DOGE is Legally Liable for Texas Drownings

In a world increasingly battered by the ferocity of climate-driven storms, the catastrophic Texas floods of July 2025 stand as a grim testament to governmental negligence. 

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), under the previous stewardship of Elon Musk and propelled by Donald Trump’s administration, slashed funding and staffing to critical agencies like the National Weather Service (NWS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).


On Tuesday, AP reported:

 

Debate erupts over role job cuts played in weather forecasts ahead of deadly Texas floods

Questions linger about level of coordination

Questions remain, however, about the level of coordination and communication between NWS and local officials on the night of the disaster. The Trump administration has cut hundreds of jobs at NWS, with staffing down by at least 20% at nearly half of the 122 NWS field offices nationally and at least a half dozen no longer staffed 24 hours a day. Hundreds more experienced forecasters and senior managers were encouraged to retire early.

The White House also has proposed slashing its parent agency’s budget by 27% and eliminating federal research centers focused on studying the world’s weather, climate and oceans.

The website for the NWS office for Austin/San Antonio, which covers the region that includes hard-hit Kerr County, shows six of 27 positions are listed as vacant. The vacancies include a key manager responsible for issuing warnings and coordinating with local emergency management officials. An online resume for the employee who last held the job showed he left in April after more than 17 years, shortly after mass emails sent to employees urging them to retire early or face potential layoffs.

Democrats on Monday pressed the Trump administration for details about the cuts. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer demanded that the administration conduct an inquiry into whether staffing shortages contributed to “the catastrophic loss of life” in Texas.

These cuts, which saw NWS staffing plummet by 20% across half its field offices and 550 meteorologists depart, directly undermined the ability to issue timely flood warnings. The result? Over 100 lives lost, including 27 girls at Camp Mystic. This is not just a moral failure, it’s a legal one, demanding prosecution for negligent acts by federal employees.

The evidence is damning. The Austin/San Antonio NWS office, tasked with forecasting for the flood-ravaged Texas Hill Country, operated with six of 27 positions vacant, including a critical warning coordination role. Forecasts underestimated rainfall by up to 50%, and warnings, though issued, failed to reach communities effectively.

Former NOAA administrator Rick Spinrad has pointed to these staffing shortages as a direct cause of inadequate alerts. Yet, while Musk and Trump championed “efficiency” to justify slashing vital infrastructure, they funnelled tax cuts to themselves and their elite allies, a grotesque prioritisation of profit over people which has resulted in numerous American lives lost.

Legal precedents underscore the potential for accountability. In Katrina Canal Breaches Consolidated Litigation (2009), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was held liable for negligent maintenance of flood control systems, a ruling that bypassed sovereign immunity by focusing on operational failures.

Similarly, Freeman v. United States (1971) found the government liable for failing to warn of dangerous weather, affirming a duty to disseminate critical information. Indian Towing Co. v. United States (1955) further established that once the government undertakes a service like weather forecasting, it must execute it with accuracy and care.

DOGE’s cuts, which left NWS offices understaffed and unable to coordinate effectively, mirror these operational lapses. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, such negligence by federal employees, caused by politicians cutting funding, could (and should) face prosecution, especially if specific regulations on staffing or warning protocols were violated.

Climate change amplifies this tragedy. Scientists like Avantika Gori note that warming oceans fuel more intense, localised storms, as seen in Texas with 30 to 50 cm (12-20 inches) of rain falling in hours. Governments worldwide, including New Zealand’s, share liability for failing to mitigate climate change or bolster infrastructure against its impacts.

The Paris Agreement’s tepid progress and inadequate emissions reductions leave communities vulnerable, with leaders complicit in disasters they’ve failed to prepare for. In Texas, DOGE’s cuts exacerbated this vulnerability, turning a climate-driven deluge into a massacre.

Musk and Trump’s actions reflect a callous disregard for public safety. While they gutted NOAA’s budget by 27% and eliminated research centres, they celebrated tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy, a moral bankruptcy that echoes across the globe.

Governments, whether in Washington or Wellington, have a duty to protect citizens from foreseeable harms. By prioritising fiscal “efficiency” over robust forecasting and mitigation, they’ve failed in that duty.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s call for an investigation is a start, but it’s not enough. Those responsible for these cuts must face legal consequences, not just political scrutiny.

The Texas floods are a clarion call. Climate change demands urgent investment in resilient systems, not reckless tax cuts to appease billionaires. Governments worldwide must be held accountable, legally and morally, for failing to act.

In New Zealand, we watch with horror, knowing our own climate inaction could invite similar tragedies. The time for excuses is over; the time for justice is now.

A monument to capitalisms failure

As the Grenfell Tower tragedy fades from international headlines, the burnt out building remains as a terrible monument to capitalisms failure.

Arconic, the company that sells the insulation panels that caused the rapid spread of the Grenfell Tower fire has blamed the failure of their product on the “inconsistency of building codes across the world.”

This is a patently absurd excuse, being that they could have ensured their product wasn’t being installed in a dangerous way, wherever in the world it was being sold.

Last Saturday, Reuters reported:

REFILE-Arconic knowingly supplied flammable panels for use in tower -emails

Six emails sent by and to an Arconic Inc sales manager raise questions about why the company supplied combustible cladding to a distributor for use at Grenfell Tower, despite publicly warning such panels were a fire risk for tall buildings.

The emails, dating from 2014 and seen by Reuters, were between Deborah French, Arconic's UK sales manager, and executives at the contractors involved in the bidding process for the refurbishment contract at Grenfell Tower in London, where 79 people died in a blaze last week.

When asked about the emails, Arconic said in a statement that it had known the panels would be used at Grenfell Tower but that it was not its role to decide what was or was not compliant with local building regulations.

The fact that Arconic knew that their product was flammable while selling it for use on high-rise buildings shows that they placed their profit margin above people’s safety. They knew how dangerous their product was but took advantage of the UK’s lack of proper building regulations to make a killing.

80 people, including a five-year-old boy, have now been confirmed dead. However we likely won’t know the exact death toll until the end of the year.

On Wednesday, the Guardian reported:

Grenfell Tower death toll may not be known until end of year – police

Scotland Yard has warned it could take until the end of the year or longer to be sure how many people died in the Grenfell Tower disaster, as police raised the number of people presumed dead to 80.

Police warned that the death toll could rise further and said there were 23 flats in the tower where they had not been able to trace anyone alive.

The detective leading the criminal investigation added it had identified 60 firms involved in the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower, up from 12 last week, and that number is expected to grow.

The briefing came amid continued claims that the real death toll is far higher than the official count, which now stands at 80 dead.

Many more would have died were it not for the actions of police, ambulance and fire service personnel who attended the disaster.

You would think that Theresa May’s government would reward emergency service’s for their hard work and heroic actions. However that’s unfortunately not the case.

Today, the Independent reported:

Public sector pay cap: Conservative MPs cheer after blocking Labour bid to raise emergency service salaries

Jeremy Corbyn cited the Grenfell Tower disaster and recent terrorist attacks while praising the emergency services and calling for more funds.

But Conservative MPs took to social media to cast doubt on the intent and timing of the amendment.

Mid-Norfolk MP George Freeman said colleagues were cheering "Labour's failed attempt to bring down a serious Government signalling new thinking".

The pawns of capitalism ensuring that the rich become richer at poor people’s expense and lives is clearly not a new way of thinking. It's a very old and outdated way of thinking that must change.

With the bastard tory government in England cutting funds to essential services while ensuring dangerous products continue to be sold and installed throughout the UK, we can expect more tragedies like the Grenfell Tower disaster to occur. Under the failure of the capitalist system, it’s really only a matter of time.

Fracking and the Colorado floods

Police OK with corporate manslaughter

Today, the Police reported:

Police has concluded its investigation into the explosion at the Pike River Mine which occurred on Friday 19 November 2010.

The investigation began on the day following the explosion with the aim of assessing criminal liability that could be attributed to any individual.

After a complex and lengthy inquiry, and consideration of all the information available, police has determined that no charges will be laid against any individual involved in the management of Pike River Coal prior to the explosion.

I find this hard to accept, being that there were multiple safety issues that went unaddressed by Pike River management despite being brought to their attention long before the first explosion occurred. This is something that the Police even acknowledge themselves:

There is general acceptance and ample evidence that there were widespread departures from accepted standards of mine operations. However police has determined that there is insufficient evidence to support the laying of manslaughter charges. The lack of any causative link to the specific events which led to the explosion means a manslaughter prosecution of any individual does not meet the standard of evidential sufficiency.

If a company ignores the rules to make a quick buck and their unacceptable disregard for safety leads to people dying, they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. There is no middle ground here, with this being a clear-cut case of criminal-negligence manslaughter.

If there is no appropriate punishment for such a preventable disaster, how exactly do the Police expect there to be an increase in safety across the entire industry? They are effectively disregarding their most important directive, to protect people from harm.

With voluntary measures that are costly to implement and a lack of incentive to make the necessary changes, we're likely to see another Pike River disaster in the not too distant future...especially when the responsible parties effectively get off scot-free. These buggers aren't even going to pay any reparation to the deceased miners families, which is an absolutely despicable result the responsible parties should feel highly ashamed about.

The growing cost of catastrophe

H/T Emergency Management Degrees 

Save the Arctic from Shell and its Russian friends

New Zealand oil spill response team

ExxonMobil tar sands spill

Rena to hold her secrets

For over a year and a half now The Jackal has been attempting to learn exactly what was onboard the MV Rena when it ran aground near Tauranga on 5 October 2011. I was wanting this information to try and work out the potential environmental impact, but unfortunately my efforts have been in vain.

On 10 October 2011, I made a formal request under the Official Information Act (PDF) to Maritime New Zealand for information relating to what the MV Rena was carrying, which they declined. I then approached the Ombudsman about that lack of disclosure.

This week, I received the Ombudsman's final ruling on the matter:

OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT COMPLAINT
MARITIME NEW ZEALAND
REQUEST FOR A COPY OF THE INVENTORY LIST FOR THE MV RENA

Ombudsman

Thank you for your email of 19 September 2012, concerning your Official Information Act (OIA) complaint about the decision of Maritime New Zealand (MNZ) to refuse your request for the inventory list of the cargo on the MV Rena.

Following receipt of your email, the investigator assisting me sought further information from MNZ and the Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC), the shipping company that chartered the MV Rena. By email of 8 May 2013, MNZ released some further information to you.

I have now had an opportunity to consider your comments on my provisional view and the further information provided to me. Having considered all the issues raised, I have now formed the opinion that it was open to MNZ to refuse your request, on the basis that it is necessary to protect information where the release of that information would be likely to unreasonably prejudice the commercial position of the shipping company and those shipping and receiving cargo on the MV Rena (section 9(2)(b)(ii) of the OIA refers).

While there is a high public interest in the release of information about the cargo on the MV Rena, the further information provided to you meets this interest.
I have outlined the basis for my opinion below.

My role

As an Ombudsman, I am authorised to investigate and review, on complaint, any decision by which an agency subject to the OIA refuses to make official information available when requested.

My role in undertaking an investigation is to evaluate the grounds for refusing requests for official information in terms of the tests set out in the OIA, and to form an opinion as to whether the request was properly refused.

Background

On 10 October 2011 you requested the inventory list detailing what the MV Rena cargo ship was carrying when it struck Astrolabe reef on 5 October 2011.

By letter of 8 November 2011, MNZ advised that it held the cargo manifest for the MV Rena, and that it was withholding this information pursuant to section 9(2)(b)(ii) of the OIA.
You asked me to investigate the decision to withhold the cargo manifest.

Relevant to this investigation, section 9(2)(b)(ii) of the OIA provides good reason for withholding official information where it is necessary to: "protect information where the making available of the information ... would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information".

The interest in withholding the information must not be "outweighed by other considerations which render it desirable, in the public interest, to make that
information available" (section 9(1) of the OIA refers).

Comments by MNZ

The investigator assisting me met with MNZ to discuss the decision to withhold the manifest.

She was advised that the manifest is the only information held by MNZ that falls within the scope of your request. It was provided to MNZ following the notice issued on 6 October 2011 pursuant to section 248 of the Maritime Transport Act 1994.

The manifest is very detailed, and includes:

who is shipping the cargo;
who is receiving the cargo;
the route on which the goods are shipped;
the number and kind of packages;
a description of the goods; and
the gross weight and measurements of the goods.

Shipping manifests are not available to the public, and are very rarely provided to port control authorities. MNZ advised that shipping routes are commercially sensitive.

The route a particular vessel takes impacts on the profit ability of thatvessel. I understand that this information cannot be determined from other publicly available documents. MNZ advised that if the shipping routes were released, it would be likely to impact on the competitive position of the shipping company.

The manifest also provides information on MSC's customers. Release of information identifying MSC's customers would prejudice MSC as it would enable competitors to target the MSC's customer base. The prejudice would be unreasonable as the information is not publicly available for any other shipping company.

Where operating commercially, details of the vendor, purchaser and volume of goods is also commercially sensitive. The volume of goods bought and sold, and the supplier of those goods, impacts on the commercial position of both the vendor and purchaser. Based on the information recorded in the manifest, other suppliers of similar products could target purchasers, and competitors to purchasers would be made aware of the volume and type of goods being imported and their source.

The investigator queried whether this information could be removed from the manifest and the manifest then made available with essentially just a list of the cargo on the MV Rena.

She was advised that this information is already publicly available, and was provided to you. However, it transpired that this reference was only to the list of dangerous goods.

My provisional opinion

By email of 18 September 2012, I advised you of my provisional view on the complaint.
I considered that the commercial position of both MSC and commercial vendors and purchasers of goods would be likely to be prejudiced by release of the manifest, through the disclosure of shipping routes, customers of MSC, and details of vendors and purchasers of the goods carried together with the level of stock bought and sold.

This would be unreasonable as it is commercially sensitive information that is not made available in regard to any other shipping company.

I therefore accepted that release of the manifest would be likely to unreasonably prejudice the commercial position of MSC and commercial importers and suppliers of goods on the MV Rena (section 9(2)(b)(ii) refers).

I considered that there was some public interest in the release of information about the cargo on the MV Rena, though this would be confined to toxic or dangerous cargo. I could not see what public interest there would be in information on general cargo carried by the MV Rena. Having reviewed the manifest and the information made available by MNZ, I considered that the public interest was met by the already available information.
I invited you to comment on my provisional view.

Your comments

By email of 19 September 2012 you commented on my view. You advised:

I have not made a request for the MV Rena's entire Cargo Manifest, I have made a request for the inventory list. I am not interested in knowing who is shipping what cargo, who is receiving the cargo, the address of either party or the route the cargo takes. I am specifically interested in exactly what is being shipped and in what quantities?

Maritime New Zealand has released some of this information already because of public interest in dangerous goods, but that release of information does not entirely fulfil my request for information. The reason I'm interested in exactly what the MV Rena was carrying is because of the cumulative effect of various substances. I believe Maritime New Zealand has not considered this aspect and might view some substances to be innocuous when in fact they are not when combined together. Only a complete inventory list including quantities will allow a proper environmental impact calculation to be undertaken.

Maritime New Zealand has shown that there's no commercial sensitivity in releasing information on what the MV Rena was carrying because they have already released information concerning dangerous substances.

Please let me assure you that the information if released will not be released further to any competitor shipping companies. Information concerning what the MV Rena was carrying will only be published if there is a public or scientific interest in making that information available to the general public.

There's considerable public interest in the effects on the environment from the MV Rena disaster and no reasonable argument for not releasing the requested information because of commercial sensitivity. In my opinion, there's no risk to the companies financial or legal position by upholding my request and any commercial prejudice that is being perceived is entirely unreasonable.

Further comments from MNZ

The investigator discussed your comments with MNZ.

As noted above, the only information held by MNZ that fell within the scope of your request was the manifest. MNZ did not hold a less detailed list of the goods on the MV Rena.

The investigator therefore suggested release of one of the fields in the manifest that described the goods carried on the MV Rena.

MNZ were unable to provide detailed comments on the specific field.

Comments from MSC

The investigator consulted MSC on the release of the specific description field. In doing so the investigator noted the public interest in release of information about the cargo on the MV Rena.

MSC advised that release of the column would be extremely detrimental to its business. Many of its clients work in a small export sector, and release of the detailed description of the goods and volume shipped would provide competitors with an advantage over MSC.

MSC gave the examples of specific products, and how competitors could review the released information and then target specific exporters. MSC advised that importing and exporting in New Zealand is extremely competitive.

The investigator asked how that differed from the scenario where a shipping company could list the exporters of a specific product and target the exporters who do not currently use that company's services. MSC advised that knowing the current shipping company an exporter used would enable a competitor to tailor a package specifically to that exporter, with reference to the current service provided by MSC.

MSC also noted that the specific field of the manifest is the only free field section of the manifest. Clients can enter any details they wish to be on the bill of lading into that field.

The investigator sought release of a high level list of goods on the MVRena. MSC advised that it would not be willing to release quantities, as this would often disclose the client, but could release a high level list.

Further information released to you

By email of 8 May 2013, MNZ released to you the high level list of goods created by MSC following its meeting with the investigator.

Here's the released short description of goods the MV Rena was carrying:

Click on images to enlarge

My opinion

Based on the information outlined above, I have now formed the opinion that it is open to MNZ to refuse your request, on the basis that it is necessary to protect information where the release of that information would be likely to unreasonably prejudice the commercial position of the shipping company and those shipping and receiving cargo on the MV Rena (section 9(2)(b)(ii) of the OIA refers).

While there is a high public interest in the release of information about the cargo on the MV Rena, the further information provided to you meets this interest.
I have now concluded my investigation of your complaint.

Yours sincerely

David McGee Ombudsman

It's unfortunate that Maritime New Zealand is refusing to release the full inventory, making me wonder exactly what substances the MV Rena was carrying that they don't want the public to know about?

I guess we will never know what this substance leaking from the stricken ship, which in my opinion looks a lot like yellowcake, actually is.

Interestingly enough the Australian government also sites "unreasonably prejudice of commercial position" as a reason to not inform the public of what ships are carrying yellowcake. Is it just a coincidence that the MV Rena was on a known shipping route for transporting yellowcake from Australia? I guess New Zealand isn't as nuclear free as the public is led to believe.

Eyewitness account of the Gulf of Mexico disaster

Something to do on Wednesday

Do the Math

When will Thatcherism truly die?

Yesterday, an article by Maria Golovnina was reported by Stuff:

Only about 200 people turned up for a "party" in central London to celebrate the death of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher as a mass protest predicted by some failed to materialise.

Except the party in central London was far larger than Golovnina is reporting... The number of vehement critics of the “Iron Lady” who braved cold conditions to attend celebrations in Trafalgar Square was at least ten times that amount, with The Guardian reporting:

About 3,000 people gathered in the rain in Trafalgar Square on Saturday night to "celebrate" the demise of Margaret Thatcher. A few people chanted obscenities and at least two bottles were thrown at police, with the call of "Maggie Maggie Maggie, dead dead dead" ringing out intermittently.

Here's a video that confirms thousands of people attended:

Of course this hasn't stopped the right wing propagandist Cameron Slater regurgitating Golovnina's inaccurate article, also claiming that:

She really has had the last laugh, even in death she has defeated the pinkos.

Saying that Thatcher "has had the last laugh" is akin to rejoicing in the harm she has and continues to cause Great Britain... It's about as funny as Paula Bennett thinking child poverty is a laughing matter.

With decreased production, growing inequality, high unemployment and one of the worst poverty rates in Europe, it's pretty self-evident that even with the iron lady's demise, Thatcherism lives on. Those damning social indicators make me wonder why, with it totally failing in Great Britain, are we making the same mistakes here in New Zealand?

Thatcher's libertarianism caused untold social damage that adversely affected millions of British people, and no amount of disinformation from idiots like Slater and Golovnina is going to change that fact. There is no doubt that Britain is the worse for wear after Thatchers administration, which makes me wonder if Thatcherism, both there and abroad, will ever truly die?

An apology is not enough

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

Upset families of the 29 men killed at Pike River "cannot accept" findings of a report that absolves government employees of any blame for the 2010 tragedy.

Despite "systemic failures" and "inactions" that contributed to the Pike River Mine disaster, no one at the old Department of Labour or Ministry of Economic Development will be held accountable, families of the workers were told last night.

The report was highly critical of both departments and prompted an apology to the families - but their spokesman, Bernie Monk, called it hollow and said there should be accountability.

If there were systemic failures at the Department of Labour and the Ministry of Economic Development that has led to the deaths of 29 people, somebody should be held to account and prosecuted in accordance with the law.

The families were also shown footage from a camera put down the mine last Friday, and told a report would be presented to the mine's owners, Solid Energy, by the end of next month addressing how the bodies might be recovered.

Clearly recovery needs to occur to give the families closure.

It's been two and a half years since the Pike River mining disaster occurred, which in my opinion is more than enough time to have recovered the 29 miners. That's two and a half years since there's been any explosion at the mine, which makes me wonder if there are other reasons apart from safety for not going back into Pike River?

Waiting around for yet another report is simply wasting more time.

But what really gets my goat about all this is that the recovery of the 2degrees chief executive and his wife, Eric and Kathy Hertz, after they crashed their Beechcraft Baron aircraft into the Tasman sea happened over night. That was also a dangerous undertaking at the taxpayers’ considerable expense.

I wouldn't like to think that there’s one rule for the rich businessman and another for the poor worker even in death... But by all appearances, that seems to be the case.

The ugly truth behind chemical fertilisers in China

Granny Herald backs big business

Today, I had the displeasure of reading the most biased editorial in the NZ Herald so far this year. Not only does it argue that big business interests should trump our civil liberties, it entirely misses the point of why people are protesting in the first place.

In this case there are multiple reasons for why concerned citizens spend their time and money to deter the interests of big business; from the lack of any proper response equipment in the event of a deep sea oil leak to the effects of burning more fossil fuels on climate change not to mention the fact that there's very little return in the form of taxes and that investment into clean energy sources create at least twice as many jobs... The justifications behind people peacefully protesting are numerous.

But despite these undeniable facts, the government and todays Herald editorial argue that the new law that imposes large fines and excessive jail terms, which far outweigh the brevity of any perceived "crime" are for the protesters own good.

They no doubt find some inspiration from disruptive tactics against Japanese whaling in the southern ocean and, going back a bit, New Zealanders' flotillas against French nuclear tests in the Pacific. But sooner or later a protester could be seriously injured and sympathisers in their cause would be the first to ask why the Defence Force did not intervene.

It should be mentioned that environmental activists in Brazil who were fighting the good fight against Petrobras have gone missing or been killed, which makes the statement that "protester could be seriously injured" in New Zealand a bit sinister.

In Februray 2013, Yale Environment 360 reported:

Personal danger is not what most environmentalists have in mind when they take up the cause of protecting nature and the people who rely on it in their daily lives. But from Laos to the Philippines to Brazil, the list of environmentalists who have paid for their activism with their lives is growing. It is a grim toll, especially in the last year.

Most protestors don't want to put their lives at risk, either by direct activism, heavy-handed law enforcement or by the companies they're protesting against acting dangerously or using devious tactics to silence them. However danger is always going to be a part of active protest, even when its peaceful. In my opinion, the government's punitive measures will do nothing to reduce that danger.

The lopsided article also entirely ignores the fact that there are already laws that govern what people can and cannot do at sea, making me question whether the new laws are actually required? Obviously the government doesn't like the fact that those laws haven't worked against Elvis Teddy, who has been dragged through the courts by crown lawyers hell bent on gaining a prosecution. How much all that's costing the taxpayer the government hasn't disclosed.

But what really highlights their hypocrisy in this matter is that National said the protest to halt deep sea oil drilling in the Raukumara Basin two years ago had no bearing on Petrobras later handing in its exploration permits. Now they're legislating to specifically target that kind of activism, clearly showing that the civil disobedience had an impact.

National is also determined to weaken the RMA, which will further undermine the publics’ input on the decision making process concerning the environment. When big business effectively owns our politicians, these are very concerning issues that have wide spread implications for our Kiwi way of life that often takes our natural resources for granted.

In my opinion, the publics’ determination to halt deep sea oil drilling and protect one of our most valuable assets should be celebrated... Especially considering that such a dangerous enterprise puts at risk our environment that many people rely upon including numerous sustainable and highly profitable businesses.

If people feel strongly enough to actively protest and in some cases put their lives at risk their message should be listened to. But instead of that level headed approach, we have a deluded government implementing punitive legislation which is propped up by jaundiced Herald articles like todays editorial... Talk about a load of propaganda!

Urban deforestation

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

Epsom residents are powerless to stop the removal of a century-old pohutukawa tree after blanket tree protection rules were axed in the leafy suburb.

A tree removal company is taking three days to fell the 20m-high tree with numerous limbs stretching out from a large trunk in the front yard at 134 The Drive.

Acting on a complaint, Auckland Council officers put a stop to work on Tuesday, but allowed work to continue yesterday after discovering the tree was not scheduled or protected in any way.

The Pohutukawa tree is considered New Zealands Christmas tree, and is a taonga (national treasure). Being 20 metres tall, this particular tree would have been over 100 years old, and should therefore have been protected.

The other issue here is that trees in general are beneficial to the environment. In fact we need more trees in urban areas to maintain a natural ecosystem and encourage the return of birdlife.

If Gareth Morgan thinks cats are such a disaster, cutting down native trees should be considered a catastrophe! Lets hope he pipes up about the habitat of native birdlife being destroyed by ignorant private landowners.

Resource consents team manager David Oakhill said the tree was protected but a rule change last December meant the tree could be removed without resource consent.

Auckland Council backed down from its blanket tree protection rules in a legal dispute with the Property Council, meaning trees previously covered by all-encompassing rules on about 500,000 Auckland properties could be removed.

Tree Council field officer Hueline Massey predicted in January that the rule change would lead to "open slather" on trees.

I bet there are no stats being kept as to exactly how many trees that previously had protection are being chopped down.

Rosemary Clapham, who has lived nearby in Pukehana Ave for 18 years, said the tree was a familiar part of the local environment and home to tui and thrushes.

"It's beautiful at Christmas time when the pohutukawa flower comes out. It's very, very sad," she said.

So, as well as an impact on local birdlife, there's also a detrimental impact on the community by allowing private land owners to chop down ancient native trees whenever they feel like it.

Ms Clapham said the removal of blanket protection, prompted by changes to the Resource Management Act, was wrong and leading to the destruction of trees in Epsom.

She said a number of residents were upset and planned to contact Epsom MP and former Auckland City Mayor John Banks.

Good luck with that... Perhaps somebody should inform her that the Act party promoted the previous amendments to the RMA that made it hugely difficult to protect urban trees.

In fact John Banks has been advocating for further changes to the RMA that make it even easier to destroy the natural environment most New Zealanders know and enjoy. The governments proposed changes have received widespread condemnation, even from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. Lets hope that opinion results in enough political pressure to ensure further detrimental changes are not implemented.

The owner of 134 The Drive is believed to be an overseas-based landlord and could not be reached for comment.

Obviously the overseas owner doesn't share our values.

National sides with protesters

Yesterday, Q+A reported:

Look, I think what you're seeing is a desire to ensure that really reckless, dangerous acts out hundreds of miles from the shore don't happen. I don't think it's on. I don't think most New Zealanders would think it on. They'd agree with me, I think, that it should be treated as criminal behaviour ~ Simon Bridges.

It's great to see the National party announcing that it won't be allowing any deep sea oil drilling in New Zealands Exclusive Economic Zone.

The Energy and Resources Minister is correct that deep sea oil drilling is reckless and dangerous and should be treated as criminal behaviour... Thankfully National is finally going to put the environment first and ensure our 100% Pure branding actually means something.

April Fool takes a bath

Marsden Point disaster zone

This week, Refining NZ released its annual report (PDF) for 2012. Within that report is a somewhat alarming statement about five breaches of consent at the Marsden Point that the company believes are minor:

Our resource consent has several strict conditions that limit the emission of sulphur dioxide. The main condition limits our yearly average emission of sulphur dioxide to 12 tonnes per day. For 2012 the Company had an average daily emission of sulphur dioxide of 10.88 tonnes per day. Other conditions within the consent make allowances for the Company to discharge at higher rates for limited periods of time due to client disruption, startups and emergency trips. The table above shows that we exceeded the allowance for discharges greater than 40.8 tonnes per day by 2.67 hours.

10.88 tonnes per day is a huge amount of sulphur dioxide to release into the environment. Of course Refining NZ claims that there are no adverse effects, despite the safety data sheet (PDF) showing that sulphur dioxide is a listed toxic substance and can cause severe health problems.

Refining NZ also claims that:

For several years, a comprehensive suite of testing and monitoring activities has been in operation, covering shellfish, soils, marine sediments, water quality, air quality and vegetation. The results of this monitoring continue to demonstrate that there were no significant adverse effects on the environment as a result of Refining NZ’s operations.

This really doesn't tell us much, being that "no significant adverse effects" doesn't discount the fact that there are obviously some adverse effects on the environment. There's no scientific value in such a statement, which fails to properly highlight what creatures are being affected. Clearly there's no proper independent testing being undertaken, and therefore no objective scientific basis for Refining NZ's claim.

The report also outlines problems with flooding whenever there is heavy rainfall leading to increased pollution washing into the ocean. Despite their Environmental Department spending $683,962 in 2012, all the report outlines in the way of protecting the environment is counting 21 Dotterel's in the site and "taking steps to ensure that the nests are protected".

All in all the report gives the once over lightly in terms of Marsden Point's effect on the environment. Despite Refining NZ claiming that there's a "comprehensive suite of testing and monitoring activities" being undertaken, there's no reference to any scientific study to determine the extent of adverse effects. Any data is not publically available, if it exists at all.

Interestingly the report briefly describes a major accident:

In 2012 a manual transfer of petrol component saw a significant loss of product (API Tier 1) from a floating roof tank. As a result improved controls for manual blending and training for operations staff are being put in place.

It appears that there has been no report given to the Northland Regional Council about this event, even though under the American Petroleum Institute's guidelines (PDF), Tier 1 accidents should be publicly notified. The term Tier 1 is used to describe events with the greatest consequences.

Despite being in breach of their consents on numerous occasions throughout 2012, there were no infringement fines imposed. It's also questionable as to whether any procedures have been put in place to ensure similar incidents don't occur again in the future. Instead the council has entirely failed to impose any restrictions or even make recommendations on how best Refining NZ can adhere to their already lenient consents... The incompetent council have also failed to act on their 2007 Marsden Point Air Quality Strategy (PDF), with the amount of complaints doubling in 2012 on the previous year.

Clearly Marsden Point refinery is another blot on our clean and green branding, and one we wouldn't need if the government removed subsidies for the oil and gas industry and ensured that alternative modes of transport were available. That would eventually enable renewable energy to be competitive and ensure most polluting industries were no longer financially viable.

In the mean time we need to see some proper oversight and investigation into the environmental effects from numerous accidents at Marsden Point... Refining NZ must be made to clean up what is essentially an environmental disaster zone in Whangarei.

The radio call from the Exxon Valdez