John Key’s Investigate interview
John Key gets environmental in the latest Investigate magazine interview [not on line]:
First his views on Peak Oil:
Yeah, I’m not sure I entirely buy the peak oil argument. I guess, if it’s real, and demand really is greater than the world’s ability to supply, then you’ll certainly see technology being invoked that will make things more competitive…
I’m of a view that these kind of sustained oil prices will see all sorts of reserves around the world opened up. From New Zealand’s point of view I think we all accept there is a fair bit of oil around New Zealand but it is expensive to get out. At a hundred dollars a barrel however, it’s competitive…
I think the supply side will respond
Why is it the peak oil deniers (or should I say ‘sceptics’) always settle for the ‘don’t worry if things get too bad we’ll just invent a new gizmo to solve the problem’ solution?
Then he traverses climate change:
But look, I think climate change is a long term problem and needs long term solutions. It is right for New Zealand to play its part in the world, it’s crazy for New Zealand to lead the world if that means massive drop in jobs and economic growth, and that’s what it does mean.
So, at least no longer any scepticism here. But this ‘slowly slowly’ response needs to be contrasted with the IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri
“If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”
Of course it’s hard for Key to say much else when he believes in unlimited growth at all costs. If you’re in debt, the answer is just grow your way out of it:
New Zealand doesn’t have a debt problem it has a growth problem and a competitiveness problem.
And, finally on an unrelated topic, watch Key try to extract himself from the s59 bill that he previously lauded and voted for.
I think the last straw was really smacking. While we put up a compromise, and it was the right thing to do because it delivered something that was half workable, I think for a lot of new Zealanders it was the final straw.
May 23rd, 2008 at 4:03 pm
“we’ll just invent a new gizmo to solve the problem’ solution”
Because that’s what humans do. Evidence: human history.
Why do you view our capabilities so dimly? We’re rather inventive, which is why we’re not living in trees.
Secondly, Key is right about price points. As the oil price rises, new supplies become viable. Which is why “Peak Oil” is such a crock….
May 23rd, 2008 at 4:07 pm
“If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years…”
He didn’t mean New Zealand, obviously. He means China, the US and Europe.
What we do is irrelevant.
“New Zealand doesn’t have a debt problem it has a growth problem and a competitiveness problem”
100% correct.
“I think for a lot of new Zealanders it was the final straw.”
It was, and I think you know it too, as Bradfords accomplishments strangely didn’t feature at all in your recent video.
May 23rd, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Dream on BP. You and the rest of the cornucopians can continue to live in denial, but our economy and our species are in fact subject to the laws of physics and the second law of thermodynamics. Humanity’s recent spate of innovations are subject to the law of diminishing returns, at least in terms of their real world value relative to their intellectual value. Most of the real ‘progress’ of the last two centuries is down to one thing - cheap and abundant fossil fuels. Those days are coming to an end, for better or for worse.
May 23rd, 2008 at 4:34 pm
“we’ll just invent a new gizmo to make the problem more competitive”
He says “more competitive” as if that means “better”.
May 23rd, 2008 at 4:41 pm
At least he is saying something, last I heard you were down on Key for not having policies.
What he is saying makes perfect sense. Would say about 68% of the population would agree.
I would call Key a realist, not a denier.
Dont you think this “denier” label is being overdone a bit.
Realistically it does not matter what New Zealand does, we are the drop in the proverbial.
But sending a billion dollars to Russia every year will ease our conscience but do nothing for climate change.
So who will the people vote for, Key with a realistic aproach or the Greens who want to send a billion dollars to Russia every year?
May 23rd, 2008 at 4:53 pm
“Denial”. I don’t think you greenies realise quite how religious you sound.
You’re living in de Nile if you think cheap energy is an unsolvable problem.
It’s not even a particularly difficult problem. We’re solving it as we speak….
Key is realistic. You guys are way off planet….
May 23rd, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Frog, while many of our inventions have over the last two centuries been based on fossil fuels, nevertheless, there certainly are enough inventions out there to deal with our oil problem - while ethanol from corn is a bad idea, certainly, you have cellulosic ethanol which is certainly starting to become competitive and at least allows waste to be utilised in a more efficient manner.
The other thing you must remember Frog, is that while oil prices have increased over the last seven years, the money supply in the United States has also increased heavily; to the point that 87% of the oil price increase has been covered by a money supply increase. An increase in the money supply results in an increase in the price of goods and services (Fisher’s theory - MV = PQ - i.e. money supply multiplied by velocity is equal to price multiplied by real GDP).
I also must agree with Key’s comments that we don’t have a debt problem, we have a growth and competitiveness problem. The fact of the matter is that our infrastructure is comparable to what Queensland had in the 1960s, or what Western Australia had in the 1970s. We need more infrastructure (and I am talking of all sorts), and we also need a system where the state isn’t taking so much money. No country has had more than 4% growth per annum on a long term basis where the state spends 40% of GDP or more. While we all want health, education, welfare, and so on, a state that is too large puts a squeeze on the rest of the productive economy.
May 23rd, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Key: It is right for New Zealand to play its part in the world, it’s crazy for New Zealand to lead the world if that means massive drop in jobs and economic growth, and that’s what it does mean.
In other words, he’s still hanging on to half the denialist position: “it’s too expensive to do anything”. That’s not only badly wrong (he seems to have swallowed big emitters lobbying, however self-interested and shonky), but it bodes badly for action after the election, should National form a government. It does mean, however, that people who want action on climate policy (and that includes the majority of exporters and many other business sectors, for example tourism) now have a clear choice. Key has just given a good-sized chunk of the electorate a reason to vote against him.
May 23rd, 2008 at 5:29 pm
>>a good-sized chunk of the electorate
What makes you think a good-sized chunk of the electorate are going to want to pay more to send billions to Russia?
May 23rd, 2008 at 5:37 pm
BluePeter Says:
May 23rd, 2008 at 4:03 pm
> Secondly, Key is right about price points. As the oil price rises, new supplies become viable. Which is why “Peak Oil� is such a crock….
If you think in terms of spending money to get oil, that appears to be true. The problem is that the less viable supplies also need more energy to get them out, so it becomes a case of spending oil to get oil. Once you get to the point of having to spend one barrel of oil to get one barrel of oil, it becomes unviable at any price.
May 23rd, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Because having decent climate policy does not mean sending “billions to Russia”. All of the (not funded by big emitters - and even some of that) economic modelling suggests that the economic impacts are small in the short to medium (10 yr) term. And the Kyoto cost will be higher if we do nothing.
May 23rd, 2008 at 5:41 pm
BluePeter Says:
May 23rd, 2008 at 5:29 pm
>>a good-sized chunk of the electorate
> What makes you think a good-sized chunk of the electorate are going to want to pay more to send billions to Russia?
The Labour party is committed to staying in the Kyoto protocol, while also apparently being committed to not implementing and price signals, laws, or encouragement of high-tech or low-tech solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the Kyoto protocol. National seem to be leaning towards the same position. Which suggests that those two parties, at least, think the electorate wants to send billions of dollars to Russia.
Personally I’d rather spend the money on reducing emissions, so we don’t end up owing any money to Russia.
May 23rd, 2008 at 5:46 pm
>>climate policy does not mean sending “billions to Russia�
But it does mean imposing costs that will be greater than doing so. Either way, we lose. How much does the temperature drop by?
Zero.
That is the truth. You know it. I know it. We all know it.
May 23rd, 2008 at 5:53 pm
We lose least by playing the same game as everyone else, and playing it well. Good climate policy - and the ETS is a decent stab at that (though far from perfect) - will minimise the inevitable cost of action here, and position us to be able to trade with the rest of the world. Because there will be carbon tariffs before long (the EU is already designing them) because they are an inevitable component of an international carbon market (protects industries from “free riders” outside the system). The ETS is our place at that table. Take it away, and watch our exports suffer. National have made a key (ha!) tactical error. It will bite them on the bum - if not at the election, then soon after.
May 23rd, 2008 at 6:24 pm
I’ve hear that argument, and I think it’s bunk.
The world is experiencing a food shortage. We produce food. If the EU blocks us, the EU will suffer, not us, as we’ll sell the food to someone else.
There is no advantage to us in “leading”. We can’t lead. We should go as slow as possible, and only jump when pushed.
To do anything else is not smart.
May 23rd, 2008 at 6:31 pm
BP,
They will impose the tariff cos it’ll be another excuse to protect their “struggling” agricultural sector.
New Zealand overplayed its hand in the 1980s and 1990s and now we’ve got no cards to play in trade liberalization negotiations apart from giving up our sovereignty like we did with the “Free Trade” Agreement with China.
Now the fools in Foreign Affairs have made the taxpayer liable for damages if any of our regulations become “barriers to trade” for Chinese multinationals.
May 23rd, 2008 at 6:32 pm
I too have been caught up in the panic about “Peak Oil” and the global food crisis. So bad in fact that I couldn’t bring myself to go to work today.
Its certainly contagious considering the amount of international and national media coverage they’ve been receiving, but perhaps they’re not as bad as we fear.
I’ve stated in the past that there is certainly a part in the current price inflation being played by speculators in the international commodities markets and this article backs my assertions up.
http://tinyurl.com/3m4g65
Its all fine and dandy to be talking about “growth” and “competitiveness”, but whats needed is a frank discussion by Nation on what they want to be grown and how that growth will be achieved and I have yet to hear any.
The New Zealand economy has “grown” above the OECD average since Labour came to power, but what do we have to show for it? A real estate market in freefall, a high dollar hurting exporters, an economy still dependant on labor intensive, low value commodity production, and a direct public debt which amounts to 18.9% of GDP.
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/economy/overview/2008/24.htm
May 23rd, 2008 at 6:37 pm
People like John Key are the problem.
John Key lives in a big house in Remuera, bought on ill gotten speculative gains. In John’s case, speculating on currencies, most likely betting against the Kiwi, driving the dollar up and forcing our productive industries offshore.
All his buddies in merchant banking, are still at it. Only this time they’re speculating on commodities, food and energy in particular, because the greenback lost its gloss.
They’re now talking up oil. Apart from physical factors affecting price, geological and political in particular, there’s probably $50 of speculative premium in a $135 barrel of oil.
No doubt John’s got his money invested in oil, and is making out big time, while pretending to care about ordinary kiwis struggling to make ends meet.
May 23rd, 2008 at 6:55 pm
BP,
actually it’s not just a question of whether we can impact on other country’s practices or responses to climate change. there is also the matter of how we deal with it’s impacts here.
an ETS of some sort will hopefully begin to overcome the inertia against changinc our current lifestyle.
if some new technology is going to come along, where is it? there is no magic energy source that’s going to come along and offset our current massive need for energy, let alone that of the increased population in a few decades time. do you think unlimited growth is possible in any sense? if so you have no place telling anybody what is not smart. what is not smart is claiming our unsustainable existence will be able to continue into the foreseeable future.
like key’s not smart thinking in regards to many things - we haven’t got a solution yet but one will come along in the nick of time - it is beyond stupid. if you’re plan is to wait for some vague miracle cure to solve your problems, that’s not actually a plan, it’s blind faith.
in other words I don’t think you “realise quite how religious you sound” expecting this miracle technology. sure technologies are being developed but they are still prone to the same limitations as oil - diminishing returns vs. ever-increasing demand.
I don’t think we should be preparing for a lower energy society for the sake of looking good for the rest of the world - we should be doing so in order to begin living sustainably as soon as we can.
May 23rd, 2008 at 7:50 pm
we would be into deep ecology spiritualism and pantheism or paganism if we wanted to go for the religious buzz.
————- you are obv off the planet as you think growth on a finite planet is infinate. you refuse to believe that oil will deplete - care to share the place where new oil is being MADE?
– john key would plan to go to hawaii or into a gated mansion if shit hit the fan. he doesnt worry about climate change, because the worst hit are the most poorest, and he has long left his childhood poverty behind.
yes he is warmer and more ‘normal’ than helen clark, bit his real backers are clear - the greenhouse mafia posse, genesis energy, solid energy, big buisness of all stripes, the greenhouse policy coalition, buisness round table and so on…..
key is quiet on climate policy, because he knows the the public reaction would not be a vote winner. so instead he plays a grind down labour approach. but the attention on the govt, so people dont look at his party and their policy.
BluePeter Says:
May 23rd, 2008 at 4:53 pm
“Denial�. I don’t think you greenies realise quite how religious you sound.
You’re living in de Nile if you think cheap energy is an unsolvable problem.
It’s not even a particularly difficult problem. We’re solving it as we speak….
Key is realistic. You guys are way off planet….
May 23rd, 2008 at 7:52 pm
what you are saying is we should wait while overs do the work, and yet you call others bludgers….
—————————–
BluePeter Says:
May 23rd, 2008 at 6:24 pm
I’ve hear that argument, and I think it’s bunk.
The world is experiencing a food shortage. We produce food. If the EU blocks us, the EU will suffer, not us, as we’ll sell the food to someone else.
There is no advantage to us in “leading�. We can’t lead. We should go as slow as possible, and only jump when pushed.
To do anything else is not smart.
May 23rd, 2008 at 8:24 pm
>>climate policy does not mean sending “billions to Russia�
But it does mean imposing costs that will be greater than doing so. Either way, we lose. How much does the temperature drop by?
Zero.
That is the truth. You know it. I know it. We all know it.
BP
What I know is that I am a citizen of this planet.
If I reduce my consumption to zero… (lets keep it simple and just assume I work out a way to do that)… the effect on the temperature and on the food supply of the other 6 billion people on the planet is indeed zero.
If I buy a Hummer, turn the thermostat up to 28, leave the lights on, eat like a pig and fly to my kids to Disneyland for their birthdays the effect on the temperature and the food supply for the other 6 billion people on the planet remains zero.
Yet every one of the 6 billion people on the planet can make exactly that same calculation and reach the same conclusion. This is the nature of the “tragedy of the commons” and the reason for trying to get international treaties done.
The US isn’t agreeing to the treaties. It refuses to act as it has refused to act responsibly for decades. Where the energy footprint of each individual is so large it is obscene and the will to change is so weak that any half-wit in a Madison Avenue suit can overcome it. They point at the rest of the world and say “nobody else is going first, why should we” .
However, many of the same efforts that reduce the impacts of peak oil take a bite out of our CO2 emissions. The economic “hit” you are so absurdly afraid of, actually has an excellent chance to be a big benefit to the economy over the next 2 decades… relative to folks who keep on buying and driving hummers and making up excuses to invade other countries.
You tout our ingenuity. I am paid for that particular trait… and what I am telling you is that when a genius hits one of the laws of thermodynamics, the law wins.
Let me refer you, again, to this very thorough explanation of peak everything…
http://www.paulchefurka.ca/
As a planet we are a population in overshoot but NZ is vastly less so than most places. It is important to recognize the possible results of that overshoot and deal with the coming impossibility being able to buy refined fuels or surplus foods from overseas.. our advantage is that we can grow things and will likely be able to continue to do so when many other places are hitting drought or rising salt or topsoil depletion. We have to watch out for that last one ourselves too. There are limits to the food exports we can afford to make… there are limits everywhere and the limits to growth are something a species seldom recognizes as it goes into overshoot.
This isn’t about wrecking the economy BP, it is about saving it for our kids.
Somebody has to start somewhere. We’re here.
respectfully
BJ
May 23rd, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Er Gareth, going on the carbonnews story (the little I can see as a non-subscriber), compulsory labelling is not a tariff. Of course it could have the same impact of a tariff if the vast majority of consumers play along, but still. Maybe tariffs are in the body of the story?
May 23rd, 2008 at 8:29 pm
In a few years we may be looking back and laughing at our empty roads and the people who advocated continual economic growth will be wearing dunces hats and sitting on the naughty mat.
At present many peoples perception is that oil prices as a result of demand from India and China, but there are massive oil fields about to be developed and scientists will invent something (they always do).
It will take a physical shortage (and the ramifications) plus the time factor (like waiting for a bus that doesn’t show) to put the final nail in the coffin of the illusion of progress.
May 23rd, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Though Parker did say “We are watching overseas developments with interest.�, so presumably there must be some developments to watch in the first place.
May 23rd, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Go in peace John Key and take your property developer backers, real estate agents and assorted scoundrels with you.
May 23rd, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Maybe tariffs are in the body of the story?
Perhaps they are, I haven’t paid $500 (annual sub cost) to find out…
Carbon labelling is a step on the road, and many politicians in the EU have acknowledged the need for, and threatened to put in place, carbon tariffs. They’ll be built into K2, as well - have to be, because of the free rider problem.
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Blue Peter replied to:
“we’ll just invent a new gizmo to solve the problem’ solution�
with:
Because that’s what humans do. Evidence: human history.
Of course those civilisations that failed to invent the right gizmos or who were not in a position to implement them died out and didn’t leave any history, so your evidence is biased…
Trevor.
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Key may be against the idea of sending a billion dollars to Russia. He seems to support sending a billion dollars to OPEC or Indonesia instead.
I’d rather see some of it go to Pelamis Wave Power:
http://www.pelamiswave.com/
At least that way we get to keep something.
Trevor.
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:32 pm
jh said:
“but there are massive oil fields about to be developed and scientists will invent something (they always do).”
Those massive oil fields don’t appear to be as big as the ones we have already used or are peaking now, so they might cushion the fall (a bit) but they won’t stop it.
Scientists have invented a number of things already which can solve most of these problems, but getting them into production on the scales required is another problem. If no one is prepared to pay for them now, production won’t be able to ramp up fast enough when they are really needed. Solar panels are ramping up but have a distance to go before they can make a significant impact. Wind power is hitting production limits raising the costs of wind turbines. We are just getting started with wave power, and tidal flow is even further behind. The problem isn’t the science in most of these areas, but there is still a lot of engineering required. The problem is lack of support now.
Trevor.
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Kahikatea said “Once you get to the point of having to spend one barrel of oil to get one barrel of oil, it becomes unviable at any price.”
This is only strictly true if the energy to extract the oil comes from oil. If they use a cheaper source of energy then the actual limit becomes the price of oil for the uses where alternatice energy is not a factor. Ie alternative stationary energy sources can be used to power oil rigs, refineries and pipelines in order to meet the demand for transport fuels, lubricants and petrochemical feedstocks. However because each of these uses of oil has it’s own price elasticity of demand it makes for a very coplec supply/demand price curve. I wouldn’t want to predict at what price it becomes uneconomic to develop New Zealand’s oil fields. It gets even more complicated if we look at the very long term potetial value of the oil in those fields. Do wait a hundred years till all existing fields have been depleted and hope that the remaining demand keeps the price high, at say $500/barrel or assume that demand will collapse within a few decades collapsing prices as well?
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:32 pm
If by being a leader Key means internalising carbon externalities before our agricultural and industrial competitors do then he is right.
Why hasn’t the WTO been diverted from it’s free-trade focus to develop a global carbon tariff or trade agreement. Giving the WTO something else to do should get the anti-globalisation protestors aligned with AGW activists. A binding WTO agreement that goes only half as far as the Kyoto Protocol would actaully be twice as effective as the Kyoto Protocol simply because WTO compliance is mandatory whereas Kyoto compliance is voluntary.
May 24th, 2008 at 12:18 am
frog said “Most of the real ‘progress’ of the last two centuries is down to one thing - cheap and abundant fossil fuels. ”
That made the penny drop. Oil didn’t give us transistors or silicon chips. Rutherford did. He unlocked the door to microelectronics. Cheap oil revolutionised transport and manufacturing. Cheap electronics revolutionised communications and investigation (research, diagnostics, data collection, storage and analysis, etc).
Take away cheap oil and we still have the atoms, electrons and ions and intellectual resources needed to find a new cheap energy. The smartest thing we can do is collectively decide that energy density is a red-herring and pretend that energy efficiency is all that matters. We shouldn’t do this because it is practical but because it is psychological. Oil’s high energy density isn’t available from any other energy source so it needs to be wiped from our researcher’s memories just like cheap oil is fading from everybody else’s memory. Once researcher’s stop fixating on energy density there will be room in their thinking for radical and practical solutions to the loss of cheap oil and gas. Not replacements, solutions. Different concept.
“We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” - Albert Einstein
May 24th, 2008 at 4:46 am
Governments and Vandals Unite
Governments are increasingly being captured by the corporate vandals who have the real money and power. Luckly in NZ it is more transparent, the Government are the Vandals, with MAF trying to prevent the cleanup of Manawatu’s water, Meridian wanting to flood old growth forests to build a dam, Solid energy wanting to mine happy valley, and Landcorp converting forestry into intensive milk production. This list could be expanded I’m sure, and will only be worse under National.
Nice work Russel for exposing and stopping MAF: http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/PR11852.html
From Brazil:
I give up, says Brazilian minister who fought to save the rainforest
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/i-give-up-says -brazilian-minister-who-fought-to-save-the-rainforest-828310.html
The departure of Marina Silva, who admitted she was losing the battle to get green voices heard amidst the rush for economic development, Since President Lula won a second term Ms Silva found herself a lone voice in a government acutely aware that its own political future depended on the vast agribusiness interests she was trying to rein in. The final breakdown in her relationship with the President came after he gave the green light to massive road and dam-building projects in the Amazon basin, and a plan she drafted for the sustainable management of the region was taken from her and handed to a business-friendly fellow minister. record levels of deforestation, violent land disputes and runaway forest fires have followed in quick succession. The worldwide boom in agricultural commodities has created an unparalleled thirst for land and energy in Brazil, and the result has been a potentially catastrophic land grab into the world’s largest remaining rainforest. The Amazon basin is home to one in 10 of the world’s mammals and 15 per cent of its land-based plant species. It holds more than half of the world’s fresh water and its vast forests act as the largest carbon sink on the planet, providing a vital check on the greenhouse effect.
From the UK:
Nothing Left to Fight For
Posted May 20, 2008
By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 20th May 2008.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/05/20/nothing-left-to-fight-for/
New Labour’s apologists keep reminding us of the redistributive policies it has introduced: But the catalogue of failures, backsliding and outright destruction is much longer and more consequential.
It provides military aid to the government of Colombia, whose troops are involved in a campaign of terror against the civilian population. It granted an open licence for weapons exports to the government of Uzbekistan, and sacked the British ambassador when he tried to draw attention to the regime’s human rights abuses. It has collaborated with the US programme of extrajudicial kidnapping and imprisonment, left our citizens to languish in Guantanamo Bay, and made use of Pakistani torture chambers in seeking to extract testimony from British suspects(9). Until 2005 it tied its foreign aid programme to the privatisation of public utilities in some of the world’s poorest countries(10,11). Last year it held out against reform of the International Monetary Fund’s unfair allocation of votes(12).
In April 2002 it helped the Bush administration to sack Jose Bustani, the head of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, in order to prevent him from settling the dispute over Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction(1,2). In two separate offers before the invasion began, Saddam Hussein agreed to meet the terms the US and Britain were demanding. But they slapped him down and concealed his offers from their electorates(3).
Cluster bombs can be legally used because the British government helped to block an international ban in 2006(4): it is still holding out against an outright ban at the current talks in Dublin(5). The government has undermined another international peace agreement – the nuclear non-proliferation treaty – by deciding to renew the Trident missile programme. It was the first administration to announce a policy of pre-emptive nuclear attack(6): even the great nuclear enthusiast Harold Macmillan never went this far. In 2007, the defence secretary, without parliamentary debate, revealed that the US would be allowed to use the listening station at Menwith Hill for its missile defence system(7).
May 24th, 2008 at 6:53 am
> Why is it the peak oil deniers (or should I say ‘sceptics’) always settle for the ‘don’t worry if things get too bad we’ll just invent a new gizmo to solve the problem’ solution?
Because that is our lesson from history. Given a need we are very good at coming up with a solution. The peak oil theory is pretty shaky anyway - it might have had legs with oil at $10 a barrel, but at over $100 if holds no water. At $100 a barrel all sorts of oil options become viable. You can’t have the high price and the peak oil. The environmentalists need to make up their minds.
What exactly is the problem with ‘peak oil’ anyway? That oil will go up in price? So what? We will try transfer to other types of energy. In the meantime we will put up with higher prices. We are doing it with bread and cheese, we can do it with petrol.
It is about time that we mastered something new. Perhaps we will move more to electricity if we can work out how to cheaply move it around in batteries or supercaps without needing cables. We can still use the 1000 years of coal we have in the ground to generate as much electricity as we need.
May 24th, 2008 at 7:26 am
John Key said “Yeah, I’m not sure I entirely buy the peak oil argument. I guess, if it’s real, and demand really is greater than the world’s ability to supply, then you’ll certainly see technology being invoked that will make things more competitive…”
This is what we get when people do not learn a bit of science as part of their commerce education - ignorant morons who think that they know everything and that science will fix any inconvenient stumbling blocks to their economic paradigm.
And when the scientists that are not bought and paid for, or subscribe to the same paradigm challenge their thinking saying “oil will peak” a.k.a Hubbert in the 60’s, and Hansen etc. on climate change, they stick their blinkers on and their fingers in their ears. Then they pay their scientists and lobbists to cook up some misinformation, and now we all go F**K!
Energy Watchdog Warns
Of Oil-Production Crunch
The world’s premier energy monitor is preparing a sharp downward revision of its oil-supply forecast, a shift that reflects deepening pessimism over whether oil companies can keep abreast of booming demand.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121139527250011387.html?mod=googlenews _wsj
May 24th, 2008 at 7:58 am
Reading Bernard Hickey sumation of the Budget throws up a huge quandry for the Kyoto obligations we have signed up for.
http://stuff.co.nz/blogs/showmethemoney/2008/05/23/michael-cullens-des perate-and-dangerous-and-last-budget/
Buried in the budget is a 1 billion dollar cut in government spending over 4 years to pay for the tax alteration (cant call them cuts as they are so tiny).
Now add to the budget the 4 billion over those 4 years that the government has to collect from pollutors (who will pass those costs onto the consumer) we are left with this burning question.
Where will the money come from?
We are to cut state spending by 1/4 billion every year to balance the books, but have made no provision for the billion dollar yearly commitment to Kyoto.
Now Labour signed up for the Kyoto agreement but are not budgetting to collect taxes to pay for it (and the greens support them n confidence and supply).
So National will have no option but to follow Labours plan and default on Kyoto. Even if Labour and the Greens are the government after the next election they will have to default on the Kyoto payments. There is no money to pay for it!!
If we believe frog and this IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri statement
“If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.�
Even the cutting of state spending by 1/4 billion every year is too little.
We all better get prepared for sack cloth and ashes. Because we need to fund the Kyoto payments to ease our consciences even if it sends the country back to tribal times.
May 24th, 2008 at 8:05 am
Very optimistic Optimist - What exactly is the problem with ‘peak oil’ anyway?
Its not just peak oil, new technologies usually also require finite resources - such as land for biofuel production.
Earth’s natural wealth: an audit
http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/027ns_005.htm
And how long will it take to change the world to a new form of as yet undiscovered form of energy? 30 years according to Richard Heinberg.
The problem is that we don’t have 30 years. The Growth paradigm is going down and taking us with it. Coal will not last 1000 years at an increasing rate of consumption, and the climate changing consequences will f**k food production.
Are you an optimist or a denalist? if you are an optimist you may like to get involved in transition towns and “ride the slide”.
May 24th, 2008 at 8:11 am
Gerrit, its the growth paradigm (economic growth through increasing consumption rates) and its denial that will send us back to tribal times, look me up, I’ll be trading in possum meat.
May 24th, 2008 at 8:19 am
>>if some new technology is going to come along, where is it?
Why does it need to be new? We have electricity, hydrogen, bio. If we shifted transportation to one, or a mix of those power sources (yes, the tech is already here) then the demand for crude oil drops, as does the price. The lifetime of the supply increases.
>>do you think unlimited growth is possible in any sense? if so you have no place telling anybody what is not smart.
Unlimited growth is a nonsense statement. What does it mean, exactly?
If it means that the earth has finite resources, then using more of them than exists is impossible - that’s self-evident.
But that isn’t what Key is talking about.
Doubling our GDP is entirely possible, so long as the amount of raw materials extracted and energy produced is at or below a base sustainable level, additional negative externalities, such as pollution, are kept below the “sink� capacity of nature, and we have a fiat money system
For example, Microsoft Internet Browser vs Industrial Revolution Era paper mill. One is hugely productive in terms of GDP, the other sucks huge natural resources in order to scale up. The Microsoft browser replaces the need for many of these paper mills, and their forest gobbling, because information doesn’t need to be printed . GDP increases, resource use drops. The vector was technology.
May 24th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Blue Peter replied to:
“we’ll just invent a new gizmo to solve the problem’ solution�
with:
Because that’s what humans do. Evidence: human history.
BP - societies tend to collapse when faced with longterm and intangible threats.
BP - But that isn’t what Key is talking about.
>>Doubling our GDP is entirely possible, so long as the amount of raw materials extracted and energy produced is at or below a base sustainable level, additional negative externalities, such as pollution, are kept below the “sink� capacity of nature, and we have a fiat money system
- Key isn’t even aware of the limits to oil production, and is not attempting to constrain NZ’s per capita carbon emissions to below the sink capacity. He is the man pipped to be our next PM.
And if the amount of raw materials extracted and negative externalities wer within sustainable limits then we wouldn’t be in this mess, for example; fisheries collapse, oil and resource depletion, loss of forests, climate change, food riots….
Its coming, ride the slide and possum pie!
Readers may be interested in joining or establishing a CSA, that way you cut the supermarkets and speculators out of your food supply: http://www.simplygoodfood.co.nz
May 24th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Goodness me, the climate change con propagandists really do go into attack mode when confronted by a “non believer”
There is always a lack of rational debate on this issue, it just reinforces my deep suspicion as to why they are so desperate for this con to be swallowed by everybody.
May 24th, 2008 at 9:36 am
>>Key isn’t even aware of the limits to oil production
And neither are you.
>>NZ’s per capita carbon emissions
Per capita is meaningless. A coal burning castaway on Coal Island has a higher per capita c02 emission than California. So what? It doesn’t matter what NZ does in terms of emmissions - cuts them, triples them, send them to Russia - we don’t make the slightest bit of difference. You might be prepared to throw away the economy in order to look good at UN wine and cheese evenings, but I’m not.
>>Its coming
It’s coming only if greenies keep refusing to grasp how New Zealand houses, clothes and feeds itself.
May 24th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Big Bro - you’re the one swallowing the con and lacking in rational debate.
May 24th, 2008 at 9:47 am
BP, I should clarify that it doesn’t seem to have dawned on yer man Mr Key that oil production may have peaked - and that New Zealand houses and feeds itself based on the production or extraction of products and resources using cheap oil.
And yous denialists keep refusing to grasp the realities of living in a finite earth system.
Gotta go blue fans -
ride the slide and Possum Pie!
May 24th, 2008 at 10:03 am
>>that oil production may have peaked
So since you’re smarter than the market, why aren’t you buying up the “obviously” underpriced oil futures? Are you going to bet your house on it?
Do yah feel lucky?
May 24th, 2008 at 10:18 am
“It is right for New Zealand to play its part in the world, it’s crazy for New Zealand to lead the world if that means massive drop in jobs and economic growth, and that’s what it does mean.”
New Zealand is nowhere near leading the world. The EU emissions trading scheme has been going for years now. Helen Clark might have said we’d be carbon neutral but we have a hell of a long way to go on that one.
See this month’s Vanity Fair.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/rfk_manifesto20080 5
Sweden introduced a carbon tax in 1991 and it’s now US$150 a tonne. Economic growth rates climbed three times those of the US. Iceland has a similar story.
But let’s look for a minute at what happens if NZ doesn’t act. If John Key walks away from this, and if he gets into Government, he will discover there are international negotiations going on in which NZ, along with the rest of the industrialised world, has agreed to discuss cuts in the range of 25-40% by 2020.
If NZ walks away from that range, we could risk being the country which contributes to the breakdown of negotiations on the deep cuts needed in Kyoto’s second commitment period, post 2012.
If those negotiations fall over, then the developing world will see no intention by the rich countries to cut emissions. Ergo, developing countries say “well why should we if you won’t?” and the whole lot falls over.
Either that scenario or we agree to those deeper cuts and Kyoto goes forward, but then we’re faced with the prospect that the longer we wait, the more it will cost us.
The proposed ETS here is incredibly weak in the context of these international negotiations and the cuts required to tackle climate change.
We need to put a price on carbon - the ETS hardly does this, but at least it would be a start. This isn’t going to get any easier.
May 24th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
“This is what we get when people do not learn a bit of science as part of their commerce education - ignorant morons who think that they know everything and that science will fix any inconvenient stumbling blocks to their economic paradigm.”
That pretty much covers all the big names right across the political economy spectrum from Smith and Marx to Keynes and Freidman.
May 24th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
So blue peter - thinks new zealand should come last when it comes to reducing emissions and moving towards a sustainable economy?
he thinks we should follow Howard’s model (which got him ditched in the last election in Australia) and that of George Bush - whose energy policy has given America non energy productive corn biofuels, that use more energy than they create.
And he defends this position by saying that unsustainable development still gives GDP a boost for a period of time.
Blue Peter seems to think we can keep making money, constantly more of it and growing the economy without ill effects. and any time his economic paradigm is challened he goes for insults and belitiling whoever is countering his assumption and beliefs (views).
the climate change con propagandists, the greenies….
…You guys are way off planet……. Blue Peter (climate change denier, peak oil skeptic and tree hater)
May 24th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
big bro - nice rational debating there. you’re a star.
the reason I (and I can only speak for my part) am really keen for people to realise the implications of climate change and resource depletion is that the consequences of blithely carrying on with burning up the world’s resources are so terrible. No one (including you) can claim to know the impacts of these things exactly but the potential for some really major catastrophe is quite apparent to anyone who can do basic maths.
or maybe climate change is just a conspiracy by the greens to steal money from the rich which was righteously and legitimately obtained by exploiting the natural resources of the world and ignoring the effects of pollution and waste. yeah, that must be it…
BP
existing technologies, as I said, are no more sustainable than oil. how are you going to make enough batteries for the world to enjoy the same electric power consumption as we currently have with oil.
the only solution in the face of exponentially growing population is to reduce our use of energy. whether doing that here will make a difference overseas doesn’t actually matter. I don’t care if my choice to skate to work changes your mind about sitting in a gridlocked for two hours a day. it’s worth doing for it’s own sake (I get fitter, don’t get reamed at the gas pump, and I enjoy speeding to work rather than crawling). just like decreasing our consumptive largesse would be for new zealand. we should be aiming for a society where our free time and beautiful country are valued above owning 3 houses, 3 cars, 6 widescreens…..
the difference between what we need and what we consume is ridiculous and it is beyond obvious that as more and more people in the developing nations start to want a share in it, the possibility for those of us born in the fortunate minority of western nations who have the luxury of believing this behaviour to be normal will rapidly drop - just like the luxury of eating copious amounts of cheese has already been eroded by international demand.
this won’t matter to the small proportion of people like john key who have slithered their way to the top of the heap.
until Hawaii is underwater.
May 24th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Understand something else.
Technology lets us do some things more efficiently, but every one of us has to live in an environment that maintains certain limits of temperature, humidity, breathable air, potable water and edible food.
None of those things are affected by Moore’s law. Most of the planet is situated so that some or many of those things are obtained by the use of all that “cheap energy”. Nobody has invented a substitute because this is all about the laws of thermodynamics.
This is where all manner of people do go astray. The other, more important one, is what is the time scale you are using for your predictions. Oil will go up. Yes, it’s $130 and it is unimaginable and it is gamed to hell and gone and there’s likely some speculators piling on who will bail out or not leaving volatility a big factor… but under it all is demand that has outstripped supply, and diminishing reserves and available supply. It will go up. The BBL of oil you buy today will be worth more 5 years from now, worth much more 10 years from now in constant dollars. The Dollars however, will not be constant at all. We will need to study astronomy to even see what the top is.
You guys keep babbling about massive costs. You can’t show me squat about “massive costs” in real terms, not relative to the rest of the world and not over the long haul. Lets be real here. We are talking about the people who currently have control of money and business in NZ wanting to keep control no matter what it costs future generations or other people.
Rather than change their business model and profit from changes that will come whether they like it or not.
The cup of contempt overflows.
BJ
May 24th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
the costs in real terms, will be in terms of a diminished capacity for the earth to support life.
the costs might be the lives of our great great grandchildren. maybe even our grandchildren. those are pretty high costs in real terms…
May 24th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Great debate everyone. Sorry I missed it while I was having a rant writing the next post!!
May 24th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
frog/bjchip,
neither of you have answered BP’s (and my) question of how the government is going to force the polluters to internalise the costs of emissions rather than passing them onto the “consumer”. You know the person who subsidises your precious public transport and pays for social security, universal healthcare and education etc.
Seeing how its pretty likely that the ETS plus the high food and fuel costs are going to cut into people’s discretionary spending theres potential that people will stop buying which means many businesses have the potential of going out of business. Wheres the money going to come from to pay for people suddenly needing an unemployment benefit?
May 24th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
sth
the price should be passed on to the consumer that way the carbon cost might actually result in a change in consumer behaviour. the goal of carbon taxing should be to reduce consumption of carbon-heavy goods.
if a company can find a way to cut their carbon use in manufacturing they will be better enabled to provide it for cheaper. that way organic producers and other low-carbon production models will be able to compete with high-pollution energy-intensive long-distance food & goods.
consumers contribute to the pollution by creating the demand for polluting goods. if we didn’t buy the disposable nappies and other highty energy-intensive and wasteful things they wouldn’t get made. internalising costs might mean some unsustainable businesses might go out of business. I’m all for that. we can bring about a sensible balance between convenience and waste.
people might lose their jobs. our whole economy might have to change and new businesses might need to start. it might be a rough transition but a lot of things worth doing are tough. think of it as like quitting smoking: the physiological consequences are somewhat unbearable but may result in a much longer life that doesn’t end in cancer. and the earlier you do it the easier it is and the greater the chances of seeing the benefit.
I think the answer is in engineering a society (that’s right, I said it: social engineering!) where people have more time and thus less reason to save time by choosing disposability and convenience over long-term sustainable practices. our incomes may be lower but our need to consume goods will also be.
it may seem I’m talking about a hippie utopia but I just don’t see the point in keeping up with the rest of the world if it means trashing our country and spending the majority of our time doing stupid jobs (ie. most jobs) so we can afford to buy more crap. it’s a dead end road.
May 24th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Sleepy - passing the costs on is what businesses do - that is internalising the cost of carbon into the cost of the good. No one is suggesting that businesses have to absorb the costs. That doesn’t make business sense! If an industry goes out of business because demand for their goods disappears, then we will have one less polluting business that will have its product replaced by a less polluting product in the market.
That’s the idea - let the market, not government - re-allocate the economy based on the real cost of doing business. Are you suggesting that the government should decide which businesses and which products should have to go in order to lower our emissions? I don’t think so. We don’t think so either. In fact, internalising the price of carbon is a true free and fair market thing to do, rather than all of us subsidising polluting businesses in indirect ways that distort the market.
May 24th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
treesoftomorrow
Your stance is religious. While it’s easy to call anyone who doesn’t agree with your position a denier of your position, that isn’t really saying anything, is it?
Try debating me, rather than being evasive. Answer me this - how are we going to pay for either a) Kyoto penalties or b) mitigating C02 output (the latter looking like its going to be the more expensive option)?
New Zealand has run out of money. We’re now borrowing to prop up the Cullen fund. You need to find billions. Ongoing.
So WHERE is the money going to come from?
May 24th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
There’s a list new technology wiki here:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Congress:Top_100_Technologies_–_RD
May 24th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
BP
what about the option of decreasing our emissions. that’s how a carbon tax should work - not letting the polluters off the hook and try to think of ways for the rest of us to pay the costs.
we should be finding ways to change our economy not ways to carry on doing exactly what we’ve always done which is the problem.
and stop going on about the “religious” thing. we all - including you - have beliefs. that is why we’re here having this debate.
May 24th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
>>the option of decreasing our emissions
That costs money. It might cost more money that paying the fines, which runs into billions.
We don’t have the money.
The reason for doing it is supposedly to reduce global temperature. But it won’t.
>>stop going on about the “religious� thing
Sure. When people stop labeling me a “denier”, which is religious terminology meaning “unbeliever”.
May 24th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
nommopilot
Geez, I thought it was the Right who had the reputation of being callous and unconcerned about the plight of the unfortunate.
Its all well and good for people to say that your perspective that its just that businesses internalize the costs of their emissions into their products and pass them onto the customer, but it appears that you’re only too happy about the destruction of the New Zealand economy as long as we do our bit for Gaia.
Have you any idea of the social upheaval and dislocation that the “creative destruction” you’re alluding to implies?
I have a vision for a more just and sustainable country, but this is not the way I’d advocate for it to be achieved.
frog
So people will be able to pay for organic cotton nappies, organic food, hybrid cars, and an energy efficient home just like that when 15% of people are living on the benefit and the rest are saddled with higher taxes to pay for those benefits plus pigovian taxes like the ETS and the Kyoto liabilities. Can I have what your having?
I will not be voting for the Green Party this election thats for sure.
BP,
Good point about the “Cullen Fund” maybe that money should be used to invest in measure that will will ensure that we’re prepared for the potential changes ahead rather than investing in Exxon, Vodafone, Walmart, and Microsoft.
http://www.nzsuperfund.co.nz/index.asp?pageID=2145831980
May 24th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
people call me names so I call them names, while I go on and on about how no one will have a rational debate.
why should the government pay the costs of carbon emission? it should be paid for by the producers and consumers who create those costs. as frog has pointed out, this is a very free market idea.
the reason for doing it is not just “to reduce global temperature” it is to try and prevent or at least cushion the impact our unsustainable practices have had and will have on the climate.
these effects will cost our descendants more…
May 24th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
STH
I agree about Cullen fund investments.
I don’t advocate the destruction of the New Zealand economy. I think it could be gradually and carefully reconstructed in a way that would mean we survive and even thrive. I’m advocating we begin the process of becoming sustainable rather than pass our problems onto the next generation with interest which is the argument of national and labour…
this country has more than enough resources to support it’s population. the problems you’re talking about are caused by inequitable distribution. at the very core our economy is constructed in an unsustainable way and now that there is increasing global recognition of this fact the sooner we adjust the cheaper, easier and better for all that will be.
May 24th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
If a polluter passes costs on to the consumer, and a non-polluter manages to provide a usable substitute without those costs, the polluter goes out of business. That’s the way it is supposed to workj
Choked by the invisible hand.
BJ
May 24th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
>>why should the government pay the costs of carbon emission?
Why should anyone in NZ pay the costs of carbon emission? It’s a non-problem. Double our emissions. Triple our emissions. We may no difference - whatsoever.
>>these effects will cost our descendants more
They will cost them exactly zero.
>>carefully reconstructed in a way that would mean we survive and even thrive
But HOW?
People are living in a 60s fantasy world if you think you can just load everyone with more tax, just so you can claim you’re doing SOMETHING about climate change. You’re achieving nothing, except to push more people into poverty, and force wealth and business offshore.
You’ve seen the budget. We’re broke. We’re going into debt.
May 24th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
>>it’s a non-problem.
here is why no one can have a rational debate with you. its you. you deny that there’s a problem and then complain when people call you a denier. if we wait for the sky to fall on us before we accept any evidence that the sky is falling it will be too late. smart people recognise the indications of what is going to happen in the future and adjust their behaviour for them. this is one of the traits our brains were naturally selected for.
polluters of any sort should be made to pay the costs of their pollution. the fact that they haven’t is why there are hardly any forests left, the amazon is getting gouged up and our rivers are full of fertilizer. and why oil is cheap and we think we have a right to burn it like there’s no tomorrow.
I don’t think tax needs to be increased overall, it just needs to be put in the right places. there should be no tax on the income needed for basic living costs, there should be much more on those whose gains come at the detriment of the rest of society.
and wealth can’t be forced offshore. the only wealth this country has is here. if companies can go elsewhere to pollute for cheaper that’s what they’ll do. that is to our benefit as a nation it does not reduce our wealth.
if digging up our coal and selling it to china seems like it’s creating wealth that’s only because it’s value while its still in the ground (either it’s value to our descendants or the value of not burning it) is unrecognised as is the value of pristine native bush and diverse wildlife over big holes in the ground. just like the costs of pollution are unrecognised.
>>but HOW?
we’ll find a way, um, when we’re elected. we’ll, um cut bureaucrats. and um I’ll give up Bill English’s limo. um. maybe sell my house in Hawaii…
May 24th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
@ BP. A reminder of questions we ask and you should be too:
1. How Much Energy is Returned for the Energy Invested (EROEI)?
2. Have the claims been verified by an independent third party?
3. Can I see the alternative energy being used?
4. Can you trace it back to the original energy source?
5. Does the invention defy the Laws of Thermodynamics?
6. Does the inventor make extravagant claims?
7. Does the inventor claim zero pollution?
8. Can I see blueprints, schematics or a chemical analysis of how it works?
9. Infrastructure Requirements — Does the energy source require a corporation to produce it? How will it be transported and used? Will it require new engines, pipelines, and filling stations? What will these cost? Who will pay for them and with what? How long will it take to build them?
Can we have some proof that the fantastic inventions which you assure us will power our easy motoring paradise are actually going to fill the void in an affordable and timely manner. Despite rising oil prices since 2003, there nothing that satisfies these 9 tests in the market place.
There IS a difference between human ingenuity and utopian hubris.
May 24th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
BP, Sleepy - You are both still not answering the question of how you are going to pay the even higher costs if we do nothing at all about emissions. You seem to think that the ETS is a luxury item and that not having it means not having any costs for our emissions. Rubbish. The evidence is in that it will cost us more, including the poor, if we do nothing. Why is that so hard to debate?
May 24th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
We all need to stop worrying BP and his friends are going to build a hydrogen economy and everything will be fine.
May 24th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
opps I used the wrong word I said build an hydrogen economy
when I should of said dream a hydrogen economy.
May 24th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
nope wrong ago maybe I should of said have faith that an hydrogen economy will happen.
May 24th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
no have faith that there is no need for any kind of action whatsoever. its all a non-problem
May 24th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
not that he’s denying there’s a problem, because there’s no problem to deny you see. except maybe the problem that if you deny you’re denying a problem you’re still in denial?
how’s the govt going to solve that?
May 24th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
BP
We have to pay the costs of carbon emissions so that the invisible hand will feel the heat. Then businesses that manage to produce goods without emitting a lot of carbon dioxide/burning a lot of fuel, will get an advantage over those that do not. Their costs will go down relative to the others and the invisible hand will change the landscape.
If we’d done it in the 90’s, by way of a tax, we’d have some extremely fuel efficient, carbon-efficient industry. We’d have competitiveness in the face of rising fuel costs. You require us to wait until everyone else goes first, at which point it will not only be too late but the destruction that will result from the “unforseen” impact of the rising energy costs will make your worst nightmares look like wet dreams.
They will cost them exactly zero.
I think you need to rephrase this. IF we were the only folks on the planet and nothing else were happening there’d be no cost. If however, we are part of a planetary civilization and that civilization destroys the planet it is on, the cost is infinite. I think you are meaning to say that the contribution we make will have no effect on the cost.
That is wrong as well… the effect is small but might be critical.
respectfully
BJ
May 24th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Frog
“even higher costs if we do nothing at all about emissions”
There are no costs to emitting more. Zero.
The only reason they cost anything is because we’re part of Kyoto.
Easily fixed….
May 24th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
BJ
But their costs will still rise. Some will pay it as c02 offsets, and others will pay it in terms of higher production costs.
Some producers might be able to emit less c02 and maintain their existing production costs, but I think it is a stretch to assume most will be able to do so. The reality is that they will all face higher costs, which means we all will face higher costs.
For no gain, other than posturing.
Too high a price, considering we’re already broke….
May 24th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
BTW: Kyoto now appears to be moot. We clearly have no intention of paying it.
Can someone point me to where in the budget they have accounted for Kyoto obligations?
May 24th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
BP
why do you keep asking people on frogblog to defend the budget? both labour and national are too frightened of not being re-elected to do what needs to be done. that is a very good reason for voting green.
>>for no gain, other than posturing
and maybe preparing our economy and infrastructure for a world which cannot supply our current consumption of energy.
do you have children BP? do you want to bet their future on your scientific opinion that most of the world’s climate scientists are wrong?
fine if you do. good luck with your SUV…
May 24th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
>>why do you keep asking people on frogblog to defend the budget?
It is what it is. I’m pointing out that arguments about Kyoto are now moot - there’s no money to pay it, and clearly no intention either.
>>preparing our economy and infrastructure for a world
We need to seperate out these arguments. I’m all for developing energy independence.
>>most of the world’s climate scientists are wrong
Sign.
It doesn’t matter if they are right or wrong. NEW ZEALAND makes no difference, cannot make any difference, so there is no point pretending we do.
Instead of destroying our economy to make 0.000002% difference to SFA, we should solve the problems we can actually solve.
Start with reducing our reliance on imported energy, not sinking more people below the poverty line, because that’s EXACTLY what you will achieve if you follow this ridiculous”strategy”.
May 24th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
BP
I WANT costs to rise dammit!!! THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO TO MAKE US CHANGE OUR BEHAVIOUR!!!! This is not some sort of game where we can press reset after we screw up the planet.
Please get it clearly understood. We CANNOT continue as we have done. Nobody can.
The only question is how hard the change is to live with.
No posturing involved. We accept our responsibilities and we also BY THE WAY…. make ourselves energy independent.
You’re a first-person-shooter player aren’t you.
respectfully
BJ
May 24th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
I’m arguing that energy independence cannot be achieved by continuing to behave exactly as we do now. How is energy independence to be achieved by doing nothing?
a price on carbon would steer us in the most sensible direction toward energy independence: using less.
as I’ve already argued, these changes are worthwhile for their own good, even if we are a small country incapable of influencing the world.
if we don’t want people sinking below the poverty line the first step would be to not elect a millionaire currency speculator who believes the best solution to poverty is to further incentivise getting rich. that’s pure visionary leadership right there.
May 24th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
BJ
Again, what we do in NZ makes no difference. You can pretend we do, if you wish, but the truth is we do not.
I prefer the God games, actually, Anno 1701….
nommopilot
Market forces will direct us towards energy independence. It will reach a price point where it makes more sense for us to build alternative energy infrastructure rather than import it.
I don’t know how else to put this: if we load our agricultural exports with costs our competitors do not, we no longer have a first world country. The billions in costs you would load us with, we cannot pay. The debt will be massive. Unsustainable. Goodbye welfare, goodbye healthcare, hello subsistence.
The numbers do not work.
May 24th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
BP: There are no “billions in costs”. You’ve been told this repeatedly. You’re just a troll.
May 24th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
And you’re a reality denialist
May 24th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
>>market forces will direct us towards energy independence
yeah that’ll happen. any minute now here we go.
come on market forces. yeah! um
it’s not going to get easier to build alternative energy infrastructure. if oil doubles in price what energy are we going to use to install this infrastructure?
May 24th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
BluePeter,
You are correct that action New Zealand takes will not make much difference. Nor will any action that any other region with a population of 4 million, say a U.S. state, make much difference.
The argument you put forward is analogous to adding a single grain of sand to a pile. No single grain will make the pile collapse, yet we know if enough grains are added, the pile surely collapses.
If enough groupings of 4 million people take action, then some real results can be achieved.
I suspect your response is likely to be something like “but why should we take the first action?” Firstly, NZ is not the first country to take action. Secondly, you can surely see the flaw in the “I’ll do something after you have done something” argument?
May 24th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
The problem BP, is the economy collapses ANYWAY because the prices of things go ballistic…
You want to copy the American way?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601209&sid=aIyYyj1v2FAg&refer =transportation
Had we gone for the tax and gotten efficient we wouldn’t be looking at being “broke” now. We’d be able to ignore the price of oil.
Try understanding that the difference between the profit statements for 100 days from now and the lives of people a hundred years from now really are not comparable issues. You are wearing the worst sort of blinders. We all understand what you’re saying. We don’t accept your approach to responsibility and morality… we don’t see the “billions in costs” you are touting as realistic numbers and we don’t discount the effects of our actions in the future by assuming something magical will happen to take care of our excesses.
Something will happen alright… but it won’t be a “good” something.
BJ
May 25th, 2008 at 12:08 am
I’m sorry, BP, but the lack of “reality” is on your side. There’s a real problem out there - and it won’t cease to exist because of your ideology. Get over that, and then start arguing about what to do. Because “do nothing” is not an option.
May 25th, 2008 at 12:41 am
Twenty years ago New Zealand became the first country in the world to equip all of it’s electric locomotives with regenerative braking that feeds power into the grid. We were in a unique position to take that lead. There are probably other areas when could safely take the lead with little risk. We should tackle a few of those to get our confidence up before going for the real hard stuff.
Unfortunately when it comes to solutions the “too small to make a difference” objection seems to rear it’s ugly head even amongst greenies. I recently stumbled across an article by Jamie “Mythbuster” Hyneman on the subject of electric vehicles. The article was inspired by an episode of mythbusters where they built several electric vehicles and pitted them against conventional petrol engined versions. His practical realisation from that process was that the vehicles best suited for electric conversion are the smallest ones - quadbikes. Uncomplicated engineering makes designing and performing a conversion relatively simple and inexpensive, the ordinary engine is basic and highly polluting. Most importantly typical usage doesn’t require huge battery range, has a proportion of downhill regenerative braking and if a safety cage is fitted then solar panels could easily be added without looking dorky. Ride-on lawnmowers would be a similar proposition. While the aggregate reduction in CO2 emissions from making all these small vehicles electric is only a tiny fraction of the reductions we need to make it is much more cost effective per tonne of CO2 than mandating electric cars or building light rail. Might be a bit more difficult to do jetskis but the peace and quiet would justify the cost
May 25th, 2008 at 4:21 am
I kind of understand where BP is coming from since he is saying that even if NZ did something it wouldn’t matter and he is entirely correct with his statement. No body here can argue that NZ can effect a reduction in C02 emissions.
This argument that we will split the world into blocks of 4 million people and each group doesn’t need to act is false. The world is divided into nations not blocks of 4 million people and it is nations that need to act. If the US for example cut emissions then that would have an effect.
How do we get the US to act well once again I don’t think we can. Some people on here think that if we act we can then force the US to act from some moral high ground position.
This is absurd and based on the classic New Zealand condition of tiny penis syndrome. BTW most New Zealanders suffer severly from this condition including the women. Classic sign that you suffer from it is you have told a foreigner during the olympics that if you take the gold medal count and divide it by the countries population then you will see that NZ earns a lot of medals per population. My US girlfriend laughed so hard the first time i told her that. Lets get this clear for all the New Zealander’s, New Zealand is insignificant it is meaningless on a world stage nobody cares in the rest of world about NZ.
World perspective is lacking in a lot of New Zealanders. Maybe we need to send everyone out of the country at the age of 21 and not let them back in until they turn 30. I left NZ when i was 25 for the US and I have been here for 6 years, I am so glad I left NZ. I also don’t see the London OE thing as an experience outside NZ since you arrive in a place and you are surrounded by NZ’rs. When I arrived in the US I was living in a part of the country where their weren’t any NZ’rs so I was forced to have all american friends and this opened my eyes a lot.
This leads us to a dilema why are we wasting our time and effort trying to convince other nations to act. When will we say ok nobody is going to act what do we need to do to survive.
When is the green party going to start adopting this as its position. Will it be in 2008 when no action has been taken by the large CO2 emitting nations. Will it be in 2009 or 2010 how about 2020. When is the green party going to lead instead of scream.
May 25th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Well said, Turnip.
New Zealand faces problems and opportunities we *can* solve. We should focus on those. Energy independence is a good one, I’m sure we all agree.
We cannot do everything. We do not have the money. Or the influence.
So we need to choose our battles.
We can do nothing about global c02 emissions, so there is no way we should be trying to “lead” on this issue. As Turnip correctly points out, the very notion that the world would take a lead from New Zealand on this issue is laughable. At best, they’ll “note” it. We’re not going to influence policy. The US will join when they are good and ready, but I suspect they’ll just let Kyoto be crushed under its own weight.
If we do not influence policy, and do not make a difference in terms of global c02 output, then this battle is not ours to fight. You might wish to do so on moral grounds, and I can understand that argument, but then you must consider the cost of such a stance.
There is a cost to complying. Or there is a cost to paying for offsets. The former looks like it will cost more, and - make no mistake - it is in the BILLIONS. c02 compliance costs. How anyone can pretend it won’t is beyond me, and I can only assume few people here have ever run businesses.
And as Turnip suggests, people REALLY need to get out more.
NZ is not important. Please do get over yourselves, for your own sake.
May 25th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Gareth that “EU move toward carbon labelling all imports a major wake up call for New Zealand” story is here for free:
http://www.infonews.co.nz/news.cfm?l=1&t=0&id=21130
May 25th, 2008 at 9:49 am
The carbon tax hasn’t cost Sweden much…
May 25th, 2008 at 10:00 am
bjchip,
The fact is that putting a tax on emissions isn’t sufficient to change behaviour a fact that has been demonstrated by recent fuel price rises. Its been found that fuel consumption and therefore GHG emissions only fall when the prices reaches a point where certain proportion of consumers wages or can’t be offset by wage increases.
“The Goldman Sachs report also suggested that the price of oil might have to reach $135 per barrel before consumer expenditures on gasoline as a percent of income would reach levels comparable to the 1970s. Yesterday, the price was north of $118 per barrel.”
http://www.reason.com/blog/printer/126175.html
`Based on our analysis of gasoline spending and the economy noted above, we estimate that U.S. gasoline prices may need to exceed $4 per gallon.”
http://www.energybulletin.net/5017.html
Are the Greens willing to impose a carbon tax on fuel sufficient to make it equivalent to that if the fuel price falls?
samiula
Just how effective have actions of others been?
Canada. Emissions have gone up as much as 35 percent since 1990
Japan. Emissions have risen over 8 percent above 1990 levels
Italy. Greenhouse gases have increased more than 12 percent above 1990 levels.
Germany. Has managed a 17 percent reduction in emissions since 1990, but only by shutting down inefficient and polluting power plants in the East and whats more is now planning on building 26 new coal fired plants.
Russia. Its emissions have only fallen since 1990, because its economy collapsed due to the breakup of the Soviet Union which was ably assisted by the “Harvard Boys”.
http://tinyurl.com/4ohe8ll
May 25th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Wonder what is different about Sweden…they’ve had a carbon tax since 1991, grew 44% since then, and cut their emissions by…9% I think.
May 25th, 2008 at 10:23 am
BJChip: “…fly to my kids to Disneyland for their birthdays…”
This poses a difficult dilemma to me.
It is true that flying anywhere for any reason is environmentally not the smartest thing to do.
On the other hand, the smiles on the faces of kids and the lifetime of memories that a trip to Disneyland brings to a family is hard to exaggerate.
I saw the file The Bee Movie a few moths ago. There was a general humorous reference in there to theme parks in general, and other than my daughter, no-one in the cinema laughed. I remember at the time thinking that because NZ is a low wage economy, all these kids have been deprived of that theme park experience.
Before many years are gone, commodity airline travel will be but a memory, and future generations of kids will not get to visit Orlando, Florida, a place that has more than its fair share of the magic. And thats really sad.
May 25th, 2008 at 10:35 am
dbuckley I was just thinking that in the future when i’m like 70(31 right now) years old. I’ll be telling the young people about climbing Mayan ruins in the Belize jungle and none of them will probably get a chance.
How is the aviation gas price affecting Air New Zealand I know the US airlines are suffering and many people are starting to talk about not being able to afford to fly anymore. Is the New Zealand government going to have to bail Air New Zealand.
I think I can see New Zealand being one of the first countries in the world loosing International Air Travel in the future. What would be the effect of that on New Zealand society.
May 25th, 2008 at 11:11 am
StephenR,
Its inappropriate to compare the performance of Sweden’s economy to ours because we don’t meet certain conditons that has provided a favorable economic environment that we can’t hope to match. a) a close integration with a powerful political bloc (E.U.) that has provided substantial institutional and financial aid to Sweden b) integration into a powerful trading bloc that provides a environment conducive to trade and development and access to a massive market on favorable terms and
c) nuclear power fills a substantial part of their energy production
http://www.snee.org/filer/papers/368.pdf
http://www.eurout.hu/webset32.cgi?Eurout@@HU@@75@@GOOGLEBOT
http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/country_profiles/ene_cou_752.pd f
May 25th, 2008 at 11:22 am
@Turnip28 “I think I can see New Zealand being one of the first countries in the world loosing International Air Travel in the future. What would be the effect of that on New Zealand society.”
I’m old enough to have travelled to and from New Zealand before the era of the 747. I expect that era to be over within my lifetime. I was 10 on my last trip from NZ to England, and can remember many happy times on the seven weeks of ship voyage.
I can assure you that ocean liner is the only way to travel. As future generations will discover, as sail power makes a resurgence…
Given that NZ is very dependent on tourism and international trade, the end of cost effective air transport for both people and goods is going to have a dramatic effect on just about every aspect of NZ, in a way that many less isolated countries will not experience. This is part of my reasoning behind why buying the train set was a good idea, and why we shouldn’t attempt to exploit what oil and gas reserves we have yet, as a quick buck now will be a bigger loss later on.
May 25th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
dbuckley
How about the ships of the air er. airships.?
Its a misconception that airships are dangerous, because of the Hindenburg disaster. Most of the people who were killed or suffered major burns did so because they jumped or fell from the airship or got burnt by the diesel fuel not hydrogen. Not to mention the fact that the skin of the balloon was highly flammable, being composed of dark iron oxides and reflective aluminium paint. How about this one?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,533281,00.html
May 25th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Not to mention Monbiot on airships.
May 25th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Airships have to be a distinct possibility, but I suspect for many purposes, ocean going ship will be more cost effective.
May 25th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
# dbuckley Says:
May 25th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
> Airships have to be a distinct possibility, but I suspect for many purposes, ocean going ship will be more cost effective.
yep, but airships have the advantage that they can go where there is no sea. For getting logs out of plantation forests they would be much more efficient than trucks.
May 25th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Thanks firstly to the bluefans for sharing their ideology, its awesome to have your counterpoints.
I agree that emissions trading is a crock, and just as I want to eliminate speculators from distorting food and house prices, we need’nt give John Key’s mates another market to play.
This morning I read that railway lines we built in the use using the same tools for building horse drawn carts. The width of a track is based on the need for horse drawn carts to avoid the wheel ruts created by Roman chariots on the roads that the romans built in Britian.
Subsequently, when NASA built the space shuttle, the width of its rockets were constrained by the tunnel built to accomodate the train, built to drive on the tracks, spaced to avoid the ruts caused by the wheels of roman chariots spaced two horses a*ses apart.
Who will be the horses a*rses if the greens end up supporting an ETS that subsidises polluters, diverts taxes, and stifles our transition to a low carbon economy? (low fossil fuel pastorial and arable production of high quality food products? value added timber products (e.g. laminated streesed beams)? wind and sail technology?)
The greens?
I think it will be those that opposed the original carbon tax, instead of trying to improve it as the greens are now trying to improve the ETS. Our tunnel is that we have a short time period to get into line as a country with international best practice on tackling our CO2 emissions. Otherwise our products will not be desired in the EU, as highlighted by StephenR’s link, and we won’t be one more country adding to the weight of the seesaw to get all countries on the same wagon.
Unless we can can the ETS and put together a workable carbon tax system in an election year?
With National not supporting the ETS The Greens have a significant chance to extract some improvements out of the government. Sure it is election year and the bluefans wi