Underminers

You have to admit it seems a little dodgy when one of our largest SOEs, which makes money digging coal out of the ground and exporting it to China (where it fuels their massive power stations and is converted into CO2), largely funds an influential report critical of the Government's proposed Emissions Trading Scheme. It's a throwback to the old days when cigarette makers payed for studies on the health benefits of smoking and, surprise, got doctors to advertise their products. If ever there was a conflict of interest to be avoided, this would appear to be the case, especially since it's the taxpayers footing the bill to criticise their own government's policy.

Defenders of Solid Energy say it behooves the company to fund such studies so it can be properly briefed on the impacts of legislation which would affect its business. They also say that other SOEs helped pay for the study and that Solid Energy is being unfairly singled out. While those sound like plausible arguments, they still don't excuse the fact that it just looks improper and that all companies – especially SOEs – should adhere to rigorous ethical standards. Solid Energy, whatever its motives, should never have been allowed to give money to the researchers, because it would immediately cast doubts on their conclusions before they had even reached them.

As it stands, we have a mining company which appears to be mining under its owners.

This next cartoon isn't exactly based on personal experience, because I'd never be stupid enough to say something like that to a new mum. I have too strong a self-preservation instinct! But I can imagine guys who might, trying to be helpful and encouraging, and supportive as their wife or partner struggles with the demands of a newborn while trying to reconcile it with her old life.

While I'm in awe of the French Justice Minister, who has been held up as an example of feminist equality for her decision to return to work so soon after the birth of her child, I can't say I admire her decision. After being with someone who has had three children and observing how much of an impact childbirth – and the subsequent care of the baby – affects the mother's health and wellbeing, I totally support women who want to take a year off and just be a mum. This decision shouldn't penalise them in the workplace, and should in fact be celebrated as a natural and important thing to do – even more important than rushing to return to the workforce. In fact, we should follow some of the Scandinavian countries' example and extend maternity leave (at full pay) to at least a year, maybe more. If we value our children and the health of our society, it's the least we could do.

The French Justice Minister has been called "superhuman" by some, but an equally superhuman feat is raising your children to be healthy and happy while juggling work at home, getting enough sleep, and fending off the pressure to return to your job too early. If women want to go back to work a day after their c-sections, then great. But let that be a decision they make of their own volition, and not because they feel financially obligated or shamed into it.

So sugary carbs are as addictive as cigarettes? No surprise there, at least not to me, who only kicked an addiction to Krispy Kreme doughnuts when I moved to New Zealand and couldn't find them in Nelson. Too bad if you were a sugar addict who didn't know this and took up smoking to lose weight – now you're doubly hooked! Maybe if those people applied nicotine patches across their mouths they could kill two birds with one stone.

Newest First

Oldest First

Jonno   #1   04:45 pm Jan 15 2009

"While those sound like plausible arguments, they still don’t excuse the fact that it just looks improper ..." It just looks improper? Hardly a rational basis for criticism. The principal objective of SOEs is to operate as a successful business - understanding the legislative environment, and how that affects their operations, is no more than that. Interestingly, the study referred to appears a good deal more robust than some of the clap-trap put out by the Greens and other proponents of the great leap backwards.

Mike Moreu   #2   11:33 am Jan 16 2009

Hey Jonno, as I mentioned in my blog, I would just suggest that SOEs – because of their owners and the potential for conflicts of interest – should adhere to stricter standards to prevent this. No one doubts the robustness of the report or the credibility of the people who prepared it, but surely it could have been done without Solid Energy's involvement. Given Solid Energy's well-earned reputation for dirty tricks, you'd think they would avoid publicity pitfalls like this. Mike

Jerry   #3   08:35 pm Feb 13 2009

Dear Mike You say that Solid Energy is "one of our largest SOEs (and) makes money digging coal out of the ground and exporting it to China (where it fuels their massive power stations and is converted into CO2)." I don't know where you go that information. I've checked. No coal from Solid Energy ends up in power stations in China. What is exported by the company goes to steel making - mostly to Japan and India. A bit goes to South Africa and China and some other countries, for the same purpose. The remainder is for domestic consumption. The only power station it supplies is our own - Huntly.

Mike Moreu   #4   01:46 pm Feb 18 2009

Thanks for pointing that out, Jerry. I stand corrected. But if the bulk of our coal is still exported overseas to be burned and puffed into the atmosphere, I still don't see how that changes things. It's ironic coming from a country that reluctantly burns it itself (although that might soon change). Cheers, Mike

Jerry   #5   01:57 pm Feb 27 2009

Hi Mike If you have a look at P25 of Solid Energy's latest annual report (available on their website here: http://www.coalnz.com/index.cfm/3,138,345/senz-ar08.pdf)it seems that most if not all their export coal is used in steel making. As I understand it, when you make steel, high quality coal is actually put into the furnaces with the iron ore i.e. the carbon in the coal is an essential ingredient in the process, rather than being 'burned and puffed into the atmosphere' as you put it. Presumably we then import the same (or equivalent) steel not only in consumer goods and cars, but in things like bicycles and wind turbines too. So it seems to be a bit of a catch 22. Until we arrive at a time when steel is no longer needed, then companies like Solid Energy will find a market for their coal. It also seems to me we are on somewhat shaky ground if we oppose NZ coal exports while we are still consuming, living and working in things that contain steel. Jerry

Mike Moreu   #6   03:45 pm Feb 27 2009

Thanks Jerry, that's really interesting. I stand further corrected. Cheers, Mike

Ad Feedback