We await concrete Green action, and can do without the nutters

The Labour led government banned oil and gas exploration on Thursday, sort of, permits anyway, in the future. It has dismayed NZ First and the Greens are ecstatic, in what may be a largely symbolic move. But it has risks, including:

  • It could deter investment in the existing and non-banned fossil fuel recovery industry based largely in Taranaki
  • If it stops future gas recovery it could increase our reliance on existing dirtier coal energy if the Greens don’t get their way and ban that too)
  • It could force New Zealand to import more expensive energy to meet our needs.

Green co-leader James Shaw followed up yesterday launching a ‘preliminary survey’ of finance for climate related economic activity.

“There are huge opportunities in the clean economy. Today I’m launching a report into how we can finance the transition to net zero emissions, creating jobs in new industries and upgrading our economy to be more resilient.”

The greens claim that alternative energy offers huge business opportunities – see Green report – climate finance in New Zealand.

But there is still a lack of concrete proposals on post fossil fuel clean green optionn. Green ideals need to be translated into viable opportunities.

Shane Cowlishaw (Newsroom): Real climate challenge lies ahead

Tasked with creating many of those next steps will be a new, independent watchdog.

The climate commission will be established under the Zero Carbon Act, with an interim committee soon to be announced while the permanent body is set up.

Alongside its job of holding the Government to account for its progress on greenhouse gas emissions, it will also provide advice on setting targets, reducing emissions and addressing climate risks.

It has its work cut out for it.

On the face of it, the decision to ban new offshore exploration permits will have little effect on our use of oil and gas.

Until people’s habits change or new taxes on fossil fuels are introduced, the country will continue to import what it needs from overseas.

Last week Jones was in Taranaki to soften the exploration ban blow, announcing $20 million of spending for the region.

It included $150,000 on new energy initiatives, but the major money was for the restoration of a cathedral and better walking tracks.

That won’t replace the loss of the oil and gas sector. New industries will be needed.

Shaw told media he believed the end of exploration would be a boon for the economy rather than a hit, as clean energy industries surged forward.

“It does represent, I think, the greatest economic opportunity in at least a generation for the creation of new jobs and new technologies that our dependence on fossil fuel has held back for too long.”

At this stage, however, talk is cheap and unless real solutions are put forward the Government risks watching the exploration ban thrown out at the next election.

The Greens have talked up their vision for a vastly different energy and economic environment to what we have now.

They have succeeded at getting into Government. They have succeeded in making a mark with the ban on future oil and gas exploration permits.

They have a much bigger task ahead of them – proving their ideas are not just unrealistic ideals, and coming up with concrete alternatives.

And no Robert, I won’t just give the promoters of the revolution a blank cheque and ‘trust the Greens’.

In principle I support many of their aims. I think that we need to make a much better effort in transitioning away from our reliance on fossil fuels, for a number of reasons, including pollution, the environment, the climate, and the economic risk – a war in the Middle East could throw New Zealand into chaos. We have already had major change forced on us by the oil shocks in the 1970s.

But I have concerns about some of the Green aims, and what impact their ideals could have. Some of them can’t avoid having adverse effects, any major change does.

It’s time now for the Greens to step up and prove their worth. They have only just begun and are a long way off having a convincing alternative at this stage.

One thing that would help them gain support is to ditch extreme targets. Zero carbon, zero road deaths, zero poverty are so fanciful they are easily dismissed as pie in the polluted sky.

They need to convince the people of New Zealand that there are benefits from radical change – and that will mean not being too radical, at this stage at least.

A goal of halving emissions would be difficult enough – and even that is too vague for people living everyday lives.

Trying to force things like bikes and trains on people risks resistance.

Greens need leadership that works with the people, for the people rather than for the few percent of their loyal supporters.

Green zealots who think that their way is the only way, and who are  are intolerant of criticism and being held to account, are likely to continue to be detrimental to the cause.

If the Greens want to win the PR battle they need to start by convincing their own of a reasonable approach to radical change. Otherwise they risk being dismissed as nutters.

Leave a comment

177 Comments

  1. It’s not just the Middle East that poses a risk to transitional energy security.

    Reply
  2. chrism56

     /  April 14, 2018

    If there is any talk of having more jobs in the green energy sector, that is a euphemism for higher cost of energy and lower paying jobs. In Britain and Europe, it means replacing O&G workers (who are some of the highest paid blue collar workers around) with fly by night solar roof installers.

    Reply
    • Griff

       /  April 14, 2018

      Gee
      So we get rid of overpaid o&g workers and pay sfa to peploe to install solar
      that is cheaper for the end users and you think that’s bad
      Do try for consistence in your arguments or you just come across as unhinged.

      The entire workers in the oil and gas industry losing jobs is over hyped fear mongering from the energy sector.
      How many kiwis are part of oil and gas exploration industry?
      Most doing the work here are oversea based contractors here as long as the work remains and take their money with them when they leave .
      The ones employed in extracting known reserves are going to have work for years as the industry slowly runs down.

      Reply
      • chrism56

         /  April 14, 2018

        No Griff – I know quite a few drillers and even those that work overseas, base themselves in NZ as FIFO. They have already had notification that future work in NZ has now gone.
        And I said that is what has happened in UK/ Europe. But you can’t read that can you.

        Reply
        • Griff

           /  April 14, 2018

          Oh do fuck off.
          Most employed in exploration for oil and gas are offshore contractors here for the life of the contract .
          https://www.nesgt.com/jobs/?&page=2&search%5Bquery%5D=oil+drilling&search%5Bradius%5D=50.0&selected_locations=&utf8=%E2%9C%93
          Just like most of the company’s doing the exploration are offshore as is the hardware.
          They bring in the rigs, the ships and all the rest of the infrastructure along with the experienced work force required to run it. When the job is done they ship out to the next project that could be anywhere.
          That is how the industry operates globally not just here in little old NZ.

          As to your claim who you know
          Well I know QE2 nz and pres Trump etc etc etc
          Anonymous internet commentor claims = bullshit not worth a thought unless backed with something sold .
          That is why I link to support assertions and wafflers like you don’t

          Reply
          • Trevors_elbow

             /  April 14, 2018

            Engaging politely again Griff…

            Lovely stuff… reinforcing the intolerant Green image…..

            Reply
            • robertguyton

               /  April 14, 2018

              We’ve had enough of your crap, so…impolite is the new green.

      • David

         /  April 14, 2018

        “So we get rid of overpaid o&g workers and pay sfa to peploe to install solar
        that is cheaper for the end users and you think that’s bad”

        The problem is that solar is not cheaper.

        Reply
        • Griff

           /  April 14, 2018

          Oh dear
          Facts from that rather smelly place yet again Dave.
          Get real mate.

          Reply
          • chrism56

             /  April 14, 2018

            LCOE is garbage Griff when you have unreliable generation. People want electricity all the time, not just when the sun’s out and the wind is blowing. Factor in the cost of making it dispatchable and the numbers reverse. But that upsets your worldview, doesn’t it

            Reply
            • Kitty Catkin

               /  April 14, 2018

              I thought that wind turbines were great until I heard the obvious reason that they are not (apart from the noise, which is maddening for anyone who lives near one)…solar power panels are made with oil, I bet. As is my computer and the biro I did the crossword with and the jug that boiled the water for my coffee.

  3. A common reaction it seems. Jo Moir:

    There’s no argument that oil and gas exploration isn’t the answer to a sustainable future and transitioning to renewable energy is a given, but if you decide to mess around with one, you sure as hell need a good plan for the other.

    And that’s where the Government got it wrong this week – the messaging about why New Zealand needs to do its bit domestically by moving away from oil and gas exploration was fine, but the explanation of what it was being replaced with was non-existent.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/103078353/jones-looked-a-little-green-and-it-wasnt-envy

    Reply
    • robertguyton

       /  April 14, 2018

      “One thing that would help them gain support is to ditch extreme targets. Zero carbon, zero road deaths, zero poverty are so fanciful they are easily dismissed as pie in the polluted sky.”
      Pete, the Greens are coalition partners, not the sole party of Government. Turn down your anxiousness-dial a little – the Greens have high expectations for themselves and everyone else, but remember how important it is to have aspirations, an eye to a brighter future?
      As to “extreme targets”, would you argue that a target of zero children beaten to death in their homes would be “extreme” – you plump for “half a dozen is okay”? Would ya? Zero road deaths is “extreme”? Pete?

      Reply
      • Zero violence, zero poverty, zero road deaths are extreme targets, yes. They are totally unrealistic. But you posit a ridiculous and insulting alternative.

        I’d love for there to be no violence and no kids suffering, but they can’t just be wiped away with an idealistic wand.

        The Greens (and you) would be far better (and more successful at getting support) promoting radical but perceptively achievable targets, say, like having child deaths, poverty and road deaths halve every ten years. Major unprecedented improvements that may be seen as possible.

        Promoters of some utopian dream are too easily dismissed as nutters.

        Reply
        • robertguyton

           /  April 14, 2018

          “I’d love for there to be no violence and no kids suffering, but they can’t just be wiped away with an idealistic wand.”
          So, Pete, if you were setting the target, would you settle for less than complete cessation of violence to children? Does “Zero Tolerance” seem a bad idea to you? It’s been employed by agencies other than the Greens, you know. I don’t know why you would say, “wiped away with an idealistic wand”; the Greens have made no mention of magic wands, that’s the kind of slur Key, English and Joyce regularly used to demean the Greens; I’m disappointed you’ve fallen for it. The Greens, in Government, are taking real steps toward achieving their targets; no more off-shore exploration, no more funding for irrigation projects etc. You portrayal of the Greens as wavers of magic wands is… weak, Pete.

          Reply
      • artcroft

         /  April 14, 2018

        If zero road deaths is your goal but you have no viable plan for how to achieve it, then you don’t have a goal you have rhetoric.

        Reply
        • alloytoo

           /  April 14, 2018

          The plan is zero cars= zero road deaths.

          until someone gets trampled by a horse.

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  April 14, 2018

            I don’t know how many died or were injured on the road (and elsewhere) when horses were the only means of transport, but do know that it was a large number. Gigs and other such vehicles were high off the road, and were dangerous, especially when driven by the sort of person who drives like a maniac now . Boy racers have been around forever.

            Reply
      • Ray

         /  April 14, 2018

        It’s worth remembering that NZ only supplies .17% of the World’s greenhouse gas
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions
        So zero carbon is just virtual signaling which if it brings NZ economy down will not be popular.
        If the Greens want to “virtual signal” why do they walk the walk themselves, judging by their MPs Travel it’s not happening.
        Oh that’s right it different when the Green elite do it.

        Reply
      • David

         /  April 14, 2018

        “would you argue that a target of zero children beaten to death in their homes would be “extreme””

        I would, for one very simple reason; the target is either meaningless, or the actions required to achieve it with any certainty will, by the nature of the target, need to be extreme and unjust.

        Reply
        • robertguyton

           /  April 14, 2018

          What figure do you put on your target for “children beaten to death” then, David? Come on…

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  April 14, 2018

            The target of zero children beaten to death has been there for all governments and most of us for as long as I can remember. Every child newly beaten to death reminds us – we want no more children beaten to death in this country. I wouldn’t change it for anything.

            Reply
            • robertguyton

               /  April 14, 2018

              Pete and David think targets like that are “extreme”.

            • Gezza

               /  April 14, 2018

              I don’t think they are. They’re a given. But I think if you set a target there should be probably be sanctions against a Minister who doesn’t achieve them.

            • robertguyton

               /  April 14, 2018

              Brilliant, Gezza! No Minister will set one and if they did it’d be lower than a snakes cloaca.

            • Gezza

               /  April 14, 2018

              Well, ok, not sanctions against every Minister who sets them then.
              Maybe just one or two. I’ll have a think about who. I’ll get back to you.

            • robertguyton

               /  April 14, 2018

              Brownlee would have been a contender. Coleman. Key. Joyce. Bennett. Collins. I’ll leave it at that. Bridges. McCully. Enough said. English.

            • Gezza

               /  April 14, 2018

              Opportunity missed. I don’t think they’re in Government any more. I’ll check that too, just to be sure.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  April 14, 2018

              Don’t bother to answer Robert, Gezza, he’s only trolling. He seems to take his self-appointed role as Resident Troll very seriously.

            • robertguyton

               /  April 14, 2018

              You may not think they are, Gezza, but their behaviour indicates that they think they are.
              Kitty, Gezza doesn’t like to be told what to do. Thinks of it as nagging.

            • Gezza

               /  April 14, 2018

              That’s only when it’s ma, on the blower, Robert. Sometimes she’s right.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  April 14, 2018

              I am sure that Gezza knows that a single remark cannot be that.

  4. robertguyton

     /  April 14, 2018

    You can’t seem to get the Greens out of your head, Pete – going Green, are ya!
    The Southland Times editorial has a well balanced response to contrast nicely with your hyperbolic efforts:
    “The Labour led government banned oil and gas exploration on Thursday…”
    Pathetic.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  April 14, 2018

      (He does occasionally like to poke sticks at wasps nests)

      Reply
    • You haven’t quoted or linked to anything from the Southland Times so your comment is an empty diss.

      You have an opportunity here to argue your 9and the green) case, but instead resort to petty and empty shots. If you want to help the cause, up your game.

      Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  April 14, 2018

          Victoria University’s Climate Change Research Institute director Professor Dave Frame makes a telling point: it’s good for the climate to limit the expansion of the fossil fuel sector but economically this shifts a burden to regional development portfolios.

          In other words the regions affected are to become welfare cases while their resources are locked in the ground. How to make the nation poorer in one easy Green lesson.

          Reply
          • robertguyton

             /  April 14, 2018

            “In other wqords”
            You just made stuff up. “Welfare cases” is not “in other words”.

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  April 14, 2018

              Who do you think funds regional development portfolios?

    • artcroft

       /  April 14, 2018

      Labour and the Greens are just pandering to you Robert. Will fossil fuel consumption drop after Taranaki is closed. Nope. We’ll just import more and gain less tax revenue. Will Shane Jones solve the regions employment problems with his slush fund. Nope. He just open a few more walking track/biking tracks.
      Meh. The Greenies will swoon but nothing will change.

      Reply
  5. Griff

     /  April 14, 2018

    Trans power
    gidd
    https://www.transpower.co.nz/resources/transmission-tomorrow-2016-0
    solar
    https://www.transpower.co.nz/sites/default/files/plain-page/attachments/Solar%20PV%20in%20New%20Zealand.pdf

    Over all consultant report to the last government .
    http://www.mcguinnessinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/nzenergystrategyto2050.pdf

    Scientific perspective.
    https://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2017/02/16/will-nzs-future-energy-be-clear-expert-qa/

    There is reams of information out there..
    The problem is not a plan for the future they have been produced by the tonne.
    The problem is governmental inertia and oil and coal industry lobby groups dominating the ears of previous governments .

    Reply
    • chrism56

       /  April 14, 2018

      Yet again Griff, you do a Google search, get confirmation bias and paste links in without reading them. This is what one of the documents says:
      An average New Zealand household pays $175 per month or around $6 per day for grid-supplied energy. To be cost competitive, an off-grid supply would need an upfront
      cost of less than $16,000,2 and this would typically need to cover generation (for example, solar panels), batteries, energy efficiency measures, control systems and a supplementary supply (such as diesel) for long cloudy periods. This compares to estimates of around $100,000 for a typical Wellington house.

      Reply
      • Griff

         /  April 14, 2018

        This compares to estimates of around $100,000 for a typical Wellington house.

        My 200sq meter northland house runs off grid.
        Cost me all of $4000 bucks.
        Add $1200 for the back up generator that has not been run in anger in the over a year since purchase .
        Jesus were do they get information from.
        $100,000 you must be kidding me .

        Trade me.
        8kW Complete Off Grid Solar Power System With 6.2kW Array
        Package contains:

        2 x 4kW IPS (Integrated Power Systems. Connected in parallel for 8kW) 120A Total Solar charging capacity 120A (adjustable) AC charger.

        24 x 260W Suntellite Polycrystalline Solar Panels providing 6240W total maximum output.

        8 x Three panel corrugated iron roof mounting kits. Tile roof mounting systems, angled and ground mounting systems available.

        20m of twin 4mm solar cable
        20m of twin 6mm high current cable
        20m of 6mm earth cable

        16 x Vision 225Ah 6V AGM batteries totalling 48V providing 7.4 kWh (can provide more at the expense of battery life) can be upgraded to increase capacity and battery life.

        16 x Battery connector cables

        4 x Inverter leads and Breaker/disconnect switch

        2 x Solar Panel DC breaker/disconnect switch

        2 x Solar panel combiner

        That.s more than enough to run any house year around including heat pumps, hot water, and cooking .

        Reply
        • David

           /  April 14, 2018

          $22,200 on trademe. Along with all the compromises it means for energy use.

          https://www.trademe.co.nz/building-renovation/electrical-lighting/other/auction-1599345508.htm

          You can power your house with solar to your heart delight, as I keep saying if its so cheap and so effective, there is no need to ban oil, the change will happen anyway and no one will need more oil.

          The O&G industry is demand led.

          Reply
          • PartisanZ

             /  April 14, 2018

            “Demand led” … Oh well, that explains it … in simpleton Machiavellian economic terms … But what are the facets of ‘demand’ in detail?

            Classical economics, it seems, doesn’t provide anything beyond the simpleton’s answer …

            Investopedia – “Demand is an economic principle that describes a consumer’s desire and willingness to pay a price for a specific good or service. Holding all other factors constant, an increase in the price of a good or service will decrease demand, and vice versa.”

            Oh God, aren’t numbers wonderful! And all the more wonderful when we arbitrarily and stupidly divorce them from the very humanity that invented them …

            So what exactly are these “other factors”? Perhaps ‘ready availability’, like grid power connection in towns and cities? Familiarity and Habituation, e.g. grown up and always relied on grid power? Complacency? Fear of alternatives and change – Will all the gadgets run on solar power? How about ‘supplier inducement’ with special deals to connect and stay ‘loyal’?

            How about “we’ll sell it to you for 16 cents a Kw but if you go grid-tied we’ll only buy it back from you for 5 cents a Kw”? What do you call that?

            And what about the BIG ONE …. Demand Creation? The massive global advertising and public relations industry …

            Reply
            • David

               /  April 14, 2018

              “The massive global advertising and public relations industry”

              That must be the problem. Perhaps the Greens should also ban that.

            • PartisanZ

               /  April 14, 2018

              It’s a problem with the Lobster Brain simpleton’s understanding of Machiavellian ‘demand led’ …

              ‘Demand’ can be extremely negative and destructive, yet still sustain massive global industries, as in the ‘demand’ for weapons of war and opioid pain killers …

              And demand for such things – unsustainable, negative and destructive things – anti-human things – can be manufactured or created … by humans … for money … for profit …

              It wasn’t the Greens who banned tobacco advertising …

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  April 14, 2018

              we’ll sell it to you for 16 cents a Kw but if you go grid-tied we’ll only buy it back from you for 5 cents a Kw”

              Because solar increases the grid peak capacity demand while reducing the overall usage income to pay for it.

            • Gezza

               /  April 14, 2018

              It’s a problem with the Lobster Brain simpleton’s understanding of Machiavellian ‘demand led’ …

              Don’t you think it’s time you let the lobster brain thing go? No human has a lobster brain so it’s only a petty childlike insult.

            • PartisanZ

               /  April 14, 2018

              I am suitably chastened by the arbiter of all things grown-up, logical, reasonable and unclung-to on this site …

              Of course a child-like, over-reactionary and essentially meaningless comment like David’s “Perhaps the Greens should also ban that” passes entirely unnoticed …

            • Gezza

               /  April 14, 2018

              Sorry I’ve been busy. Did he mention some kind of animal brain too. Hang on – I’ll have a look. If he did, he’s in for it too. I’m trying to sleep here.

            • Gezza

               /  April 14, 2018

              Nope – nothing about a monkey brain or anything. 😦

        • chrism56

           /  April 14, 2018

          Here is just another example of why what Griff says is just shit and he knows nothing about electricity generation.
          Australia has 5.2GW (5200MW as you can’t seem to understand numbers Griff) of installed PV – source here:
          https://www.energymatters.com.au/energy-efficiency/australian-electricity-statistics/

          Now if we look at the actual electricity generation in Australia yesterday, it shows that it couldn’t even generate 500MW at its peak and nothing at the usage peak of 8pm.
          http://anero.id/energy/2018/april/13

          That is why solar will never be more than a niche supplier for NZ

          Reply
          • Griff

             /  April 14, 2018

            Slowly for about the fiftieth time.
            We have these big huge hydro storage lakes in this country .
            They can power NZ alone .
            What happens is when the lakes don’t get rain we have to conserve their use
            If we had more solar we can use that instead of hydro when it is sunny.
            Saving some of the lakes capacity for when it is not.
            Jesus its so bloody simple even a six year old could get it .

            as to OZ
            Changing the bloody goal posts yet again
            New Zealand not the small island off the west coast full of ex convicts,inbreed pommy twits along with multiple species of animals that can kill you .

            Excuse me PG these morons are fuckin frustrating
            They can not think logically instead wobbly all over the place to support their fuckwittery.
            We will change we have no choice it is that or kiss human civilization goodbye.
            These smeggwits refuse to allow the implications of climate science to seep into their thick skulls so they can not conceive of the future in a rational way.
            Thank fuck we actually have the more rational government than national and is loony tune supporters.
            .

            Reply
            • David

               /  April 14, 2018

              “We have these big huge hydro storage lakes in this country ”

              Yes, they are great. The perfect renewable energy source.

              Why won’t the Green party allow any more to be built?

            • David

               /  April 14, 2018

              “What happens is when the lakes don’t get rain we have to conserve their use
              If we had more solar we can use that instead of hydro when it is sunny.”

              And of course this is where renewables fall over. The capacity factors are so low, you need many times the size of generation to replace a thermal or nuclear plant. To replace a 1gw gas plant, you need 10 times the capacity in PV, as well as spare capacity in other forms to give night time generation.

            • Griff

               /  April 14, 2018

              Hello [Deleted – use name only]
              See the levelized cost of generation already posted to one of your comments .
              It cost less to install industrial solar or wind than it does to install gas per kilowatt hour of energy produced .This is what us rational peploe call a fact.
              [Just stick to your facts and leave out the abuse. PG]

              Jesus.

              Nuclear ?
              Not going to happen in nz now or ever.
              Because it is so costly to build and uninsurable commercially for risk.
              In NZ the resulting protest if you announced a project would destroy any government that tried.
              The only company’s with the capability of making them are either communist state run or have now gone backrupt .

          • chrism56

             /  April 14, 2018

            Griff – there is a reason why you are an embittered, dope addled, foul mouthed pensioner up north and not running the energy system. That is because you continue to show that you don’t know what you are talking about. You wouldn’t know a megavars if it ran up and bit you. Even your facts are wrong. Why do you think the electricity generators aren’t installing wind – the last one was Mill Creek and instead are putting in GTs? They know what you can’t comprehend. And they have skin in the game as they have to pay if the system runs out of generation.
            By the way, I’m still waiting for you to tell us where there is a self contained smart grid or grid running solely on wind and solar. I think the government will change long before you come through.

            Reply
    • robertguyton

       /  April 14, 2018

      Griff is correct.

      Reply
      • chrism56

         /  April 14, 2018

        So both you and Griff know more than Transpower, but Griff links to them as an authoritive source? Cognitive dissidence, anyone?

        Reply
        • Griff

           /  April 14, 2018

          No I linked to them to prove plenty of research has been done.
          I do not view any legacy source as reliable when it comes to renewable energy for reason already posted many times.

          You do note their paper on solar makes you look like an idiot .
          No problem with expanding solar it will actually make the grid more reliable up to at lest 2000mwh of capacity.

          The reason in case you missed it
          They use the IEA projections for solar power up take among others.
          These have been wrong for decades .

          Reply
          • chrism56

             /  April 14, 2018

            Why don’t you link to one showing the world production of electricity by source for the same period? Solar doesn’t even register above the weeds. Anyone can have exponential growth when it doesn’t even register in the big scheme of things?

            Reply
            • Griff

               /  April 14, 2018

              I use solar because it is our opportunity to add to our already existing network .
              When you focus on that only you are ignoring what we already have here in NZ .
              You do this as it changes the goal posts and allows you to claim victory when you have been kicked around by facts .

              Solar and wind power is getting cheaper.
              Oil gas and coal is not.
              It is becoming apparent that the hidden cost of fossil fuel generation is far higher than we thought .

              We are talking of the future not the past you cling to so stridently.

            • Gezza

               /  April 14, 2018

              How long will your solar panels last before they need replacing?
              How long will they operate at peak capacity & does that degrade over time?
              Do they impede roof maintenance?

            • Griff

               /  April 14, 2018

              25 years at 80 % capacity is the industry standard guarantee.
              That’s longer than my present life expectancy.
              They don’t stop working for decades after.
              Much of the cost is in instillation so you would leave panel up as long as they produce power
              http://energyinformative.org/solar-panel-warranty-comparison/
              Maybe forty years life we don’t actually know . Then you can melt down the aluminum, pure silicon and glass and manufacture more for another forty odd years of use.

              Why maintain a roof especially one that is only the secondary cover?
              Most in nz are tin or tile both of which will last for fifty plus years with no maintenance .
              Our tin roof requires a scrub once a year for its warranty
              Doable under panels with the right brush.

            • Conspiratoor

               /  April 14, 2018

              And how did griff score a $22,000 system for a miserable $4K?

              https://touch.trademe.co.nz/listing/view/1599345467

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  April 14, 2018

              Not to forget the generator for $1200. A reasonable capacity one to run a home is several multiples of that.

            • Gezza

               /  April 14, 2018

              Can you remember what your outlay for the cabins was Al?
              Seemed like a pretty good setup but I remember running a low-drain fridge and one other appliance at the same time was the max in the kitchen without tripping the overload, hobs were gas and not enuf power for heating in Winter at the moment I imagine?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  April 14, 2018

              I’m guessing about $14k if you count the generator.

    • David

       /  April 14, 2018

      Griff,

      How about this one, the countries with the ‘greenest’ energy generation strategies, such as Germany and Denmark are also the countries with some of the highest power prices in the world. Ditto South Australia.

      Reply
  6. sorethumb

     /  April 14, 2018

    Stephen Keys, 9 days ago
    The Greens talk a lot about sustainability and how the current economic policies aren’t working. So why are they the only Green Party in the world not actively promoting “steady state” economics? Too hard? Too unpopular? If the current system is deeply flawed, why just tinker with it with Labour??
    tussock, in reply to Stephen Keys, 8 days ago
     I think you’ll find the New Zealand situation fairly unique in our potential for massive growth in renewable energy, at least compared to Europe. There’s room here for a bigger economy with far more local manufacturing and added value on our exports while also improving the local and global environmental impacts.
    Which is to say, we’ve more room to grow than others. The concept is that infinity is an unwise target, not that we can’t ever catch up.
     Rich of Observationz, in reply to tussock, 7 days ago
     * fairly unique in our potential for massive growth in renewable energy*
     Exactly. And there’s an argument that by growing sustainably and taking a reasonable number of immigrants, we are easing the burden on more populous and strained ecosystems, like Europe and China.
     http://publicaddress.net/hardnews/in-the-green-room/

    Reply
    • sorethumb

       /  April 14, 2018

      Marama isn’t promoting steady state economics with her high birth rate (third world values)?

      Reply
      • Maggy Wassilieff

         /  April 14, 2018

        Precisely.
        You can never have sustainable use of resources with an increasing population, unless you are willing to consign a large number of folks to a short and nasty life.
        http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

        Reply
        • robertguyton

           /  April 14, 2018

          Bill English had how many children? Did Bill reject “sustainable use of resources” because of his big family? He never said, “What National is promoting is unsustainable”, did he? Perhaps he should have, Maggy.

          Reply
          • Maggy Wassilieff

             /  April 14, 2018

            The Catholic Church has a lot to answer for.
            I’ve never been an advocate for large families, religion , or the National Party.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  April 14, 2018

              Possibly nothing wrong with having lots of kids – we have a pretty small population – as long as you know you can afford to feed, clothe, house and educate them yoursef and not expect others to.

            • robertguyton

               /  April 14, 2018

              So, No criticism of Bill, but for Marama – get stuck in!

            • Hadn’t you noticed that Bill is gone, and Marama is co-leader of a party in Government? It’s natural that the latter is likely to get (and should get) much more scrutiny now.

            • Maggy Wassilieff

               /  April 14, 2018

              @Robert Guyton

              No criticism of Bill, but for Marama – get stuck in!
              I don’t do personal abuse.
              I was responding to a comment about high birth rates (3rd world) and the effect they have on sustainable practices/economics.
              It is you that has tried to personalise my point by trying to link me with Bill English and National.

          • sorethumb

             /  April 14, 2018

            RC church doesn’t claim:

            Potty Marama
            indigenous sovereignty includes being accountable to our Earth Mama and the protection of all people through that. Centuries of otherwise exploitative and competitive greed has facilitated the ongoing colonialism, racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, oppression, inequality and and all the poison that pervades the planet and has privileged only certain groups.
            http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/03/04/aotearoa-responsibilities-around-indigenous-rights-%E2%80%A8%E2%80%A8-idle-no-more/

            Reply
            • sorethumb

               /  April 14, 2018

              All you need is Indigenous Sovereigntyyyy
              All you need is Indigenous Sovereigntyyyy
              All you need is Indigenous Sovereigntyyyy
              Sing It!!!………..
              (Next Election theme song)?

            • sorethumb

               /  April 14, 2018

              Marama views are in stark (stark! I say) contrast to Dr Ranginui Walker who clearly showed Maori protested immigration policy (multicultural/inclusive NZ) but were sidelined by Johnny Government.
              http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc0402/article_316.shtml

            • phantom snowflake

               /  April 14, 2018

              “All you need is Indigenous Sovereigntyyyy” (x3)

              I’m just imagining you dancing with your walking frame; awesome image!

            • sorethumb

               /  April 14, 2018

              phantom snowflake

              ad hominem (no points -sorry)

        • sorethumb

           /  April 14, 2018

          Kiribati: Tiny island’s struggle with overpopulation
          http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26017336

          Reply
        • robertguyton

           /  April 14, 2018

          sorethumb said: “Marama isn’t promoting steady state economics with her high birth rate (third world values)?”
          You responded; “Precisely”.
          How is that not “personalising” the issue?

          Reply
          • robertguyton

             /  April 14, 2018

            (Reply to Maggy)

            Reply
            • Maggy Wassilieff

               /  April 14, 2018

              Because I linked to a graph of world population projections.
              I was not addressing one individual’s family choice.
              I was pointing out a basic ecological principle of resource use and population growth that must be addressed by any Political Party that seeks to hold the high ground on sustainability.
              I’m an ecologist, not an abuser of my fellow human beings.

            • robertguyton

               /  April 14, 2018

              Then what, I wonder, did you mean by, “precisely”? What, in the comment you were referring to, led you to write, “precisely”?
              I’m interested to know.

            • Maggy Wassilieff

               /  April 14, 2018

              Look at the title of this post by Pete George
              “We await concrete green action…”
              I read Pete’s post, I looked through comments… I came to a key point about resources and population growth.

              Have you ever read Erlich & Erlich: Population, resources & environment
              or Malthus: Essay on the Principle of Population?

              That’s where my Precisely came from.

              The fundamentals of human population growth.

            • robertguyton

               /  April 15, 2018

              What was that “key point”?
              Was it this:
              “Marama isn’t promoting steady state economics with her high birth rate (third world values)”?

  7. David

     /  April 14, 2018

    All the government has done is dropped supply from one source and havent correspondingly done anything about demand so there will be a negative outcome.
    If you read the contributions from Robert and Griff its a microcosm of the real problem with this government and lefties in general in that they have no plan beyond the initial virtue signalling announcement. Lets ban drilling, lets chuck some money at the economic fallout, lets talk lots about things “green” and lets hurl insults at people who ask reasonable questions because they have absolutely no answer.
    Ardern immediately hopped on a plane and Little drove down to Taranaki because they have no plan and you just cant run a country like that.

    Reply
    • robertguyton

       /  April 14, 2018

      ” Lets ban drilling”
      They haven’t banned drilling. Your argument is pish.

      Reply
      • David

         /  April 14, 2018

        What is the plan Robert, come on please explain our oil free future.

        Reply
        • robertguyton

           /  April 14, 2018

          Your future (this afternoon, tomorrow, the next day…) won’t be “oil-free”, Chicken Little David, stop your squawking! Further ahead, our ways of living, our culture that makes it possible to exist without wrecking the place, will change. I have many tried-and-true ideas you might like to adopt, but presently, you’re not in the right “space” for learning.

          Reply
          • David

             /  April 14, 2018

            Wrong, like most I do want a cleaner and sustainable world and am more than happy to make changes to advance that. So quit the personal attacks on everyone and listen because you will find most people want the same outcome and answer the question…what is the plan ?

            Reply
            • Griff

               /  April 14, 2018

              Is that right Dave?
              Is that why you are on here chucking up road blocks to the future and gibbering silly talking points pulled from some dumb right wing source all the time?
              If you were genuine you would be looking forward not back at that lovely lamp of coal in your bed .

            • robertguyton

               /  April 14, 2018

              Griff’s right, David, you’re hindering, not helping and have no real intention to help; if you did, you’d be making positive suggestions that might add to the programme that needs to be launched. Like Bridges, you’re chucking caltrops. Stage one of the plan; take an action (stopping future off-shore exploration for oil would be a good one to choose) that gets everyone’s attention and provokes discussion along with signally the new direction that, as you know, David, MUST BE TAKEN. Business as usual is the path to collapse and failure. Business itself has strategies to avoid falling into the BAU trap; surely you are aware of this, David? Come on, show us what you’ve got!

    • sorethumb

       /  April 14, 2018

      If the government is serious about reducing demand it can put a tax/more tax on fossil fuels?

      Reply
  8. Zedd

     /  April 14, 2018

    ‘and can do without the nutters’
    I better not comment further then.. 😀

    Reply
  9. sorethumb

     /  April 14, 2018

    Reply
    • sorethumb

       /  April 14, 2018

      Population growth was perceived to threaten the very survival of some Pacific societies; indeed one of New Zealand’s most eminent demographers (and an early Trans -Tasman migrant) W. D Borie went so far as to say in 1965 that: “to a demographer these Islands represent populations, however idyllic they appear to be at the moment, nearer the brink of overpopulation in the Malthusian sense than almost any other groups of peoples”
      ……
      So much for indigenous sustainability. If they blame colonisation/capitalism they have to explain their large size?

      Reply
    • Gezza

       /  April 14, 2018

      Good harangue, misandrist perhaps, raises a few good points in there, though – trousers should be longer.

      Reply
      • sorethumb

         /  April 14, 2018

        One person’s Good harangue is another person’s Nut job?

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  April 14, 2018

          Thinking about some of your posts, might be best I say nothing at this point?

          Reply
    • sorethumb

       /  April 14, 2018

      I suppose more funding for RNZ might be conected to kau Katrina Batten a ho? Tenae? [“Wheels within Wheels”]

      Reply
      • phantom snowflake

         /  April 14, 2018

        Now you’re just frothing. “Ko Katrina Batten ahau” = “I am Katrina Batten” Capiche?lol

        Reply
        • sorethumb

           /  April 14, 2018

          Te Reo – By Popular Demand…..!!!!!!!!

          Reply
          • phantom snowflake

             /  April 14, 2018

            Now I’m confused. (again) Are you saying that only policies which are supported by “Popular Demand” i.e. a majority of the population, should be introduced? That wouldn’t leave much hope for you, given your lunatic fringe/ minority views. (Yes, I’m aware that the same could be said about me; I have a modicum of self awareness.)

            Reply
            • sorethumb

               /  April 14, 2018

              We don’t know how much support there is for adding Maori to English on RNZ. That is the issue. “Boy has that upset a few” A few could be “a few” or the tip of the ice berg?
              One thing we know is that there is little trust in politicians or journalists.

            • phantom snowflake

               /  April 14, 2018

              A very poor non-answer; I’ll just have to guess then.

            • sorethumb

               /  April 14, 2018

              The topic was adding Maori to English broadcasting. RNZ has made a case but never had it ratified by the public (it is servant not master).

            • sorethumb

               /  April 14, 2018

              RNZ has presented a case/argument. making a case may mean (over the line)?

  10. Zedd

     /  April 14, 2018

    btw PG.. good to see all the Green issues being discussed.. nga mihi

    Reply
    • sorethumb

       /  April 14, 2018

      nga mihi
      The government at all levels discriminates against those who don’t maintain a PC line. It comes out in job applications.

      Reply
  11. David

     /  April 14, 2018

    “The greens claim that alternative energy offers huge business opportunities”

    There is an easy way to measure this, just ask Shaw etc how much of their own money they have currently invested in alternative energy projects.

    Reply
    • David

       /  April 14, 2018

      In fairness the Greens did invest in Windflow, they lost all their money but they did put it where their mouth was and now they are going to put ours there.

      Reply
    • robertguyton

       /  April 14, 2018

      Everything offers “huge business opportunities”, David; that’s what business does seizes opportunities from every situation; war, drought, climate change, the passing of oil-as-a-fuel. Why is it a greenie has to spell this out for you?

      Reply
      • sorethumb

         /  April 14, 2018

        Power down = smaller economy.The red Greens have been population boosters. I can quote Keith Locke and you may say “that was then” but there is no indication of any difference. For one thing when Marama uses the term xenophobia she is negating any notion of maximum well being based on a smaller population.

        Reply
        • robertguyton

           /  April 14, 2018

          Power up = collapse
          Gonna let that happen, are you, sorethumb? Gonna speed it on it’s way? Top man!

          Reply
          • sorethumb

             /  April 14, 2018

            No, my point is the Greens have been population boosters and energy downers (the bigger they are – the harder they fall). We are in much worse shape than we would have been thanks to immigration policy supported by the (alleged) Greens.

            Reply
            • robertguyton

               /  April 14, 2018

              You’re like a bear with a sore…thumb! All you do is rant against the Greens, no matter what the issue.
              Boring.

            • sorethumb

               /  April 14, 2018

              Calling my arguments “rant” is ad hominem RG.
              No points

            • robertguyton

               /  April 14, 2018

              You don’t understand the meaning of ad hom sorethumb. Look it up.

            • sorethumb

               /  April 14, 2018

              If it isn’t ad hominem it is closely relating. You refer to my argument as a “rant” therefore writing it off without addressing it.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  April 14, 2018

              Robert obviously doesn’t know the meaning of ‘pish’. It’s an archaic exclamation and can’t be used as a noun. It’s like saying ‘What gosh.’ or ‘Your argument is blimey,’

            • Gezza

               /  April 14, 2018

              He’ll have to go. 😡

              Who else have they got? o_o

  12. robertguyton

     /  April 14, 2018

    “Climate change has been the issue of the week.

    Watching the debate is interesting. No longer is it a contest between those who believe climate change is happening and those who think it is a figment of our imagination. The deniers have changed tack. Now it is nominally a debate between what action is best to address the problem. But the right make good use of the dog whistle to bring behind them those who are still sufficiently deranged and confused to think that it is not happening.

    The right, having been shown to be completely and utterly wrong on the issue, have not had the decency of acknowledging their mistakes. That they are a a major impediment to humanity and have seriously damaged our ability to adapt to the change that is happening is not something they have ever admitted.

    Instead they are fighting collateral fights suggestion that although we have been right about the issue all along we are not quite right about this particular aspect and this is why they should be listened to. And meanwhile the dog whistle is being blown hard.

    The latest example is National’s treatment of the Government’s decision to stop further offshore oil drilling. Conceptually the decision is absolutely rational. If the problem is pumping CO2 into the air then we need to stop using fuel supplies that pump CO2 into the air. But the right is seeking to confuse the debate. Apparently burning natural gas is fine because we could be burning dirty coal instead.”
    On the button, Mickey@TS!

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  April 14, 2018

      Yes but isn’t he a Labour Party member?

      Reply
    • sorethumb

       /  April 14, 2018

      You can’t put climate change into left-right boxes. Many on the right go along with climate change but also perceive migration as driven by over population (a novel concept – of course).
      HRC Marama would call that xenophobia

      As Maggy points out
      You can never have sustainable use of resources with an increasing population, unless you are willing to consign a large number of folks to a short and nasty life.

      Reply
      • robertguyton

         /  April 14, 2018

        “Many on the right go along with climate change”
        What do you mean by that, sorethumb?

        Reply
    • admiralvonspee

       /  April 14, 2018

      “The right, having been shown to be completely and utterly wrong on the issue, have not had the decency of acknowledging their mistakes. That they are a a major impediment to humanity and have seriously damaged our ability to adapt to the change that is happening is not something they have ever admitted.”

      The science is not settled Mr Guyton. To suggest so is intellectually dishonest. Climate science has been and always will be a “soft science”. No amount of posturing and pursed lips from yourself or other alarmists will ever change that. Meanwhile the IPCC prediction fantasies continue to get further and further off the mark.

      Reply
      • robertguyton

         /  April 14, 2018

        Denier Alert! Denier Alert!
        How dull!

        Reply
        • sorethumb

           /  April 14, 2018

          The Greens are population and human nature deniers being influenced by Foucault and Derrida. LGNZ say moving from a nieghbourhood of high to low social cohesion is “as bad as taking up smoking” and yet Golriz and Marama are part of that machine dedicated to forcing ethnic groups into one space while denying negative consequences such as competition for housing and lower wages for the less educated.

          Reply
          • robertguyton

             /  April 14, 2018

            “The Greens are … human nature deniers”
            What pish! In any case, what do you mean by “human nature”, sorethumb?

            Reply
          • phantom snowflake

             /  April 14, 2018

            Again you conflate ‘low social cohesion’ with ‘racial and cultural diversity’. Fortunately this time you haven’t presented the cherry-picked pseudoscience which supports your [closet white supremacist] stance. I live in a very ethnically diverse neighbourhood in which many are happy to share and exchange cultural elements such as their national cuisine and folk tales. I would suggest that exposing oneself to a range of cultures and languages would promote neuroplasticity. It’s fun even!

            Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  April 14, 2018

            A range of cultures and languages is not an issue – eg Europe, North America, Australasia. A range of values and religious beliefs is – eg most other places.

            Reply
            • phantom snowflake

               /  April 14, 2018

              I may be misunderstanding you, but when you mention “Europe, North America, Australasia” I hear; “As long as they’re white people.”

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  April 14, 2018

              You are misunderstanding me since all of those continents traditionally had a mix of races but shared values and religions.

            • phantom snowflake

               /  April 14, 2018

              Alan: I thought you were an atheist. Are you an Atheist who favours Christian immigration? I find that odd. Or have I misunderstood you yet again??

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  April 14, 2018

              I note that a Christian heritage and values tend to be necessary though not sufficient for an open, tolerant democracy.

            • phantom snowflake

               /  April 14, 2018

              Surely you can’t be heading towards promoting the superiority of ‘western civilization’ again? I can’t take any more; time for a lie down in my stone (age) hut…

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  April 14, 2018

              When you recover enough to face reality you can figure out whether immigration flows are towards or away from ‘western civilisation’.

              When you have swallowed that you can figure out whether it is regarded as superior or not. But have a long rest. You will need strength to face your worst fears.

        • sorethumb

           /  April 14, 2018

          Actually what has this government done to lower emissions. Surely the current ban on further offshore drilling is tiddlywinks compared to say taxing fossil fuels?

          Reply
        • admiralvonspee

           /  April 14, 2018

          To be perfectly clear. I’m a skeptic.

          – Skeptical of the IPCC predictions which keep falling flat with each passing year
          – Skeptical of Al Gore’s motives and misrepresentation of Revelle’s position
          – Skeptical of the overbearing politicalisation to gain power at any cost
          – Skeptical of the activist/extremist claims to satisfy a fantastical ideology
          – Skeptical of the media’s penchant for alarmist headlines with baseless foundations

          How dull indeed!

          Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  April 14, 2018

      Straw man. Scepticism has always been about how much, what cause and what should be done. MS is a liar.

      Reply
  13. sorethumb

     /  April 14, 2018

    Green Party policy is replete with contradictions and self-defeating policies.

    From A Canadian Green Party discussion

    “you quote our key values as including ” continuing growth in global consumption, population and material inequity must be halted and reversed”. You need to note 2 things: this statement refers to growth in global population. And immigration is not growth of global population; it is movement of population from one place to another. No matter how many times you assert to the contrary, immigration is not population growth. It is movement – migration.

    Interestingly enough, you even contradict that exact statement when you declare that people immigrating to Canada must be increasing their consumption. Did you miss the third item in your quote, material inequity? By denying people the ability to move to a country where they feel better able to prosper, you are advocating the maintenance of material inequity.”

    Reply
  14. Alan Wilkinson

     /  April 14, 2018

    Griff at least puts his money where his mouth is and wears the consequences. The Greens do not. The poorest will wear the consequences of their indulgences.

    But he doesn’t understand that what is viable for the resourceful in rural Northland is not for the incapable in urban SI. And without gas I suspect it is even less viable – thanks Greens.

    Reply
  15. robertguyton

     /  April 14, 2018

    127 comments, Pete! You’ll be chuffed.
    “South Taranaki iwi Ngāti Ruanui have commended the government on its decision to stop block offers for offshore oil and gas exploration, despite holding more oil and mineral exploration permits than any other iwi. If only the government were better prepared for the transition, writes Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.

    Our iwi understands that there needs to be a starting point for a brave new carbon neutral world. In fact, this was not really a surprise; we predicted this was likely to be the government’s first move in this area.”

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  April 14, 2018

      Did they also announce plans to be economically self-sufficient and independent from taxpayer funding?

      Reply
      • phantom snowflake

         /  April 14, 2018

        I’m sure economic self-sufficiency for Taranaki Iwi wouldn’t be a problem if the government were to return their confiscated lands!

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  April 14, 2018

          Really? When it wants to ban dairy, fence off all streams, stop mineral and oil exploration and use, prevent sale to foreigners, stop water rights, prevent subdivision, stop foreign investment, prevent bush clearing, phase out fossil fuels, block work visas for rural workers and tax capital value. I guess they could always hand-grow kumara and pick puha.

          Reply
          • phantom snowflake

             /  April 14, 2018

            Oh I must have missed the news; sounds like we have a Green Communist government. That’s awesome!

            Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  April 14, 2018

            Sounds like you’ve missed more than the news.

            Reply
          • Gezza

             /  April 14, 2018

            prevent sale to foreigners
            This is a very good idea. John Key has enough golf courses for Obama et al to play on.

            Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  April 14, 2018

            No, it’s a really, really stupid idea. Wealthy foreigners bring jobs, contacts, money and ideas to enrich this country.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  April 14, 2018

              Some of them might. Ok if they’re citizens.

            • phantom snowflake

               /  April 14, 2018

              As long as they’re “Wealthy foreigners” with a “Christian heritage and values.”

  1. We await concrete Green action, and can do without the nutters — Your NZ – NZ Conservative Coalition

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s