.
(Or, “The Duplicities of Dr Smith: Dirty rivers, Dubious standards, and Double-talk” )
.
.
“…We should always measure a Government’s environmental rhetoric against its environmental record.” – John Key,
.
__________________________
Water Quality & Shifting Goal Posts
__________________________
On 23 February, Faux-Environment Minister, Dr Nick Smith, announced a seemingly “bold” plan to clean up New Zealand’s waterways by 2040;
.
.
The Government has announced a new target to have 90 per cent of New Zealand’s lakes and rivers reach swimmable water quality standards by 2040.
The target will be based on meeting the water quality standard at least 80 per cent of the time in line with European and United States definition, Environment Minister Nick Smith said.
Currently 72 per cent by length meet that definition and the target is to increase that to 90 per cent by 2040.
Faux-Environment Minister Smith tried to re-assure New Zealanders;
“This ambitious plan to improve the water quality in our lakes and rivers recognises that New Zealanders expect to be able to take a dip in their local river or lake without getting a nasty bug.
This 90 per cent goal by 2040 is challenging and is estimated to cost the Government, farmers and councils $2 billion over the next 23 years. It will make us a world leader in water quality standards for swimming, and that’s important for New Zealand’s growing tourism industry. It will return our rivers and lakes to a standard not seen in 50 years while recognising that our frequent major rainfalls mean a 100 per cent standard is not realistic.”
A day later, on Radio NZ’s ‘Morning Report’, however, his assertions were taken to task with a more critical style of interviewing by Susie Ferguson.
Smith claimed that new levels of e.coli contamination were set to international standards;
“The level, the 540 e.coli, is the level that is set by the World Health Organisation, it the level that is set both by the E.U. and by the U.S.”.
Ferguson challenged Smith’s assertions by pointing out that other international organisations and jurisdictions held lower e.coli level for permissible contamination levels. At one point she asked the Faux Minister for the Environment how rivers currently rated as “swimmable” will now be able to have twice the amount of faecal matter in it and still remain safe to swim in.
Smith’s reply was waffly, suggesting that Ferguson was attempting to mix “Medians” and “95 percentile” figures. He ducked Ferguson’s question.
Green Party water-spokesperson, Catherine Delahunty, pointed out that National had simply re-designated pollution levels by “shifting the goalposts“;
“The Prime Minister thinks he can pull a fast one on New Zealanders by just shifting the goalposts and calling what was ‘wadeable’ now ‘swimmable’.”
The Fairfax article in which Delahunty made the accusation did not disclose what “goalposts” she was referring to.
Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Dr Jan Wright, also referred to a shifting of “goalposts”;
“There have been some goalposts moved, or some ways of measuring things moved, and it’s very difficult to tell whether things are being tightened or loosened. That’s a big concern of mine.”
Radio NZ reported Dr Wright as being highly critical that the 90 percent target-catchment included waterways that no-one would swim in, such as rivers in very remote/very cold regions of New Zealand;
“It’s where do people want to swim and at what time of the year … There’s sort of a dilution that’s gone on by putting the whole length of these rivers in, and the whole areas of these lakes.”
There was further evidence of “shifted goalposts” to come…
.
.
.
__________________________
Media Analysis & What was left out
__________________________
When Faux-Environment Minister Smith announced a grandoise “plan to improve the water quality in our lakes and rivers recognises that New Zealanders expect to be able to take a dip in their local river or lake without getting a nasty bug“, he omitted to mention a salient fact.
Radio NZ’s , reported on the morning of 24 February (the day after Faux-Environment Minister Smith made his much heralded announcement;
The government has weakened the threshold for what qualifies as the best quality waterway to swim in as part of its target to make 90 percent of New Zealand’s rivers swimmable by 2040.
Under the old system, for a waterway to be considered the best for swimmability the acceptable level of E coli was less than 260 per 100ml of water.
That equated to a low risk of infection, up to 1 percent, when a person was taking part in activities that were likely to involve full immersion.
Now, the government has changed the whole system so that for a waterway to be considered excellent it cannot exceed a new E coli level of 540 per 100ml [of water] more than five percent of the time, which equates to a less than five percent risk of infection.
To give waterways an “Excellent” rating, National has more than doubled the permissable level of e.coli bacteria in a given river or lake from 260 per 100ml of water to 540 per 100ml of water.
When pointedly asked by a journalist that “the Ministry of Health recommendation is 260 E.coli – how does that relates to the 540 level?“, Smith tried the “baffle-them-with-bullshit-science” response;
“We are saying at 540 E.coli the risk is one in 20 (of getting sick). But that one in 20 is at the 95 per cent confidence level. So there is an extra level of cautiousness. Even if you put 20 people in water and it has a 540 E.coli level it’s not saying on average one person gets sick out of 20. It’s saying one in 20 of 20 groups will have one in 20 get sick.”
Smith’s “ one in 20” explanation was so confusing, he ludicrously managed to contradict himself on Radio NZ;
Under the old system, for a waterway to be considered the best for swimmability, the acceptable level of E coli was less than 260 per 100ml of water.
That equated to a low risk of infection, up to 1 percent (one in 100), when a person took part in activities likely to involve full immersion.
Under the new system, for a waterway to be considered excellent it could not exceed an E coli level of 540 per 100ml more than 5 percent of the time.
That equated to a less than a 5 percent (one in 20) risk of infection.
When it was put to him that the new swimmable standard allowed for one in 20 people to become sick, Mr Smith said, “That is junk science”.
Even Smith can’t keep up with his own bullshit.
Unfortunately, not all media reports (initially) referred to National shifting the e.coli goalposts from 260 per 100ml of water to 540 per 100ml of water; such as Fairfax’s “New Government target to see 90 per cent of rivers and lakes ‘swimmable’ by 2040“; Radio NZ’s “Govt plans to make 90% of NZ waterways swimmable by 2040“; TVNZ’s “Govt wants to make 90% of lakes and rivers clean enough to swim in by 2040“; and NBR’s “Government bows to pressure, adopts ‘swimmable’ target for lakes and rivers“.
The public reading those stories would not have realised that National was effectively doubling the permissable level of e.coli contamination in our waterways.
However, TV3 News (“Govt aims to get 90pct of rivers swimmable by 2040“) and NZ Herald (“Government sets 2040 ‘swimmable’ rivers target“), got it right on the first day (23 February).
To be fair, National’s media release on 23 February – “90% of rivers and lakes swimmable by 2040” – was also missing the crucial detail of e.coli levels being increased.
It was a detail which the Faux-Environment Minister did not want publicised, when he fronted up to the media on the 23rd.
Interestingly, commentors on Stuff.co.nz and NBR seemed very aware on 23 February that Smith was trying to pull a ‘fast one’ over the public’s and media’s eyes;
.
.
.
(Note “Two days ago” correlated to 23 February.)
.
.
.
______________________________
Past Targets & Election Year Gimmickery
______________________________
The 2040 “target” for supposedly cleaning up our rivers and lakes was not National’s first attempt at setting long-term goals.
National ministers have been setting target-goals for themselves as a kind of “feel good” story for the public. Usually these targets are released to the media in an election year. And usually the target dates are set years, if not decades, into the distant future.
Who can forget these targets;
In 2011 (election year!), National announced that New Zealand would be smokefree by 2025;
The Government has set a long-term goal of reducing smoking prevalence and tobacco availability to minimal levels, thereby making New Zealand essentially a smokefree nation by 2025.
In 2014 (election year!) and announced by Minister for Stomping on Crushed Cars, Anne Tolley, National set this ambitious target for themselves;
Reducing crime
Our aim
-
By June 2017, reduce the crime rate by 15%, reduce the violent crime rate by 20%, and reduce the youth crime rate by 25%.
-
By June 2017, reduce the re-offending rate by 25%.
Another target-goal, set in 2014 (election year!), and announced by Social Welfare minister, Paula Bennett;
…has set a new target of getting benefit numbers from 295,000 to 220,000 by 2017 – a 25 per cent drop. She is also looking for a 40 per cent drop in youth on benefits – getting 21,000 more young people off the benefit.
And this one, released in June last year (strangely, not an election year);
New Zealand to be Predator Free by 2050
Prime Minister John Key has today announced the Government has adopted the goal of New Zealand becoming Predator Free by 2050.
[…]
“That’s why we have adopted this goal. Our ambition is that by 2050 every single part of New Zealand will be completely free of rats, stoats and possums.”
The budget for this herculean feat to eliminate “rats, stoats and possums” from “every single part of New Zealand” was set at an ‘extra’ $28 million (above $60 – $80 million already budgetted for pest control) – an amount which was derided for it’s utter inadequacy.
So how are we doing with these laudible, “feel good” target?
Not too well.
In 2015, a Fairfax story revealed that National’s ambitious goal to eliminate smoking from New Zealand was lagging far behind;
However as the deadline looms for Smokefree 2025 – a commitment by the Government to help reduce smoking to minimal levels in New Zealand in 10 years – anti-smoking organisations are calling for it to take bolder steps to preserve New Zealand’s position as a world-leader in the fight against tobacco.
[…]
Even the Ministry of Health admits it’s off track…
[…]
In New Zealand, tobacco manufacturers’ returns supplied to the Ministry show consumption has declined 6 per cent per year since 2010, or 23 per cent since 2010.
[…]
“At this rate, New Zealand will not meet the target of Smokefree 2025,” [Emeritus Professor at the University of Auckland Robert] Beaglehole said. “But it is achievable, and we know what to do to get back on track.”
Perhaps the worst target-goal that has failed was National’s (dubious) committment to cut large numbers from welfare benefits, as conceded by Anne Tolley in July 2016;
Anne Tolley has effectively conceded that National is unlikely to meet its objective of moving 65,000 people off the benefit within the next two years.
In excusing her government’s failure to meet one of their own self-imposed target-goals, Tolley gave this illuminating explanation;
“It’s a very aspirational target.”
Within those five simple words, Tolley has revealed the the eventual outcome and excuse whenever one of National’s target-goals fails: they are only “aspirational”.
This is critical, because like the “Predator Free New Zealand by 2050” or “90 per cent of rivers and lakes ‘swimmable’ by 2040”, the target dates for these goals to be accomplished are so far into the future that (a) no one will recall these committments being made (b) most National ministers who made them will be long-retired, residing in rest-homes and having drool wiped from their slack-jawed faces by under-paid caregivers or (c) dead.
In short, no one will ever be held to account for these failures of policy.
The great mistake made by National is that, at the beginning when they dreamed up these feel-good gimmicks, they set target-goal dates too close to the present. For example, when John Key and Bill English published a document entitled “Better Public Services” in February 2014, issuing a whole raft of target-goals, they set the date for accomplishment at 2017 (for most, though not all).
That left National minister in office only three years later having to explain their failure to achieve their target-goals.
In Tolley’s case, she could only offer the lame excuse that they were “aspirational” goals only.
As Susie Ferguson pointed out to Nick Smith on Radio NZ’s ‘Morning Report‘;
“The long time frame of this though means that you are going to be long gone whether we see that this has happened or not.”
The ultimate Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card for a politician.
In the meantime – stay out of the rivers and lakes. Nick Smith has been seen bull-shitting in them.
.
.
.
.
.
References
Scoop media: John Key – Speech to the Bluegreens Forum
Fairfax media: New Government target to see 90 per cent of rivers and lakes ‘swimmable’ by 2040
Radio NZ: Nick Smith defends new swimming standard for rivers and lakes
Radio NZ: ‘Very confusing’: Watchdog critical of water quality changes
New Zealand Yearbook: 1984
Radio NZ: Water quality measure ‘less stringent’
Fairfax media: The new ‘swimmable’ fresh water target: Nick Smith defends his plan
Radio NZ: Water quality criticism based on ‘junk science’ – Nick Smith
NBR: Government bows to pressure, adopts ‘swimmable’ target for lakes and rivers
New Zealand Yearbook: 2008
Ministry of Health: Smokefree 2025
Beehive: Better Public Services
NZ Herald: National pledge to cut benefit numbers by 25 per cent
Beehive: New Zealand to be Predator Free by 2050
Fairfax media: Smokefree 2025, predator-free 2050 criticised for a lack of follow through
Beehive: New Zealand to be Predator Free by 2050
NZ Herald: Anne Tolley – Government’s benefits target ‘very aspirational’
Scoop media: On The Nation – Lisa Owen interviews Bill English, Anne Tolley and Hekia Parata
Statistics NZ: Agricultural Production Statistics: June 2015
Additional
Fairfax: Cattle belonging to Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias’ repeat offenders
Scoop media: Swimmable rivers – Greenpeace says look below the surface
Scoop media: Big Backdown by Smith on Swimmable Rivers
Other Blogs
Green blog: Nick Smith thinks New Zealanders are stupid
Greenpeace: Don’t get freaked by the eco
My Thinks: Come swim with me
No Right Turn: A literal bullshit standard
The Civilian: What’s all the fuss about these rivers? I drank some water once and it wasn’t any bloody good
The Civilian: Government vows that by 2040, 90% of New Zealand’s rivers will be ‘vaguely liquid in nature’
The Daily Blog: National’s ‘swimmable’ rivers policy is another ‘alternative facts’ moment and why we can’t allow it
The Daily Blog: David Parker – Flammable rivers – Smith’s swimmable river con ignites outrage
The Standard: Just allow more shit – a metaphor for this government
Previous related blogposts
TDB Investigation into what is happening in our water
Election ’17 Countdown: The Strategy of Ohariu
Election ’17 Countdown: Joyce – let the lolly scramble begin!
.
.
.
.
.
= fs =
Brilliant expose as ever, Frank!
Now we just have to wait for the inevitable lampooning of Nick Smith as the hopeless, hapless “Minister for the Environment”!!
One day when NZers ask why we can no longer swim in our rivers and lakes, wee need only point out to them;
“Because you voted for National and got the government you deserve. Polluted rivers and lakes is the shit-icing on the ‘cake’!!!”
(PRISS, dont mind me while I muscle in and make a whole)
It’s very interesting the way dairy intensification (add climate science 2) is portrayed in the media. Its portrayed as if there are 2 sides that have to be objective so 50% time for each. One side is reflective of 99% of scientists and the other side is nick smith, anne tolley, paula bennet and so on who are contrarians in the sciences that get equal time with the sciences, so how does any one figure this out? Its interesting to see climate science (not scientists) appear next to nick smith along with the weather report that try and predict if it’s going to rain or not, there is no difference in science here so how does every one figure it out?
1st of all there are 3 sides not 2. the 1st group is the mainstream scientific consensus and there are 2 groups of denialists, one group of denialists contain nicksmith and fiven equal time, the 2nd group of denialists claim mainstream scientific analysis is no where near grave enough, and i suspect the second group of denialists is the other 1% of mainstream climate consensus and there analysis is far more grave and they are not apart of the debate.
So whats the ordinary citizen to do? Become a climate scientist? I strongly doubt that, happy to be corrected.
But the choices in the Original Post are so transparent that the over all climate science consensus say the predictions are grave or the others that say its even worse. You should be able to work out very quickly the probability that nick smith is wrong and science is right.
It’s not hard to make a decision about all this and you don’t need to be a scientist to figure it all out.
If you try and think through the cost benefit analysis and suppose nick smith is correct and we tack on solar to milking sheds then you’ve spent some money. But suppose climate science consensus is correct then we won’t be able to swim in our rivers and the human population goes down the drain. The choice is not subtle
I don’t mind at all, Sam, go right ahead….. 🙂
🙂
Someone email this to Paddy Gower and Duncan Garner.
Put ‘Kim Dotcom’ in the subject line so they read it.
Fatty – LOL!! 😀
or…. put Guyon Bromance in the subject field. Dunk will be even more curious and read. And if Dunk’s interested, then by default Peddy Gear won’t be far behind. Peddy’s even rehearsed Dunk’s mannerisms and hand movements (and ego – probably in front of a mirror) as a +hr=e ‘news’ plitkal sage (going forward)
What do we do to get Paul Henry’s attention, a scantily clad woman?
I know what would get Mike Hoskings’ attention; put “maserati” and “beneficiary” in the subject line. His blood pressure will begin to creep up as he takes in those two words next to each other!
I think Labour should congratulate National on the Predator-free target and on the Swimmable River target.
They should say that the policies are so good that it might be a good idea to actually try to achieve them. Then explain what is required to genuinely achieve them. Genuinely swimmable. A real step by step plan, properly funded to eliminate predators – including cats-. National came up with the targets because New Zealanders like them. But Kiwis will not forgive someone who pretends to achieve these iconic goals but in reality takes them for idiots. And that is exactly what Smith has done. A little “Blinding with Science,” numerical hully-gully and Bob’s your Uncle.
I suspect the electorate will not be very forgiving.
And while on the subject, Little might comment that the $25.00 extra for some families on benefits (that we never hear the end of) was such a good idea that he plans to do it himself if he wins power.
Twice in the first three years. (But that what those families really need is help getting into well-paid employment, along with a roof over their head).
Solutions imply both engagement with, and more respect for those people than the sneering English approach that he seems happy to reiterate at every opportunity.
Every one wants another diary boom but it’s not gana happen because we spent the last one on bullshit
The quality of water is now so low, that Nick Smith is magically shifting the goalposts, to make waterways more swimmable, but less safe to drink, is just Emperor’s-New-Clothes Bullshittery.
The Minister for Aqua-shite is just ‘muddying the waters’ and embedding “Alternative Facts” into the MSM with 29 weeks, 3 days before the next election.
Next thing, Bill English’s Alternative Fact will be blaming rampant, unchecked immigration on drug-crazed beneficiaries. Ergo, stoned beneficiaries are causing the housing shortage and freezing out young Kiwis from their first home. People are living in cars because of ‘wasted beneficiaries”. 29 weeks, 3 days before the next election.
TPPA is still on the table for National, ACT, Maori Party and Peter Dunne. The Alternative Fact is an $81,000 bottle of wine in New York, paid for by
Tim GrosserThe NZ Taxpayer, was used to promote “closer ties with USA”. Where is Mr Zippy on that squandering of taxpayer money? 29 weeks, 3 days before the next election.NZ’s National Party are out-trumping Trump with their nutty brand of Alternative Facts.
If the National Party’s Alternative Facts are so empirically correct, bring forward the election and test the Alternative Facts out NOW on the voting public.
Don’t wait 29 weeks, 3 days before the next election. Do it now Bill, before you underpass your last 21% election result.
the quality of our water matches the quality of our politicians running our country
The irony is, continuation of National policies will almost certainly result in rivers being swimmable by 2040 because National policies are predicated on denial of Peak Oil, even though global extraction of conventional oil peaked around 2007 and the extraction rate for unconventional oil is expected to fall off the cliff over the next few years -resulting in compete collapse of the globalised economic system by around 2025 (perhaps before).
Factor in the abrupt climate change which is underway, and which all politicians assiduously ignore.
No globalized economic system and no imports of oil from overseas plus and utterly messed up climate system = no dairy sector in NZ (and no tourism) by around 2030 and very likely complete collapse of the populations of all major cities.
So yeah, no imports of fertiliser, no dairy sector, and population collapse may well result in swimmable rivers by 2040.
Come on Frank, that’s his job -to duck all difficult questions. Indeed, that is what politics is all about in the modern era: avoiding all critical issues and ducking all difficult questions. Plus churning out platitudes and phony narratives (lies), of course.
The farce of having criminals and clowns decide the future of the country and the future of entire world will continue as long as the general public can be prevented from realising the truth and as long as oil imports can be acquired.
‘Brace for the oil, food and financial crash of 2018
80% of the world’s oil has peaked, and the resulting oil crunch will flatten the economy’
https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/brace-for-the-financial-crash-of-2018-b2f81f85686b#.yox15zx5q
And this
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_800k.png
of course; 409 ppm atmospheric CO2 in late February, with the annual peak expected late May. And somewhat higher next year, ad infinitum.
You do realise you can make petroleum from coal or gas, right? Cost is around $30/barrel. I think petroleum is going to be around for a long time yet (unless battery powered vehicles somehow hit the mainstream, which could happen also).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasol
Remind me why every one should pay that price? It become a total disgrace. Youre literally paying to be pitched a blatant political agenda forcibly by law. Amazing!
The likely consequences of using energy to convert coal and gas into petrol are:
1) massively increasing demand for coal and gas and bringing forward their own production peaks
2) increasing the atmospheric carbon emissions for every litre of petrol we buy (especially with coal)
3) artificially extending our dangerous dependence on petrol, with the likely result that we miss our opportunity to transition to clean and renewable energy sources while we still have some hope of retaining a livable climate
Oh, don’t get me wrong, I’m NOT condoning it – this will be a possible environmental disaster (given that the Fischer-Tropsch process is hardly clean), but the environment has never gotten in the way of the petroleum industry….
But the fact is there is enough coal to see through to about 2100 (not sure if that takes into account population growth).
a vote for Bill is a vote for more Bull
I wish more attention were being paid to mitigating river pollution – the levels we have are not catastrophic to deal with.
The aptly named Huangpu river in Shanghai and the Han River in Seoul were effectively dead, deoxygenated chiefly by an excess of human waste misdirected by poorly or not regulated pipework.
Both rivers have recovered significantly, with the Han now swimmable, and the Huangpu considerably less toxic and some tributaries are alive once more. A combination of preventing organic waste inputs and aeration rapidly neutralises the problematic material.
Not sure how this plays out with e coli, but I suspect that clear oxygenated water is not a culture medium for them, so dealing with the suspended organics accelerates the natural attrition. A few wind or current driven aerators would not go amiss.
And what will the $43.5m a year actually be spent on? What work will be done? What legislation and regulation will be put in place? What monitoring and mitigation? What surveys of current freshwater life to establish baselines?
Who will conduct the research? Will it require a contest to gain funding? Will it be safe to develop a career in water care, free from restructuring and destruction? Do we still have the knowledge and skills here? Will we develop them?
Who will manage the money? How easy will it be to ring-fence to stop it leaking into Special Projects and ‘internationally appropriate remuneration’? Will it be upwardly adjusted to cover loss from inflation?
And which party will decide that ‘because of the current economic downturn we will wait for better times’?
(PS 1 billion with nine zeroes (US measure) isn’t much spread over that time frame. 1 billion with 12 zeroes (UK measure) is utterly unbelievable from any party.)
The picture of the cow in the title caption just proved our rivers are wade-able!
Indeed, Bert.
I hadn’t realised that when Nick Smith & Co were promising swimmable/wadeable rivers, they weren’t specifically promising swimmable/wadeable by Humans (or any other member of the Primate Family).
I stand corrected.
But then again Frank,
I came to the conclusion some time ago that in fact National are the Toxic algal bloom of our country.
We need to strive to make them unelect-able come September.
If we have another National government our rivers will probably reach “able to be observed from a distance while covering your face” levels. It’s something everyone in the National party can aspire to. It’s probably in line with some country somewhere.
However, hopefully after the election we won’t be forced to swim in any more of the Minister’s bulls’ shit.
I saw a book the other day that was entitled ‘Stupid jokes for smart kids’ – it reminded me of Smith’s water fiasco for some reason.
How did all this happen to our clean, green country? Simple, the people allowed it to happen. Especially when tempted with tax-cuts and hyperinflated property values. We get the country we deserve.
New Zealanders are called “sheep” by our Australian cousins for damned good reason.
[…] This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 28 February 2017. […]
[…] The moment there is a whiff that the “free market” might benefit workers – the goal-posts are shifted. (Just ask Nick Smith about shifting goal-posts.) […]
[…] The moment there is a whiff that the “free market” might benefit workers – the goal-posts are shifted. (Just ask Nick Smith about shifting goal-posts.) […]
Comments are closed.