by frog
A few weeks ago, I couldn’t shake the feeling that National would announce a cut in petrol tax before polling day. It seemed like the sort of opportunistic and short-sighted thing the Nats would do if behind, and now John Key is starting to make those precise noises.
After saying for weeks that the country couldn’t afford both its tax cut package and cuts in petrol tax, National is trying to soften its stance. If the last few polls before next Saturday show National behind, don’t be surprised if the party makes an announcement a day or two before polling day saying it’ll get rid of 5 cents a litre of petrol tax until petrol prices come down again. Of course, petrol prices won’t come down again for any period of time, if at all, because we’re facing a structural problem (too much demand, not enough supply), not an event-contingent one.
So, temporarily cutting petrol tax would be the wrong decision, as Jeanette explains in a press release she has just put out:
It is very understandable that people are looking for a way to reduce the pain of high petrol prices, but removing tax would put off much needed adjustments to the permanent end of cheap oil.
If we believed this steady rise in the price of petrol was a temporary phenomenon and prices will one day come down permanently to where they were two years ago, then the Greens would support some temporary tax relief. However, what we are experiencing is actually a signal that petrol prices are on a one-way, long-term trend upwards as we reach the end of cheap and accessible oil, so the very worst thing governments can do would be to subsidise fuel. Let’s be clear: cutting petrol tax would be a subsidy, because it would shift the cost of the things it funds, such as land transport, off motorists and on to taxpayers.
People are now starting to think about the adjustments that need to be made to prepare for this massive change in the basic economics of our civilisation. Companies are thinking about bio-fuel, there is a reduction in the number of big, thirsty new cars being bought, and an increase in sales of smaller efficient ones. Some people are thinking of living closer to work, walking school buses are gaining momentum, and use of public transport is increasing.
Subsidising fuel at this point will kill off these much needed initiatives and allow some New Zealanders to bury their heads in the sand for even longer. Every new gas guzzler we import will be here costing us money for ten years. Every decision to live further from work and commute long distances condemns us to higher fuel bills in the future. Adaptation to high fuel costs will be painful, but the sooner we start the easier it will be.
Published in Campaign | Environment & Resource Management by frog on Sat, September 10th, 2005
Tags: environment
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
I think this is another case of John Key making up policy on the spot. Don’t forget the time he said they’d put 1000 new police on the street (or something) – that’s NOT a National policy and he MADE UP AD-LIB ON LIVE TV.
Motorists, man! I still spend no more than $20 a week on petrol.
This is an empty suggestion of a policy from National, they can’t commit to this. If they win on the back of it, the policy will be gone in a year.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I heard on TV One this morning that John Keys had said a petrol tax cut, which in view of the supply/demand crisis and probably begining of the end of cheap(ish) readily available oil then I think his announcement sends a very wrong message to the motoring public. Now is the time for R&D into a wide range of alternatives. Joy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yep, cutting the cost by 5 cents a litre will bring it crashing down to $1.48, undoing all the good work the Frogs have been predicting.
Why worry Frog? You know they are going up and up and up. How can we move into town to buy a small apartment if we can’t afford the petrol to get around on the open home day? Have you tried public transport when you are trying to look at 6 different places within 2 hours, and it’s a Sunday?
BTW, wonder if we will get to see treasury costings for the student loans before the vote?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
A tax cut on petrol will prevent the economy from going into an immediate tailspin over the high prices. We need this now, as Hurricane Katrina has temporarily interrupted supply in the Gulf of Mexico.
The Green position seems to joyfully celebrate everyone’s pain at the gas pump and resist any attempt to temper its effect on people. Claiming we can’t do it because we should get used to high oil prices is unreasonable. Peak oil might not happen for another 10-30 years, so forcing people to live in pain now seems to be based on ill will.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think it would be prudent to accept the current oil/fuel crisis as a timely lesson, a chance to begin to adjust our ways of doing things. This is a very good time to focus on fuel efficiency and to strengthen R&D into the commercial viability of the innovative ideas that abound. Joy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
But we will lessen the inevitable fall if we get ‘used to’ ther prices now, than if we continued living on an extended cheap oil fiesta for another few years. We need to change out living arrangements to use less oil, ie; halting suburban sprawl.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Right wingers usually respond to any peak oil discussion with a touching dissertation on how the “market” and “new technology” will magically solve all possible problems. They argue that as the price of fuel goes up, the market will provide more efficient technology subsititutes to compensate. And although this is true to a certain extent, here we have the spectacle of the “right wing” party proposing to circumvent the market by reducing the price.
Moreover the effect can only be temporary. At some point the price will rise again right back to where it was without the tax.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
andrewudstraw has got completely the wrong end of the stick.
It doesnt matter if peak oil is here now or in 30 years, even if peak oil is 30 years away (which I dont believe it is, but as I say, that is beside the point) there will be no significant price relief for the forseeable future, as there is nothing “in the pipeline” of the supply side that will cause prices to be reduced. “Forseeable future” at this time means forever, there is literally nothing there.
Thus the only hope for price reduction is demand reduction. Thats it, end of story.
The level of taxation NZ has on fuel is low by international standards, and although the 5c duty increase was wrong at the time it was introduced, its there now. The price of fuel is going to continue to rise, and rise, and rise, and the tax proportion of fuel thus drops with every increase of the underlying comodity. 5c of what fuel cost when the tax was added is less as a proportion than 5c of the price we pay today. In a very real sense, fuel tax is going down all the time.
Its harsh to say it, but when people start buying less fuel they will pay less fuel tax. Ultimately, people (and that includes you and me) will buy less petrol, tax or no tax, as NZ will be outspent by richer nations, almost all of whom have much heavier tax regimes on the fuel.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
andrewudstraw: “Ill will” is not something I have come across in all my years associating with the Greens.
The oil prices are a “bummer” but it is a good opportunity to really start looking at how the future will be for us, for our children and our children’s children.
Are you saying as some do:
“it’s OK for me to keep my oil using habits because … and now: “the State should subsidise me for doing so.”
To this is often added:
“When the oil runs out “they” will have thought of something else.”
There are some in our community who are the “they” (often Green voters!) who have been working on this for years. Perhaps the money you want to subsidise your fuel now would be bettere spent helping them to develop the new technologies we will all need later?
If the Greens are “joyful” I suspect that it is because this oil price rise gives all Kiwis a chance to think ahead as individuals, as a society, as future consumers, and as the parents and grandparents of those who are yet to come.
We all need to be part of the solution.
eredwen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
‘And although this is true to a certain extent, here we have the spectacle of the “right wing? party proposing to circumvent the market by reducing the price.’
Huh? When did tax become part of the market price? How does a tax going into the crown accounts in any way reflect a market set price?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Tax is part of the price of everything, direct or indirectly. Therefore it is always part of the market price. Find me a practical example of any price that has no tax component.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
belch, isn’t the reason Key is thinking of dropping the tax because of higher oil prices than when it came in, ie; market forces. Even with the tax gone, the price will still rise
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
just focussing on solutions for a moment…today i’ve reported on a new concept vehicle from toyota called the i-unit….(sorry..can’t do links..luddite..)
this vehicle was the star of the just finished tokyo expo..and it is fucken brilliant..without a doubt the best/coolest vehicle..ever….
go…look…drool..and pay suitable homage to mr toyota…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
To pre-empt any desperate nat petrol tax cutting policy anouncements I think all Labour and Green activists should make the IEA survey of prices in different countries more widely known – petrol taxes in NZ are not high.
http://www.dpmc.gov.au/publications/energy_future/chapter5/2_introduction.htm
Key’s suggestion is Canute-like – the market will wash over him – as dbuckley points out “the only hope for price reduction is demand reduction.” – if governments lower the price, then demand goes back up and then the price goes up further.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
phil u.
Please get more detail. This sounds exciting. Toyota do seem to be prepared to explore options. This attitude is one we will all need. This is where Jim Anderton’s mantra about innovation will come true. Accepting that global factors are pushing us out of our comfy nest and celebrating the Kiwi people who will come forward with good ideas. R&D. My mantra!!! Joy
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
joy…whoar.co.nz…story from today titled “whoar!..the i-unit”..
just imagine strapping yourself into one of those babys…whoar..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Just as a part two thought…
Theres a lot of talk of high fuel prices being bad for business.
Business is all about change, and adapting to higher energy prices is just another change that businesses will need to accomodate. Some businesses will be more sucessful at this than others, and those better managed businesses will suceed, and those lesser well managed will fail. Thats business. The guys that do it well will use their lower energy costs as a competitive weapon against their competitors.
The real problem for the business community is that the message they are receiving from those they trust (dont get me started…) is that this high oil price malarky is a “spike” rather than a “trend”, and thus they are settling in to weather a spike, believing it to be a short term problem.
Of course, just about all the evidence is that what we have is a trend, brought about by structural issues, and the only approproate business response is structural change within business, but business leaders are just not being given those signals.
Those they trust are doing them a massive disservice here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
db,
Without in any way disagreeing with your fundamental message, it is worth clarifying that “Peak Oil” has not necessarily arrived, nor have we any idea of exactly what will happen when it does. However one of the most likely effects in these years leading up to it will be increasing volatility in price.
The prices we are seeing right now may well be a spike, followed by a drop to below $50 per barrel for a period. It is well when thinking about Peak Oil to distinguish between short and long term effects.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks for the link Stuey
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sorry Phil, not to rain on your parade [beautiful design and all...], but I already have a personal mobility unit that “creates a seamless transformation between vehicle and human movement, minimizing occupied space and energy consumption with its lightweight and ultra compact size”. It too has “a compact size enabling the passenger to move among other people”, “intuitive handling”, and “uses sound, light and vibration to facilitate interactive communication”. Best of all it runs on entirely renewable resources, is noiseless, creates no pollution, and using it actually makes me happier and healthier. And I can fix it myself.
I call it… THE BICYCLE
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
dbuckley posted the link first
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
yeah thanks stuey,db
The graph looks nice on my blog, adds colour
Petronoia
earthaerial – I’m very fond of cycling, it’s been a big part of my life, I come from a cycling heritage with various relatives gaining cycling records etc… I didn’t even bother getting my learners driving licence until I was 24, though my father held out ’til 27. I’m worried about the “entirely renewable resources” bit in relation to bikes…. lube. tires, tubes, handlegrip, saddles.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Actually, Stuey, I didnt post the link first – the text was mine but I didnt place it as a link, so the Frog or a Frogette must have done it. Possibly more humourously, when I first noticed the message had been “enhanced” and tried the link, the link was broken, but its now fixed, so the message has had at least two sets of moditorial fixes…
Frogblogs work in mysterious ways
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
yes yes earthariel..that’s all very worthy…but it’s not the i-unit is it…
how about a compromise here..have a bicycle and an i-unit..!
btw..i trust that with the admirable zealotry for the fine art of cycling displayed in your comment.(obviously you don’t cycle the suicidal streets of auckland..or ackers as we lucky/luckless(?)inhabitants call it). .(and implicit disdain for my most recent passion)..that you make absolutely no use of the internal combustion engine in your life..?
because if you did..in the interests of environmental balance et al…you’d have to swing back to the i-unit ….eh..?..(i mean..it runs on the smell of an oily rag and it’s even made from plant material……)
yours in technological/style breakthroughs..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Earthaerial
Well, this is Wellington and it DOES rain on our parades, and our bicycles. Back before there were cars there were carriages with horses pulling them because it DOES rain. Some parts of the planet even get more solid forms of that precipitation. Now global warming may mean less rain, but it is not likely to mean less desire for comfort and convenience in travel.
Andrewudstraw – I do NOT know where you get your figures from but I have never seen anyone in the industry or out give a “peak” estimate longer than 10 years from now. That includes the boffins at Shell, the wizards at Phillps, and the geniuses at XOM. The scientific community is likewise divided into a range from right now to 2012 or so. I really WOULD like to know who’s propaganda is being dumped in your inbox because whoever it is has to be a candidate for selling short, as they are due for a real shellacking in the market.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The i-unit apparently suffers from the same disadvantage as the bicycle
http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/news/04/1203_1e.html
Whatever else will happen, it appears you will still get wet.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bj
Our Government (by which I mean those who wear suits in ministries) recently said this:
Opinions differ on the likely timing of the peak in oil
production. Estimates range from 2010 to the later part
of this century. Views between these extremes commonly
estimate a peak around the 2030s. Analysis by the
United States Department of Energy’s Energy Information
Administration, for example, suggests oil production
could peak as early as 2021 with high production growth
and a conservative estimate of recoverable reserves, or as
late as 2067 with low production growth and a high
reserve estimate. A median estimate, with 2 percent
annual production growth and a mean (50 percent
probability) reserve estimate, suggests peak oil
production occurring in 2037.
Full report: http://www.med.govt.nz/ers/environment/sustainable-energy/discussion/full-version/full-version.pdf
This has been a Tui moment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thank you, dbuckley, for providing that. I stand by everything I wrote in the comment at the top of this list, including that peak oil will happen sometime within 10-30 years from now.
1. the current prices are the result of a clear spike, caused by oil volatility from the Middle East, from Katrina, from Venezuela’s unstable government, etc.
2. given that I believe current prices are due to a spike and not “Peak Oil,” it is good policy to reduce taxes to lessen the negative impact on the economy and individuals. Oil prices are like a regressive tax in that they disproportionately harm the poor and working poor. For the Greens to oppose a petrol tax cut and let individuals be buffeted by a raging market can be described only as cruel.
3. As for the long term, I do agree Peak Oil will arrive in my lifetime (I am 36). Many are suggesting a hydrogen economy as a response, but that takes a lot of electric. Greens oppose both coal burning and nuclear power. I personally also oppose burning coal because of all the toxins that releases, including uranium and thorium. But I also think New Zealanders need to get over their irrational fear of nuclear power and build a few plants to supply Auckland’s energy needs. And since we’re talking about the long term here, I think New Zealand should on principle make a large contribution to the fusion reactor project about to be started in France. One fusion reactor in New Zealand would supply all the power we would ever need. No more dams, no more coal, no more ugly and loud wind farms. If Greens were serious about clean energy for the future, they would be pressing hard for support of the ITER fusion project. Currently, I hear a big fat zilch about it. ITER is just as if not more important than landing a man on the moon.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Andrew, take a look at this item recently broadcast on TV4 in the UK.
We will be able to comment about this issue next April… apparently the northern winter may be tight.
It has been a supurb winter for cycle commuting in Christchurch, with only a few rainy parades. However you do take your life in your own hands. I’ve had two collisions with cars and had several close calls. I was just riding along dressed up bright like a christmas tree, when around the corner comes boy racer bob, wheels skidding… screeech, smack. Then he gives me the fingers for being on his road and smokes his wheels down the street leaving me to it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I never fail to be staggered by the “logic” of the “petrol is running out – let’s make it even more expensive!” argument.
Besides, any dumbarse knows that if the cost of crude stays above $70 a barrel, there are vast fields of rock oil that suddenly become economical to extract. Peak oil? What a load of bullshit!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Andrew – When you say the current prices are a spike, over what period is your spike, as spike implies “return to normality” which then begs the question what is normal? I dont see it as a spike, I just see it as noise on the trend upwards, which is a different thing. Your outcome presumably sees prices going down (and maybe significantly so) sometime, which many people dont see.
Supplementary question. What is the right price for a barrel of oil? Given prices have doubled and demand continues to rise, any economist will tell you its still too cheap. Thats not peak oil, not Katrina (or Ivan before that), or supply/demand constraints, thats not green-speak, thats simple economics.
There is no volatility in the middle east – last months total output was the same as the month’s before. The OPEC members are pumping flat out, and some are still failing to meet their quota numbers.
Where you are bang on the money is when you say “Oil prices are like a regressive tax in that they disproportionately harm the poor and working poor”.
I see it as this: Oil prices are going to continue to rise, and this means there will be those not able to afford oil based product, most particularly petrol and diesel. This applies to both within our community (ie there will be Kiwi’s who are priced out of car use) and on a country scale (there will be countries that are priced out of oil use). This is as clear as night follows day, but still folks dont want to step up to this particular plate.
Of course, the fan will really get mucky when this impacts Suburbia USA…
In the wider picture, NZ is too small for nuclear power use. NZ total elec usage is a tad under 5GW, so given nukes come in a minimum economic size of a GW, we need about seven 1GW plants (five on, one spinning reserve, one in maintenence) to supply our needs. Plus an all new transmission system. Any other mix wont work, as a 1GW plant dropping offline (which they do) without 1GW of spinning reserve would drop NZ to black in about 3 seconds.
Coal – ugly stuff. But dont worry, we’ll be converting coal to oil when oil gets tight, that is the future we are in for. As well as continuing to burn it, no doubt.
ITER – important, but is in the category of unlikely to suceed. Be great if it does though. If it does, the world will beat a path to fusion as it is a good answer, if (and its a big if) it can be made to work. Its a reseach project. Research does not always work out. Betting the farm on a project most folks rate as unlikely to suceed seems foolhardy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Like Kennedy saying we need to land a man on the moon in 10 years when only a satellite had been sent up just a couple years before.
Greens need more faith in their lives.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That “faith” word puts a shiver down my spine, are you connected to the Bretheren Roundtable National Front?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No, I am a former Green who now is leaning towards giving his vote to National.
I feel I have a pretty good grasp of Green positions and attitudes, as I was a regional co-convenor (Deep South) and attended many many meetings with other Greens. It was more Greens themselves than National that changed my mind.
Greens need more faith in their lives. The cynicism and apocalyptic thinking is very negative and destructive, not just to others but to themselves. Faith that the world is going to go right and exhibiting good will towards others (even National and Act supporters) would do Greens a world of good.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
NZers don’t like being told the petrol party is over.
$1.60/litre!!! OMG! take off 5c tax and wait for the price to go over $2 in a few more months.
well that did a lot of good.
the Key=Canute analogy is good, but really the whole of our society has become utterly addicted to petrol in the last 40 years, and getting off this shit is gonna take some serious rehab/detox programs.
listen to Pita, 2008, and its all over. demand will outstrip supply and the price will triple (again) in a few months.
$200/barrel is closer than you think.
it’s gone from $10 to $70 since 1998.
how does MOST oil get used?
transport: cars, jet aircraft, trucks.
these are the thyings that will have to adapt to the new “market” (geological) reality.
LOL!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
and andrew..just out of curiousity..just what is it about brash/national that draws you to them…?…is it their environmental policies..(scrapping/emasculating rma..and giddy-up to the cowboy developers..)..?
is it maybe their social policies that appeal to you..the market rents and selling of state houses..and removal of doctors subsidies are expected to push alot more children below the poverty line…
maybe it’s their foreign policy..andrew…should we be in iraq ..should we..?
and the nukes…you’re ok with that too..?
andrew..i can see how your time as a deep south green must have been a period of deep confusion in your life for you…and if you have now found your way..we are all very happy for you..(in a caring, sharing green sorta way of course..)
so andrew..any light you could shed on the unseen (to many of us) merits of national/brash..please feel free to enlighten us…
if not..go well…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I agree there exists a subtle tint of “cynicism and apocalyptic thinking”. However the ideas and policies being put forward could only be construed as “negative and destructive” if you cling to a life of rampant consumerism and don’t possess the mental strength to live a more simple life. Any party/policy/concept you may support which involves growth is by definition negative and destructive in that it is unsustainable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
andrew – Re: nuclear power, did you have a particular fault-line in mind to build them on? And the spent fuel? Handing your children a few tons of radioactive material to mind for the next 10,000 years is not my idea of responsible parenting. [Still, it would give them something to do - I'm all for job-creation]
Back to the bicycling thread… I am not advocating the wholesale conversion of New Zealand to muscle-power, simply pointing out that we already have a perfectly workable solution to the problem of individual transport. Admittedly it isn’t for everyone, but the actual mechanical+muscle power of a bicycle is one of the most economical ways to utilise the resources you have. It may not be the most pleasant given the local terrain/weather conditons/driving habits etc, but sometimes you just have no choice. [See Ho Chi Mhin Trail for examples - also edifying in that it shows that you do not necessarily need paved roads to get the job done] The industrial designer’s “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it – stick fins on it!” creed seems to have applied to the i-Unit [even if you can eat it after it crashes...] Sorry phil, nothing personal…
Petronoia – My point about renewbility was the motive power for the vehicle, although each of these components CAN be built by hand from locally available and/or recycleable resources. They just may not look as flash, be as comfortable or last as long…
BJ Chip – it is DESIRE that is the root of most, if not all of our current predicament. Not just for convenience and comfort, but desire for a sense that we have power over our environment [and this includes other people]. Desire, and the fear that if we are not masters of all we survey then we are nothing. Rather than live in partnership with this world some would destroy it. Can we address the cause, rather than looking to science, marketing and socio-political engineering for “sustainable” ways to maintain the delusion? Probably not until each of us has to come to their own understanding of this.
Wish us luck,
earthaerial
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
kane9 – yep… Finite planet v’s unending growth… join the dots! Only model for full sustainability is where waste=food i.e. full nutrient and material reclaimation. Everything else is, ultimately, an evolutionary dead end. : – ) >
See http://mcdonoughpartners.com/news_features.shtm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Opps, try this link too.
http://www.mcdonough.com/writings/c2c_design.htm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Cool – and I thought the idiots were all in the US government there being so many of them there, but no, like the ginsu ad, there’s more!
Andrew and all the rest of you who are hanging your hats on the pronouncements of the US energy department… whatever else you may realize they are lying about, what in the WORLD makes you think they even know the truth about this?
Seriously, the US rate of inflation, GDP and unemployment numbers are complete lies. They lied to put troops in Iraq and they lied to put Cheney in the driver’s seat… and you believe THIS? Let’s see what the people in the patch have to say, shall we?
T.Boone Pickens
http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=10766
XOM
http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=P10471_0_5_0_C
The overall critique of the USGS
http://www.energybulletin.net/2544.html
In other words, Nandor ain’t got NUTHIN as strong as what these fools are smoking.
Moreover, the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia are unlikely to be real economical to extract. Their estimates of future production don’t tip over 11 B-bbl without severely hurting their fields. They talk a good fight, but their ability to pump more oil is extremely limited…
Whack off the $0.05 per liter. It isn’t going to help. Really it isn’t. The base costs are rising. They MAY fall, in concert with a massive recession, but that’s not exactly the scenario you’re catering to with your call to “ease” the market.
OTOH, since it isn’t going to help, it probably won’t HURT that much either. I don’t really give a toss about it, but the idea that Peak Oil, which is a geological phenomena that has been OBSERVED in most non-opec nations already, is something for a long time from now, is rubbish. The only thing that will ease the effect is a recession, and that causes more nasty problems than just being unable to fill the fuel tanks.
Whig, the economics of extracting shale oil which isn’t quite the same as a real oil, or pulling it out of tar sands, which is even worse on an environmental basis ARE NOT the issue. The issue is that as the supply of EASY CHEAP oil goes away you are left with EXPENSIVE DIFFICULT oil… and if you think you can triple the production on the back of the disappearance of the sweet crude, well, I’d like to know where you get your smoking supplies as well.
Andrew, I’d be in it to support the ITER research, but it isn’t more important than CATS (Cheap Access To Space), because the ease of building SSPS when you have CATS makes the problem go away just as effectively and rapidly as ITER. It also opens up a vast new supply of hydrocarbons and other stuff. Moreover, CATS is a solvable problem. No breakthroughs needed, no 30 year research project… just kick Lockheed Martin and Boeing out of the drivers seat and you’re there.
ITER is however, far more important than putting some fool on the moon again at todays price of orbital access.
With respect to your OTHER issues, Wind Farms are a HELL of a lot cheaper and safer than nuclear plants for a country as riddled with fault lines as this. I think you need to come back and have a little more detailed look at what awaits our children if we follow the same path of unsustainable consumption that the rest of the world is charging along.
Earthaerial – I have had enough crap thrown at me while riding my bike to be pretty blase’ about mere rain, but I am over 50 years old now and I am no longer blase’ about pushing the pedals AND I have a family and responsibilities now. You can wax all philosophical about desire, but the desire to stay dry while going to and from work and shops isn’t entirely a “control” issue. It is a “health” issue, and if you’d been following my posts you would know I am very much interested in sustainablility and partnership with the earth, but I am not planning to let civilization end in order to do it. Civilization means having light when you turn the switch, warmth when you come indoors (New Zealand hasn’t quite reached THAT stage of civilization
), and the ability to get from place to place quickly and without suffering greatly from the weather. I’d also like to go to the theatre now and again, a concert…. civilization.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Woah there BJ, not everyone’s agin’ ye! I’ve followed your posts with great appreciation [and often great mirth]. Re-reading my wee spiel about desire it comes across as far less rhetorical than intended – many apologies. It wasn’t at all aimed at you in regard to your [our] need for the finer/safer/drier things in life [like flush toilets - now that's civilisation!], nor was I accusing you of lacking in vision or commitment to our little lifeboat. I’m a HUGE fan of food, shelter, warmth, safe & affordable transport and all the trimings a global cultural exchange can provide [the ladies at the Town Hall Ticketek office know me by name!]. I absolutely agree we all need [equal] access to all these things if we are to remain human, and humane.
My point is that civilisation seems to keep exceding its brief in this area, with periods of plenty allowing us, not just to fulfil our needs, but to believe that we can do and have ANYTHING we desire. And like children, we desire EVERYTHING we think we can get away with. Until we can change that fundamental mindset, then any moves towards living within our means will be underminded [e.g. the "they're all doing it so why shouldn't we" attitude some people have towards Kyoto]. As long as we keep just treating the symptoms [seeing it as a purely logistical problem and trying to do more and better with less] rather than the cause [having the humility to realise that we do have something to learn from those that have tried this before and somehow learning to avoid the siren song of desire for that which is not actually necessary...], our every attempt at maintaining civilisation is pretty much doomed to repeat the “boom and bust” scenarios entombed in archealogical sites around the world. [sorry, long sentence...] This ain’t philosophy, it’s history.
But you know this.
What set me off on this whole thing was the way a consumer item like the i-Unit is marketed as meeting a “need”, when in fact it’s aimed fairly and squarely at the “want” end of the scale. This is insidious, in that it makes people think it’s a win-win solution [they get to save the planet while looking cool...], as long as you can give Toyota the cash. Kind of like buying a very sleek looking dispensation from the Catholic Church. It doesn’t address the issue of a sustainable civilisation at it’s root. And it’s THERE that we need to start thinking about design changes, not what colour our perambulators should come in.
To truely work, a civilisation will need to approach sustainablity as wholistically possible on all levels – internally as well as externally. It begins with a state of mind. In the ecology of the mind – as with the rest of the world – untempered desire is not sustainable. To clarify the last observation in my previous entry: if people have to overcome previous indoctorination to the contrary, then they pretty much have to come to this realisation by themselves before they can do anything effective about the rest of the world. Maybe this is just projection on my part – I am but a bear of very little brain – but it seems to me that [other than schooling since birth] the real results happen when a seed gets planted in someone’s mind and it germinates all by itself. Passionate discussions on blogs may do it, but I suspect that other, more subtle means are needed also.
: – ) >
Bugger, this doesn’t even begin to address them desparate folks that believe man has a God-given duty to bring the world to heel. Anyway, we’ll all try in our own ways. Sorry you’ve borne the brunt of this – there’s nothing worse than the ravings of a reformed consumer-junkie, is there…
Respect to you also,
earthaerial
PS: Ballet also?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ballet first.
Thanks
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)