Alan Preston here up in Mangawhai.
I’ve been busy since the Rugby World Cup finished, doing my best to get this issue into the media and to get it picked up by the opposition parties…. no takers in either camp. Seems that the election campaign has been tightly stage managed to ensure that issues like this are excluded. Maybe it’s time to join on the growing stack of cynics.
I put the following together and have sent it out to the Greens, Labour , Northland Councils ( and media) Rail and Maritime Transport Union, Federation of Rail NZ , Gisborne Rail Action , Campaign for better transport, Sustainable Energy Forum, Engineers for Social Responsibility, Greenpeace, Transition Towns et al
Caio.
Alan
The issue of National Significance
The money NZ spends on importing oil has risen 22% this year to over $21 million per day, $7.7billion for the 2010 year,
and while the International Energy Agency is warning us to reduce our vulnerability to what are going to become increasingly expensive post 2006 peak oil prices, the National Government is diverting funding from social, health, education and welfare programs to benefit their benefactors in the Auto-Petro lobby by committing more than $11billion on Roads of ‘ National’ Significance‘ and threatening to close another 5 of our regional railway lines.
Activists involved in promoting sustainable energy, sustainable transport and those active in various environmental issues, environmental health and Climate Change have a huge body of evidence that would support a complete review of National’s approach to the provision of Transport Infrastructure .We also have evidence that they are systematically covering up advice and covering up research that isn’t consistant with their desired outcomes.
Is this the way forward for NZ ?
Alan Preston
www.thewayforward2011.org.nz & saveourrailnorthland.org.nz
================================================================
A call to action !
Those of us advocating for sustainable energy, sustainable transport, various environmental issues, environmental health and climate change mitigation have never before enjoyed what we now have:
The total support of the International Energy Agency.
Recent (May 2011) announcements by the IEA validate and substantiate the imperative for our government to be acting in accordance with their advice ( which NZ pays for ) on reducing our dependence, consumption and vulnerability to what is set to become increasingly expensive post peak ( 2006 ) oil AND to act to dramatically reduce our Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
If any of the candidates in any of the political parties have used this clincher, it hasn’t been picked up by others in the debate about which is the best ‘way forward’ for our country. - And it seems there has been a conspiracy of silence in the media.
This is THE TRUMP CARD for the opposition parties in this week’s general election
The time to play it is now !
Citing the IEA’s advice to reduce our dependence on imported fossil fuels provides the justification for cancelling projects such as
the roads of ‘National’ significance and for re-directing funding into developing more appropriate energy generation and transport systems:
-By which we’ll achieve a range of win/win outcomes:
A more resilient, sustainable, environment-friendly, efficient and competitive economy and a better New Zealand to live in.
Reductions in our emissions-related health costs ( 730 premature deaths attributed to air pollution in Auckland in 2010 @ $3.50million per life )
Reductions in our Green-House-Gas emissions , in accordance with our committment to the Kyoto Protocol,
Jobs in the ‘green’ sector.
We need to get the conversation going so that people can go to the polls on Saturday the 26th of November 2011 with an awareness of this issue ( read on down for more context and enjoy getting lost in the links ! )
Please consider forwarding this on through your /or other networks of NZers, write a letter to the editor, call talkback radio, write to candidates, and be sure to let others who don’t use the internet know about this.
Newspapers in New Zealand.
NewsTalkZB
Radio Live
Candidates e-mail addresses.
Other Networks
Facebook
=================================================================================================
In May of this year the International Energy Agency (IEA), an historically conservative organisation, revised their earlier forecast that peak oil was not due to occur until sometime after 2030, following a study of 800 of the world’s oil fields. They are now saying that they believe the peak in conventional oil production actually occurred in 2006 and that unconventional sources (natural gas and tar sands) are extremely unlikely to make up the shortfall because of growing demand from China and India, concluding that ‘the age of cheap oil is over’ (Radio New Zealand National’s Nine To Noon Program on the 25th of May 2011 with the International Energy Agency’s Chief Economist , Fatih Birol). The IEA go on to warn that governments around the world urgently need to reduce their vulnerability to increasing fossil fuel prices. It is prudent to note at this point that as a member nation of the IEA New Zealand pays for their advice.
In the context of the above revelations, paying attention to and acting upon New Zealand’s dependence on oil is imperative. Early in their first, and current, term in office the National Government was presented with the 2009 Ministerial Report on Oil Prices and Resilience in the Transport Sector which outlined some of the vulnerabilities that New Zealand faces, vulnerabilities that are further intensified by the IEA’s latest findings. The National Government appears to not only ignore the agency’s warnings, but has sought to ignore and indeed conceal critically relevant information.
The above Ministerial Report was one of at least two significant documents that were only made public after use of the Official Information Act forced their release. The other, the Bolland Report, the Ministry of Transport commissioned in 2010 to provide independant advice on the costs and benefits of rail vs road for freight transport. The report found in favour of rail. This finding is consistent with the IEA’s clear indication that more sustainable approaches to transport must be pursued. Why then is this government intent on rationalising New Zealand’s rail network in their KiwiRail Turnaround plan - which includes the ‘mothballing’ of 5 regional railway lines? Such action only serves to increase our vulnerability to oil while concurrently decreasing our resilience.
Equally alarming is this National Government’s focus on building roads, and in particular the ‘Roads of National Significance’ (RoNS) projects. If it is in the country’s, not to mention the planet’s, best interest to reduce oil dependency, why is the government embarking on such major road building initiatives while systematically dismantling the rail network?
This question becomes even more significant when set alongside the SAHA Roads of National Significance: Economic Assessments Review which identified that at least three of the seven projects assessed prove economically non-viable (that is with BCRs of less than 1). The report also warned against putting too much weight on the incorporation of Wider Economic Benefits (WEBs) as their use is still in its infancy and to some degree contentious. This report was not released for public scrutiny.
What was released to the public was the SAHA Summary Report. This report appears to be a reworking of the original with what can only be described as manipulative changes to the data, including placing unwarranted emphasis on the WEBs despite the above caveats.
Mike Pickford, Independent Economic Researcher and former Chief Economist at the New Zealand Commerce Commission has reviewed both the ‘First‘ and ‘Second‘ SAHA reports . His findings point to inconsistencies both within the original report and between the two reports, as well as highlighting the unconventional and questionable practice of assessing the RoNS program as a whole ‘portfolio’ as opposed to the more appropriate approach of assessing each project on its own merits. It is this ‘amalgamation’ process that allows the disguising of the negative returns of some of the projects.
There seems little doubt that taxpayers are being sold a misrepresentation of the facts in order to validate the current National Government’s uneconomic and unsustainable approach to transport infrastructure. The question then has to be ‘who stands to benefit?’
Thank you.
Alan Preston and Marianne Riley.
for Save our Rail Northland
www.saveourrailnorthland.org.nz
e-mail:saveourrailnorthland@gmail.com
For more background on this issue :
Documents released under the Official Information Act reveal National Government systematically denying appropriate response to IEA warning
contact Alan Preston
e-mail @ e-mail:saveourrailnorthland@gmail.com
web-site: http://www.saveourrailnorthland.org.nz
see also: www.thewayforward2011.org.nz
If we don’t change them,
we‘ll end up where they‘re taking us!
Contact: ALan Preston ( a campaign co-ordinator )
Mangawhai Village, Northland , New Zealand
e-mail: thewayforward2011@gmail.com
web-site: www.thewayforward2011.org.nz