch earthquakes. Hopefully, we will have these discussions in community meetings, at Occupy, on the Bay of Plenty’s beaches, in Southland paddocks, so I have been mulling over a more indepth response and asking friends for their responses too.

Recently, I asked Climate Justice Aotearoa for their thoughts. Gary writes:

Maybe we need to reframe what is and isnt ‘realistic’. And maybe we need to reframe the whole growth thing – although this is very difficult for people to hear (at the moment anyway, but things are changing bloody fast).

Yes, it’s not at all realistic for people who think the economy should be run just for tomorrow, without thinking further into the future. But for realistic people, who can be honest with themselves about where the world’s economy and ecological state is at, it is neccesary. And for people who understand that economic growth itself is at the root of the ecological crisis, the crisis that will smash this economy to pieces if left unchecked, then further economic growth is not a realistic response to a crisis caused by it – especially further economic growth based on extracting resources that cause climate change, which according to the world’s most respected economists and scientists will cause global economic meltdown anyway.

Yes, it’s not realistic for those who financially benefit most from coal extraction, it’s rather inconvenient really isnt it. But for people who wont’ be able to insulate themselves from climate change by insuruing their giant coal money funded mansions, or by jetting off to another country when a weather related disaster is about to hit, it’s completely necessary and if we can bring about real democracy in this country it will also be realistic. This is MOST of Aotearoa’s population, and by far, it is the vast majority of the world’s inhabitants, who will be the ones most horrifically impacted upon by climate change, whilst not benefiting from coal extraction at all. For them, it’s realistic, because they don’t benefit from more mining on the West Coast of New Zealand [or in Southland]. The only thing stopping this from coming about is the fact that these peoples’ welfare isn’t recognised by the people who make decisions about our economy, or about where is or isn’t going to be mined, and that’s what we are going to change.

The media might ask, ‘What about ‘Green’ Growth?’ But there have been only two examples of significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions on a national level. Both were caused by economic degrowth. The collapse of the growth oriented Soviet Union economy and the collapse of the growth oriented economies of eastern europe. (Read ‘Green capitalism and the climate: It’s Economic Growth, Stupid! by T Mueller and A Passadakis). The only way to ‘save’ the economy they’re talking about, the one based on endless growth and endless resource exploitation, is to abandon that sort of economy in favour of one that has a chance in a world of runaway climate change and global resource depletion. This means we need a democratically controlled economy – not one run by coal barons like Don Elder sold to us on the back of lies about coal wealth trickling down to the rest of us. Digging up more coal isn’t compatible with a functioning world in the future; neither is economic growth because historically it always leads to more resource exploitation, which leads to more human suffering.

[We need to work for a] Just Transition; workers could transition to a more self reliant or localised state of employment, even outside of or away from the growth based / market based economy that is completely failing to meet the needs of people today and tomorrow anyway… [P]eople can transition away from jobs based on centralising profits to companies like Solid Energy and towards providing for people’s actual needs, like growing real food (not milk powder), which is going to be severely needed in the coming years as world food prices hit the roof and famines become more frequent.

…It wouldn’t be at all unrealistic if New Zealand was run democratically, by New Zealanders, because unlike people like John Key and Gerry Brownlee, we do actually give a damn about our future.

Submission on Climate Change – George Preddey

George Preddey has kindly shared this Submission-5-A-Key-letter on climate change, which he wrote to the New Zealand Government. Please check it out. George is a retired upper atmospheric physicist and grandparent who lives in Wellington.

The Role of Strategic Planning in a Nonviolent Direct Action Campaign

This is a re-post from our June Newsletter.

* * *

This article is by Lynne Dempsey, who is a member of our discussion list, and it’s a response to our announcement in the May newsletter that we are beginning preparations for nonviolent direct action as part of the anti-lignite-mining campaign. In this article, Lynne looks at one of the aspects that’s needed to make an NVDA campaign successful.

If we are to seriously engage in a nonviolent campaign to pressure the government to abandon its plans to further expand coal mining, particularly the plans for processing and exporting lignite, then we will be in for a long hard struggle. We have the moral high ground and the science on our side. As a democratically elected government, they have the majority of people on their side – what is regarded as ‘a mandate’. It will not be a pushover.

This is where the insights of Gene Sharp of the Albert Einstein Institution, distilled from 40 years of research, experience and analysis of resistance movements, would be invaluable. Much of his work is concerned with opposition to oppressive regimes, but the key principles are applicable to campaigns within democracies. Gene Sharp stresses repeatedly that without good strategic planning most resistance struggles will fail to achieve their objective. Here is what he says about the role of strategy in non-violent action:

Historically, nonviolent action has often been an improvised type of action—sometimes even a spontaneous occurrence—with little or no advanced strategic planning to guide it. However, just as strategic planning is used in military conflicts and other types of activities, strategic planning can also be used in nonviolent action to increase its effectiveness. Strategic planning involves choosing clear objectives, devising a grand strategy (or master plan), more limited strategies for specific objectives that fit within the grand strategy, tactical (or short-term) planning, and the choice of specific methods to achieve tactical and strategic objectives.

As campaigners we will need to consider our own strength and that of the opposition before planning the tactics and methods to be used. Gene Sharp lists 198 possible methods – categorised as eg formal statements, symbolic public acts, drama and music, processions, social noncooperation, strikes, social, psychological and political intervention and so on. We need to come to grips with why people submit to rulers – even when it is against their own interests. Sharp identifies, for example, habit, self-interest, moral obligation to the state, psychological identification with rulers, indifference, lack of self-confidence. This awareness is crucial because the insight on which strategies for non-violence are based is that “a ruler cannot rule if the people do not obey” or in our situation, consent. Winning over the people is critical for the success of any campaign.

We need to identify the primary pillars of support for society – and which ones can be won over to support our objectives – civil servants, media, youth, workers, religious institutions, the business community, NGOs, clubs and social interest groups eg the Ahi Ka Action group (Ngati Porou and Te Whanau a Apanui) is directing a strongly worded brochure about deep sea drilling to hunters, fishermen, campers and divers concerned about oil spills on the East Coast.

Most of the Albert Einstein Institution’s publications can be downloaded from their website at http://www.aeinstein.org/. A good introduction to Gene Sharp’s approach can be found in “There Are Realistic Alternatives”. Speed read through to chapter two if you are short of time. Read this along with the WWF Strategies for Change, or, as this is quite long, read Jeanette’s article based on the report, in Issue 60 of EnergyWatch (available from http://www.energywatch.org.nz/recent.html#60). There is mounting evidence that facts play only a partial role in shaping people’s judgement. Emotion is often far more important. Awareness of this will influence how we ‘frame’ our communication strategies.

Finally, take a look at Rebecca Priestley in the June 25 Listener (Why is it taking us so long to do something serious about carbon emissions). She quotes Victoria University’s Martin Manning and environmental psychologist Taciano Milfont saying that NZ is waiting to see what other countries do – a ‘wait and see’ attitude by individuals and government – also “we don’t want to be different, we don’t want to go against the norm and if the norm is that everyone is waiting and seeing we want to wait and see too”. To turn this around, they say, we need to tell people that others are already acting eg governments in Europe are introducing really strong carbon reduction policies.

- Lynne Dempsey

‘Long live the climate movement’

An interesting article on climate justice from Rising Tide:

http://www.risingtidenorthamerica.org/2010/02/the-climate-movement-is-dead-long-live-the-climate-movement/lifedeath/

CANA on facebook!

Coal Action Network Aotearoa has set up a facebook page. Go to
http://www.facebook.com/#!/home.php?sk=group_218300434877031

Another relevant facebook page called Leave the Lignite, Save the Soil has also been set up:
http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Leave-the-Lignite-Save-the-Soil/129179047159254

So if you’re on facebook, please join these pages.

Fresh FM Transition Town interviews on coal

Head to http://www.freshfm.net and search for “Jeanette Fitzsimons” for Dr Joanna Santa Barbara’s interview with Jeanette this week on coal.
Search for “Coal Action” for Dr Joanna Santa Barbara’s interview with CAN Aotearoa spokesperson Frances Mountier earlier this year.