The heart of our prosperity
There are some interesting quotes in the Herald this morning from one of New Zealand’s most obvious carbon polluters, Air New Zealand. Chief executive Rob Fyfe, doing what all business leaders eventually seem to end up doing, call for government intervention or subsidies, notes:
“I believe environmental leadership is at the heart of our prosperity as a nation.”
And:
Tourists would be prepared to pay more if they perceived New Zealanders were “genuinely making a difference to the planet”.
So, can we keep this bluff up to the rest of the world that we are genuinely making a difference or would it just be easier to actually make a difference?
Bookmark to:
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:35 am
Frog
Have you ever met Rob?
He’s one of the best thinkers I know in the Young Leaders of today’s businesses.
To paraphrase something you have said elswhere, ‘understanding is the only true base for criticism’.
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:41 am
Shame on you too for selective quoting. That’s almost a PhilU thing to do!
What Rob said was that if Government was willing to subsidise research into ‘cleaner and greener’ farming, it should also consider funding research into cleaning and greening our tourism industry, which provides a hefty proportion of our nation’s GDP. No where in what he said did Rob ask for a subsidy for Air New Zealand!
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:43 am
“..Shame on you too for selective quoting. That’s almost a PhilU thing to do!..”
examples..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:26 am
Frog
Once you have killed the dairy industry and done away with tourism at what stage will you introduce the concept of communism as the only way to “save” NZ.
Its about time that the Watermelon party stopped telling lies about your true intentions, hell if you did you might even pass the 5% threshold at the next election.
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:37 am
big bro does his (old school) ‘reds under the bed!’ routine..
..hilarious..!
..(i think he’s trying to channel joe mccarthy..eh..?
..or maybe that old cross-dresser/anti-commie..j.edgar hoover..?..)
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:04 am
phil
Been out job hunting yet?, I really look forward to the day when you are FORCED to spend at least 15 hours a week working.
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:12 am
BB
Ignore him, he keeps forgetting those tablets, which means he deludes himself into thinking he’s a valuable member of society!
The more attention you pay him, the more time he stares at the PC Screen, and so the less chance there is he will take his meds.
Sad, but the reality of his delusional bi-polar life.
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:12 am
aww..!..big bro..!..
..a quick ’switch-hit’ to your (other) routine..
..sole-parent/unemployed bashing..eh..?
..any timeline for us for when your third ‘routine’ will be up and running..?
..still in rehearsal..?..
..is it..?
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:14 am
and look..!..string’s here..!
..all the rabids..
..in a row..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:16 am
Phil
Do not slander the solo parents out there by including yourself in that mostly hard working and genuine group.
You are NOT a solo parent Phil you are a bludger, I can and do say that safe in the knowledge that it is a statement of fact.
Now, it might be good if you start getting into the habit of job hunting….
…eh….?
..Bro(tax payer.co.nz)
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:22 am
go and pat your dog..!
..you know you aren’t allowed to get this upset..
..(blood pressure..!..remember..!
..a man of your advanced years shouldn’t get so upset..
..is it true..that you really are a throwback to the commie-witch-hunt fifties..?
..and are actuaslly even older than john mccain..?
..(you might be developing some value..eh..?
..as a ‘museum-piece’..)
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 22nd, 2008 at 11:12 am
Dogs Phil…Dogs.
And like all good animal lovers and owners I know that a dog is best fed and watered after strenuous exercise or work.
Without exercise or work they become lazy, disobedient and in the worst cases destructive and dangerous.
There is a message in there for you Phil.
…eh!….
Bro.(tax payer.co.nz)
August 22nd, 2008 at 11:17 am
as i sit looking at my10 yr old..(mum) 6 yr old. (daughter)…
..and i yr old (add-on) hounds..
..all shiny-coated/fit/healthy examples of vegan dogs..
..lying in the sun..in their respective chairs..
..happy as..
..i think..they’re doing ok..!
..there’s a (vegan) message there for you..b.b..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 22nd, 2008 at 11:32 am
“Once you have killed the dairy industry and done away with tourism at what stage will you introduce the concept of communism as the only way to “saveâ€? NZ.”
Jeez big bro, the Greens know that agriculture and tourism are what keeps NZ going and do not want to see them stopped. We think rather that the best way to keep them healthy is to ensure their longevity for the long term - something current practices detract from enormously, particularly for dairying.
So give the hyperbole a rest. It would be like us saying you’re a reactionary fascist just because you don’t accept our point of view.. um, you’re not, are you?
August 22nd, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Valis
Fascist?…is that the new label for those who refuse to be taken in by the climate change con?
August 22nd, 2008 at 12:52 pm
bb, Fascist is the old label for someone who is rabidly anti-communist.
August 22nd, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Phew, relax everyone. I wasn’t dissing Mr Fyfe. I was merely commenting on the fact that he runs a company that seemly has a lot to lose from climate friendly policies and yet he says our economy depends on us being seen to take genuine action. I think his statements are great and I support them wholeheartedly.
The question i was raising was what is the most effective way of getting tourists to perceive we are taking genuine action. Because currently the govt approach seems to be to bluff tourists that everything’s alright here.
August 22nd, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Thanks Kevyn. big bro just doesn’t like having his BS exposed.
August 22nd, 2008 at 1:19 pm
and how about that green who is now on the act list..?
..that shawn tan..?
(here is a comment about him..from overat kiwiblog..)
(heh..!..)
“..# AM2 (12) Add karma Subtract karma –4 Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 12:10 pm
I know Shawn and he is actually a nice guy but his politics fluctuate widely and he does not seem to have a coherent ideology. he was at the Greens conference a couple of months back not only as a delegate but also as one of the organising committee. He has also been to some Young green events recently.
Now all of a sudden he is no 10 on the ACT list and candidate from Mt Roskill. When I spoke to him recently he confessed that his politics and religious orientations had changed a lot over the years and that at some stage he was even a Satanist.
That experience will no doubt serve him well over on the dark side with ACT..”
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 22nd, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Phil
I am starting to think that being a commie might be a good idea, do you have any idea how much vets charge to repair a Labrador’s dislocated leg?
I assume that all veterinary care will be paid for by the state under a Green government?
August 22nd, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Valis
I see you are another who cannot support your argument with anything other than abuse.
Shame.
August 22nd, 2008 at 2:02 pm
big bro..you are being bitten by the totally unleashed/untramelled/price-fixing-gouging/monopolising ‘free-market’..there..eh..?
vets and dentists..the ‘gougers’..
“..big bro Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Phil
I am starting to think that being a commie might be a good idea..”
welcome to the ‘light’-side..!
(if you need vegan diet advice for your hounds..yell out..!..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 22nd, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Phil
The reality is that I have pet insurance for all my animals so it does not really worry me and anyway, if I did not have the money I would take another part time job to pay for her veterinary care.
The free market is working well thanks very much.
August 22nd, 2008 at 3:33 pm
You must be my dentist
August 22nd, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Frog
Good explanation - you are forgiven you impugning of Rob Fyfe
BB
The hardest degree to get, and the most expensive, is veterinarian. Think about it. My daughter, an MD, had to learn the biology and mechanics of one species of animal, a vet has to learn NO LESS THAN 16! Hard workers those boys and girls (unlike some I could mention) and willing to pay out heavily for the promise of recovery and a great life-style, surrounded by animals they can afford to treat well.
Valis
What BS m8 - can you point to a specific so I can join in the commentary?
August 22nd, 2008 at 3:47 pm
and a lifetime licence to ‘gouge’..eh strings..?
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Strings
My original post was made in jest, I do not care how much they charge as I am a responsible and caring animal owner and even if I did not have the money I would find a way to get it.
When you decide to take on a pet it is for life in my book.
I do not begrudge Vets one single cent of their income.
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Phil
You should be the last person to talk about gouging (sp)
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:21 pm
FillYou
I don’t think you need to advertise what you have given yourself through your ‘lifestyle choice’ on this or any other thread. Again, I suggest you go catch up on your meds as you are embarrassing yourself - again!
BB
Thought so - but a mates son is in debt to the tune of $600,000 for uni and setup costs, so I thought I’d be sure
AS for a pet is for life - I agree! I still carry the cost for an exceptionally good horse that broke its leg and will never compete in equestrian again. My daughter and I couldn’t have it put down just because it had broken its leg.
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:26 pm
“I see you are another who cannot support your argument with anything other than abuse.
Shame.”
big bro, pray tell how ridiculous assertions that Greens are commies that want to shut down the economy is not abuse? Again I challenge you to stop the hyerbole and name calling.
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Perhaps the government (or more accurately, the faceless minions in the state sector) have worked out that there is no future for tourism as we know it today.
August 23rd, 2008 at 9:54 am
“So, can we keep this bluff up to the rest of the world that we are genuinely making a difference or would it just be easier to actually make a difference?”
It depends. You can pass the ETS to make it look like we’re clean and green without doing anything for the environment, to keep up the bluff.
Or you can ditch it and come up with something that is actually good for the environment and affordable (so it actually gets done).
It seems to be up to you right now.
August 23rd, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Mr Dennis, the two big issues the Greens have with the ETS are agriculture and biodiversity. Does anyone really think National will do better on either of these? At least agriculture is scheduled to come into the current ETS in less than 5 years. With the Nats it is more likely to be never. And you make it sound like its up to the Greens whether the best solution happens now or later. In fact, the Greens are able to influence the outcome right now, but quite possibly not after the election, so the real decision is whether they gamble what they have achieved against the mere possibility that that they’ll have a greater say later. What do people think the odds of this are?
August 23rd, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Valis, to reword my last sentence, right now it is up to the Greens to decide whether the current proposal goes ahead or not. One way will be keeping up the bluff in my opinion, the other way will not.
No, I don’t think National will do better on biodiversity or agriculture, though it does depend what you call better. Any ETS will hit agriculture harder than any other sector, as agriculture is responsible for nearly 50% of NZ’s emissions. It would be extremely difficult for agriculture to proceed economically under any ETS, which is why I don’t think National could do any better.
The Greens know the best solution is not an ETS (I understand they favour a carbon tax). They know there are heaps of problems with the current proposal and it won’t really do any good. They have been elected to make the best decisions for NZ. The best thing they can do is reject it.
But an ETS might look nice to the UN and Europe, and so keep up the bluff.
August 23rd, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Mr Dennis, may I first say how nice it is to discuss these issues with someone who doesn’t simply make personal attacks. Thank you.
“No, I don’t think National will do better on biodiversity or agriculture, though it does depend what you call better.”
It only makes sense in this context to go by what the Greens would call better, since we’re debating their decision.
“Any ETS will hit agriculture harder than any other sector, as agriculture is responsible for nearly 50% of NZ’s emissions.”
There is some truth to this of course, but the portion of emissions is not the only factor. I would say the hardest thing for ag are the emissions that come from cows. The difficulties have been acknowledged by all and ag is being given a lot of time to work on this. And even when ag comes into the scheme, it will only be on their added growth. This is more than reasonable.
“The Greens know the best solution is not an ETS (I understand they favour a carbon tax).”
Yes, but Greens feel the effect if an ETS on most people and industry sectors would be very similar to a carbon tax. The down side is the complexity, and the creation of a new way for the rich to get richer doing nothing productive.
“They know there are heaps of problems with the current proposal and it won’t really do any good.”
First bit is true, the second is not. There have been some very positive aspects negotiated into the current ETS.
“But an ETS might look nice to the UN and Europe, and so keep up the bluff.”
Labour may be into such a bluff. I assure you Jeanette is not.
August 23rd, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Valis, the toughest area is methane emissions. These come from all ruminants - cattle, sheep and deer. The dairy sector (the sector most commonly criticised here) is probably the only ruminant sector with any hope of paying their costs under the ETS. It is sheep and beef farmers, who are already struggling, who will be hit with bills for emissions that cannot be paid, and cannot be reduced without killing their animals. Scientists have been working very hard trying to reduce methane emissions, and have been unable to come up with a workable solution - certainly not for lack of trying.
As a result, the ETS could put the (arguably) most environmentally sensitive protein producers (sheep farmers) out of business, while promoting dairy as the only sector capable of affording the cost. I expect this is exactly the opposite of what the Greens would like to achieve.
Jeanette may not be into such a bluff. I do hope she won’t support Labour’s bluff then.
August 23rd, 2008 at 6:33 pm
I believe all of the really sensitive sectors you mention are being treated very gingerly. The Greens do not want to any of them knocked out of business and Labour is bending over backwards in fear - which in the case of dairy is part of the problem the Greens have! Nothing proposed in the ETS brings in any sector that has no means of reducing emissions.
The proper thing for Jeanette to do is come to a position based on what advances Green policy. Her supporting the ETS does not equate to supporting a Labour bluff, because if the scheme was no better than a bluff, it would not advance Green policy goals anyway.
August 23rd, 2008 at 6:33 pm
What Rob Fyfe needs are hydrogen-powered planes;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_engine#Hydrogen_fuelled_jet_engines
Performance might not suffer:
http://www.enn.com/business/article/30287
These could be fuelled from hydrogen generated by electrolysis using our renewable resources.
Trevor.
August 23rd, 2008 at 7:00 pm
In what way does the ETS eventually bringing in sheep farming (which cannot reduce the vast majority of their emissions) correspond to your statement “Nothing proposed in the ETS brings in any sector that has no means of reducing emissions.”?
August 23rd, 2008 at 8:38 pm
One measure that could improve the image of flying to New Zealand is to reduce the CO2 footprint of creating the jet fuel for flying out of New Zealand. Jet fuel is made from crude oil. In this process, some of the heavier oils are “cracked” - a process that uses hydrogen. In the New Zealaing oil refinery, this hydrogen is made by reforming Natural Gas with steam - a process that releases CO2.
If we invest in additional electricity generation from renewable resources, we can use some of the surplus electricity to generate hydrogen by electrolysis and thus avoid this CO2 release - as well as preserving the Natural Gas as a transport fuel. Then NZ could advertise the fact that our jet fuel is made using less carbon than elsewhere.
Trevor.
August 23rd, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Mr Dennis, I didn’t say that sheep farming will come in. Off hand, I don’t know. But if it does, it will only be for those emissions that there are known ways to reduce, or where promising research can be done. That’s my understanding anyway.
August 23rd, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Valis:
Agriculture produces nearly 50% of NZs emissions. Sheep and other farming will be put in, if it wasn’t the scheme would only cover half NZs emissions. Think of the uproar from the business, electricity and transport sectors, that they had to pay for their emissions but the largest emitter, agriculture, was let off. Agriculture will be brought in. I doubt the Greens would support it if it left them out.
Half the emissions from agriculture are methane, and there is no known way to reduce this. Much of the rest is nitrous oxide, which can be reduced using nitrification inhibitors, but at present these are only cost-effective in intensive situations such as on dairy farms. Most sheep farmers couldn’t afford them. So the majority of agricultural emissions cannot be reduced.
I don’t know what final form this bill will take with these negotiations. But the sort of concessions you are suggesting, leaving out vast chunks of our emissions, would be unthinkable for the Greens I would expect. If it is passed, agriculture will be in somewhere, and the effects will be devastating.
August 23rd, 2008 at 9:53 pm
I never said agriculture would not come in. It does in 2013 and the Greens wanted it to come in sooner. But just because ag as a sector is in doesn’t mean all ag emissions are covered. I don’t know the percentage of emissions caused by sheep vs cows, though I thought cows were the main source. The other thing to remember is that even in 2013, ag will only face a cost at the margin, i.e. for its growth and even then only for 10% initially.
Btw, Jeanette is a sheep farmer and knows that this sector in NZ is more sustainable than anywhere in the world. She is simply not out to kill sheep farming!
August 23rd, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Valis, where would I find the text of the latest public version of the amended bill? Thanks.
August 23rd, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Sheep are not an issue. The emissions from sheep farming have gone down since 1990, so there will be no Kyoto cost on sheep farming under any carbon charge regime.
Dairy is the biggie - both in terms of carbon emissions and other waterway pollution.
Mr Dennis, I’m no great fan of nitrification inhibitors. They are effective in reducing N2O emissions, but largely untested re potentially adverse environmental impacts. But you are right that they should be in the mix of options.
When you say there is no known way to reduce bovine methane emissions, that is not strictly correct. The issue here, as with the potentially adverse environmental effects of nitrification inhibitors, that sufficient research has not been done becasue no-one will pay for it.
If agriculture has to pay for the full cost of its greenhouse emissions, that will be a rather strong incentive for that sector to pay for the cost of the research required to reduce those emissions.
Another reason to not support the Government’s ETS, because it will provide no immediate incentive for that research to be done.
August 23rd, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Have a look here:
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Legislation/Bills/c/0/4/00DBHOH_BILL 8368_1-Climate-Change-Emissions-Trading-and-Renewable.htm
Cheers
August 23rd, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Thanks for that info toad.
“Another reason to not support the Government’s ETS, because it will provide no immediate incentive for that research to be done.”
Not strictly true, as they only have a bit more than 4 years exemption and there’s a lot of work to be done before then or they will have to buy credits. So there is a decent incentive there. Also very true that that the Greens wanted more, but methane would not be targeted now given the difficulties anyway.
August 24th, 2008 at 5:31 am
Dairy emmision control (both methane and effluent) is actually quite easy to control.
No research required, just money.
Instead of moving cows around an open paddock, the cows are housed in large barns. Either in stalls (as was the preference in my grandfathers northern european farm) or in open floor environment (my preference for open floor made from a half metre or so of wood chips - have seen Northern European farms with self washing concrete floors, cows hooves seem to harden up).
The cows are fed, watered and milked inside the barn. In fact would never leave except to go to the works.
Methane emmisions would be harvested through air conditioning systems, and effluent through a sewer system. The farm could generate electricity by using the methane to run turbines.
Instead of grass, more efficient feed crops could be grown. (eg. maize silage).
Some research is in progress already
http://www.dairynz.co.nz/page/pageid/2145836820/Lye_Farm
Problem will be, would the Greens animal welfare proponents (and BB) agree to the cows never seeing the light of day?
August 24th, 2008 at 7:29 am
From what I have read the reason NZ dairy can compete with Northern Europe is because they don’t house the cows. Surely just the capital cost of this solution would rule it out for NZ.
Can Gerrit supply the relative cost figures?
August 24th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Valis said: Not strictly true, as they only have a bit more than 4 years exemption and there’s a lot of work to be done before then or they will have to buy credits.
Correct, Valis, but that doesn’t provide an incentive for research into the ecological impacts of nitrification inhibitors. What it does is provide an incentive for farmers to use nitrification inhibitors willy nilly without that research.
Remember dieldrin and 2,4,5-T?
Gerrit said: Problem will be, would the Greens animal welfare proponents (and BB) agree to the cows never seeing the light of day?
No! (from me anyway, and I suspect also from BB) But isn’t that research about reducing methane emissions, rather than nitrous oxide? However, the use of stand-off pads, which has been shown to have an effect in reducing nitrous oxide emissions, is also dubious from an animal welfare point of view.
August 25th, 2008 at 8:55 am
A very interesting discussion, and one based on issues!
A nice refreshing change.