Wellington Youth Climate Forum

Here's a link to a video of the Wellington Youth Climate Forum run back in September. I suggest you check it out if you're in need of a bit of a pick-me-up for action on climate change! Ahhh, the youth, ever-so-hopeful and inspiring.

Disaster -> religion -> consumerism -> environmental destruction

As the incidence of natural disasters increases over the coming years there will be a similar rise in the number of people turning to religion for explanation and understanding. Although the earthquakes of the last two days cannot be attributed to human environmental destruction, the coming increase in incidence and severity of extreme weather events as a result of climate change can be.

The seemingly inexplicable loss of life that will result from these disasters will drive people to seek solace in religion and spirituality. Unfortunately, the Western world's fervent belief in consumerism as its modern day form of religion will only cause more environmental destruction as humanity rapes and pillages Earth of all its resources. So long as we equate happiness with material belongings, this mutually affirming and perpetuating cycle will continue.

The root cause of humanity's woes is ethical yet the very foundation of our society is based on a purely unethical and irrational treatment of nature as the 'other'. If climate change is not the final proof off this fact, there will be another environmental disaster waiting in the wings.

Exterminate:Communicate

The more 'modern' and technologically saturated our society becomes the more I think we need to build certain 'glitches' or inefficiencies into our daily life. One only need look at the plethora of forms of interpersonal communication we have today: snail mail, email, telephone, cellphone, fax, twitter, facebook, and even blogging...The list could go on, but you get my point. We are in my opinion, simply overwhelmed by forms of communication.

The introduction of new cellphone applications like 'google lattitude' which enables you to track your friend's movements via google maps is an even more intrusive development that is making it evermore difficult to escape to, dare I say it, "be by oneself".

I am curious to know what psychological effects such technological 'developments' are having on our society. I think it is pretty safe to say that: 1) dependency issues are on the rise; 2) people are becoming more self-obsessed and egotistical; and 3) people are becoming increasingly apathetic to 'important issues' (whatever they are?) as their capacity for 'information' is exhausted by the sheer magnitude of innane interpersonal communication.

While I know that the most common argument against what I am saying is that the individual has the power to turn off their cellphone or not reply to emails. And yes, they do. However, the problem as I see it is that as the potential for contact becomes possible 24/7, so too does the expectation.

I am sure we have all sent a message by one form of communication or another and become exceptionally frustrated by the failure of the recipient to respond. My fear is that interpersonal communications' etiquette will become such that it is simply unacceptable to ignore the nagging beeps of one's cellphone or to turn it off while one enjoys a family dinner.

The pressure to be able to be contacted at all times coupled with the inflated sense of self importance that is perpetuated by facebook shrines to the self means that the individual will become convinced of the need to be contactable all day every day. Surely there is no better way to affirm one's self-importance than the ability to field another person's request of oneself instantaneously. What I mean by this is that regardless of the content of the text/email/tweet, it is the fact that another person believes that you have to know immediately what it is that this person has to communicate to you that in turn makes you feel important.

While I am not saying that I am completely innocent of this crime - I do, after all, write a blog! - my point is that we need to build inefficiencies into the systems of technology that swamp us: glitches that make it possible (and acceptable) to step outside the constant stream of information that comes our way.

This could be as easy as developing a culture that actively encourages people not to have cellphones, or, simply, to become more accepting of people's privacy and their desire to be out of contact. And yes, this is already possible. My concern however, is that as new generations are born with cellphones and facebook, they may never fully appreciate the importance of being by oneself.

More roads do not bring faster travel times

A report recently (Sept 4, 2009) published by John Odgers, a transport analyst at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology has found that the billions of dollars spent building new motorways in Melbourne in the 1990s has failed to bring about the time savings promised by those people behind the new motorways’ construction.

I would strongly urge members of the Wellington Regional Land Transport Committee, New Zealand Transport Association as well as the Minister and officials at the Ministry of Transport to consider this report before setting in motion construction of a flyover at the Basin Reserve.

The recently released National Land Transport Programme (2009/12) has priced investigation, design and construction of the flyover at the Basin Reserve at $47 million. This is a hike from the $33 million price tag the project was given only one year ago!

Construction of a flyover at the Basin Reserve will inevitably lead to duplication of the Mt Victoria Tunnel which was priced at $175 million in 2008.

The $222 million that it would cost to see these two projects undertaken would have far greater (and more sustainable) impact on our region’s future if it were invested in public and active transport initiatives. It is time that we accepted the future will be very different from the present and it is time that we began investing to make this future a livable and sustainable reality.

Stop the flyover - the latest action

Wellington needs YOU!

The New Zealand Transport Authority (NZTA) has recently (August 2009) released its National Land Transport Programme for 2009/12. The Wellington section of this document sets out plans that could see a flyover constructed at the Basin Reserve at a cost of $47million - a considerable hike on the initial price tag of $33million. What's more, should the flyover be constructed, it will likely lead to duplication of the Mt Victoria Tunnel at a cost of more than $175million.

Funding to acquire the property to construct the flyover is expected to be secured in 2010 while money to design the flyover is expected from 2011/12. Construction would inevitably follow on after that.

However, it is still only 2009 which means that we the people of Wellington still have the chance to prevent this ridiculous road from being built.

So I strongly urge you to come join Sue Kedgley and the Green councillors at the Cambridge Tce entrance to the Basin Reserve next Monday (7th Sept) at 9.15am to launch the Green Party 'no flyover' petition.

Bring your banners, t-shirts and local community. We won't let this unnecessary road building project go ahead!!!

If you are interested in more information you can view the NZTA's Wellington document by clicking on the following link: http://www.nzta.govt.nz/publications/nltp/docs/wellington.pdf

Twitter foreseen from the fifties?

Another excerpt from Ray Bradbury's 1953 Fahrenheit 451 (p. 43):

"Beatty peered at the smoke pattern he had put out on the air. 'Picture it. 19th century man with his horses, dogs, carts, slow motion. Then, in the 20th century, speed up your camera. Books cut shorter. Condensations. Digest. Tabloids. Everything boils down to the gag, the snap ending.'

'Snap ending.' Mildred nodded.

'Classics cut to fit fifteen-minute radio shows, then cut again to fill a two-minute book column, winding up at last as a ten- or twelve-line dictionary resume..."

Democracy...gone by lunch time

If I had a dollar for every time I have heard a news report say that a decision by the National-led government has been "pushed through at speed" I would be a wealthy man.

Today it was in reference to reform of the local government, last week it was about the Auckland super city, the week before that it was the hastiness of consultation on NZ's 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets, before that it was the purchase of two warehouses on the Auckland waterfront...the list goes on and unfortunately the reality is dawning on me. We don't live in a democracy.

I have written numerous posts on this blog urging the public to write letters, make submissions and make their voices heard. Sadly, I am coming to realise that these things do not make a jot of difference.

When we have the Minister of Climate Change Issues coming out and setting our 2020 emissions reduction target five days before consultation on this very target is set to close, it is obvious that we do not live in a democracy.

When we have speaker upon speaker at the government's public consultation meetings calling for a 40% reduction by 2020 and our Minister makes a commitment to 15%, I know that we do not live in a democracy.

When we have over 75,000 people signing Greenpeace's SignOn campaign calling for 40% reductions by 2020 but our Minister comes out with 15%, I know that we do not live in a democracy.

When we have Mayors calling the Minister of Local Government a 'bully' for pushing through legislation when it is uncertain he even has the mandate to do so, I know that we no longer live in a democracy. (See more here).

It seems that what may have initally been seen as National's 'decisiveness' has quickly transformed into something verging on dictatorship. Key, English, Brownlee, Joyce, Smith and all your cronies. Lest we forget the damage you have done.

For Sale

For sale. One country in the great southern seas.

Current lease holders, a Mr Key and Mr English, are looking for a quick buck so must sell quickly.

Chattels.
Approximately 4 million inhabitants whose current status could best be described as "stunned". Their current state means that they will provide little opposition to the new owner's takeover.

All offers considered, no questions asked.

For more details click here

...And now for something completely different...

From Ray Bradbury's futuristic Fahrenheit 451 - published in 1953:

'I sometimes think that drivers don't know what grass is, or flowers, because they never see them slowly,' she said. 'If you showed a driver a green blur, Oh yes! he'd say, that's grass! A pink blur? That's a rose garden! White blurs are houses. Brown blurs are cows. My uncle drove slowly on a highway once. He drove forty miles an hour and they jailed him for two days. Isn't that funny, and sad, too?' (p. 12)

'"...Have you seen the two hundred-foot-long billboards in the country beyond town? Did you know that once billboards were only twenty feet long? But cars started rushing by so quickly they had to stretch the advertising out so it would last."

Since when did Roger care?

I've been struck by the recent noise coming from Roger Kerr of the Business Round Table - that mitigating climate change through putting a price on carbon will negatively affect the poorest of our society.

When the hell did the Business Round Table ever care about the poor?

The community grieves together

The first eight months of National's new term in office have been interesting, albeit very trying times for members of New Zealand's left-leaning community. The government's use of the economic recession as a justification for cutting funding to numerous sustainable, forward thinking, futures forming projects has left, amongst others, the environment, education, social welfare, health and youth work sectors in tatters.

Having met and spoken with a number of people working in the affected areas, it has got me thinking about how such cuts impact these people on a personal level. Sure, what is of greater importance is the effect such changes will have on society as a whole in the many years to come. But for now, it seems as though it is the individuals that have worked for years on these issues that are feeling it the hardest.

I think of the Education for Sustainability (EfS) advisors that will, as of the end of this year, be out of their jobs. Most of these people have been working for many, many years to get EfS into our schools. I think of the Enviroschools Foundation National team that have had their funding cut. In ten years the Enviroschools team have managed to transform what was a pilot project in the Waikato to a nationwide network of over 600 schools. I think of the youth workers involved with New Zealand Aotearoa Adolescent Health and Development who coordinate youth week and who have three months to 'prove their worth' to the Ministry of Health. I think of the hundreds, if not thousands, of tutors involved in Adult and Community Education who have lost 80% of their funding. I could go on for the cuts have been far and wide.

But I wonder, how have these people responded?

In many ways I think the reaction is most similar to grief. There is the initial shock at the news of cuts, then denial that this can be true. Then comes the anger and hatred, followed by bargaining in an attempt to patch it all back together. After this depression sets in as the reality of the situation hits home.

Eventually, a sense of acceptance comes through and with it the desire to work anew within the setting.

While I cannot speak for all of those affected by the government's funding cuts, I can speak as one who has been impacted.

My initial response to the government's various funding cuts and reallocations was one of disbelief and anger, indeed it was this that led to my starting this blog. Then there was the letter writing stage - I sent off letters to newspapers and ministers pleading that this was not true. I hoped that my bargaining would gain some traction, but of course the cuts rolled on.

Then came the full hit of reality and with it a feeling of helplessness and hopelessness. I definitely felt that our efforts were in vain and I took a turn inwards to reassess my own position within it all. My idealistic bubble had well and truly been popped!

However, I can now say that I am on a new page. While it may just be a renewed sense of energy and urgency, or else perhaps its that I've been reading the websites of Fonterra, Federated Farmers, Holcim, RioTinto/Alcan and the like, but I have come to accept that National will do what they do. What that means is that we must do what we do. And that is mobilise. But this does not have to be in an antagonistic way.

What National have effectively done is change the rules of the game. We can make a choice to play that game, get angry and lose, or create our own game, with its own rules.

It's time to create the future that we want, rather than accept the future that we are being given. As consumers and voters we have ultimate power. We must regain the knowledge of this fact and actively support businesses, politicians and ways of living that encompass what it is that we want to see. Unfortunately Gandhi's famous quote has become a bit of a cliche, but it still seems fitting: "Be the change that you want to see in the world".

Rugby or the environment?

As you may or may not be aware, the National-led government's recent budget signalled yet another hit for the environment in this country - across-the-board funding cuts. All under the guise of 'tightening our economic belt' as a result of the recession, the following programmes have all been cut:
* Funding for the the Enviroschools Foundation national team who coordinate the Enviroschools programme in 670 schools throughout the country;

* Education for Sustainability Advisory Services (EfS Advisors who provide curriculum support for teachers wanting to integrate EfS into their classes);

* Matauranga Taiao (EfS support for Kura Kaupapa Maori);

* The Environmental Education Guidelines Review Project (technical Environmental Education/EfS support for teachers in schools);

* Adult Community Education (provision of community-based life-long learning classes - ie "night schools" - which fund sustainable living skills courses);

* Householder Sustainability Programme "What's your next step?" (coordinated by the Ministry for the Environment);

* Public Place Recycling Programme (funded by the Ministry for the Environment);

* Govt3 Programme (coordinated by the Ministry for the Environment to deliver leadership in sustainability practices by government agencies);

* The Sustainable Business Network (part-funded by the Ministry for the Environment).

While I am unsure of the economic 'savings' made by such cuts, it is worth remembering that just last week (15 June) John Key made an executive decision to contribute $20 million towards buying two warehouses at the Auckland port to be renovated to house and entertain rich, drunken rugby supporters in the 2011 world cup. While funding of the abolished programmes surely amounts to much more than the $20 million being spent on Auckland's waterfront, my question is what the long term cost will be for our environment, economy, culture and society in losing such progressive and future thinking projects as those Mr Key and his mates have slashed?

Environmental ethics - has secularism gone too far?

I have always been sceptical about the link that environmentalism seems to have with a form of spitirtuality that manifests itself in worship of "Earth mother". I have always thought that this connection has done more damage than good to the environmental movement. My line has been that environmentalism needs to be taken seriously, and that for this to happen, we need a movement based on a rationality that has no place for anthropomorphism.

However, after reading and listening to the late Australian environmental philosopher Val Plumwood, I have to admit that I am increasingly sympathetic to a (note the singular - I remain hesitant!) spiritual aspect of the movement.

While I cannot do justice to Plumwood's argument - indeed I would recommend that you listen
to one of her lectures yourself - I will briefly try to relay her point.

In line with the theory of deep ecology Plumwood argues that we have allowed what she terms a 'hyper-separation' of humanity from nature. This is not only anthropocentric, but potentially catastrophic. The problem is that environmental 'management' has been captured by a scientific ethos that champions quantitative ways of 'knowing' and 'managing' the environment. This elevation of science, both a cause and consequence of the formation of the secular state, have not only made religion or spiritualism in the Western world unnecessary, but laughable.

Plumwood's point is that despite our ever-increasing understanding and knowledge of Earth's awe-inspiring ecosystems (much of which has come through science), we continue to exploit and degrade nature at more and more alarming rates (indeed at rates that ignore the science).

Plumwood's suggestion therefore, is a return to animist forms of belief. She proposes that through giving the environment 'human-like' qualities, we may take more care of it. This argument is certainly not new. Proponents of the Fourth World movement and indigenous rights activists have long argued that this form of belief system is inherent to their environmental management/guardianship. There are, of course, endless references to this school of thought.

What is new for me at least, is the persuasiveness of this argument. Perhaps it is due to the National-led government's systematic trashing, repealing and cutting of any and all budget or project that has even a suggestion of environmentalism that has led to my increased sympathy for the spiritual path? I must admit that I am at a point of despair.

However, on a less melodramatic note, I would argue that there is room for a way of thinking that engenders more care for the environment while not necessarily undermining the progress we have made in deconstructing the power and control of religion. I am all for secularism, but I am also all for the environment. In saying this I do not mean to imply that secularism (and therefore science) equates to environmental destruction. Of course science has done a lot for the environment and it will play an increasingly important role in how we negotiate our way through the future environmental problems that we face.

My suggestion, therefore, is that perhaps secularism has gone too far. Perhaps the crusade against any and all religious belief has resulted in a worldview that baulks at the idea of myths and stories - both of which are important tools for learning about protection of- and respect for- the environment.

I suppose what I'm getting at is that I think its time we re-enchanted our idea of nature. While I am wary that this may sound like yet another form of anthropocentrism - we control nature and create stories about nature - I would stress, like Plumwood, that it is about intention. If our intention is to live in partnership with nature, then our stories will be doting, not domineering.

So go on, make your own myth about your local park or take some time to learn the indigenous peoples' story of your neighbourhood and its natural resources. Its time we fully accepted the magnitude of these issues and that we do all that we can to put us back on the right track. And if that means swallowing your secularist pride, then I say do it!

Freezing for action on climate change

Last Friday, 5 June was World Environment Day. The theme for this year was "Your planet needs you - UNite to combat climate change".

A public freeze was held simultaneously throughout New Zealand in Wellington, Auckland, Christchurch, Dunedin and Nelson. The event was organised by Mr Freeze, who put the idea behind the event eloquently:

"It takes courage to freeze in a public place. Freezing on your own is freaky. Freezing with five people is sneaky. Freezing with lots of people is easy. It’s the same with action on climate change. Nobody wants to make the first move, but when we play our parts together, the solutions suddenly become breezy."

You can check out a short video of the freeze here

If we are to fully engage with all sectors of society then I think it is vital that we do more actions like the freeze held on World Environment Day. Its message was clear: that together we can do this. It did not point the finger or lay any blame. It illustrated that the onus is on all of us and that there is a growing number of people wanting collective, collaborative action.

There is power in the people.

Questions of a movement

I am getting the feeling that there is a tendency within the environmental movement to equate 'visibility' with 'efficacy'. What I mean by this is that there seems to be a belief that the more people that know about campaign X or movement Y, the more change said campaign/movement will bring.

I do not believe that this is not necessarily true.

The problem with this attitude is that a lot of time and effort, money and resources are invested into getting 'in the public eye'. But for what true gain? What does high visibility actually do for the environmental problems that we face?

My point is that there are already a lot of groups that have, in the public's eye, the status of 'protecting the environment'. Is the mere existence of such groups - and the increase in their number - giving the rest of society a false sense of security about our environmental predicament?

Does the sheer number of groups purporting to 'protect the environment' lead to increased apathy amongst the wider population? Does it make people think, "I need not change what I am doing because Greenpeace, WWF, 350.org etc. etc are working on it"?

Perhaps the invisible, lo-fi actions are in fact the best. Perhaps it is best that the public do not think and feel that there are a lot of people acting on these critical issues because it may encourage them, as individuals to act. Perhaps the multitude of green groups in fact de-motivates the average person on the street.

The question that I ask, therefore, is whether increased public visibility of 'green-groups' leads to increased public apathy?

While I don't know the answers to these qustions, I think it is vital that the environmental movement ask them of itself. It is essential, that as individuals and as collectives, we ask the hard questions of ourselves and the work that we do. Surely the best campaign / movement is that which is self aware and self-critical. As such, it is imperative that we are aware of the potentially unintended consequences of our action.

WRITING LOUDLY - is your caps lock on?

I have recently been drawn into an email conversation with a person that seems to be intent on writing in capitals, bold and underlined so that they can make their voice heard REALLY LOUDLY. While I have been known to, at times, have a voice like a fog horn - when I was younger my mother used to twist my ear in the hope that it was a volume dial! - I find the use of such techniques in email rather grating.

Yes, I am guilty as well. I confess to using capitals on occassion, but it is almost always to express extreme excitement. What makes my correspondent's use of the technique a little trying is that it was to tell me, and other members of an environmental group with which I am involved, that what we are doing IS NOT ENOUGH.

I find it intriguing that the moment you set yourself up to be working on environmental issues in the public eye there are almost immediately people who feel they can tell you that what you're doing is not enough, not right, or else simply ineffectual.

Of course, it is vital that everyone has their own idea on how to run a campaign or how to bring about the change we need. It is important to voice one's opinion and challenge the way that people work. But, in my view, should you push so hard to get your voice heard, you must be willing to follow through on what it is that you are advocating.

And this is where the use of capitals, bold and underlined becomes a little ridiculous.

I offered this email buddy of mine the opportunity to take the lead on the issue that they were advocating. Funnily enough, this offer was met not with gratitude, but, rather, more bold, capitals and underlined text saying that what we're doing is all wrong. If only this person could realise that their bold, underlined and capitalised text is really mis-directed. They obviously have a lot to say and very loudly. It seems to be wasted effort to be turning in on a movement that they seem to care quite deeply about. Surely this energy would be best directed at the people causing the problem, rather than the ones trying to fix it?

It seems that there are some people who feel that their 'environmentalism' goes as far as telling people what they should be doing rather than doing it themselves.

The sad thing about email is that you can't reach for the writer's volume dial and give it a good twist!

Consultation...what a funny term!

On Tuesday I made my first ever oral submission before the Regional Land Transport Committee regarding the flyover at the Basin Reserve.

I began by saying that consultation is based on relationships and trust - this was my first 'test drive' of the peaceful, inclusive form of activism that I am trying to foster. Unfortunately, despite my best efforts to work in a conciliatory way, I was struck by the aggression of the Committee's chair, Councillor Fran Wilde.

Cr Wilde could not help herself from interrupting, arguing and fighting. It proved to be a long, rather disappointing 10 minutes in front of the committee!

Cr Wilde refused to answer my questions of the committee - whether they believe that climate change is happening and whether they have any children and/or grandchildren - she labeled may ways as "interrogation" of the committee. The most unbelieveable thing about it was that she was the only one acting in a way fitting of the term "interrogation"!

While I can understand that Cr Wilde is used to being attacked and has as a result taken on the notion of the 'pre-emptive' strike combined with the technique of carpet bombing, her over zealous behaviour would have made even Dick Cheney and Richard Nixon blush.

The most laughable thing about all of it was that this was meant to be a day for "public consultation"!

All I can say is that I long for the day when these old battlers throw in the towel and we are able to show them that there is another way. A way that is based on trust, dialogue and engagement. Our world's environmental problems stem from a social system that is based on competition and exploitation. Fixing these problems is as much about changing our society, its morals and what it champions as being signifiers of 'wealth' and 'success'.

The one-up-manship espoused by Cr Wilde and her ilk may have been the keys to success in the past, but they've caused the problems that we are now having to deal with. It's time you woke up Cr Wilde, the world has changed and so must you!

Learning to talk, not shout!

In the last couple of weeks I have had the good fortune of listening to some key activists speak about their work: Bill McKibben of 350.org; Sean Weaver who was involved in stopping the logging of native timber on the West Coast; and Moana Jackson who is a central figure in the Tino Rangatiratanga movement.

Listening to these people speak about their activism has been both inspiring and influential. While they have all been clear about the importance of direct action in their respective campaigns, they also stressed the importance of being professional, inclusive and level-headed.

While I have been known to hurl abuse at politicians in public and denegrate our government on this blog, I am coming around to the realisation that these methods may not be the most effective.

While yelling serves to fulfil my own desires, it makes very little difference in the greater scheme of things. How much more powerful would it be if our politicians were confronted with a group of peaceful, happy people calling for dialogue? Of course these ideas are as old as the notion of 'activism', however, it is a matter for each individual to come around to this position on their own.

And I am getting there.

While I still have an urge to yell and scream, I will actively work to be more conciliatory, inclusive, respectful and professional. The issues with which we are dealing are more important than satisfying our own desires to scream and shout!

From desperation to inspiration

The announcement yesterday of NZAID's dissolution back into the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade sees the focus of NZ's overseas development work shift from poverty alleviation to economic development with a special focus on developing our trade and tourism. Minister of Foreign Affairs, Murray McCully, mentioned the term 'sustainable economic development' a number of times in his speech before going on to call the Millennium Develoment Goals (MDGs) "lofty rhetoric".

With this sort of attitude to internationally formed and agreed upon approaches to our world's problems it is really no surprise that it was only a few months ago that the New Zealand government was on the verge of conducting its own investigation into the scientific basis of climate change. If there is one word to sum up our country's leaders, it is arrogant.

This sort of arrogance and pig-headed approach to global issues is the same sentiment that will likely see the NZ government leap on the Australian government's recent announcement - that it will be investing a further $72 billion (AUSD) into its defence force - as justification for NZ to take a similar course of action. It is becoming increasingly apparent that our leaders plan on fighting their way through the problems that we face in the coming years.

This is old-fashioned thinking that is simply out of touch with today's world.

Today's world is seeing a growing movement that is led by progressive, informed, passionate and peaceful people. There is no point in waiting for our governments to create the sort of policy that we need. The time is now to create this ourselves. If we are to be listened to, we have to show that we have the answers and that we will not back down to leader's lies and excuses.

One of the most exciting opportunities for this in relation to climate change is the 350.org movement. Launched by the inspiring Bill McKibben (who was instrumental in creating Al Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth), 350.org is based on the science of NASA's chief climatologist Jim Hansen - that we need to stabilise the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere at 350 parts per million (ppm). We are currently at 387ppm and rising at 2ppm per year. We have to turn this around NOW. There are no if's, but's, or maybe's. We have to start turning back the clock on carbon emissions or else we will realise a future that is unrecognisable, a world that is, in many places, uninhabitable.

But the 350 movement is not about scare tactics. Nor is it about laying blame. We are all complicit in this situation. We must accept our responsibility and change the way we live. Central to this is making a binding target at the crucial UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference being held in Copenhagen in December of this year. Through the 350 movement, we will shout the loudest and clearest message yet: that we want, need and have to have emissions reductions targets that will prevent catastrophic climate change.

We will being doing this by organising events throughout the world on October 24, 2009. Photos, videos and messages will be sent straight to Bill McKibben who will project these images on a wall at the UN in New York.

Last night I met Bill McKibben in person. He is the most lovely, warm, persuasive and caring person I have ever met. He spoke from the heart and with confidence that we can do this. We will create the future that we want. We, the people. You and me. This is all we have. One chance to make it happen. You and me. Now.

Check out the global site at: 350.org
And the New Zealand at: 350.org.nz

A sad, sad day for NZ's development sector

I have sadly just been informed that an announcement will be made tomorrow (1 May) regarding the future of NZ's Agency for International Development (NZAID) - that it will be integrated back into the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT).

The implications of this move are huge for NZ's development sector. NZAID is renowned for being a world leader in the delivery of aid. As a semi-autonomous department that has effectively operated outside the purview of government and thus the rule of politicians, NZAID has proved an exemplary model that has received particular attention and praise from, amongst other organisations, the OECD.

NZAID's focus has been on poverty alleviation, however, with its integration back into MFAT the focus will shift to 'economic development' and instead of being run by development professionals, NZ's aid will be delivered by politicians and diplomats. Changing the focus of NZ's overseas development assistance from poverty alleviation to economic development will result in what is called 'boomerang aid' - the money that should be spent on helping developing countries and their people will inevitably return to NZ as NZ-based companies are contracted to do, generally, infrastructural development in developing countries.

This approach to development harks back to out-dated modernisation and neo-liberal theories of development and will mean a shift away from approaches that champion sustainable development, community empowerment and partnership.

May day will be a very sad day indeed for NZ's development community as well as the multitude of countries, organisations and people that NZAID has worked with. Yet again, the National-led government has proved that it is completely out of touch with the world's needs. John Key's big business approach to leadership is making sure that NZ will take a long, long time to recover from his utter arrogance and pig-headed leadership.

Indoor community sports centre may force flyover

While I certainly don't want to give up on fighting to stop the flyover being built at the Basin Reserve, a friend recently pointed out that there is another issue that I had not yet considered. And, it is one that could quite likely lead to construction of both the flyover and duplication of the Mt Victoria Tunnel.

The recently approved multi-court indoor community sports centre at Cobham Park in Kilbirnie (see map here) will reportedly have 317 car parks and is predicted to result in an "... amount of additional traffic using Mount Victoria Tunnel [that] equates to four years of traffic growth in ‘one big hit’." (see Captial Times article here)

It is likely that this projected increase in use of the Mt Victoria Tunnel will be used by the Wellington City Council as further proof of the need to construct the flyover at the Basin Reserve and duplicate the Mt Victoria Tunnel. The ridiculous point about this is that it is these very issues - transport and access - that Councillor Andy Foster was highlighting when he made his case at the Environment Court (he was calling for the siting of the indoor community sports centre to be in the CBD, near the public transport hub at the train station).

Unfortunately, lack of forethought and acceptance of the dual issues of climate change and peak oil by Wellington's governing bodies may well see yet more roads, more greenhouse gas emissions and more poor urban planning.

While it may take some time to come to fruition, sea level rise may have the last laugh as it returns the Miramar Peninsula to an island, and, in the process flooding the site of the proposed indoor community sports centre!

Some points for your submission on the flyover

With the due date for submissions on the Proposed Regional Land Transport Programme (RLTP) looming - they are due on Friday 24th April at 5pm - I thought it a good time to highlight some points that you may like to put in your submission relating specifically to SH1 at the Basin Reserve. It is this part of the RLTP - SH1 at the Basin Reserve - that may result in construction of a flyover at the Basin Reserve.

1) The Local Government Act, 2002 was designed to encourage community participation in local governance and, as such, a key aspect of local authorities' role is to listen to their communities' input before making a decision. This makes it all the more curious that both the Wellington City Council and the Greater Wellington Regional Council have chosen to ignore previous consultation relating to the flyover in which a resounding 79% of submissions on the Ngauranga to Wellington Airport Plan were OPPOSED to a flyover being built at the Basin Reserve.

2) Building a flyover at the Basin Reserve will simply shift congestion from one side of the Basin Reserve to the other placing increased pressure on the Mount Victoria tunnel which will inevitably lead to duplication of said tunnel at a cost of over $170 million. The flyover at the Basin Reserve must therefore be priced with this in mind - it thus becomes a project worth in the vicinity of $220 million!

3) The Proposed Regional Land Transport Programme (pg. 39) purports that the planned 'grade separation' at the Basin Reserve (i.e. flyover) meets the environmental objectives of the New Zealand Transport Strategy (NZTS). These objectives include to:
- "Halve per capita greenhouse gas emissions from domestic transport by 2040;
- Reduce the kilometres traveled by single occupancy vehicles in major urban areas on weekdays by 10% per capita by 2015 compared to 2007"

It is pretty clear that building a flyover at the Basin Reserve will not achieve these objectives, but, rather, it will induce demand and thereby increase greenhouse gas emissions from the city's transport sector. The authors of the Proposed Regional Land Transport Programme are quite simply lying that the plans for SH1 at the Basin Reserve will meet the NZTS environmental objectives. I imagine that the authors assume that we will take their word for it, not having the time to go and check their facts. This is not only dishonest but manipulative and indicates that they may well have already made their decision.

However, we must not lose hope! We must make submissions to hold them to account and make it clear that we know what they are intending to do. It is most important that we put our opinions and knowledge on paper so that we have a paper trail.

So please, make a submission, it is imperative that the authorities know that we do not want more roads in our city.

The following links may be helpful in researching your submission:
Proposed Regional Land Transport Programme;
New Zealand Transport Strategy;
Save the Basin Trust's form submission available here;
Greater Wellington Regional Council email address for sending submissions: info@gw.govt.nz

Make a submission on the flyover at the Basin Reserve

Co-founder of Save the Basin Trust, Kent Duston, has published an article about the planned flyover at the Basin Reserve on the Wellington page of Scoop. It's well worth a read and can be found here.

Don't forget, submissions close on Friday 24 April at 5pm.

Even if you just write to say that you oppose a flyover at the Basin Reserve that's great. Just send an email to: info@gw.govt.nz
Make sure you clearly state that it is your submission on the Regional Land Transport Programme (RLTP). You must also include your name, address and phone number. You do not have to be a resident of Wellington to make a submission. This issue is about New Zealand's future. About climate change, peak oil...and cricket! (For those that follow the game!).

So please, take a minute to write to the Greater Wellington Regional Council to voice your opinion of the proposed flyover at the Basin Reserve.

Alternative to the car? No, surely not.

The following two headings were in yesterday's (7 April) edition of The Dominion Post:

"Roading chaos spurs strategy rethink"

"National slips car crushing into gear"

The first related to worsening road saftey figures in Wellington while the second concerned Police Minister, Judith (Crusher) Collins' plan to crush boy racer's cars.

Unfortunately talk of shifting our transport sector away from the private motor vehicle has been conspicuous in its absence in all of this. It seems our leaders (and newspaper editors for that matter) need to consider what a 'strategy rethink' really entails.

As the often cited quote of Albert Einstein says: "No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it."

Flyover at the Basin Reserve

So the Dominion Post seems to have stopped publishing my letters.
I'm sure it's all a master conspiracy and the editor is in the pocket of John Key and Wellington Mayor Kerry Prendergast...
However, they can't censor me here! So, I've copied in below a letter I'd hoped to get in today's edition of the paper:

With the cricketing world turning its attention to Wellington's Basin Reserve this Friday, it is most important to inform them of the Regional Land Transport Committee's plans that could see a flyover built at the iconic cricket ground's northern end. The euphemism 'grade separation' is being used to limit the inevitable collatoral should the public realise what such plans would mean for the Basin Reserve: a concrete monstrosity skirting the ground and likely resulting in construction of a multi-level stand just to block out the flyover's air, noise and visual pollution.

Not only would construction of the flyover make it nigh on impossible to hear the sound of leather on willow, but it would lead to increased greenhouse gas emissions and oil-dependency as commuters are encouraged to continue using the private car as their main mode of transport in the city.

Incidentally submissions relating to the congestion issues at the Basin Reserve are currently open through the Council's Regional Land Transport Programme and I strongly encourage you to make a submission.

Basically, the 'grade separation' (read: flyover) has been placed as the number two priority on the region's land transport programme for the next 3 and 10 year periods which means that there is a high probability that it will be built, and, possibly fast-tracked, as a 'road of national significance'.

I will be writing more about this issue in the coming days. For now, you should check out savethebasin.org.nz. Submissions close on Friday 24th April at 5pm.

This is one way that you can act to help reduce our capital city's dependency on a fossil-fuelled transport system.

I love those literary references.

I love those literary references
And I know you do too
It’s true
But if I could just hold you
Then maybe all those books we never read
Wouldn’t matter
Any more
At all

And though we both think a battered paperback has
A certain beauty
Maybe it’s just old
Maybe it’s now
Just pages of typewritten conjecture
That some lecturer will quote
Over and over
Year after year
Before it becomes clear
To him
That though it indisputably had its time
That it’s time has passed
With the passing of time
And sadly
That television’s doing all the talking
That advertising’s become lucrative
That apathy’s become a pastime

And no one seems to care
Let alone mind.

Fortress New Zealand

Defence Minister Wayne Mapp confirmed yesterday that Whenuapai Air Base in Auckland will remain an operational base for the country's Air Force. $60 million over the next three years has been set aside to upgrade the facility.

I am exceptionally curious to know where this money is coming from. Especially given that Rodney Hide is hopping made over the apparent "tens of thousands of dollars" being spent on ensuring we have safe drinking water (see blog entry for 24 March), and that the $26 million hole left in the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) has been used as a pretext for Nick Smith cutting jobs at MfE, abolishing the Bioethics Council, and doing away with the Govt3 and Carbon Neutral Public Service initiatives (see blog entry for 20 March).

It seems to me that this government has given up on trying to mitigate climate change or protect the environment. It is instead taking the course of 'fortress New Zealand' so that we can fight off the environmental refugees that will be swamping our shores in decades to come.

Cell phones and Philip Roth

My friend Charles has invited me to contribute to this blog, and I'm going to try my best.
So, here's my first post:

While reading 'Exit Ghost' by Philip Roth, I came across this paragraph on cell phones, which I'd like to share here. To put in context - the main character, the writer Nathan Zuckerman, has just returned to New York in 2004 after spending ten years away from the city, living rurally and mostly reclusively:-

What suprised me most my first few days walking in the city? The most obvious thing - the cell phones. We had no reception as yet up on my mountain, and down in Athena, were they do have it, I'd rarely see people striding the streets talking uninhibitedly into their phones. I remembered a New York when the only people walking up Broadway seemingly talking to themselves were crazy. What had happened in these ten years for there suddenly to be so much to say - so much so pressing that it couldn't wait to be said? Everywhere I walked, somebody was approaching me talking on a phone. Inside the cars, the drivers where on the phone. When I took a taxi, the cabbie was on the phone. For one who frequently went without talking for days at a time, I had to wonder what that had previously held them up had collapsed in people to make incessant talking into a telephone preferable to walking about under no one's surveillance, momentarily solitary, assimilating the streets through one's animal senses and thinking the myriad thoughts that the activities of a city inspire. For me it made the streets appear comic and the people ridiculous. And yet it seemed like a real tragedy, too. To eradicate the experience of separation must inevitably have a dramatic effect. What will the consequence be? You know you can reach the other person anytime, and if you can't, you get impatient - impatient and angry like a stupid little god.

Act now! Write a letter.

I have recently finished reading George Monbiot's Heat: How we can stop the planet burning and found the final chapter particularly moving. I strongly encourage you to read this chapter, if not the whole book.

As Monbiot writes:
"I have sought to demonstrate that the necessary reduction in carbon emissions is - if difficult - technically and economically possible. I have not demonstrated that it is politically possible. There is a reason for this. It is not up to me to do so. It is up to you."

Monbiot goes on to argue that the internet is much to blame for our population's apathy. He acknowledges that the internet:
"... is marvellously useful, allows us to exchange information, find the facts we need, alert each other to the coming dangers and all the rest of it. But it also creates a false impression of action. It allows us to believe that we can change the world without leaving our chairs."

While I largely agree with Monbiot's take on the internet, there are of course positive actions one can do from the comfort of their chair. Writing a letter to our leaders is one such example. It doesn't have to be long or detailed. Not even well-researched. Just letting them know what you think is important in itself.

I have just sent a letter to John Key (J.Key@ministers.govt.nz) asking the following questions:
What is your government doing to mitigate climate change?
What policies/legislation has been passed by the present government to reduce New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions?
What do you plan to do to reduce New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions in the future?

I urge you to send a letter to the relevant Minister about something that you feel passionately about. Their email addresses follow the same format as the one above for John Key.

The politicians have to know what we think. They are, after all, meant to be serving us.

Not even the low-hanging fruit

Prime Minister John Key has signalled that he will have none of this pro-environmental palaver, at least not on his watch anyway.

In what was Minister for the Environment, Nick Smith's, FIRST proposed pro-environmental step since taking office some four plus months ago - to put a levy on plastic bags in supermarkets - the Prime Minister has stepped in to veto the initiative. While I do not agree with Smith's idea that the supermarkets keep the revenue coming from such a levy (the preferrable option in my opinion is to use the money for environmental projects), at least it shows that he was thinking in a way that indicates some consideration for the environment. Indeed New Zealand uses a reported one billion plastic bags per year, a figure that Key agrees is 'excessive'.

If this government cannot even agree on what is a clear example of 'low-hanging fruit', then the next two and a half years are going to be disastrous for New Zealand's environment and our input to the vitally important UN Climate Change Conference being held in Copenhagen, Denmark at the end of this year.

The imperative of action on climate change

At risk of being overly provocative, and, of drawing perhaps unnecessary attention to myself, I have come up with a new motto by which to lead my life:

"I'm not getting a job until the New Zealand government takes urgent, effective and genuine action on climate change."

My argument is that until the government commits to a future that fully addresses climate change, my time is best spent lobbying them to take such action. The reality is that if we continue on the path that we are on - i.e. all talk no action - then the world that our leaders will hand on to our, and future, generations is one that is destined for catastrophic climate change.

This is not a world that I want.

Therefore it is imperative that I (we) do what I (we) can do to change this situation.

Working out how best to communicate the magnitude of climate change and the need for action is an issue on which a lot has been written. I remember reading an article a couple of years ago published by Futerra, a UK-based communications company that specialises in corporate responsibility and sustainability. They recommend that:
1) you should not provide information without simultaneously providing the agency to act; and
2) you should not harp on about 'future generations'.

Although the people at Futerra undoubtedly know a lot more about these things than I do, I have to say that I find it hard not to break these two rules. For one I think that information is central to overcoming apathy. Besides, the reality about climate change is that we ALL presently have the agency to act.

Regarding the second point, I have just spent a night with a couple of friends and their young son - it absolutely guts me to think that this wee fella may inherit a world that will, by century's end, be largely unrecognisable due to our own and our predecessor's excess.

So, despite Futerra's best efforts, I will continue publicising information that may be frightening and/or overwhelming (on that note I highly recommend George Monbiot's "Heat: How to Stop the Planet Burning"); I will continue arguing that we CAN and MUST act now; and I will continue to think and talk about our unborn children's futures.

Hide wants a few grand rather than safe drinking water

When a news article comes out reporting that Rodney Hide wants the goverment to review "... rules on drinking water ..." because the rules "... are costing councils and communities tens of thousands of dollars" I am immediately sceptical of his intentions.

In 2007 Labour passed The Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Act 2007 which requires Councils and Territorial Authorities to comply with basic drinking water standards. Hide has now called for a moratorium on this legislation until a government review of the costs has been carried out - a task that he says should take a couple of weeks.

As the basis of life I believe you cannot put a price on safe drinking water. I therefore fundamentally disagree with Hide's actions, however, at the same time, Labour should check their facts and choose the right angle before attacking Hide's move.

Labour's water quality spokesperson Brendon Burns says that some 800,000 New Zealanders are drinking water that is not safe. On looking at the report to which Burns refers it appears that the figure of 811,000 is used, but that it includes people that are supplied with drinking water that
"... either failed to comply bacteriologically with the criteria of the DWSNZ [Drinking Water Standards New Zealand] or for which there are no data because they were self-supplied."

The number of people with self-supplied water which has not been tested is 333,000 while a further 365,000 people's water was not fully tested and therefore cannot be judgd either way.
This drastically reduces the number publicised by Burns. In saying this, I do not intend to take away from the fact that:
"... 92,000 were served by registered supplies with unacceptable levels of
E. coli." and "... 29,000 were served by registered supplies where water suppliers failed
to take appropriate corrective action once E. coli had been found."

My point is that Hide should be challenged for the fact that, for the rationale of costs of "tens of thosands of dollars", he seems to want to do away with the law that requires suppliers of drinking water to meet basic standards.

Yet again it seems this government is happy to undermine the health of both the population and our environment for the matter of a few thousand bucks.

The other great saviour...COMEDY

This morning is the first truly autumnal feeling morning we've had since my sojourn to Christchurch and I have to say there's something kind of nice about it. The crisp, fresh air (the winter smog has not yet set in!) the turning trees and falling leaves; in many ways autumn is the saving grace for Christchurch, a city that for me has very few redeeming features except family and old friends.

What I omitted from my blog of yesterday evening is that comedy is, much like music, a saving grace in times of political infuriation. For those who don't know, I am an ardent cellphone spurner and techno-phobe - the link a friend just sent me to a skit by Irish comedian David O'Doherty is well worth watching. It is, quite literally, LOL material!!!!!!!!!

The great saviour...MUSIC

In times of political ignorance, or, perhaps, rather its arrogance, music provides salvation. As the title of this blog suggests, Billy Bragg is a personal favourite of mine and it was while listening to "Waiting for the great leap forwards" this afternoon that his lyrics really hit a chord:

"Here comes the future and you cant run from it
If you've got a blacklist I want to be on it

Its a mighty long way down rock'n'roll
From top of the pops to drawing the dole

If no one seems to understand
Start your own revolution and cut out the middleman

In a perfect world we'd all sing in tune
But this is reality so give me some room

So join the struggle while you may
The revolution is just a t-shirt away

Waiting for the great leap forwards"

I feel a protest brewing...we have one chance at this and our government is showing on a daily basis that it is simply inept at addressing the most pressing issues of our time. I don't want to look back in years to come and wonder "what if?" The time is now and we must act, so go and get your t-shirt, the revolution is coming!!!!

Slogans or solutions?

Since taking office in Novemeber 2008 the National-led government has made the following policy changes and funding allocations:

* Repealed the ten year moratorium on building new coal and gas fired power stations (see Brownlee's speech on NZ's energy future here);

* Re-newed and accelerated oil prospecting (see Brownlee's press release here);

* Abolished the Govt3 and Carbon Neutral Public Service initiatives (see Smith's press release here);

* Scrapped the ban on incandescent light bulbs (see the story from stuff);

* Invested hugely in road building initiatives with accompanying cuts in public and active transport (see the article relating to this here or read my blog "NZ's road of national significance").

Meanwhile, after a recent meeting with the Australian Minister for Climate Change and Water, (Senator Penny Wong) New Zealand's Minister for Climate Change Issues, Hon. Dr Nick Smith, said "We know that failure to act on climate change is not an option" (see report here).

The press release detailing Smith's cuts to the Ministry for the Environment (11 March 2009) had the title "Government committed to real solutions not slogans". I sure am keen to know what the Minister's so-called 'real solutions' are if not mere slogans!

NZ's road of national significance

Before the 2008 election Dr Nick Smith repeated ad nauseam that environmental policy required a balancing of the environment with the economy. The recent work of the National-led government shows not even a hint of balance as environmental issues have been thrown, quite literally, by the wayside.

On 11 March 2009 the Minister for the Environment and Climate Change Issues (Hon. Dr Nick Smith) reported that the previous government had left a $26 million hole in funding for the Ministry for the Environment (see his speech here). He then cited this funding shortfall as the reason for cutting jobs at MfE, abolishing the Bioethics Council, and doing away with the Carbon Neutral Public Service and Govt3 projects. Now, less than 10 days later, the Minister of Transport, Hon. Steven Joyce, has announced a $4.5 billion increase in spending for road building (cited in The Press 20/3/09). Of course, it should come as little surprise that the funding of public and active transport projects has been slashed in the process.

It seems the only road of 'national significance' at present is that one that leads to run-away climate change and environmental destruction.

Rationale for a blog

"This is my voice,
There are many like it,
But this is mine."

It is with these words of Shane Koyczan that I introduce "Sketches from a Worker's Playtime", a blog that could be written by your neighbour or the person you bumped into as you pushed your way to the check-out at the supermarket. It does not seek to be ground breaking or earth shattering, rather, it is the thoughts of one, or many, but as I write them, they are mine.