Topic: Coal Fired Power Stations in NZ?

Coal Fired Power Stations in NZ? 

NEW THREAD; POSTS TRANSFERRED FROM THE GLOBAL WARMING GLOBAL COOLING BALONEY THREAD:


FROM REX:
Hello Cam (22nd Feb),
I completely agree with every comment in this article and support coal fired power stations where the convenience of hydro is not available. NZ has vast coal reserves and I support the Government opening up some areas in our National Parks for the purpose of mining, PROVIDING enviomental safeguards are met.
Rex

FROM MARTYNZ:
What happens to the efficiency figure if you factor in the cost of mining the coal and restoring the landscape afterwards?Hello everyone

FROM ANON:
I am interested in commenting on the posting on coal fired power stations, posted by Cam.

I believe (my opinion) there is a rather cunning and misleading disception in the article posted.

The claim that coal fired power stations are 95 percent efficient is where I have a problem. This is true if the definition of efficiency is defined in terms of a thermodynamic heat engine.

i.e eff = (heat energy transfer into water)/(Total Heat generated)*100

In other words what he is saying is that of the total heat generated only 5% goes up the chimney. Great! - or is it?

The problem with that is this gives no measure of the environmental impact of a coal fired power station.

Normally the efficiency in this situation would be defined as:

eff = (Energy generated)/(Total combustable energy availible) *100

The above efficiency gives a measure of how much of the coal was burnt "cleanly" and how much went up as CO, soot and other crap.

Britain's power stations are about 30-40% efficient when defined on these terms. China's stations are less than 20%. In China the coal fired stations are hopelessly inefficient and cause widespread lung cancer and death. Either way you look at it, they are the cheapest most polluting way of generating electicity.

Re: Coal Fired Power Stations in NZ? 

ORIGINALLY FROM CAM;

An interesting comment on CO2 emissions in Australia here - http://www.mannkal.org/downloads/environment/terencecardwell.pdf

Re: Coal Fired Power Stations in NZ? 

Your quote anon:
"Either way you look at it, they are the cheapest most polluting way of generating electicity".

Please re-read the link again and tell us how you missed the clearly stated polution control of 99.98% collection of all the particulates and toxic gasses?

No one is stating that older or poorly designed new coal fired power stations do not polute - the specialist noted that not only was it possible but also economical to constuct a clean energy scouce using coal.

Your comments are dis-ingenuous.

Re: Coal Fired Power Stations in NZ? 

Before damaging one of our greatest assets the National Parks and spending all the money for power generation it we should look at reducing the excessive power usage in NZ by building houses to 21st century energy efficiency standards and upgrading existing houses with insulation, windows, glazing.
Second NZ businesses need to switch their brain on and get more energy smart.
How many times I have come across shops with open doors and the air conditioning running full swing.
Or all lights on in full daylight.
Third Companies like F&P need to improve their products and bring them up tp 21st century standards.
Especially the riduculously thin insulation on their fridges and freezers.
We are generating already plenty of power and all we need to do is getting a bit smarter on the consumption.
Not using power is the cheaper option to spending all the money for mining, transportation,power generation, environmental damage, pollution and loss of valuable assets and resources for coming generations.

Re: Coal Fired Power Stations in NZ? 

I completely agree with improving our energy inefficient ways anon, but we should not blind ourselves to the tremendous mineral and coal resource we have hidden in our National Parks and a least do a survey of only 4% (proposed Government figure) of this land to try and determine where and if we should mine in the future. This is all that is currently proposed.

Once oil has reached peak, which I predict will be very soon, and the cost per barrel exceeds US$200, you will find that we need to plan for ALL substitutes of sustainable and finite power sources, not restrict ourselves to only high capital cost low performance, visually polluting wind turbines for example.

We should keep an open mind on coal PROVIDING this can be mined with a low environmental footprint be it in a National Park on any other place in NZ.

Rex

Re: Coal Fired Power Stations in NZ? 

Rex, mining anything is never going to be 'a low environmental footprint' activity, its so last century!
What we have to do is change the way think of energy and where it comes from. Coal too will peak some day along with the contamination left behind.
Its all about revenue gathering at the end of the day and thats what this government is all about.
Whats not being poisoned (1080) on the west coast is being dug up, we lot are slow learners in this country!
Mike (not a tree hugging greenie)

Re: Coal Fired Power Stations in NZ? 

Hello Mike (not a tree hugging greenie),

Allow me to play devil’s advocate for a moment -
I am not a supporter for the mining industry.
Currently, one of the highest growth mined mineral, is for the element Lithium.

Forbes quotation:
"Since a vehicle battery requires a hundred times as much lithium carbonate as its laptop equivalent, the green-car revolution could make lithium one of the planet's most strategic commodities. The rush is on to find and develop new sources of it, a race that has mining companies scouring the globe's remotest corners..."
This applies to searching for Lithium in NZ National Parks.

Mike you are certainly right that money is a driver – here are your current investment opportunities:
• American Lithium – in 2009 it ran from 31 cents to $2.96 for an 855% gain in less than a year.

• Western Lithium – in less than two years it sprinted from 11 cents to $2.30 in January 2010 for a sweet 1,990% return.

• Lithium One Corp – in 10 months it ran from 6 cents to $1.89 for a stunning 2,916% gain.

• Canadian Lithium Corp. – ran from 6 cents to 30 cents in less than a year to return 408%.

• First Lithium Resources made a nice run from 2 cents to 30 cents over eight months last year to create a 1,400% gain for its early-in investors.

So Mike, should we not mine anything as “mining anything is never going to be 'a low environmental footprint' activity, its so last century!” and what is your environmental alternative, to move into the next century?

Can there not be an ecological balance in humans using the world’s resources to their betterment?

Are you advocating the green tree hugger philosophy of ‘tying up all resources’ by leaving the minerals in the ground?

I await your answers with interest.

Rex

Re: Coal Fired Power Stations in NZ? 

Rex, I'm not going to get into a long winded bog with screeds of figures and excerpts from various sources (the average joe is completely lost with these ramblings, me being one of them)

All I know is the world (earth) is a 'living organism' and when humans slowly deplete it natural resources (over many hundreds of years) it will become seriously ill OR may even die, as is the case with any living thing, scars left on the landscape. Oh well perhaps the answer will be to buy a few more carbon credits to offset our short term get rich scheme.

For example, the gold rushes have left what was once fertile ground in to useless moonscapes for just short term gain (our local history here can vouch for that).

In some cases superficial scars can be turned into positive outcomes that can benefit the people and planet.

I am in no way saying that all minerals should be tied up as you suggest, it is the short sightedness of humans not to look into the future and think what might be left for generations to come, when there is no major minerals left.

I too would like to know the environmental alternatives to this short term get rich scheme, surely with modern advances in technology they could come up with 'greener' alternatives because one day (maybe not in our life times) they will have no option but to use alternative solutions.

Mike

Re: Coal Fired Power Stations in NZ? 

Hello Mike,

I will not disagree with your criticism of man’s greed and past misuse of our planet’s resources. However I am not pessimistic about our future because in all of human history man has found a way to overcome whatever limitations present him during that era, be it famine to reduce excessive population growth, war to redefine boundaries, nuclear power to extend energy use Etc.

I predict we will shortly have copper classed as a precious metal because of its growing scarcity, but man will find a substituent alternative through science.
I also do not bury my head in the sand and spout pious platitudes about ‘saving the planet’ – I get on a web site like Ecobob and bring potential problems and alternatives to the attention of others so that we can actually start to consider what to do – if you think accuracy of presentation to be ramblings then that is your privilege.

So back to the original question:
Are you suggesting that in the future, coal should not be used for electricity generation in lieu of using oil or nuclear?
We all know that hydro is the most cost effective renewable electricity source available to NZ but that does not apply to the majority of the world, so what is your practical answer to this question? (précis written using only 225 words).

Rex

Re: Coal Fired Power Stations in NZ? 

Here are some quotations from Dr Don Elder Chief Executive Officer for Solid Energy New Zealand Ltd:

"Steel making, electricity generation and cement manufacturing are the major uses of coal in New Zealand."

“Coal produces over a third of the world's electricity and one quarter of the world's primary energy. In New Zealand agriculture, cement, timber and industrial processing rely on coal for energy, as do many hospitals and schools. However only 5% of our electricity is generated using coal”.

“Known global oil and gas reserves will be largely exhausted within 20 to 50 years, but abundant and accessible coal reserves will last more than 200 years. New Zealand's coal reserves are estimated to represent 1000 years of supply at the current rate of coal use in this country's primary energy production”.

“Renewable energy sources remain expensive and it is likely to be several decades before they become economic. Coal can bridge the gap as gas and oil reserves run out and hydro electricity opportunities diminish”.

“Mining and converting coal to energy can adversely impact on the environment. Mining can be hazardous. Solid Energy recognizes its responsibilities and we are working with our stakeholders to minimize these impacts by sound planning and operating practices using the best modern technology.”

Would any reader care to dissagree with his statements?

Did Ecobob readers know that this information is not referenced to students by some science teachers and particularly one in a South Island College? Students are given rubbish science such as ‘Green Party’ “carbon dioxide is a pollutant gas” propaganda instead.

I prefer my son and daughter to be taught to think for them selves, and study references for both sides of a subject rather than being restricted to ‘Green movement’s religion’, so I will keep up this fight with my contentious postings.

Rex

Re: Coal Fired Power Stations in NZ? 

In my humble opinion the economics of supply and demand will eventually dictate how much coal is used for electricity generation.

When the cost (and I am talking here about the sum total of everything from mining and generation through to environmental costs) becomes greater than other forms of electrical generation we will begin to use more of the alternatives.

Despite increasing efficiencies in the use of electricity I see demand continuing to grow globally, particularly as what were once third world countries seek to improve living standards for their very large populations, as China has done over the last decade and India is doing to a greater extent also creating hundreds of millions of additional consumers, so our current rates of use of coal are likely to increase dramatically as coal becomes an increasingly valuable export commodity.

One thing I find interesting about the energy supply market is that we have all been groomed to be mindless consumers. We expect other people to supply us with energy and we will pay whatever the cost is, and the energy suppliers want us that way because it is good for their business. The markets are always changing, oil prices go up and down which somehow translates into electricity prices going up and up, and we pay and pay.

But we don't have to all be consumers, we can be generators ourselves. We can install photovoltaics and wind turbines and either be self sufficient or grid connected all for around the cost of a new car. However this is too expensive for most people who demand to know what the pay back period is on this generation equipment. 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? Can I get a government subsidy?

How about that new car then? What is the payback period on that? Stupid question of course, it's dead money. Where is the government subsidy for your car? Don't be ridiculous, there is a lot of tax on a new car. But I need a new car - yes, but you also need energy as well and when that car is sitting worthless in your garage because oil prices have gone beyond anything that anyone is currently brave enough to predict (another middle eastern conflict perhaps? Coordinated terrorist strikes on oil refineries? What are the chances?) and you are faced with $400 to fill the tank what do you think your electricity costs are going to be then?

How does that generation system look now?

Rex's post of 28 February shows what Lithium prices have done in a very short space of time, wouldn't we all have loved to buy in early and get that kind of capital growth on our investment? All we want is that crystal ball to see the future. Well look around, now is the time (again in my humble opinion) to get into alternative energy sources for yourself.

Buy generation equipment to provide twice the capacity that you need, get yourself grid connected and sell it back to the power company. Do it as a business and you could most probably claim depreciation on your investment, live free of power costs and sit back.

Just a thought.

Dean

Re: Coal Fired Power Stations in NZ? 

There is a great deal of truth in what you have posted Dean.

Here is another one - the American Coal Industry is running advertisements promoting ‘clean’ coal and Greenpeace and those opposed are running counter advertisements saying the opposite that coal is ‘dirty” (follow the link below to view videos from both sides).

As Carlin said, “What then is the truth among the lies”?

Simple – coal fired power stations CAN be made 99.8% clean of any pollutants, emitting only water vapour and carbon dioxide.

If you, like me and 50% of the population, do NOT believe that CO2 is a pollutant gas causing ‘run-away global warming’ (which James Hansen featured in the video below has spectacularly failed to prove after 21 year of massive research funding), then you can comfortably take the position that ‘clean’ coal technology will be the intermediate saviour allowing future conversion from oil to renewable power.

If however, you believe CO2, IS a pollutant gas, then you will take heart that ‘clean’ coal development in the USA is being frustrated by bureaucratic inertia from the CO2 global warming scam and the massive cost for projects designed to store (or sequestrate) CO2 in underground containment.

Somebody who knows a smattering of physics should have told the AGW opposition, that CO2 is soluble in water, soil and rocks.
Our atmosphere stores about 800 billion tons of Carbon, our oceans store about 10400 billion tons and our soils / rocks store a massive 17,333,000 billion tons.

Expressed as a % - the atmosphere stores 0.00005% (of which man would contribute an infinitesimal total of 6%, IF he could burn all the fossil fuels available), the oceans 0.059% and the soil and rocks, 99.94%.

How futile is it to try and sequestrate CO2 in porous rocks – it will only migrate back out again as it has been doing for millions of years into the atmosphere and back into growing trees.
This is called ‘the carbon cycle’ and man has almost no measurable influence on it.
As I have said before – CO2 in the atmosphere is like a “molecule in a wart on the back of an elephant”.

It seems to me that the AGW lobby can only see the ‘molecule’ and not the ‘elephant’ standing in the room. How’s that for some truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goVXD4D1y5k&NR=1

Rex

Re: Coal Fired Power Stations in NZ? 

Hi Rex
I am please to hear the good news about your test results.

The CO2 is the water/rock etc doesn't make any contribution to the greenhouse effect surely. It's only the CO2 in the atmosphere that matters.

Chris

Re: Coal Fired Power Stations in NZ? 

Rex

I live in a west coast coal town and just recently the local rag asked people on the street about the governments idea of mining conservation land, and of the 6 peolpe interviewed half where of a mature age and the other half in their late teens.
The result made my wife and I laugh, the older generation all said yes and the young ones NO!

There seems to be a trend I think there?

Have they been 'brain washed' at school or is the tide about to turn and awake to what is really going on to our environment here and globally.

Mike

Re: Coal Fired Power Stations in NZ? 

Hello Chris,
Thank you for your good wishes.

The Carbon cycle is just that - a constant movement of CO2 into the atmosphere via ‘out gassing’ of the rock, soils (particularly tundra) and the ‘champagne’ effect from the ocean.

Remember the experiment that when you take a can of Coke and heat half the volume on the hot plate for ten minutes and then measure the volume of CO2 in the can against the volume in the pan, most of the CO2 from the pan will have been liberated by the heat into the atmosphere unlike the half left in the can.

This is what happened between the 1965 cooling phase and the rise in world temperature up to 1998.

Natural sun induced warming added to man’s anthropogenic CO2 caused a minor increase in CO2 to be liberated from the earth and sea, but I note there is also an approx. 800 year lag between other major causes and effects as shown from the analysis of the Vostok Ice core samples.
Most of the current increase in CO2 may well be better accounted for as having been triggered way back in 1200AD Medieval Warm period.

It is simplistic to claim a direct link between the current CO2 rise and short term temperature rise as we now have cooling world temperatures, but a contradictory continuing rise in atmospheric CO2.

It is even more simplistic for Hansen to claim that all the global warming to 1998 was man induced. There is patently no direct cause and effect linking CO2 rise with temperature rise as the opposite of Hansen’s hypothesis is now becoming apparent.

Remember that the CO2 in the atmosphere is only 0.00005 of 1% compared to the CO2 held in the earth crust and even this vast store is still only a fraction of the CO2 held below the mantel.
Every day hundreds of over 10,000 under sea volcanoes erupt, spewing out vast quantities of CO2, to be absorbed into the ocean which still only holds 0.059 of 1% compared to the 99.4% of CO2 stored in the mantel. Limestone rock is constantly being broken down under heat, liberating far greater concentrations of CO2 that all other effects combined, including man’s paltry emissions.

It’s all a matter of getting your mind around the proportions and where the decimal points fall.

So Chris, the CO2 held in the water soil and rocks, is constantly being liberated, distributed into the atmosphere by wind, then being heavier than air falling back to feed our trees and being reabsorbed into the ocean to form calcite deposits and then ultimately limestone rock.
All this contributes to a natural greenhouse effect, which keeps our world in temperature in balance with this cycle being reasonably constant now for millions of years.

Rex

Re: Coal Fired Power Stations in NZ? 

Hello Mike,

Correct observations.
My son is on the opposite side to me, but I tell him he confuses desirable sustainability and desirable pollution control with the fear of anthropogenic CO2.

If only we could teach our children the difference, but then Greenpeace and the AGW alarmists INTENTIONALLY promote this confusion to try and link both as undesirable for climate change.

In the next five years, when it becomes self evident that currently rising CO2 is not causing global warming – this will be incontrovertibly proven when our world temperature falls so far that global cooling becomes the accepted trend, then the theoretical link will be broken forever.

At that time our history books will be rewritten to record the ‘global warming scam’ of the 20/21 century and our children will no longer be brainwashed and we can all get on with correcting actual rather than theoretical world problems – sustainability and real pollution caused by SO2, NO MO and PM10 particulates, Etc.

I plan to be around to hear my son say “you were right Dad”.

Rex

Re: Coal Fired Power Stations in NZ? 

Okay Rex lets look at in more detail then,

If the oceans and atmosphere were at a constant temperature for argument sake then surely the amount of CO2 asborbed/emitted by the ocean is in equilibrium - agreed.

If we put more CO2 into the atmosphere than is naturally emitted by volcanoes etc, then we're asking the oceans to absorb more, but they can't do that, because they are already at the equilibrium point.

Furthermore, gas solubility decreases as ocean water temperatures increase, so if there is any increase in temperature the release of CO2 from the oceans is increased. I think is a false claim to simply state that because the concentration of CO2 is of the order of a few hundred PPM then it must not have any significant affect. Atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are the only things responsible for the greenhouse effect.

Currently the oceans are only able to absorb about 1/3 of the human induced CO2 emissions. That figure will drop as the global ocean temperature increases.

Chris

Re: Coal Fired Power Stations in NZ? 

Hello Chris,

Yes, I agree with most of what you have posted but definitely not your last statement, “the oceans are only able to absorb about 1/3 of the human induced CO2 emissions” – what is your authority for this statement?

Note that the inverse is also true that as the water temperature lowers, more CO2 can be absorbed and I observe that according Pyle, this is happening now.
Atmospheric CO2 is currently at about 390ppmv and climbing steadily.

I will answer you in depth after you give me answers to the following:

1/ What do you understand has been the rate of climb for CO2 and from what given staring point up to today?
2/ What do you understand to be the maximum safe figure to avoid ‘run away’ global warming’ for atmospheric CO2? (In other words, the’ trigger point’).
3/ What empirical proof can you show me to support this figure? (computer calculations are not acceptable to me as empirical proof)
4/ Who or what organization is your authority for this calculation?

Thanks Rex

Re: Coal Fired Power Stations in NZ? 

Coal is not a renewable energy source.
burning coal (or anything) creates aerosols (as in smoke). There is a NASA study that shows aerosols create more cloud cover as water molecules like to cling to them but these clouds with high volumes of aerosols rain less. It has been a problem in Brazil with the burning of the rain forests.
90% of any coal we mine will be shipped overseas. We will not even be the ones burning it so saying coal is the way to go because of our resources is a farce.
Let’s not kid ourselves; NZ will not get a super-dooper clean burning coal station. The government will put in the cheapest compliant station they can get their hands on. But promote how great it is because it meets come consultants idea of what a compliant station is.
Hydro might be more expensive, but its renewable, requires less maintaince, and it’s cleaner.


Hydro might be more expensive, but its reneable, requires less maintaince, and its cleaner.

VB

Re: Coal Fired Power Stations in NZ? 

Hello Chris – answers to your questions:

“If the oceans and atmosphere were at a constant temperature for argument sake then surely the amount of CO2 absorbed/emitted by the ocean is in equilibrium – agreed?”

Yes Chris, providing the quantity of CO2 being emitted was also constant, but this is never been the case in all our world history. During the Cambrian period 550 million years ago, atmospheric CO2 was 7000ppmv – no run-away global warming but massive absorption into the oceans and massive conversion to calcium carbonate and then ultimately conversion into limestone rock occurred.

This balance continued during the Devonian period 400 million years ago but then I note that during the Carboniferous / Permian periods 300 million years age, when our world entered an Ice age, temperature dropped to less than 12oC and CO2 atmospheric absorption dropped to 180ppmvs as more was absorbed into the colder oceans.
You should note that natural CO2 emissions always follow temperature change - not the other way around as claimed by Hansen.

Your assumption as follows is therefore incorrect:
“If we put more CO2 into the atmosphere than is naturally emitted by volcanoes etc, then we're asking the oceans to absorb more, but they can't do that, because they are already at the equilibrium point”.

The equilibrium point does not change but the temperature, the absorption of CO2 and conversion into limestone is always changing.

Your next point is scientifically incorrect:
“Atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are the only things responsible for the greenhouse effect”.

By a massive 96%, water vapour is the only atmospheric insulating effect to be seriously considered – CO2 is only a tiny 3.8% by quantity and then only a quarter as effective as an insulator compared to H2O. Man’s contribution is only a tiny 6% of that 3.8% if he burned all fossil fuel within 300 years. As I said before, try and get your head around the decimal point position – CO2 is irrelevant.

Chris, your next statement is rubbish – wherever did you get this from?
“Currently the oceans are only able to absorb about 1/3 of the human induced CO2 emissions”.

But you are correct on this statement
“That figure will drop as the global ocean temperature increases”.

True, however the inverse is also true – more CO2 is absorbed as the ocean temperature falls.

I am disappointed that you did not answer any of my questions so that I could better understand from where you take your position.

Thanks - Rex

Re: Coal Fired Power Stations in NZ? 

Sorry Rex, I have been really busy

Here is my source

http://royalsociety.org/Report_WF.aspx?pageid=9633&terms=climate+science+oceans

Click on the pdf in the righthand corner

title
"Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide"


Please read the entire report if you have the time - I did and it is pretty interesting reading.

Others interested in this debate should also read the report.

Page 5 clearly shows 1/3 and I believe given the credentials of the people writing the report that the statement is most certainly not rubbish.

Chris

Re: Coal Fired Power Stations in NZ? 

Also

Your next point is scientifically incorrect:
“Atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are the only things responsible for the greenhouse effect”.

So why is this scientifically incorrect?

Water vapour is a greenhouse gas, and yes it accounts for most of the greenhouse effect.

I think the rebutal for the water vapour argument has already been given on this forum.

I think the link was:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

Also I don't beleive this statement:
You should note that natural CO2 emissions always follow temperature change - not the other way around as claimed by Hansen.

When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.


Cheers
Chris

Re: Coal Fired Power Stations in NZ? 

Hello VB,

I agree, coal is not a renewable energy source, but we are going to need it during the period after we reach ‘peak oil’ and the time when renewables PARTIALLY substitute.

Hydro is NZ’s best option, but there is a finite limit to the number of dams that can block our waterways and the objections to the latest proposal in the S.I. shows you can not have it both ways. We will soon run out of hydro capacity even after we cut back on energy usage by improving efficiency and conservation. So please explain WHICH renewable power source feeds heavy industry? – There isn’t one I can find.

VB are you serious, when you say - “Let’s not kid ourselves; NZ will not get a super-dooper clean burning coal station. The government will put in the cheapest compliant station they can get their hands on”.

Just look at the current uproar surrounding the investigation for POSSIBLE mining in National Parks.

I don’t for one moment think that dirty polluting power stations is an option the NZ public will stand for, when clean burning coal fired stations are presently being constructed in Australia to 99.8% clear of harmful emissions (see link opening this thread) so your quoted NASA study is well out of date.

Your statement – “Hydro might be more expensive, but its renewable, requires less maintenance, and its cleaner” is true but we will soon reach capacity, so what do we do then?

Rex

Re: Coal Fired Power Stations in NZ? 

Thanks for the link Chris - I will certainly read and follow up hopefully early next week. - Rex

Re: Coal Fired Power Stations in NZ? 

NZ will go for dirty power stations if it is cheap
NZ goes for fuel gazzling and dirty vehicles as long as the vehicles and fuel is cheap
NZ go for poorly build houses with inefficient and polluting heating for as long the fuel and power is cheap
NZ (lots of them) ) still burn rubbish in the backyard
creating highly toxic pollution
NZ still hasn't any propper means of waste oil and toxic waste disposal on a local level.
NZ builds houses with treated timber throughout and the offcuts are toxic waste which rarely gets disposed in a safe manner.
And all the timber is hazardous waste at the end of its useful life.

The only exemption NZ takes a stand is nuclear power and mining. Apart from that NZ is far away from environmental awareness.
I am talking mainstream not those who are already going the right direction.