by frog
National’s energy policy [pdf] has some good moments. Like for instance this:
National is determined to provide clear policy settings that favour renewable electricity generation.
this:
Support energy efficiency by making sure the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority and its programmes are well funded.
and this:
Introduce a $1,000 per household solar water heating grant and simplify the complex building consent rules for solar water heating.
(Although it is a shame for them that the Greens have already secured this policy with Government and it is already operating.)
But sadly it constantly falls short on the big stuff. We need to recognise that energy is now primarily and environmental issue – among other things it is central to addressing climate change. So when National makes these four key points
- Acknowledging the extent of future demand
- Reforming the Resource Management Act (RMA)
- Accepting that gas will be part of the mix
- Streamlining investment and decision making processes
I am worried that what I might be reading between the lines is:
- promote increased energy consumption (euphamism = growth)
- hamstring one of our most important legislative environmental protections
- burn more fossil fuels
- remove restrictions on private companies that want to burn more fuels and build more power stations
Jeanette notes that the policy not only does not make environmental sense, it is economically unsound:
“The policy has no security of supply where fossil fuels are concerned. It’s a false promise. The cost of all fossil fuels are going through the roof all over the world and the National Party wants us to commit to another 30 years of it, when in fact renewable energy options are cheaper. New geothermal and wind power stations are being built right now. Just as bad generals always plan for the last war, the Nats are planning to solve the problems of the past.
“Their policy on gas fired electricity generation will lead to the import of liquefied natural gas, where all international contracts are linked to the long term price of oil. For the first time in history we will lose control of our electricity prices and become dependent on international markets, just as we are already for petrol.
“Then there is climate change. More coal and more gas mean more emissions and the legacy of climate change for our children. So much for John Key’s newfound ‘belief’ in climate change. In the same way that they want to borrow from our children to pay for their tax cuts, they want to borrow from future generations so that their fossil fuel friends can make more money today.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by frog on Thu, August 14th, 2008
Tags: climate change, electricty, energy, Jeanette Fitzsimons, national party, renewable
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Greenpeace are pretty depressed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That $1,000 SWH grant isn’t even a “me-too” policy. The Nats don’t even seem to be aware that it’s already an existing EECA grant scheme that Jeanette announced earlier this year and came into effect on 1st July.
But it is good to see that they agree with one of the Green party’s policies in this area. Pity they don’t just adopt more of them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Their policy is aimed squarely at placating both the environmental lobby and industry, not scaring either away too much and getting votes from everyone.
So it won’t satisfy the Greens, but at the same time promises an ETS, with the potential to severely damage the economy for little environmental benefit, thus harming industry too.
If they would actually support an independent inquiry into the science, we could find out for certain what policy we should be supporting and just run with that. As it is they don’t know what to think, except that they want votes so will pick a careful path in the middle.
The proposal to get rid of ‘frivolous’ objections is concerning. I completely understand their desire to speed up the RMA process, which would benefit both affected parties and those proposing projects, as the result would be known sooner. But I am concerned what objections they would consider ‘frivolous’. This could be used to steamroll over private property rights if misapplied.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)