Monthly Archives: Aug 2016

New Zealand: NOT 100% Pure

Posted on by
Reply

I have an admission. It is a rather embarrassing one for a person who is as proud of my country as I am to make, but it has to be said. This nation that I and 4.6 million other New Zealanders call home has been subjecting you and millions of others to misleading advertising about the state of our natural environment.

You might have heard of the “100% Pure” advertising, marketing New Zealand as an environmentally pure location, pure enjoyment and fun. Yes it is pure enjoyment and yes this country is a lot of fun, but it is not environmentally pure. And it has not been for sometime.

There are some very good reasons why I am saying this:

  1. Anyone who has been an active recreationalist in our freshwater lakes and rivers cannot help but notice the decline in aquatic health of these features, artificial or otherwise. It stems in large part from excessive dairying, which is water intensive and although it creates significant jobs, the number of cow herds has become unsustainable. For every cow there is the urine and faeces of 10 human beings. These are rich in nitrate and when they get into water courses they contaminate drinking water supplies as the Hawkes Bay is finding out to its detriment.
  2. Our environmental footprint per individual New Zealander is substantial. If the whole world had the environmental footprint of a New Zealander, we would need all of the current planet and 95% of another equivalent planet. And it is well known that there is no Planet B to realistically colonized in the foreseeable future. Although it creates emissions – there is no 100% pollution free way of dealing with waste other than not doing the activity/using the device that caused it – high temperature incinerators may help (or contribute the to problem).
  3. Our marine environment is suffering the effects of a combination of problems including over fishing and trawlers using dredge nets that act like a scoop on the seabed. A failure to address the decline of critically listed species such as the Maui Dolphin, which is believed to number only 55 in the wild means such species may become extinct in our lifetime.
  4. Electronic waste is not a concept many New Zealanders are familiar with, yet we generate about 80,000 tons per annum or the displacement of a decent size aircraft carrier. It includes unwanted dumb/smart phones, kitchen appliances such as stoves and microwaves, televisions, camera’s, MP3/4 players and so forth,

This is not the first time valid concerns have been raised about the misleading advertising and nor is it the first time New Zealand has been found wanting on the subject. And for that I think New Zealand needs to do the honest thing and apologize. It needs to take down for good, the “100% Pure” advertising and come up with some other slogan, because “100% Pure” we are not.

Feasibility of Waste-to-Energy plants in New Zealand

Posted on by
1

As the world debates climate change issues, and the market for fossil fuels wanes from a combination of lower prices and a slowing market, questions continue to arise about energy sources in the 21st Century. As one who thinks there is significant potential for a technological based solution, I have been wondering what alternative energy sources might be used in place of non renewables that take thousands of years to form and whose consumption is causing massive environmental degradation.

Waste to energy plants are in effect high powered incinerators, that burn waste at close to 900-950 degrees celsius, and generating electricity in the process. In 2011 there were 86 known waste-to-energy plants in the United States, which generated about 2,700 megawatts of electricity powering about 2 million homes. The total installed U.S. waste-to-energy generation capacity at that time was roughly equivalent to three Huntly sized power stations in a New Zealand context.

In Norway a growing market for waste-to-energy power generation has been established. The country imports waste from towns in the United Kingdom to help feed the incinerator. It is divisive however, with some people and organizations believing the facility, near Bergen, to be a blot on the landscape. Others are concerned that it may undermine recycling efforts by causing confusion and providing an easy throw-away option. Supporters point to the large volume of waste dumped across Europe per annum – in 2013, roughly 150 million tons – saying it only represents a tiny fraction of the total amount dumped.

Could New Zealand apply such technology here? Possibly. Given the concentration of much of New Zealand’s population in urban areas, it is certainly worth investigating. I would envisage plants being built in the industrial parts of Auckland Wellington, Christchurch and Hamilton. Rather than taking the waste to landfills for dumping, the waste collected from kerb side collection could instead go to a waste-to-energy facility. This would have an added benefit of possibly lengthening the life time of existing landfills.

Each year 80,000 tons of electronic waste (e-waste)gets generated in New Zealand and can be as diverse as old  dumb and smart phones, printers, lap/desktops, kindles, digital camera’s, GPS units, microwaves, televisions and so forth. Less than 1% of it gets recycled. E-waste has significant minerals in it, including neodymium, europium and tantalum. The Basel Accord prevents toxics being sent to third world countries, but only a few first world countries have proper facilities and protocol for disposing of e-waste. Although New Zealand has ratified the Basel Convention, it has only made ad hoc efforts to support the recycling of e-waste.

New Zealand also throws out a large amount of plastics, ranging from soft drink and milk bottles, to product wrapping and bags. Despite assertions to the contrary the vast majority of this ends up in landfills. As a nation on the Pacific Rim, some of the plastics from ships that leave/enter New Zealand waters find their way into the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, a large area of seawater in the northern Pacific where ocean currents are depositing huge amounts of waste – one estimate suggests 5 trillion individual pieces of waste.

 

Funding tourism and recreational activities in New Zealand

Posted on by
Reply

A few months ago there was an article that suggested the number of tourists visiting New Zealand annually would be equivalent to the entire population of the country within just a few years. It was a sobering thought to me on one hand, trying to figure out the amount of infrastructure all of these tourists would need and how to pay for it. On the other it was a serious nod to the status of New Zealand on the world stage. But it also raised some questions.

Somehow New Zealand must find a way to fund the infrastructure that is needed. As tourists are one of the largest users, it seems only fair that they help pay for it. In some small districts where the total population is only a few thousand, and the rate paying base perhaps only a couple thousand, the local council may not have the means to fund all of the infrastructure that they need. This is where the Government needs to step in with some form of assistance, lest it become a drag on one of the biggest contributors to the overall New Zealand economy.

To this end I believe that a uniform fee be charged to every non-New Zealander arriving in the country upon entry. I would suggest that it be something in the vicinity of N.Z.$75-100 and would go into a fund that has no purpose other than to help fund tourist infrastructure projects in the districts with small ratepayer bases. It would be used for building toilet blocks, areas that are suitable for freedom camping, rubbish disposal and so forth. It would be part of a larger Government package to take pressure off New Zealand taxpayers and ensures fairer distribution of costs by only charging users for the services and goods they require. Other measures might include something like a $10 entry fee per person to National Parks. Again, the money would go towards amenities in the National Park system and maintenance of existing ones.

Many thousands of people go into our National Parks each year. 99.99% of them have a great time and remember the experiences for all the right reasons. But for a fraction of the number of visitors, it will not end happily – they might get caught out tramping by a sudden change in the weather and not be prepared or get lost in the bush. The cost of finding these people and getting them to safety could easily cost thousands of dollars. For people going tramping, mountain climbing or taking part in other activities overnight in high risk areas, when logging ones intentions at the Department of Conservation office a bond should be paid as a way of helping to cover rescue costs should there be an emergency. If all goes to plan, or any emergency the participant/s have is not of their making – someone becomes sick; earthquake causes landslides that trap people – the bond gets returned.

 

Drones: the good, the bad and the ugly

Posted on by
Reply

To the tech nerd they are possibly the new craze on the block. Anyone who has seen a drone in the There is no doubt that the use of drones will continue to increase. So too will the applications for which they are used. Most applications will be perfectly legitimate and some even beneficial. But there will also be applications for which drone use must be frowned upon. So, taking a play on the title of the movie “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly”, how do drones stack up?

The Good

Anyone who has been in Christchurch involved with the demolition of unstable buildings or ones in tricky to reach spots where foot access may not be practical, the use of drones to ascertain the layout of the property and identify hazards might well be the safest and easiest option. With a camera and live data stream back to the operator, its ability to quickly get an overview in real time and relay the data ensures that not only can the operator see what is going on, but can refer back as necessary.

I first saw a drone with absolute clarity when the Christchurch Police Station was imploded at the end of May 2015. Hovering overhead at about 70 metres, with its owner on the roof of an adjacent building it was one of several used to record the very public felling, watched both in person and on the internet by thousands of people, thanks to its data stream.

The bad

Unfortunately there are a few users out there who are likely to have malicious intents. There will also be a few out there who have not considered privacy issues, or not thought about the hazards of launching drones around facilities such as airports where public safety could be jeopardized. These are the users who need to be cautioned before they break the law or wonder why someone tried to down their drone. Most will comply, but the ones that do not should have their machines confiscated.

The ugly

Drones also have military uses. Whilst some of the uses might be good, such as conducting surveillance over large areas of territory, drones have been implicated in some very questionable attacks in the so called “War on Terrorism”. These attacks have stemmed from attempts to liquidate senior Islamic State officials as well as al-Qaida militants among others. In doing so they have exposed a very grey area of international law in terms of assassinations and invading other nations air space. But more tragically drones have murdered innocent people. Wedding parties have been an unfortunate but common target. No one has been charged with anything yet and the U.S. military says the orders come from senior military officers or the C.I.A.

And a cautionary tale

However, there are privacy issues that go with remote controlled drones, whose operator cannot be seen. In the week just ending Domino’s pizza announced it was working with the Government to develop a drone that could deliver pizza’s to a person’s door. Although this might seem economical to Domino’s as it would avoid having to pay staff to deliver the pizza’s by foot, serious and perhaps irreconcilable issues with the customers privacy may arise.  This is because the drone will be storing data necessary for it to fly to the location where the customer lives. In the time it takes at the property delivering the pizza’s it could be collecting data about the layout of the property and activities, or people living there gathered by its video feed. The customer will only have Domino’s – most likely spoken and not written – word that it wipes the data from the drone and does not store it in any form.

 

 

The bullying epidemic in New Zealand

Posted on by
1

We hear about bullies in schools picking on vulnerable or isolated children. It might simple things as snubbing them in them games, or more overt acts such pushing and shoving, breaking property and ganging up on them. The acts are damaging to the child and the student starts to withdraw into their own world.

Sadly the same can be said for the workplace as well, particularly after a new survey came out showing the extent of the problem. There is no doubt about it: New Zealand has a culture of bullying in the work place that . It might be vulnerable staff, possibly new to their job and still finding their way or coming across as different or possibly simply someone who looked like they could be an easy target.

New Zealand has one of the highest rates of bullying in the workplace in the world. Some say it is partially because of a male “suck it up” attitude, but in instances where females have been the perpetrator it might possibly be because of perceptions that female staff would not indulge in that kind of behaviour.  Just as there is a tendency to pay males more than females, there might also be a tendency to punish female bullies less than male staff. Misconceptions might also exist as to how the victim is supposed to react – do they complain at the risk of being told to harden up and be a man; do they play the “man” role and just suck it up?

It does not help that a state of apathy, or perhaps more accurately societal lethargy, about the issue exists. Even at Government level it has been found that apathy exists – is it really a problem; do people not care; it is a problem, but not ours – could all be attitudes prevalent in Ministries that might have a tangible impact on the issue.

As noted in the report, there are things we can do:

  1. The law needs redefining for a start – it is considered vague
  2. A proactive culture driven by people who want to make meaningful change on the issue needs to be instituted
  3. Reporting procedures need to be improved and staff educated on how to make a complaint
  4. Complainants need to have confidence that when a complaint is reported it is acted on and not filed away

But do nothing should not be an option.