Kiwiblog

Stuff reports:

Greenpeace New Zealand’s political activities mean it cannot register as a charity, the High Court has decided.

Greenpeace appealed against a 2010 ruling by the Charities Commission which found its promotion of “disarmament and peace” was political rather than educational and while it did not directly advocate illegal acts, Greenpeace members had acted illegally.

In his judgment Justice Paul Heath found the commission was correct in its judgment and turned down the Greenpeace appeal.

“Non-violent, but potentially illegal activities (such as trespass), designed to put (in the eyes of Greenpeace) objectionable activities into the public spotlight were an independent object disqualifying it from registration as a charitable entity,” the judge said.

I cam’y say this is a big surprise. Greenpeace acts in a very political way. The actual court judgement is worth a read – located here. I thought the sections on how there is a difference between promoting peace and pacifism. This is a quote from Southwood v Attorney-General:

The point, as it seems to me, is this. There is no objection – on public benefit grounds – to an educational programme which begins from the premise that peace is generally preferable to war. For my part, I would find it difficult to believe that any court would refuse to accept, as a general proposition, that it promotes public benefit for the public to be educated to an acceptance of that premise. That does not lead to the conclusion that the promotion of pacifism is necessarily charitable. The premise that peace is generally preferable to war is not to be equated with the premise that peace at any price is always preferable to any war. The latter plainly is controversial. But that is not this case. I would have no difficulty in accepting the proposition that it promotes public benefit for the public to be educated in the differing means of securing a state of peace and avoiding a state of war. The difficulty comes at the next stage. There are differing views as to how best to secure peace and avoid war. To give two obvious examples: on the one hand it can be contended that war is best avoided by “bargaining through strength”; on the other hand it can be argued, with equal passion, that peace is best secured by disarmament – if necessary, by unilateral disarmament. The court is in no position to determine that promotion of the one view rather than the other is for the public benefit. Not only does the court have no material on which to make that choice; to attempt to do so would be to usurp the role of government. So the court cannot recognise as charitable a trust to educate the public to an acceptance that peace is best secured by ―demilitarisation‖ . . . Nor, conversely, could the court recognise as charitable a trust to educate the public to an acceptance that war is best avoided by collective security through the membership of a military alliance – say, NATO.

Justice Health notes in this case:

Irrespective of whether ―peace, in itself, can constitute a charitable purpose, it is more difficult to argue for that position with respect of disarmament. So far as disarmament is concerned, Mr Salmon makes a good point in referring to the non-contentious nature of nuclear disarmament in New Zealand, as a result of the nuclear free policy first given effect by statute over 20 years ago. But Greenpeace‘s objects refer only to ―disarmament‖, not to ―nuclear disarmament‖. In doing so they fall foul of the admonition against political lobbying about the way in which disarmament should occur, as expressed (for example) in Southwood.

This is key. Greenpeace promotes pacifism, which is not the same as peace. The former is highly political, the latter is non-controversial. I am sure many of their activists think the two things are the same, but that is more a reflection of the narrowness of their views.

Stuff reports:

Greenpeace spokesman Steve Abel said protesters were sending a message that the ship, and deep-sea drilling, were not welcome in New Zealand waters.

Don’t speak for all of New Zealand please.

Prime Minister John Key said the Government wanted to know what powers police had inside New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone. “You’re in an interesting space in the economic zone. There’s also issues about that boat, which is a foreign-flagged vessel … if that was happening on dry land, then the police would be in a position to do something about it.

“No-one’s arguing that people don’t have a right to protest, but when it actually stops the company carrying out what it’s been legally granted the ability to do, then that concerns me.”

And that is the key thing. Protest is good. Protest which impedes people from exercising their legal rights is bad. That is protesters setting themselves up to be above the law.

Don’t agree with it, but I have to say a pretty damn effective attack ad. I wonder if that is a professional actress – too good to be an amateur I reckon.

This Greenpeace video is designed to convince people to oppose off-shore oil drilling in New Zealand.

However I reckon it is counter-productive. Videos of poor little seals, and penguins covered in oil tug the heartstrings and makes you want to boycott BP.

However a video of girls in bikinis posing covered in dripping sticky oil doesn’t have quite the same effect. In fact makes you want to go buy some shares in BP, and yell out “drill baby, drill”

The Press reports:

Greenpeace New Zealand is fighting to gain charitable status after it was turned down by the Charities Commission for advocating peace and indirectly encouraging illegal activity.

I can’t say I am surprised by the decision. Greenpeace is a multinational lobby group, not a charity.

Greenpeace executive director Bunny McDiarmid said the environmental group had appealed against the commission’s decision to the High Court, where it would be heard in August or September.

“We think it’s worthwhile challenging this decision,” she said. “I think it’s an interesting debate that societies should have … around what is a charity and whether the law from 100 years ago is still relevant today.”

The rejection means Greenpeace could lose income tax exemption, which is granted only to registered charities, although people will still be able to make tax-free donations to the organisation.

McDiarmid said Greenpeace still had income tax exemption pending a court decision, but losing the status was not why it was challenging the commission’s ruling. “That doesn’t make much difference because we’re not a business.”

The commission’s decision in April found Greenpeace’s promotion of “disarmament and peace” was pushed in a political, rather than educational, way.

Highly political I would say.

Charities Commission chief executive Trevor Garrett said organisations that dabbled in political advocacy, but were primarily community-focused, such as Plunket, were safe, but those with an overt political role were not charities.

A sensible distinction.

While I don’t agree with their stance, I do have to say the Greenpeace video above is very well done. Humour can be a powerful weapon.

Now that John Key has announced he is going to Copenhagen, has Lucy Lawless handed over the cheque for $5,000 to cover his airfares?

I think Treasury should send someone over to Greenpeace to collect the money.

I love a farmer who calls it as they see it. The Dom Post reports:

Federated Farmers president Don Nicolson called the protest “economic treason”. “It’s a despicable new tactic that has Greenpeace’s loathing of farming written all over that ship.

“I fully respect the freedom of Greenpeace to protest legally but they have crossed the line by interfering with legal commerce and free navigation on the high seas.

“That’s why the police need to take this act of piracy, or sea-robbery, very seriously and prosecute those activists to the full extent of the law.”

Piracy is in fact still a crime in New Zealand. It carries a maximum sentence of 14 years. Attempted piracy is 10 years and accessory to piracy seven years.

My views on the Greenpeace 40% campaign are well known. And its use of celebrity endorsements, rather than rational arguments, for its campaign represents all the worst aspects of what should be a serious public policy debate.

How-ever it was an “unforced error” for John Key to tell Keisha Castle-Hughes to “stick to acting” even though I am sure he said it with a smile. Greenpeace should be the target of criticism for their celebrity driven campaign, not so much Castle-Hughes who is advocating for something she believes.

Part of this is common sense. The PM vs a young mother is a fight you can not win. Also the main outcome from it, is to give more publicity to Castle-Hughes and her advocacy. As I said I call it a rare “unforced error”.

I saw the interview with Castle-Hughes on Close Up and thought she composed herself well, and resisted taking shots back at the PM – instead focusing on the issue. Having said that Sainsbury did give her the kid gloves treatment and didn’t ask her questions about the economic impact of a 40% target, what would she say to farm workers who would lose their jobs etc etc, what her views were on flexible land use rules for forest replanting, why she advocates 40% not 35% or 45%, how she thought methane emissions from cows should best be reduced etc etc.

A reader reminds me to quote the Team America movie, and questions whether Keisha will be asked to join the Film Actors Guild, quoting their spokesperson Janeane Garofalo:

“as actors it is important that we read newspapers and then say what we read on television like it is our own opinion”

Heh. That was a great movie.

I despair for the people who will see the cute Greenpeace ads on television about how we need to cut our carbon emissions 40% by 2020, and say you should text your name in support. They fail to point out what sort of country we would live in, if anyone was insane enough to agree to such a goal.

On NewstalkZB I described it as this:

First you would have to stop all transport emissions. So all cars and buses are gone. Then you would have to stop all electricity emissions. So NZ would have no cars and no electricity. But even that would not be enough to get emissions in just a decade to 40% below 1990 levels. You would have to hire gangs of vigilantes to hunt down any cows they can find and shoot a decent proportion of them.

Now you may think I am exaggerating. But not really. No one should think one can cut greenhouse gas emissions by around a half in just a decade without a massive impact on NZ society. Hopefully someone somewhere has hired some economists to work out what the consequences and costs would be of such a dramatic reduction over such a short period of time.

Colin James looks at what the reduction should be:

Advocates of a 40 per cent reduction from 1990 levels have been crowding Smith’s meetings. Opponents of a 40 per cent reduction say that would cripple the economy (though their models exclude unpredictable growth possibilities). John Key has said the economy must trump the environment when the two clash. So 40 per cent is most unlikely.

Too right.

On the most recent (rubbery and constantly changing) computations, New Zealand will more than meet its Kyoto commitment for 2008-12 of net emissions at the same level as in 1990 because, although our gross emissions are around 23 per cent above 1990 levels, enough trees were planted in the 1990s to offset this (though forest owners might claim some of those credits and taxpayers would then have to buy matching foreign credits).

The recession has also helped. We emit less when business is slack.

The 1990 tree plantings are projected to keep our net emissions around 1990 levels until 2016. But from then the trees start to be harvested and by 2020 our net emissions are projected to match our gross emissions — 41 per cent above 1990. After 2020 the figure soars.

So Colin correctly points out that if no changes are made our emissions in 2020 will be 41% above 1990 level. So if we were to follow Australia and say we will get emissions down to 5% below 1990 levels by 2020, that would be a reduction from 140% to 95% – still a massive reduction.

So to get to 40 per cent below 1990 levels in 2020 we would have to cut by around 60 per cent compared with going on as we are (“business as usual”) — or buy a swag of credits offshore, which may be very expensive if other rich countries are also buying for their “responsibility” targets. Or, some argue, we could plant masses of trees, starting now.

So a 60% reduction over the business as usual scenario. And now look at our emissions profile:

1. Agriculture methane 30%
2. Transport 20%
3. Agriculture nitrous oxide 16%
4. Stationary energy 15%
5. Electricity generation 9%
6. Industrial processes 6%
7. Waste 2%

So as I said, let us say we get rid of every car and bus in New Zealand. We all walk to work, video-conference, cycle or take the solar powered train. That takes out 20%. Only a third of the way there.

Then we decide to join Great Barrier Island and survive off solar power. We close down all the power plants and turn off the electricity supplies. It’s candles for warmth in winter. That gets a another 9%. 29%.

To get to 60% we also really need to wipe out those agricultural methane emissions by shooting every evil cow we can find. That gets us to 50%. Yes I know it will mean no more dairy exports. In fact we may even need to import our milk and butter, but hey we will have met our target.

There is an upside though. Our incomes will all drop by thousands of dollars as we wipe out the agricultural sector. And it is tough having less money to spend. But as cars would have been outlawed, and there will be no electricity bills, as we have no electricity, then that should allow you to survive the drop in income a bit easier.

Now of course technology may make the job easier. I certainly hope so. But consider how much of an impact technology can have in just a decade. By 2050 I think technology will have allowed us to make much more significant reductions. But 2020 is not far off, and even if within a few years someone does work out how to stop cows emitting methane, it would take many years to produce and roll out the technology.

Karl du Fresne has a very good blog post on the photo of the aunt of the dead Kahui Twins kissing their headstone.

My third thought had less to do with Mona Kahui and Stuart King than with the media’s role. The photo at the cemetery was taken by John Selkirk, the Dom Post’s veteran Auckland photographer. I don’t think John just happened by chance to be at Mangere cemetery with his camera gear when the couple turned up. The paper had obviously been tipped off in advance. In fact the couple’s attendance at the cemetery may well have been dependent on the Dom Post turning up too.

Would Mona Kahui and Stuart King have gone to the cemetery and kissed the twins’ headstone if there was no newspaper photographer there to record the occasion? Of course I can’t say. But instinct and experience makes me sceptical.

If the couple were merely intent on expressing sincere grief and affection for the dead twins, there was no reason for a newspaper to be present. So the event was at least to some extent contaminated by a PR motive. I suspect the Dom Post was enlisted as an accomplice in the couple’s plan to get their child back.

I doubt Karl is wrong.

If this was the case, Kahui and King were only doing what politicians, pressure groups and PR firms do all the time – staging what the British journalist Nick Davies calls “pseudo events”, manufactured to generate publicity and therefore advance an underlying agenda.

These are not genuine news events which happen spontaneously. They are publicity stunts, orchestrated to attract media attention.

Greenpeace is an acknowledged master in this field, scoring prime newspaper and TV coverage every time its activists unfurl a protest banner on a nuclear power station or abseil on to an oil rig. Would they do it if the media paid no attention? Of course not.

Photo opportunities are to Greenpeace what sex is to Paris Hilton!

UPDATE: Karl blogs that the Dominion Post have stated that there was no arrangement with the family. They just sent a photographer there as they figured there was a reasonable chance family members would go there. Big ups to the Dom Post for doing it the right way.

Greenpeace has commissioned a report on the proposed NZ Emissions Trading Scheme.

Now I blogged last Friday on how the Flexible Land Use Alliance warned that the proposed scheme would lock up land into uneconomic uses, and could cost billions of dollars. Almost every party in Parliament has backed their compromise option.

So what does Greenpeace have to say? Are they defending the proposed scheme? Let’s read the report and see what their summary is:

The current proposal for the structure of the ETS will deliver no significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, will act as an impediment to the rapid implementation of less carbon intensive production technologies in the manufacturing industry and will do nothing to slow the destruction of forests to make way for increasingly greenhouse gas intensive forms of dairy farming.

They then ask Will the NZ ETS deliver significant emission reductions?

The simple answer to this question is no.

Wow that’s a blunt answer.  The ETS simply won’t work in reducing emissions significantly.  And what will it cost?

If emissions growth is at the higher end of the Treasury forecasts then, at a world price of $25 per tonne, New Zealand would need to import at least $3.1 billion worth of emission permits.

So Greenpeace are saying the ETS will cost NZ $3.1 billion and it won’t actually significantly reduce emissions.  Ummm, doesn’t that mean if Greenpeace are correct, you’d have to be pretty crazy to implement such a scheme?