• Waikato District Council - Block the Offer - say no to deep sea oil
    We ask that Waikato District Council advocate for both current and future generations by adopting a public position of opposition to oil prospecting and drilling and that they express this and on any occasion that they are consulted on this topic. Oil companies have been offered the opportunity by the New Zealand government to prospect for oil close to Auckland. Consultations about oil permit areas are held with Iwi, Hapu and Local Authorities (such as the Waikato District Council ), who have the opportunity to put in a submission to New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals before Friday November 18th. There are many concerns about Deep Sea Oil prospecting and drilling including: The seismic surveying used to identify resources in the sea bed is known to be harmful, even fatal, to marine life and to mammals such as whales and dolphins in particular. If oil is found and drilling starts there will be significant risks to our harbours and coastline. The wells would be significantly deeper than the one in the Gulf of Mexico, which took months to close off when there was an oil spill, and devastated the ecology and the economy of the coastal area. We must not let this happen here. The Rena disaster demonstrated how unprepared New Zealand is for a major oil spill. Peak Oil is already here so we have to switch to different ways of living anyway. It is prudent to use the resources which are available now to move towards alternatives. The effects of Climate Change are already being experienced and it is now fully accepted that we have to change our oil dependent lifestyles. To have a moderate chance of keeping temperature increase below 2 degrees centigrade, the allowable global carbon budget for the rest of this century is 400-850 gigatonnes (Gt = 1 billion tonnes.) Coal, oil and gas mines currently operating or under construction will emit 940 Gt over their lifespan. This exceeds the carbon budget. Clearly more mines are not compatible with climate safety.The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned of ' irreversible and dangerous' changes to the climate if the use of fossil fuels continues. Climate scientists have indicated that we must act now to avoid catastrophic climate change. It is unjustifiable to risk environmental and ecosystem damage to search for a fuel that cannot be safely used without jeopardising the future. As governments legislate to limit greenhouse gas emissions, mining companies will demand compensation for their ‘stranded assets’. This will burden the taxpayer. We need no new oil infrastructure to create stranded assets. Oil production is not economically sustainable (extraction of a finite resource the use of which contributes to climate change could never be sustainable in any way) nor would oil production contribute at all to our local economy other than to have a potentially huge adverse impact if an accident did occur. Oil exploration, both in terms of the immediate risk of an oil spill but also in terms of the contribution to climate change, endangers fishing – customary, commercial or recreational, In fact the number of jobs created by oil exploration is relatively small. Many more jobs are created by investment in alternative energy infrastructure. The idea that Taranaki is an area made rich by the oil industry is simply not true. Taranaki people’s annual average income is lower than the national average. Most of the wealth in Taranaki is held in the urban areas, and people living nearest to the well sites (such as Kaponga, Eltham, Patea, Stratford East and Waitara East), are in fact the most deprived, which is reflected in their low socio-economic levels and high school decile ratings.’ The 620 people who are directly employed by the oil industry, and the 1,160 people who work in support services are subjected to the boom-and-bust nature of the industries price cycles. Even New Plymouth MP Jonathan Young has said that the region needs to explore other options, such as horticulture and tourism.Oil exploration therefore risks our economy but also people's well being. For generations people have lived off the abundance of the sea, for Tangata Whenua this is especially important as the sea is their food basket. We ask that Waikato District Council advocate for the people and communities they serve by making a public statement of opposition to Deep Sea Oil exploration and that they express their opposition generally and on any occasion that they are consulted on this topic. We need to take real climate action now and say NO to deep water drilling. We ask our councillors to represent our voices. References: [1]http://www.nzpam.govt.nz/cms/about-nzpam/news/publications/petroleum-and-minerals-report-2013.pdf (2)www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/business/business-growth-agenda/regions/documents-image-library/rear-2014/Regional%20Economic%20Activity%20Report%202014%20Part%202.pdf) (3) http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/news/64958753/Barrels-of-woe-for-Taranaki-oil-industry (4) http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/274583/drop-in-mining-royalties (5)Nearly one in four Taranaki kids doing it tough" - 18 July 2015 (6) Taranaki unemployment rates grow to 7.3%" - 6 August 2015
    25 of 100 Signatures
  • Block the Offer: Christchurch City Council Meeting
    We ask that Auckland City Council advocate for both current and future generations by adopting a public position of opposition to oil prospecting and drilling and that they express this and on any occasion that they are consulted on this topic. Oil companies have been offered the opportunity by the New Zealand government to prospect for oil close to Auckland. Consultations about oil permit areas are held with Iwi, Hapu and Local Authorities (such as the Auckland Council ), who have the opportunity to put in a submission to New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals before Friday November 18th. There are many concerns about Deep Sea Oil prospecting and drilling including: The seismic surveying used to identify resources in the sea bed is known to be harmful, even fatal, to marine life and to mammals such as whales and dolphins in particular. If oil is found and drilling starts there will be significant risks to our harbours and coastline. The wells would be significantly deeper than the one in the Gulf of Mexico, which took months to close off when there was an oil spill, and devastated the ecology and the economy of the coastal area. We must not let this happen here. The Rena disaster demonstrated how unprepared New Zealand is for a major oil spill. Peak Oil is already here so we have to switch to different ways of living anyway. It is prudent to use the resources which are available now to move towards alternatives. The effects of Climate Change are already being experienced and it is now fully accepted that we have to change our oil dependent lifestyles. To have a moderate chance of keeping temperature increase below 2 degrees centigrade, the allowable global carbon budget for the rest of this century is 400-850 gigatonnes (Gt = 1 billion tonnes.) Coal, oil and gas mines currently operating or under construction will emit 940 Gt over their lifespan. This exceeds the carbon budget. Clearly more mines are not compatible with climate safety.The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned of ' irreversible and dangerous' changes to the climate if the use of fossil fuels continues. Climate scientists have indicated that we must act now to avoid catastrophic climate change. It is unjustifiable to risk environmental and ecosystem damage to search for a fuel that cannot be safely used without jeopardising the future. As governments legislate to limit greenhouse gas emissions, mining companies will demand compensation for their ‘stranded assets’. This will burden the taxpayer. We need no new oil infrastructure to create stranded assets. Oil production is not economically sustainable (extraction of a finite resource the use of which contributes to climate change could never be sustainable in any way) nor would oil production contribute at all to our local economy other than to have a potentially huge adverse impact if an accident did occur. Oil exploration, both in terms of the immediate risk of an oil spill but also in terms of the contribution to climate change, endangers fishing – customary, commercial or recreational, In fact the number of jobs created by oil exploration is relatively small. Many more jobs are created by investment in alternative energy infrastructure. The idea that Taranaki is an area made rich by the oil industry is simply not true. Taranaki people’s annual average income is lower than the national average. Most of the wealth in Taranaki is held in the urban areas, and people living nearest to the well sites (such as Kaponga, Eltham, Patea, Stratford East and Waitara East), are in fact the most deprived, which is reflected in their low socio-economic levels and high school decile ratings.’ The 620 people who are directly employed by the oil industry, and the 1,160 people who work in support services are subjected to the boom-and-bust nature of the industries price cycles. Even New Plymouth MP Jonathan Young has said that the region needs to explore other options, such as horticulture and tourism.Oil exploration therefore risks our economy but also people's well being. For generations people have lived off the abundance of the sea, for Tangata Whenua this is especially important as the sea is their food basket. We ask that Auckland Council advocate for the people and communities they serve by making a public statement of opposition to Deep Sea Oil exploration and that they express their opposition generally and on any occasion that they are consulted on this topic. We need to take real climate action now and say NO to deep water drilling. We ask our councillors to represent our voices. References: [1]http://www.nzpam.govt.nz/cms/about-nzpam/news/publications/petroleum-and-minerals-report-2013.pdf (2)www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/business/business-growth-agenda/regions/documents-image-library/rear-2014/Regional%20Economic%20Activity%20Report%202014%20Part%202.pdf) (3) http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/news/64958753/Barrels-of-woe-for-Taranaki-oil-industry (4) http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/274583/drop-in-mining-royalties (5)Nearly one in four Taranaki kids doing it tough" - 18 July 2015 (6) Taranaki unemployment rates grow to 7.3%" - 6 August 2015
    0 of 100 Signatures
    Created by Sarah Yates Picture
  • Tasman District Council - Block the Offer - say no to deep sea oil
    We ask that the Tasman District Council advocate for both current and future generations by adopting a public position of opposition to oil prospecting and drilling and that they express this on any occasion on which they are consulted on this topic. Oil companies have been offered the opportunity by the New Zealand government to prospect for oil close to Tasman Bay. Consultations about oil permit areas are held with Iwi, Hapu and Local Authorities (such as the Tasman District Council) who have the opportunity to put in a submission to New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals before Friday November 18th. There are many concerns about oil prospecting and drilling including: 1. The impact of climate change is already being felt in Tasman District in the form of flooding and coastal erosion. To have a moderate chance of keeping temperature increase below 2 degrees centigrade, the allowable global carbon budget for the rest of this century is 400-850 gigatonnes (Gt = 1 billion tonnes.) Coal, oil and gas mines currently operating or under construction will emit 940 Gt over their lifespan. This exceeds the carbon budget. Clearly more mines are not compatible with climate safety. 2. As governments legislate to limit greenhouse gas emissions, mining companies will demand compensation for their ‘stranded assets’. This will burden the taxpayer. We need no new oil infrastructure to create stranded assets. 3. Oil leaks of varying severity are not uncommon in oil fields. The Australian government is hesitating to let oil companies like Statoil drill in the Great Australian Bight because a leak could reach coastlines as far as Tasmania and New South Wales. The proposed South Taranaki Basin areas reach tens of miles from precious Tasman coastlines. The wells would be significantly deeper than the one in the Gulf of Mexico, which took months to close off when there was an oil spill, and devastated the ecology and the economy of the coastal area. We must not let this happen here. The Rena disaster demonstrated how unprepared New Zealand is for a major oil spill. The risk is too great. 4. Seismic surveys associated with deep sea oil exploration are severely disruptive to marine mammals. In this case Maui dolphins and blue whales will be further threatened. 5. OIl production is not economically sustainable (extraction of a finite resource the use of which contributes to climate change could never be sustainable in any way) nor would oil production contribute at all to our economy. In fact the number of jobs created by oil exploration is relatively small. Many more jobs are created by investment in alternative energy infrastructure. Jonathan Young has said that the region needs to explore other options, such as horticulture and tourism. We need to take real climate action now and say NO to deep water drilling. We ask our councillors to represent our voices. References: [1]http://www.nzpam.govt.nz/cms/about-nzpam/news/publications/petroleum-and-minerals-report-2013.pdf (2)www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/business/business-growth-agenda/regions/documents-image-library/rear-2014/Regional%20Economic%20Activity%20Report%202014%20Part%202.pdf) (3) http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/news/64958753/Barrels-of-woe-for-Taranaki-oil-industry (4) http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/274583/drop-in-mining-royalties (5)Nearly one in four Taranaki kids doing it tough" - 18 July 2015 (6) Taranaki unemployment rates grow to 7.3%" - 6 August 2015 (7) http://grist.org/business-technology/there-are-more-jobs-in-renewable-energy-than-in-oil-gas-and-coal-combined/ 15 October 2016 (8) Growing sector of renewable energy jobs: http://www.se4all.org/sites/default/files/IRENA_RE_Jobs_Annual_Review_2016.pdf
    282 of 300 Signatures
    Created by Joanna Santa Barbara
  • Help protect our environment by taking a stand against deep sea oil: Far North District
    We ask that FNDC advocate for both current and future generations by adopting a position of opposition to Deep Sea Oil prospecting and drilling. Oil companies have been given the right to prospect for oil around the coast of Northland. Consultations about Deep Sea Oil permits are with Iwi, Hapu and Local Authorities. There are many concerns about Deep Sea Oil prospecting and drilling. The seismic surveying used to identify resources in the sea bed is known to be harmful, even fatal, to marine life and to mammals such as whales and dolphins in particular. If oil is found and drilling starts there will be significant risks to our harbours and coastline. The wells would be around 500m deeper than the one in the Gulf of Mexico which took months to close off when there was an oil spill and which devastated the ecology and the economy of the coastal area. We must not let this happen here. The Rena disaster demonstrated how unprepared New Zealand is for a major oil spill. Peak Oil is already here so we have to switch to different ways of living anyway. Better to use resources now to move towards alternatives. The effects of Climate Change are already being experienced and it is now fully accepted that we have to change our oil dependent lifestyles. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned of ' irreversible and dangerous' changes to the climate if the use of fossil fuels continues. Climate scientists have indicated that we must act now to avoid catastrophic climate change. It is unjustifiable to risk environmental and ecosystem damage to search for a fuel that cannot be safely used without jeopardising the future. Oil production is not economically sustainable (extraction of a finite resource the use of which contributes to climate change could never be sustainable in any way) nor would oil production contribute at all to our local economy other than to have a potentially huge adverse impact if an accident did occur. Oil exploration, both in terms of the immediate risk of an oil spill but also in terms of the contribution to climate change, endangers fishing – customary, commercial or recreational. Oil exploration therefore risks our economy but also people's well being. For generations people have lived off the abundance of the sea, for Tangata Whenua this is especially important as the sea is their food basket. The following are among key outcomes proposed by FNDC in “Our Voices – Our Vision” Safe, healthy, resilient places and people. Our environment is protected, enhanced and wisely-managed. Sustainable development of our local economy. Deep Sea Oil exploration is in direct contradiction to these stated outcomes. In addition FNDC has another key proposed outcome which is “Capable, credible, civic leadership that advocates for people and is trusted by the communities we serve”. We ask that FNDC live up to their vision and the proposed outcome of 'advocating for people and gain the trust of the communities they serve' by making a public statement of opposition to Deep Sea Oil exploration and that they express their opposition generally and on any occasion that they are consulted on this topic. We need to take real climate action now and say NO to deep water drilling. More information http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/oceans/science/marine-planning-and-conservation/what-are-seismic-surveys-and-their-impacts/ http://www.nwf.org/What-We-Do/Protect-Habitat/Gulf-Restoration/Oil-Spill/Effects-on-Wildlife.aspx http://wakeupfreakout.org/film/tipping.html
    1,253 of 2,000 Signatures
    Created by Gail Aiken Picture
  • No commercial motorised activity on Lake Pukaki, Mackenzie Basin, NZ - SIGN PETITION
    Lake Pukaki is identified as a Site of Natural Significance in the Mackenzie District Plan. It has features that can be viewed from the visitor center and carpark that are designated as Outstanding Natural Landscape, and in a submission to the Plan Change 13 Council hearings, Lake Pukaki was identified as a site of cultural significance to Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu. It is a mecca for tourists visiting New Zealand, with an estimated 1,000,000+ visitors each year stopping at the car park and visitors center at the southern end of the lake to view and photograph the Te Wainuipounamu World Heritage area, including Aoraki Mt Cook which is located at the northern end of the lake. This experience is culturally significant, peaceful and spectacularly beautiful. Protect our beautiful lake and ensure it remains pure and pristine for all New Zealanders. 1. Lake Pukaki is a very spiritual lake to the Waitaha, Ngai Tahu, and all of us, who have been moved by it, touched by it and listened to it. As such, it deserves our protection, our guardianship, and our greatest respect. 2. At the south end of Lake Pukaki, one can view the sublime beauty of the lake and New Zealand’s highest mountain at the head of it. It is one of the most stunning sights in the country and it is seen from the south end of Lake Pukaki, with the Ben Ohau Range alongside. 3. Nowhere else is this view possible in New Zealand. National and International photography groups and millions of others come to visit the Mackenzie just for this view. 4. It is the jewel in the crown of the Mackenzie Country and its pristine, ever-changing views are spellbinding to locals and visitors alike. Millions of visitors from New Zealand and overseas flock here for that view. 5. Noisy vessels in this picture plying the edges of this dangerous lake, where strong winds whip up with little warning, and particularly in the south end where people stop, will destroy this for local and overseas visitors. 6. It would be sensible and fair of the MDC to ensure that tourism activities in this sensitive landscape were appropriate and fitted well with what is already here and what is driving millions to include this area in their itinerary. Also New Zealanders flock to this tranquil area for similar reasons. 7. The Mackenzie is not Queenstown. But Queenstown restricts certain activities in areas that disturb others. So does the Department of Conservation. Areas of the Mackenzie such as the Hooker Track and the Hooker Valley are designated Quiet Zones, free from motorised transport, boats and aircraft, so people can experience the beautiful quiet. It is not to say that the Mackenzie shouldn’t have motorised activities, but this should be in an area that is already accepted as having the motorised forms of transport. 8. Lakes in NZ have become severely polluted due to boat traffic on pristine lakes. Commercial activities bring more danger of pollution.] Lake Wakatipu and Lake Wanaka are experiencing severe problems. Thankfully, neither Lake Pukaki or Lake Tekapo are afflicted by this, which is almost certainly because of the absence of COMMERCIAL boat traffic. We must all work to protect our water in these pristine lakes. 9. Motorised commercial operation of craft on Lake Pukaki would do great harm to the tourism industry because the Mackenzie is about the space, the night sky, the tranquillity, the stunning quiet, and the beauty of our pristine, spiritual lakes and our spectacular Southern Alps. These are all activities that complement our natural beauty, without intruding on what others have already created and are the best option for this stunning part of the country, particularly around Lake Pukaki. 10. Lake Pukaki is becoming increasingly valuable as a tourism attraction, simply due to its beauty and space, leading up to Aoraki and also due to the increasing scarcity of pure, unpolluted lakes in our country. There is nothing else in the world, or in our country, like it. There is only one Aoraki Mount Cook and only one lake leading up to it. Tourism needs to be sustainable and allowing commercial motorized activity on Lake Pukaki will soon destroy the very thing that people come to see. 11. Visitors here escape from their increasingly overcrowded countries and gaze upon our mountains and lakes, feeling a great sense of great calm in doing so. Kiwis do too. Let’s keep it that way for them, for this will become increasingly precious and will continue to be the magical drawing card to the Mackenzie providing we protect our beautiful lake and ensure it remains pure and pristine for all New Zealanders.
    2,446 of 3,000 Signatures
    Created by Kaye Paardekooper
  • Ban single-use plastic cutlery
    Environmental impact and risk of health Banning single-use plastic cutlery will definitely help reduce the amount of plastic pollution produced, many of which end in bodies of water causing damage to marine wildlife. More awareness need to be brought in order to raise awareness in pollution issues before the problem gets too big, plastics take up to hundreds of years to degrade, and by eliminating a part of the contribution to plastic pollution we will hopefully encourage further action taken to prevent more damage. This is almost important as some researches have found that the hot water poured into styrofoam cups were found to have been contaminated with styrene. Styrene is a chemical often found in plastics (and it sometimes can leach off Polystyrene type plastics), and it definitely should not be for consumption as it can causes very serious health related problems.
    279 of 300 Signatures
    Created by Haowei Yu
  • NZ sea lions are the rarest in the world. Help save them.
    A DoC study reveals our nationally critical New Zealand sea lions are likely to become extinct within our lifetime (23 years) at the current levels of by-catch.
    237 of 300 Signatures
    Created by Jake Benge Picture
  • Ban microbeads in New Zealand
    Microbeads are small pieces of plastic that are found mainly in beauty products, facial scrubs and toothpaste. They have been proven to have a devastating impact on marine life and that they filter through the food chain and have an impact on human diets as well. They have even been found in sea salt. There is no practical way to clean them once they are in the ocean. Article 23 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 states that regulations may be put in place to prohibit the manufacture or sale of products that contain specified materials. We therefore call on Hon. Dr. Nick Smith to apply this article to plastic microbeads, including 'biodegradable' plastic microbeads and other similar products that will not break down in our oceans. https://www.beatthemicrobead.org/ProductTable.php?colour=2&country=NZ&language=EN Credit to 5Gyres for the picture.
    8,329 of 9,000 Signatures
    Created by Jake Benge Picture
  • Ban Glyphosphate use in our public spaces in Tauranga
    In March 2015 the International Agency for Research on Cancer IARC (part of the World Health Organisation (WHO) ruled that glyphosate (commonly known as Roundup and other proprietary names) was a probable human carcinogen based on evidence that linked the chemical to non- Hodgkin's lymphoma and extensive DNA and chromosome damage in humans; as well as tumours of the kidney, pancreas, skin and blood vessels and DNA and chromosome damage in animals. http://pesticideblog.lawbc.com/entry/iarc-announces-cancer-classification-for-glyphosate-and-other-pesticides Other scientific research has shown: • Glyphosate is an antibiotic causing some bacteria to become immune to antibiotics (Prof. Jack Heinemann et al., Canterbury University 2015.) http://www.comsdev.canterbury.ac.nz/rss/news/?articleId=1659 • Glyphosate affects the environment by breaking down more slowly than previously thought. • Glyphosate disrupts learning behaviours in bees. The concentrations of glyphosate used in farming can reduce sensitivity to nectar reward and impair associative learning in bees. • Glyphosate in the formulation known as Roundup is more toxic than glyphosate on its own because of the added surfactants. • Glyphosate poses a genetic hazard to fish and contributes to long lasting damage. • There is no safe level because neither glyphosate nor glyphosate-based herbicides have been assessed at sub-lethal concentrations. Since significant research findings have shown that glyphosate and its surfactants pose a material, health and environmental hazard, the New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has not undertaken a review of its earlier opinion that approved these substances in 2005 and 2009. Tauranga City council says it has undertaken one trial of an alternative, the results are still pending. This decision has not yet made any move to phase out glyphosate. The council needs to put a higher weighting on people's and the environment's well-being, and not confine itself to a limited analysis based only on the immediate operating costs. The danger that glyphosate poses to our health and environment translates to a major economic cost to our society. Alternative weed management methods are available, such as plant oil-fatty-acid based herbicides, hot water (better and cheaper than steam), mowing, hand weeding (providing employment), steam guns (for the gardener), weed trimmers, mulching and allowing some areas to go wild, where there are ecological benefits. See this file for a discussion of alternatives: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/beachheroes/pages/1997/attachments/original/1453071596/Alternatives_for_Councils.pdf North Shore and city areas of Auckland have been using non-chemical alternatives for 20 years successfully. Christchurch City Council is the first city in New Zealand to agree to phase the use of glyphosate. For references relating to the above information please check out this link: Glyphosate: No Safe Level 2015 by Jodie Bruning B.Bus.Agribusiness (Monash) https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/beachheroes/pages/1997/attachments/original/1455059707/Glyphosate_Report_10-02.pdf
    288 of 300 Signatures
    Created by Lucy Hockly Picture
  • STOP THE USE OF TOXIC GLYPHOSATE ON ROTORUA'S ROADS AND PARKS NOW
    The Rotorua Lakes Council (RLC) and the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) employ contractors to spray Rotorua's road edges, parks and rural road marker posts and edges with the herbicide glyphosate and its additives. These are generally done beyond the required standard (i.e. they use more than is recommended). In March 2015 the International Agency for Research on Cancer IARC (part of the World Health Organisation (WHO) ruled that glyphosate (commonly known as Roundup and other proprietary names) was a probable human carcinogen based on evidence that linked the chemical to non- Hodgkin's lymphoma and extensive DNA and chromosome damage in humans; as well as tumours of the kidney, pancreas, skin and blood vessels and DNA and chromosome damage in animals. http://pesticideblog.lawbc.com/entry/iarc-announces-cancer-classification-for-glyphosate-and-other-pesticides In addition to the 'probable cancer' statement above, other scientific research has found that: • Glyphosate is an antibiotic causing some bacteria to become immune to antibiotics (Prof. Jack Heinemann et al., Canterbury University 2015.) http://www.comsdev.canterbury.ac.nz/rss/news/?articleId=1659 • Glyphosate affects the environment by breaking down more slowly than previously thought. • Glyphosate disrupts learning behaviours in bees. The concentrations of glyphosate used in farming can reduce sensitivity to nectar reward and impair associative learning in bees. • Glyphosate in the formulation known as Roundup is more toxic than glyphosate on its own because of the added surfactants. • Glyphosate poses a genetic hazard to fish and contributes to long lasting damage. • There is no safe level because neither glyphosate nor glyphosate-based herbicides have been assessed at sub-lethal concentrations. Since significant research findings have shown that glyphosate and its surfactants pose a material, health and environmental hazard, the New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has not undertaken a review of its earlier opinion that approved these substances in 2005 and 2009. Rotorua Lakes Council says it is prepared to consider alternatives that are cost effective, but has not yet made any move to phase out glyphosate. The council needs to put a higher weighting on people's and the environment's well-being, and not confine itself to a limited analysis based only on the immediate operating costs. The danger that glyphosate poses to our health and environment translates to a major economic cost to our society. Alternative weed management methods are available, such as plant oil-fatty-acid based herbicides, hot water (better and cheaper than steam), mowing, hand weeding (providing employment), steam guns (for the gardener), weed trimmers, mulching and allowing some areas to go wild, where there are ecological benefits. See this file for a discussion of alternatives: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/beachheroes/pages/1997/attachments/original/1453071596/Alternatives_for_Councils.pdf North Shore and city areas of Auckland have been using non-chemical alternatives for 20 years successfully. For references relating to the above information and for further detrimental effects of glyphosate see Glyphosate: No Safe Level 2015 by Jodie Bruning B.Bus.Agribusiness (Monash) https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/beachheroes/pages/1997/attachments/original/1455059707/Glyphosate_Report_10-02.pdf
    272 of 300 Signatures
    Created by Jenny Lux Picture
  • Compulsory registration & neutering of all non-exempt cats & dogs in NZ.
    Carnivorous pets have a high "ecological footprint" The over-breeding of pets in NZ has a high cost to our environment, to voluntary organisations such as the SPCA and has an impact on wildlife as well as global fisheries. Pet numbers are already limited by a maximum by most city councils, so over-breeding of pets means we have a large number of animals that need to be fed or put down every year. Pet food often contains palm oil and GE ingredients. A rating system that takes into account the use of meat not suitable for human consumption and improved farming practices can promote the reduction of the carbon footprint of pet food. While most pet owners find the feeding of ex racing horse, kangaroo and vermin to pets disgusting, it is more environmentally friendly to do so than to farm beef or chicken. Calculations by Deakin University researchers show an estimated 2.48 million tonnes of forage fish are used each year by the global cat food industry. Fish are a biological resource that is becoming scarce. Unsustainable fishing practices including human slavery are part of the cat food industry.
    160 of 200 Signatures
    Created by Kazel Cass
  • I pledge to vote for the 1st party that promises to exit the TPP!
    The TPP destroys our Democracy, our Sovereignty. The ISDS os a corporate coup d'etat. We cannot have the government sued in a rigged tribunal for acting in the interests of the people! The UN Human rights expert has found the TPP at odds with human rights treaties making it in breach of international treaties! http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17006 The majority of New Zealanders oppose the TPP, by signing this petition you are making it highly desirable for a political party to act in the public's wishes & best interests and agree to put their money where their mouth is and exit the TPP! We did it with a Nuclear free stance, we can do it again and be TPP FREE! If you want to be our representatives, then represent us! Not the US! Note: The party must be registered, active and must make the statement loudly, clearly and publically.
    312 of 400 Signatures
    Created by John Berry