Speech for the opening of ‘Closing the Loops’ sustainable architecture exhibition, 5th September 2007

There are many reasons for doing resource recovery.

There are environmental ones; landfills contribute about 3% of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions, mostly in the form of methane from anaerobically decomposing organic matter. This is also a significant source of toxic leachate. These can easily be reduced through simple separation and composting.

Resource recovery also provides economic opportunities; using recycled glass as opposed to virgin, for example, allows furnace temperatures to be reduced, reducing energy demand and cost. In addition, cost recovery from recycling can offset disposal fees.

What tends to be forgotten, though, are the long term benefits of resource efficiency. I want to dwell on this for a moment because a failure to understand its importance can mislead us when deciding what kinds of recovery are worth doing and what are not.

The seriousness of this issue was brought home to me recently when I read in the May issue of New Scientist a special report about the state of the earth’s mineral resources.

As with the earth’s oil reserves, estimating the extractable reserves of many metals is difficult. These figures are kept a closely guarded secret by mining companies, especially when rare metals such as indium and gallium are concerned. In addition, we don’t have an exact picture of the annual global consumption of most precious metals.

Nevertheless, people like Armin Reller, a materials chemist at the University of Augsburg in Germany, and his colleagues have been investigating the problem. One of the metals he looked at, indium, is used to form transparent electrodes in liquid crystal displays (LCDs). It is also widely used in thin-films for lubrication, and it's used for making particularly low melting point alloys, and is a component in some lead-free solders. An important metal. Reller estimates that we have, at best, 10 years before we run out of indium.

New Scientist did its own audit based on the US Geological Survey's annual reports and UN statistics on global population. Their calculations are rough, but alarming. Without more recycling, antimony, which is used to make flame retardant materials, will run out in 15 years, and silver in 10. Reller used a more sophisticated analysis than New Scientist to include the effects of new technologies. He estimates that zinc could be used up by 2037, hafnium - which is increasingly important in computer chips – like indium, could be gone by 2017, and terbium - used to make the green phosphors in fluorescent light bulbs - could run out before 2012.

Even for a number of common-place metals, such as copper, tin, lead and gold, reserves are measured not in centuries but a few decades and as I said in the case of silver, in years.

A paper published last year in the ‘Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences’ by Thomas Graedel of Yale University estimates that 26 percent of all extractable copper in the Earth's crust is now lost in non-recycled wastes. Let me repeat that. 26 percent of all extractable copper in the Earth's crust is now lost in non-recycled wastes. For zinc, that number is 19 percent.

The problem is that the market will not price materials sufficiently high to generate comprehensive recovery until they are substantially depleted. Within our lifetimes, many metals will be depleted, and with global consumption rising, maybe sooner than we think.

As George Bush has demonstrated in Iraq, resource depletion goes hand in hand with war. A number of African nations have been cursed, it seems, with mineral wealth. For example the Democratic Republic of the Congo saw the murder of its first elected president Patrice Lumumba and the arming and supporting of the vicious tyrant Mobutu by Belgium and the CIA over access to its copper reserves. More recently a driver of the Congolese civil war between 1998 and 2002 was the wealth to be had from its tantalum mines - the biggest in Africa. The war coincided with a surge in the price of the metal caused by the increasing popularity of mobile phones.

So it is timely to see a growing interest in the recycling of e-waste, both in terms of increased collection and scrutiny of where it all ends up. It’s interesting to note that concern about exporting e-waste to places like China, because of the often hazardous working conditions and environmentally destructive processes there, is bolstered by another concern. The Chinese government is supplementing its natural deposits of rare metals by investing in mines in Africa and by buying up high-tech scrap to extract the metals. They can clearly see the strategic importance of waste even if our own government does not.

Which brings me back to where I began. While the environmental and economic benefits of waste minimisation and resource recovery are increasingly being appreciated, and for example the government is supporting my Waste Minimisation Bill, let us not forget the long term importance of materials efficiency in the face of global resource depletion.

So I am very happy to be here this evening to take part in the opening of this exhibition because what you are doing here, and the mind-set that you are developing in yourselves and demonstrating to others, is part of a cultural reorientation that is crucial to making a future worth living in.

People sometimes accuse the Greens of wanting us all to go back to living in mud huts. Apart from the obvious benefits of earth-builds, can I say that what we are really about is facing the reality of resource depletion, including oil depletion, so that we can design satisfying and enjoyable ways of living that are viable in the long term.

I think that is what you are about as well. Construction and demolition waste may be up to half of all the waste generated in New Zealand, as I’m sure you know. Finding ways of reusing that material, and in ways that will increase the energy performance of our buildings, is a crucial part of the transition to a low energy and resource depleted future.

So I want to thank the School of Architecture for making this course and exhibition available, and the sponsors for supporting it. I want to thank Maibritt for her commitment and expertise in leading it, and for inviting me. And I want to thank all those who participated for demonstrating your creativity, innovation and commitment to a positive future.

JaH blessings

Classification of BZP Amendment Bill
First Reading Speech, 11th September 2007

This bill, as the Libertarianz have said, is about putting the P into BZP. Because despite his intentions, that will be the legacy of Jim Anderton from his years as would-be drug Tsar – the criminalising of a wide range of New Zealanders and the boosting of the illegal drug market as a result.

About 20% of New Zealanders surveyed say they have used party pills. It is estimated that Benzylpiperazine (BZP) has been used for 7 years by 400,000 New Zealanders consuming 26 million pills over 9.5 million occasions with no deaths or lasting injuries. All available research shows that banning BZP will send many thousands of young adults to the more dangerous illegal drug market of counterfeit street ecstasy and methamphetamine (P). People have spoken about the dangers of BZP. Interestingly, with an estimated 200 000 pills used a month, 21 patients to Emergency Departments in a year is relatively small. But that will not be the case when prohibition is enacted under this bill.

The many people who will continue to use party pills – because as this Parliament seems to find difficult to understand, people do not obey unjust or unreasonable laws – will no longer be assured about what they are actually taking. There will be no consumer protection, no consumer information, and they will be pushed into the arms of organised criminal organisations who will most certainly fill the gap. Today the Government announced they are setting up a specialist organised crime agency – at the same time as they are essentially writing another blank cheque for organised crime with this bill.

So what is the heinous evil that the government is attending to remedy by this Bill? Well, the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs has described BZP as a moderate risk, and that there is no evidence of aggressive behaviour, sexual assault or date rape type behaviours.
• There have been no recorded deaths solely as a result of BZP use.
• Should BZP be made illegal, this may discourage people who continue to use it from seeking medical attention if they experience adverse effects.
• There is no guarantee that scheduling a substance as a controlled substance under the Misuse Of Drugs Act reduces the availability or potential risk of harm from a drug.

I want to emphasise that last point. The legislation that empowers the EACD does not, despite attempts by the Green Party, include as a criteria for recommending scheduling a drug whether harm, or even use, would be increased or decreased by scheduling. And that’s the basic flaw of this bill.

The Drug Foundation, one of our more impartial and independent bodies with expertise in this area, has said “Clear patterns of ‘adverse effects’ are starting to emerge from the research: seizures; dystonia (uncontrollable twitching or repetitive movement); inability to sleep; and nausea/vomiting. Across the population-based research and the clinical trial, adverse effects appear reasonably common, but generally mild and short-lasting.”

In a study of the Auckland City Hospital Emergency Department Overdose Database (2002–2004) which compared party pills with ecstasy, GHB, amphetamines, cocaine, and alcohol, by the New Zealand Medical Journal, it was found that most patients presented with “multidrug ingestions” and almost all patients were discharged home after “reassurance, IV fluids, and diazepam.” Reassurance, IV fluids, and diazepam? Oh, that’s what the EACD meant by moderate harm.

Well, maybe the bill is needed to do something about the sellers? No. The Attorney General’s advice is that in relation to supply the bill breaches the bill of rights. What that means is that the reverse onus provisions breach the Bill of Rights Act guarantee that a person charged with an offence should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that limitation cannot be justified in a free and democratic society. This advice follows the Supreme Court finding in Hansen v R. The majority of the Court held that the reverse onus of proof in s.6(6) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 was not only a breach of s.25(c) but could not be justified in terms of s.5 of the Bill of Rights. Setting the level at which presumption of supply is set at 5 grams is so ridiculously low that even the AG’s report says the amounts specified in the Bill are not sufficiently high that it is safe to conclude the drug is for ‘supply’. Therefore it breaches the Bill of Rights.

So what should we do? The Greens policy on these matters is about reducing harm. We believe that a drug-free lifestyle is the healthiest, and that all drug use, regardless of legal status can cause harm. But it is also a fact is that not all drug use is problematic and that many of the government policies in this area exacerbate harm rather than reduce. This Bill is a classic example. The Greens favour strict regulation of party pills, not prohibition. Regulations such as heavily enforced age restrictions, restrictions on where outlets can be, mandatory health information, quality and quantity controls, severe restrictions on advertising and severe penalties for breaching such regulations. This approach would more effectively address the problems raised by members than criminalising users and putting control into the hands of organised crime.

The Drug Foundation noted that in the Massey study 26.7% of users under 20 had ‘never’ been asked for age ID when attempting to buy pills, 80.7% of those under the age of 20 had ‘never’ been refused when buying party pills. Most users could get pills within 20 minutes. The 2005 Act provided for regulations on where restricted drugs (new class D, including party pills) could be sold, and the dosage, packaging and marketing of products. These regulations have not yet been passed, and to our best knowledge no enforcement officers have been appointed, so no formal monitoring or enforcement of the industry has been carried out. There is no licence or training required before selling the product, and because of this many dairies, off-licences and garages are currently selling them (an area of major concern to the public and health sector workers). Many outlets also display extensive point-of-sale advertising. So having failed to make use of the regulatory provisions the 2005 Act provided them with the Government is now saying that the status quo isn't working and jumping to prohibition. Of course the status quo isn't working, there is still very little regulation and access is very easy. Party pills are being sold at dairies, young people aren't being asked for ID, there is little enforcement - sellers don't need to get licensed and are not trained - these drugs are far less regulated than alcohol and yet instead of upping the level of control over their sale we're jumping straight to an outright ban.

Instead of passing a sledgehammer law that will crack not just the nut but break the table as well, why wouldn’t the Government put in place the regulations that the 2005 legislation provides for, and which the evidence suggests is more likely to actually reduce harm from party pills? But this isn’t about reducing harm is it? It’s about another agenda. We oppose this bill.