Active cases
We are taking a close interest in the following cases.
Coastal Planning
The Kapiti Coast Coastal Adaptation Process (and related processes around the country).
PILSI considers that the planning community should be using “likely” climate scenarios and not extreme ones that have been determined by the IPCC modelling community as “implausible.” The Ministry for the Environment has issued, what we would say, are erroneous guidelines for planners that recommend using the high-end climate models. The output of such models have some academic value but have no utility for policy making. Using such a model will mean the requisite statutory test has not been implemented making all decisions taken as a consequence liable for quashing upon judicial review.
In a related case, PILSI has monitored the assertion that land subsidence around New Zealand is exacerbating relative sea level rise. Whilst this may be true at some sites, the data set used by the scientists concerned was very short (2003-2011) and was deliberately chosen for its inter seismic’ nature. With seismic activity, on balance, raising New Zealand out of the water, the inter-seismic trend is biased towards subsidence. As we have seen in Napier, Wellington and Kaikoura, land rises from major earthquakes because the Pacific plate is disappearing under the Australian plate, on which most of New Zealand sits, thereby lifting it over the long term.
Other subtle shifts can happen over a period of months to years that are imperceptible. These known as ’slow slip events’ and arise due to the Pacific plate dragging the Australian plate down with it, until it jumps back up (a major earthquake) or ratchets itself back up through these longer term, subtle slow slip events.
Concerns a about the modelling have been expressed by geoscience legend, Bruce Hayward, and by our own Sean Rush, both writing in successive editions of the Geoscience Society of New Zealand’s newsletter. Is Auckland Sinking? Bruce Hayward | December 2024. Is Wellington Sinking? Sean Rush | GSNZ March 2024
Climate Change Litigation
PILSI is very concerned to see that climate science is not being presented to Courts in a balanced manner that reflect the adversarial nature of our court system. For example, climate advocates recently submitted to the Court of Appeal that climate change “is unequivocally an existential threat.” This has no basis in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) documents. Deloitte released a study Global Warming boost the economies of some 70 countries that details how warming of temperatures across the world could generate an economic boost to some 70 countries in the coming decades. They acknowledge that 130 countries, particularly the very warm countries, will be negatively affected, so it is a serious problem, but there is no mention of an existential threat. But the Crown in that case agreed!
We are reminded of what Dr Stephen Schneider, a famous IPCC scientist, said when justifying his alarmist pronouncements:
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”
Does such a ‘double-ethical bind’ apply to the legal profession? In our opinion, the short answer is no.
The first and primary duty of any lawyer is to the Court – not his/her own sense of morality or political preference. A lawyer cannot place his/her morality (or that of their client’s) ahead of their duty to the Court. Lawyers must “include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts.”
But it is the one-sided stories of catastrophe that now dominates the political and popular narrative. Our adversarial approach is failing as the Crown fails to advocate robustly against the activist complainants and even large corporates are fearful that a robust defence might result in an activist campaign against their businesses and products.
PILSI’s mission is to ensure the Courts are properly briefed with uncontroversial observational evidence and “all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts.”
Transport Planning
Pilsi takes an active interest in new transport initiatives that use statistics, like crash data, to garner support for what are often unpopular policies.
For example, the now disbanded Let’s Get Wellington Moving initiative famously inferred that over 100 accidents over the prior 10 years were due to a lack of a controlled crossing on Cobham Drive. On close examination, most crashes happened at intersections that were not proximate at all to the proposed crossing’s location. In fact, the selected location was the safest section on the whole strip from the Basin Reserve to the Airport. It was on this multi-kilometre strip that the 100 + crashes arose.
NZTA did a similar exercise with the consultation on slowing speeds on the road from Peka Peka to Levin by defining the area of study as State Highway 1, through to Northern Levin. The consequence was that the crash data was heavily influenced by accidents at the myriad of intersections with SH1 in Levin and not on the open road. But it enabled NZTA to issue bad sounding crash data to support their predetermined objective.
Pilsi welcomes transport initiatives that genuinely make transport safer but is very concerned when statistics are inappropriately applied to garner popular support for controversial policy initiatives.
Closure of Marsden Point
PILSI was approached by a not-for-profit, Operation Good Oil, for advice on the closure of Marsden Point.
On 30 April 2024, PILSI attended the AGM of the Marsden Point owner, Channel Infrastructure Limited, and by shareholder’s proposal, proposed that the Company fund a full investigation into the costs and benefits of restarting refinery operations. The proposal did not receive a majority vote but the Board agreed informally to support the Government’s proposed Fuel Security review, which will include Marsden Point.
PILSI’s initial investigation reveals that key components of the refinery have been dismantled and removed. The reason was due to a Ministerial decision by former Minister of Energy, Megan Woods, who refused to support the short-term mothballing of the refinery, caused by the lost demand from the covid lockdown. This decision, along with the decision of NZTA to source bitumen from abroad, ended Marsden Point as a commercially viable and strategic asset. But it reduced NZ’s greenhouse gas emission profile, in line with international commitments.
PILSI considers that the basis of these decisions needs to be fully publicised and examined.
Further, the customer refinery owners, petroleum companies, made strategic moves to dispose of their shareholdings. One made a commitment to sell to an Australian refinery owner, on the express condition that Marsden Point ceased refining operations.
Whilst these steps are in no way a reflection of the Board of Channel Infrastructure, the current owners of Marsden Point, PILSI is considering the implications of the restructuring under competition and corporate law, and will be raising these issues in the context of the Government’s Fuel Security review.
