David Parker failed to stop NZ's 11th-biggest emitter beating a climate law
Staff advised the Environment Minister to urgently step in to stop a major polluter getting ahead of a crucial law change. What he did next was "deeply disappointing" to some. Eloise Gibson reports. One of New Zealands biggest climate polluters can keep operating until 2046, after Environment Minister David Parker rejected advice to stop a high-emitting factory beating a law change. Parker was advised to step in as soon as possible to prevent Aucklands Glenbrook Steel Mill getting consent to keep making air pollution for decades to come, without climate change being considered. The mills owner, NZ Steel, applied for its permits after the Government announced it was changing the law so councils could consider climate change, but before the change took effect. Parker had the option to put the climate back on the table, but chose not to. READ MORE: * Housing rebuild should be a chance to do better, not a rush to patch up * New Zealand's biggest climate polluters, ranked * SH1 upgrade: Wider motorway can lower emissions David Parker * Cutting construction emissions could equal taking 500,000 cars off the road - report * 'Very real risk' NZ Steel could be forced to pull out of Auckland Climate change has been supercharging disasters like Februarys devastating Cyclone Gabrielle , and scientists have warned the door is closing to avoid more severe and deadly damage. Parkers decision allowed the countrys 11th-biggest emitter to lock in operations for another 25 years without conditions on its greenhouse gas emissions. As well as airborne toxins such as carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide , the Waiuku steel mill makes around 15% of Aucklands greenhouse gases and somewhere in the vicinity of 1-2 per cent of New Zealands planet-heating emissions mostly carbon dioxide from the coal it uses. Ministry staff told Parker the mill would have a significant impact on whether New Zealand could meet its climate goals (which mean being carbon-neutral by 2050), recommending he act as soon as possible. The urgent briefing was delivered on October 10, 2022, two weeks before Auckland Council was due to hear NZ Steels application. Although the company had applied back in 2021, the hearing dates of October 26 and 27 were due to fall just over a month before a crucial law change that would have enabled Auckland Council to consider climate change. The law change kicked in on November 30. Ministry staff told Parker he should urgently intervene and ask the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to take over the decision, which the EPA is allowed to do if an application is of national significance. Their advice said the EPA wasnt subject to the ban on considering climate change, according to a copy Stuff received under the Official Information Act. Asked what he decided and why, the Ministers office confirmed to Stuff that he rejected the advice, and supplied a copy of his response, reminding officials that they had had the option of making a submission to the council if they wanted to argue for a shorter consent period or regular reviews on climate grounds. However, its not clear whether doing so would have changed anything, because the council was adamant that it could not consider climate change. When the mills application went before Auckland Council a fortnight later, the council expressly and firmly disregarded greenhouse gases. A 25-year consent was granted in March 2023, over strenuous objections from a group of local resident s. Had Parker involved the EPA, the permits might still have been granted, but possibly for a shorter term and/or with more conditions on managing greenhouse gases. Parts of the mill are 35 years old , and the minister was told an EPA board of inquiry would be able to consider whether the factory could do better on climate change. Dr Grant Hewison of Lawyers for Climate Change NZ opposed the consent at the hearing, telling the council, It is time to stop burning our planet. He said the lawyers group was deeply disappointed to learn about Parkers refusal to call in the air discharge permits so that the mills greenhouse gases could be properly considered. In opting not to escalate the matter, Parker was saying no to using one of the few levers available to pressure the mill to cut its climate impact. The mill has little financial incentive to shrink its carbon dioxide emissions because its part a scheme to shield big-polluting exporters from carbon costs that might make them less competitive overseas. NZ Steel which, despite the NZ in its name, is owned by an Australian company, Bluescope receives 90% of its greenhouse gases cost-free from the Government under this exemption to the Emissions Trading Scheme . In the year to June, Bluescope received free carbon credits worth $117m from the New Zealand Governmen t in fact, the ASX-listed company has been the countrys single biggest recipient of free carbon credits over the years. The mill also employs more than a thousand people, and contributed an estimated $600m to the economy in 2019/20. It also has political support: In November 2022, soon after the council hearing, National MP Andrew Bayly published a letter supporting NZ Steel against the residents opposing the mill. Bayley then posted a photo of himself and National Party leader Christopher Luxon meeting NZ Steels leadership team , and, in the same blog post, described steel as sustainable. Steel produced 3.3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide globally in 2021 . It is considered one of the hardest industries to switch to clean energy, because of the high temperatures and other chemical processes involved in making steel. Cleaner options, such as hydrogen, are thought to be at least 15 years away . The Glenbrook mill uses West Coast ironsand, a particularly high-emitting raw material. It burns coal not only for heat but to get the chemical reactions needed. In 2021, the latest year for which figures are available, it was New Zealands 11th-biggest greenhouse gas emitter , bringing in enough coal to New Zealand in a year to release almost a million tonnes of carbon dioxide from that alone. While carbon-neutral steel isnt currently realistic, factories can cut their emissions and would likely do so faster if there was pressure from conditions attached to their operating permits, the ministry staff suggested to Parker. Although NZ Steel has voluntarily committed to cutting its carbon footprint by 12 per cent by 2030, thats well short of whats needed globally to keep climate change in a comparatively safe zone which needs emissions to halve by 2030. For every industry that does less than the average required to hold on to a safer climate, another industry will have to compensate with deeper emissions cuts, or else the Government will need to purchase costly carbon offsets (likely from overseas) to mop up the surplus. However, NZ Steel told Stuff the technical legal issue on these permits should not be confused with the companys commitment to move to low-carbon production. It says its actively exploring technology to lower its carbon output, and will update the public as progress happens. Emitters had plenty of time to get ahead of the 2020 law change, because of the way the Government handled it. Facing pressure to act on the climate crisis, it repealed a 2004 provision in the Resource Management Act, banning councils from considering climate change when they decided on permits like the ones needed by NZ Steel. However, the repeal did not take effect for a year, during which NZ Steel lodged its applications to keep operating. Ten days before Christmas in 2021, the Government quietly delayed the deadline for lifting the ban again, by another year, until November 30, 2022. That pushed the timing very close to the date of NZ Steels consent hearing. The timing could make the Government look bad, Parker was told. In their advice in October 2022, officials said the fact that the council would hear the steel mills application at around the same time the law change finally kicked in could bring negative publicity. People might perceive that a major emitter could lock in future emissions right before the deadline. Calling the discharge consent in shows that the Government takes its climate change commitments seriously, said the advice. On the other hand, staff acknowledged a risk that a late intervention by the Minister could have been seen as unfair to NZ Steel. There is still a possibility the permits will change. When Auckland Council granted the permits, it said it might be possible to review the mills operating conditions in the future, if local planning rules changed to reflect new climate directives. It remains to be seen if that will happen. Meanwhile, NZ Steel has appealed the permits, because it does not like some of the conditions. The case is headed to the Environment Court. *This article was corrected on April 19, 2023 at 1.50pm to state the correct duration of the permits granted by Auckland Council, of 25 years. The advice to David Parker referred to 35 year permits.