Oral Submission on Resource Consent Application from Buller Coal Ltd to West
Coast Regional Council for Escarpment Mine Project Denniston Plateau
Jeanette Fitzsimons
PO Box 766
Thames 3540
jeanette@greens.org.nz
ph 07 868 6641
Introduction
My full name is Jeanette Mary Fitzsimons. I have worked professionally on climate
change policy issues for 30 years, teaching in the Environmental Studies programme at
Auckland University from 1980-1992 and as an elected member of Parliament 19962010. From 2000-2005 I chaired the Local Government and Environment select
committee which considered climate change related legislation, as well as a number of
amendments to the RMA. I attended, as an observer, the international negotiations on the
Kyoto Protocol in Kyoto 1997; The Hague 2000; and Copenhagen 2009.
I oppose all of the applications under RC 10193 and the project in its entirety. I wish the
Council to decline all applications.
I have read and endorse the statement of the Royal Forest & Bird Society on the local
implications for water quality, biodiversity and landscape values, but have no additional
knowledge to put before you. I wish to confine my statement to the impacts of this
project on one natural and physical resource which is fundamental to human wellbeing –
to our lives, health, and livelihoods. That resource is a benign climate.
I will first establish that climate is a natural and physical resource and should be so
considered under the RMA. I will then bring evidence by video recording to establish the
urgency of addressing climate change and the role played by coal. I will refute the
general perception that regional councils cannot consider the effects of projects on
climate change, and then consider the requirements of Part 2 of the RMA to protect the
climate resource.
Why climate is a natural and physical resource
The Concise Oxford Dictionary 4th ed. defines a resource as a “means of supplying a
want; country’s collective means for suppport and defence”.
A benign climate enables humanity to provide food and water. A stable climate provides
a stable sea level and so a stable coastline which enables settlements to establish close to
the sea and its many resources. A stable climate allows planning of dwellings and their
heating requirements; irrigation systems; recreational facilities, and much more. The
stability of the Himalayan glaciers has for thousands of years provided a steady flow of
water for the people of South East Asia; a stable climate has allowed New Zealanders to
develop hydro power based on winter snows that thaw and feed rivers in Spring.
Clearly a stable, benign climate is a resource deserving of protection under the RMA.
Climate however has some differences from other resources. Impacts on climate are
global, affecting all the world’s people; impacts are also delayed, as the inertia in the
climate systems means the effects of today’s actions are not experienced for some years.
It is not possible to deal with climate impacts only within the local environment. If we
wish to meet the requirements of Part 2 of the RMA we must consider the effects of our
actions in a global context.
Current climate science
Over the last two decades the scientific consensus has become steadily more certain, that
warming of the climate is now measurable; and that it is caused at least in the main by
human activity, namely the release of greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide, from
human activities, mainly the burning of fossil fuels, of which coal is the most damaging.
Emissions per energy unit from coal are nearly twice those from natural gas.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the biggest assembly of the
world’s most learned climate scientists, has set out in its Fourth Assessment Report the
impacts that can be expected from raising global temperatures. They include changing
rainfall patterns; more intense extreme weather events such as storms, floods and
droughts; melting glaciers and sea ice, sea level rise, acidification of the oceans and
extinction of many thousands of species.
It has become clear recently that the rate of climate change now exceeds the highest of
the IPCC scenarios – carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are growing faster than
anyone predicted, and this year measure 395 ppm. The rate of increase is itself
accelerating. Rates of ice melt and ocean acidification also exceed predictions.
I will shortly show a dvd recorded in Wellington last month for this hearing, by Dr James
Hansen, the Director of the Goddard Centre for Space Studies at NASA and adjunct
professor at Columbia University. It covers climate science issues, the urgency of action,
the role of coal, and the impacts of this project on the global climate.
His evidence establishes that the earth is warming because it is out of energy balance.
Carbon dioxide and other gases released by humans are preventing the re-radiation from
the earth of the solar energy it receives. It is now possible to calculate this precisely. He
will tell you that if we want to stabilise climate and avoid dangerous warming we must
reduce carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere to below what they are now – in fact to
350ppm.
He will outline that sea level will rise by metres if our emissions stay on a business-asusual path, and that thousands of species will be driven to extinction. He deduces that we
cannot afford to burn all the fossil fuels on the planet; some must be left in the ground
permanently. He calculates that if we are to burn the readily available oil and gas, we
must leave most of the remaining coal in the ground if we are to stabilise climate. Given
that imperative, he says it does not make sense to open new coal mines. Based on the
6.1MT the applicant wishes to mine in this project, Dr Hansen calculates its approximate
share of global extinctions from climate change.
Impact of the proposed Escarpment mine on climate change
Buller Coal Ltd wishes to mine 6.1 million tonnes of bituminous coal at a rate of 1-2
million tonnes a year over a period of 5-12 years. I calculate, using the Ministry for the
Environment’s Emissions factors on their website, that this total quantity of coal will add
16 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gases to the atmosphere,
regardless of where it is used. Dr Hansen, working from general data for bituminous
coals, has testified it will be 15-20 million tonnes.
NZ’s current annual production of coal of all types from all sources is 4.6 million tonnes.
(Ministry of Economic Development Energy Data File July 2010) So at full production of
2 MT/y this mine alone will increase NZ’s coal production by 43%. This is a very
significant increase.
It is indisputable that the mining and export of 6.1MT of coal from the proposed mine
will result in the addition of approximately 16 MT of carbon dioxide equivalent gases to
the atmosphere. The point at which that addition becomes inevitable, regardless of where
the coal is used, is when the coal is removed from the ground. This will contribute its
share to warming of global temperatures, and thereby to changes in rainfall patterns,
acidification of the oceans, melting of glaciers and Arctic ice, melting of the Antarctic
and Greenland ice sheets and eventually if this continues long enough, raising of sea
levels by several metres.
Climate and the RMA
There is a common perception that the 2004 amendment of the RMA to add ss70A and
104E has removed the ability for regional councils to consider climate change in resource
consent hearings. This is an erroneous reading of the law.
Ss70A and 104E apply to the situation where a regional council is making rules about, or
considering applications relating to, applications for air discharge consents. However
Buller Coal Ltd is not applying to discharge carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by
burning the coal, because the coal is intended for export and the carbon dioxide emissions
will occur overseas.
Section 104E only applies ‘when considering an application for a discharge permit’. So it
does not apply to this case.
I chaired the Local Government and Environment Committee which considered the
Government’s proposed changes to the RMA in 2004. The intention of the minister, and
of the committee, was that greenhouse gas emissions would be dealt with separately by a
carbon charge which was announced government policy at that time. It has since been
replaced by a partial Emissions Trading Scheme. Since the RMA was enacted in 1991,
New Zealand had signed the Kyoto Protocol which required us to take responsibility for
our emissions above 1990 levels. The carbon charge, and later the ETS, were designed to
meet this responsibility.
Neither of these instruments applied, or was intended to apply, outside New Zealand.
Moreover, export of coal from New Zealand is largely to countries (eg India, China)
which have no obligations under the Kyoto Protocol and therefore no price on carbon
emissions and no offsetting arrangements to capture carbon from the atmosphere.
Furthermore, the climate impacts of burning this coal in a country with no offsetting
action will be experienced globally, including in New Zealand. It is therefore illogical,
and the law does not propose it, to exempt from part 2 activities which will contribute to
climate change in a way that is not provided for, or offset by, our international
obligations.
My submission is that ss 70A and 104E are irrelevant to this application and due regard
must be given by the Council to the impacts on the global climate and the wellbeing of
future generations, of mining this coal.
We are therefore free to apply Part 2 of the RMA without legslative restriction. Nothing
in the amendments to the RMA take away the obligation to comply with Part 2, and in
particular s5, which governs the overall environmental effects of activities.
The overriding purpose of the RMA, “to promote the sustainable management of natural
and physical resources”(5(1) imposes three conditions on resource management.
5(2)(a) requires “sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding
minerals) to meet the reasonably forseeable needs of future generations”. There can be
no doubt that one such resource is a stable climate, without which food production,
access to fresh water and safe coastal development cannot be sustained.
This mine will not sustain the portential of the climate resource to meet the needs of
future generations.
5(2)(b) requires “safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil and
ecosystems.” The point has already been made that a warming climate will disrupt rainfall
patterns and therefore water resources, increasing droughts in some places and floods in
others; and that many thousands of species, the foundation of ecosystems, will be made
extinct. Changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere will also reduce its lifesupporting capacity via its influence on climate.
Therefore this mine wil not safeguard the life-supporting capacity of air, water or
ecosystems.
5(2)(c ) requires “avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects on the environment”.
As the Planning Officers’ report points out, case law has established that this is not a
balancing act between benefits and harm – adverse effects must be avoided, remedied or
mitigated. There are no proposals in the application to avoid, remedy or mitigate effects
on the climate. The Planning Officers further point out that while no balancing of positive
and negative effects is permitted with regard to section 5, nevertheless the degree of
significance of the effects matters. This brings into question the scale of the project.
While 2 MT of carbon dioxide a year is small in a global context it is significant in
relation to New Zealand’s total greenhouse emissions from all sources which are
~75MT/y. Furthermore it is clear in the application and recognised in the Planning
Officers’ report that this mine is intended to be just the first of several along the plateau.
While the RMA does not make it easy to deal with cumulative effects, it should still not
be possible to break a project into sufficient small chunks to avoid the test of
“significance”. Increasing New Zealand’s rate of coal extraction by 43% has implications
for the future. The expansion of workforce and machinery as well as processing facilities
will be the driver for moving on to new coal resources when this mine is depleted, so that
the large increase in the rate of mining, and therefore of NZ’s contribution to climate
change, is likely to be long-lasting. If a consent for this project were to set a new
permitted baseline for mines on the plateau, it would drive those cumulative effects even
further.
There is another important effect of the burning of coal by the purchasers and that is the
acidification of the ocean, which is a direct chemical result of the absorption of carbon
dioxide in the oceans. Ocean acidification is widely acknowledged to pose a serious
threat to the marine environment. The resulting decrease in the pH of the oceans will
have negative consequences, primarily for oceanic calcifying organisms such as coral
reefs, and aside from calcification, organisms may suffer other adverse effects, either
directly as reproductive or physiological effects (such as hypercapnia, or carbon dioxideinduced acidification of body fluids), or through negative impacts on food resources.
I conclude that this application contravenes all three of the sustainable management
conditions in section 5.
Section 7 also requires particular regard to be had to a number of matters which are
relevant to climate.
The capacity of the atmosphere to absorb carbon dioxide without causing major
disruption to earth systems is finite. Dr Hansen has stated this capacity is only 350 ppm
and that at 395ppm we have already overshot. This then requires attention under s7(g).
The addition of s7(i) “the effects of climate change” shows that Parliament accepted the
reality and the risks of climate change and required consent authorities to do the same.
This just underlines the relevance of the preceding arguments.
Recent climate science has changed the planning landscape to the point that no new coal
mine should now be consented if we wish to protect a reasonable economy and quality of
life for future generations. I therefore ask that all the consents sought be declined.