Green Party action on deep-sea drilling

By
Frank Macskasy
-
14
0

.

Deepwater Horizon and Rena Stranding

.

The Green Party is considering  further action on the problematic issue of deep-sea drilling of our coasts.  Environmental spokesperson on Mining and Toxics, Gareth Hughes writes,

The Government is currently taking bids from oil companies to explore 189,000 square kilometres of our coastal waters.

The Government should know that Kiwis don’t want their beaches threatened by the risks of oil drilling, so we’ve set up a competing bid, the Kiwibid to allow Kiwis to voice their opposition to these plans.

If you’re ready to take action on deep sea oil drilling, join me for a live online Q and A session about what’s happening and how you can help. Join the Q and A session to discuss ways to encourage New Zealanders to sign up to the Kiwibid, and find out other ways we can work together to stop oil drilling.

When: Next Wednesday, 26 June at 8:00pm
Where: At your computer, live and online
Watch the livestream online:   Here

If you have questions about deep sea oil drilling and how you can help, I would love to hear them.

Email me your questions (kiwibid@greens.org.nz) then tune in to see the answers.

Thanks, and I hope you can join me next Wednesday.

Gareth Hughes

Deep sea drilling is an issue – and potential crisis – that I believe has not yet filtered into the public consciousness (too much bloody X Factor, Seven Sharp, and cooking porn on TV).   Should a worst case scenario come to pass,  our coastline could end up facing a crisis surpassing that of the Gulf of Mexico disaster in 2010.

Consider for a moment  that it took the most technologically advanced nation on this planet; with almost unlimited resources and wealth; nearly three months  to cap the oil gush.

This was my suggestion to the Green Party on this problematic issue,

Like many New Zealanders, I’ve taken the stranding of the m.v. Rena on 11 October 2011, and the subsequent oil spill,  as a clear warning that New Zealand is incapable of containing such a disaster. Regardless of the mealy-mouthed reassurances by National ministers (none of whom have soiled their own hands to help clean the East Coast beaches of Rena’s oil), it’s fairly evident that if we couldn’t cope with the Rena – then a Deepwater Horizon type disaster would be utterly beyond our resources.

An oil spill of Deepwater Horizon proportions – which took the Americans EIGHTYSEVEN days to contain – would be an immense enviromental disaster of our coast.

So how to prevent National from implementing it’s policy of permitting deep sea drilling/prospecting?

1. Put all oil companies on notice that any contracts will be cancelled by an incoming Labour-Green-Mana government and that there will be no compensation.

This gives them fair warning of potential change of government policy.

After all, if National can change legislation such as labour laws, which previous governments have implemented, then a progressive government has the same sovereign right.

2. Set up a Crown-owned entity which will have all off-shore leases transferred into their ownership. This crown company should be independent; funded through the Remuneration Authority (so that political interference can’t choke of funding for company directors); and a contract made between Government and this Crown company to hold all leases in perpetuity. The Board of Directors should comprise of Iwi, environmental groups, local bodies, and representatives of other groups. If National can attempt to commit future governments to a contract with Skycity to build a new conference centre, then a center-left government should be able to do likewise.

If Option 2 is unworkable, then option 3,

3. Demand a US$1 billion bond per oil drilling facility; demand that each company commit to long-term corporate-entity representation in New Zealand (so legal papers can be served locally, if necessary); demand that all disputes be covered under NZ jurisdiction; demand that fully staffed,  state-of-the-art oil containment technology be held in each distinct area where deep sea drilling is being undertaken. And any other safety, legal, financial matters not covered here.

4. Hold accountable every Minister of the Crown who signs a deep-water oil drilling consent. Accountability to include being charged with negligence, malfeasance, and contributing to any resulting oil spill. Prison terms to be considered.

Option 4 is particularly relevant.  Considering that the Pike River Mine disaster was a direct consequence of National’s “reforms” to the Mines Inspectorate in the early 1990s; and considering that none of the Ministers responsible were ever help accountable (Kate Wilkinson’s token resignation  being only a sacrificial goat); and considering that 29 men lost their lives as a result of National’s policies, it is evident that government ministers need to be held to account for their actions.

I especially have a fondness for Option 4:  Hold accountable every Minister of the Crown who signs a deep-water oil drilling consent…  Prison terms to be considered.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

It is high time that government ministers who enact legislation that eventuate in  dire consequences, should be help to account.

If government Ministers were held personally responsible it might slow down the process of so-called “reforms” and reduce Bills passed under “Urgency”.

After all, National demands the same responsibility from the rest of us.

.

.

= fs =

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

14 COMMENTS

  1. Great stuff, especially option 4 – people don’t realise how quickly this country is being sold to corporates and what that means for their basic human rights. There is also the fact that we already have five times more coal and oil available that we can actually burn in order to keep global warming under 2 degrees. Go figure.

  2. Frank as nice an idea section 4 is, there is one minor problem with it. Because politicians are by nature self serving, the idea of one of them putting their ass on the line for the ‘great unwashed’, is just unthinkable so nothing will get signed. More’s the pity.

    • …the idea of one of them putting their ass on the line for the ‘great unwashed’, is just unthinkable so nothing will get signed.

      I can’t recall the last time a politician recently “put their ass on the line for the ‘great unwashed’” to be honest…

      Skycity – yes.

      Mediaworks – yes.

      Warner Bros – yes.

      China Southern Airlines – yes.

      Great Unwashed… hmmmm… still wracking my memory…

      • There was one time when similar legislation existed, the Paris Commune. But that took an act of revolution, not parliament to get through, I’d be delighted but am sceptical about even Mana or the Greens passing No4.

        Great ideas though.

  3. What about the United Nation Convention on Law of the Sea (1982)?
    (UNCLOS)
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea
    http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm

    UNCLOS requires governments to undertake Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) PRIOR to making any major decisions in regard to EEZ waters.
    The decisions to issue exploration permits and to authorise seismic testing (which is known to pose risks to marine mammals http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/news/the-;dangers-of-seismic-testing/)
    in EEZ waters were both major decisions and both were made without any EIA undertaken by the NZ government.

    In Belize, in April this year, an international precedent was set when the Belize government issued oil and gjmas exploration permits were deemed NULL and VOID as the government did not undertake any EIA PRIOR to issiuing permits.
    We have the same situation in NZ.
    I have written to Simon Bridges, NIWA (undertaking seismic testing for oil companies in EEZ) and UNCLOS advising them of the breaches.

    Simon Bridges states that EIA’s “will be dealt with through the incoming consent process under the EEZ Act. The EEZ Act will come into force in June this year and a marine consent will be required from the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for
    exploratory drilling…”

    Of course he fails to address the issue that the government has in fact already breached the current international sea law of UNCLOS just like Belize did…

  4. My objection to these drilling operations is centered upon the carbon it will release, which has potential to contribute towards a far greater environmental threat than spills, bad as they can be.
    These operations are totally the wrong way to go from a long term global-policy perspective.
    I would put a plea to all commentators and those active in opposing the proposals to elevate this aspect in their arguments.

  5. The Green Party sponsored savings scam is 100% dependent on economic growth, no energy IE oil = NO GROWTH. So till me where the energy is going to come from to maintain this growth, if ‘we’ don’t drill baby drill ?
    I guess they could start promoting nuclear power plants, along with QE and more manufacturing jobs

    Kiwi Saver = destruction of your children’s environment … if you are unfortunate enough to have then that is.

    • So till me where the energy is going to come from to maintain this growth, if ‘we’ don’t drill baby drill ?

      Is that a serious question, Robert? (Apologies if it’s rhetorical – I’ll take it as given…)

      The answer, I would have thought is fairly self-evident;

      * wind power
      * solar
      * tidal
      * geo-thermal
      * hydro (in the right areas)

      And with better building insulation, we can reduce the need for electricity generation. Reducing power consumption by increased efficiencies is not not environmentally friendly – but good for profit margins.

      Fairly elementary?

      • Sorry Frank
        Maybe I should have said “Where are we going to find enough energy, that actually gives us enough ‘return’ to run a growing economy ?
        Sorry again but your list has mainly negative returns, especially when you take the oil content out of the equation, even hydro has a limited life (silting etc) and you can’t stock super markets with electric trucks, well you could but we don’t have an electric delivery system and it would take more oil than will be available to NZ to build one.
        And lets not forget 9 out of every 10 calories we eat are dependent on oil.
        Afew needs to help me on this

        • There are only two issues worth discussing:

          1. How do we feed a population that is already in gross overshoot when the industrial food system collapses over the next decade (as a consequence of falling off the net energy Hubbert’s Curve and as a consequence of ever-worsening climate chaos)?

          2, How doe we prevent the Earth becoming largely uninhabitable for humans by the middle of this century as a consequence of positive climate feedbacks and runaway greenhouse (positive climate feedbacks are already starting to runaway!!)

          Those are the two issues ‘nobody’ wants to discuss.

          Therefore the next generation is utterly screwed.

      • Nothing, absolutely nothing, can replace the energy content of 84 million barrels of oil consumed globally every day (plus a similar amount of coal and natural gas). And that amount is being consumed just to prop up present economic arrangements.

        Just as a reminder, one tank of petrol has an energy equivalence of around 6 weeks continuous hard labour.

        Anyone who thinks that so-called alternatives can match the energy density of oil is away with the fairies and has clearly done no research on the matter. indeed, I begin to wonder whether there are more than ten people in NZ who actually understand what energy is.

        The construction of any of the so-called alternatives requires the mining, processing and transport of materials using oil, And they all result in massive CO2 emissions which would exacerbate the climate chaos predicament associated with approximately 400ppm CO2 (80ppm above the acknowledged safe level) and rising at greater than an exponential rate of nearly 3ppm per annum = Near Term Extinction around 2040).

        Clearly, thinking at the level of 12-year-olds is still endemic amongst NZ ‘adults’.

  6. Re Option 4 – Given that global warming will cause many millions more deaths and destruction than Hitler did in World War II, I can’t see why, philosophically at least, leaders of countries who didn’t take necessary action aren’t held accountable as the German High Command was at Nuremburg. Why should John Key and the present government, for example be able to walk away at the end of their careers and enjoy a nice retirement, while the next generation pays the cost.

Comments are closed.