NZ Green Party
Reasons not to believe in John Key’s leadership

The Energy [R]evolution is Greenpeace’s plan to save the planet from catastrophic climate change. Susan Sarandon narrates the first of three ‘Reasons to Believe’. This one explains why energy efficiency is so important and also so easily achieved, just by small changes such as a switch from traditional lightbulbs to more energy efficient ones. In the one minute you will spend watching this film solar energy could power a country the size of Portugal for one week. In one minute. We need an Energy [R]evolution. Learn more here.

Hat tip to The Standard, who found the video before I did! So much for our clean, green image. So much for picking the low hanging fruit towards sustainability. They bullied us into thinking that we were world leaders on climate change. Actually, Labour were laggards. But National is much, much worse. They are a disgrace. Enjoy the film!

22 thoughts on “Reasons not to believe in John Key’s leadership

  1. As if light bulb usage in NZ will make any real difference. A lie. And we power them with hydro, which is a clean, green renewable energy source.

    Besides, those mercury filled bulbs aren’t particularly safe for humans or the environment. Susan can pontificate all she likes, but we in NZ will focus on NZ solutions to NZ problems.

    >>They are a disgrace

    The Greens are a disgrace. Vacuous comment, eh?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  2. BP-

    The only person you make look stupid is yourself.
    The physics is very simple. Thus, you appear to be a dullard.

    Reducing energy use for domestic purposes is going to help households struggling to pay their monthly energy bills. Fact.

    The same households that National’s bailout policy is trying to keep in their homes, paying their mortgages, which just got harder again.

    Greenpeace have hit the policy tautology right on the head.
    ‘Cos mortgage assistance, that’s a subtle bank-bailout; but lightbulbs are just about helping consumers to help themselves, there’s no corporate benefit in there at all.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  3. The light bulb ban was rediculous – the new bulbs blow all the time in dimmers, and then you have to get rid of the mercury. Lots of tips won’t accept it, so you’ve got toxic waste you can’t get rid of.

    Try and replace some types of bulbs, and all you’ll find is LEDs that cost $56 each. I produce quite a lot of carbon to earn $56. But putting the new bulbs in doen’t save any carbon, because I live in the South Is and all our power is hydro.

    The light bulb ban was another silly idea where idealogy has lost touch with reality. Just like the eco BMW ministerial cars – where the carbon produced to earn the income to provide the government with $160,000 of tax for each car, is one hundred times that of what the cars will ever save over their whole lifetime.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  4. photonz –

    If your energy-efficient bulbs are blowing in the dimmer circuit, may I suggest that you get an electrician to look at your wiring – ‘cos I’ve been using them with a dimmer switch for the past 6 months and counting, and not one has blown.

    In fact, the only way I know of anyone blowing a compact fluoro bulb is by moving it while it’s ‘hot’/lit up – a little like theatre lights or those expensive bulbs in projection equipment.

    Yes, disposal of the spent bulbs is a problem, which the waste-management stream policy-makers are working on, at both national and local government levels.
    If that concerns you, try writing to your local body, or even just calling the local rubbish tip managers and asking what solution they have in place for this kind of waste.
    The more people ask the questions, the closer they will get to paying attention and creating a solution to the problem.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  5. photonz1:

    Energy saved in the South Island does reduce CO2 emmissions. Even if the power saved can’t be sent North immediately, it preserves the water in the lakes allowing it to be sent North later or to reduce the power sent South at times of low North Island demand. Either way, less coal/gas/oil needs to be burned in the North Island.

    Trevor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  6. Greenpeace appear to be confusing two good ideas and coming up with one bad idea.

    Renewable power sources such as wind, wave, geothermal, salinity gradient and OTEC have to be exploited where they are. Only solar has the flexibility to be located where the demand is, and even that is limited.

    Decentralising generation from coal, gas and oil makes more sense as it allows cogeneration where the heat can be used. However these are the very forms of generation that we are trying to eliminate totally.

    Burning biomass is somewhere in between – biomass has a lower energy per tonne so transporting it is more expensive, encouraging it to be used close to its source which isn’t always where the need for heat is. However where it is sensible to use biomass for a heat source, it probably also makes sense to set it up for cogeneration.

    Trevor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  7. Katie,

    Most compact fluoros are not made to be dimmed. Some new ones are, but many of the ones made to be dimmed are in the $10-$20+ price range.

    If you try dimming normal eco bulbs, they might last, but they can also blow after a short time. They’re not made to be dimmed.

    Don’t get me wrong – I’m all for eco bulbs and have them through the majority of fittings in my house. But there are a few fittings and places where they are not suitable. And it’s hard to find any eco bulbs except ones that give out that horrible cold blue light (which I saw described recently as a white-blue shade called “alien autopsy”)

    And having nanny state telling me it will be against the law to buy a tungsten bulb is completely rediculous. I’m allowed to leave my lights on all night, put Christmas decorations up, buy a large power hungry flat screen tv, run two beer fridges, take hot showers as long as I want, use inefficient old fashioned electric heaters in every room, use my clothes drier even on fine days, and leave my heating on all day so it’s warm when I get home…….but I’m not allowed to use a tungsten bulb in my lamp.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  8. Perhaps banning the old bulbs completely was a bad idea but it was better than doing nothing, and I would have liked to see something replace the idea instead of just getting rid of it altogether with nothing to take over. The alien autopsy light would be better than no light at all because we’ve run out of coal and gas and oil and the hydro dams can’t keep up with the demand. Or we’ve all died from the consequences of climate change. Or even worse, they put even more hydro dams in, in protected areas, and all our endemic animals go extinct.
    Perhaps I’m exaggerating. Then again with the Happy valley coal mine going in; and the Mokihinui river potenially dammed, perhaps not.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  9. The so-called “cool white” eco bulbs are the ones with a high colour temperature, which if my dodgy memory serves me correctly is about 6500K – this value is usually printed on the bulb itself and/or its packaging. The so-called “warm while” bulbs have a lower colour temperature – typically 2700K, as printed on the packs of bulbs I have here. (K stands for degrees Kelvin, so “Kelvin” may actually be on the package.)

    Instead of banning the less efficient bulbs, I would prefer to see the efficiencies displayed on the bulbs or at the point of sale. In the case of directional bulbs such as bulbs for downlights, I’d also like to see the light intensity.

    Trevor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  10. Trevor – good idea about having efficiencies displayed.

    They could do it as a dollar value compared to the same cost for a tungsten bulb. For instance a 100w tungsten, at 15c/kw, for 4 hours per day for 365 days would cost $21.90 to run for a year. The same eco bulb could have it’s annual saving printed on the pack – i.e. SAVES $17.50 per year over a normal bulb, or SAVES $87.60 over five years.

    It certainly makes normal bulbs look very expensive. But banning them outright is silly.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  11. New Zealand in January generated 74% of it’s power from renewable resources according to the Electricity Council. That is a good effort.

    What we do need is our own David Suzuki. Any Volunteers?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  12. The comment . . .

    “disposal of the spent bulbs is a problem, which the waste-management stream policy-makers are working on, at both national and local government levels”

    just shows what a mess we have got ourselves into. We have a massive replication of effort going on all over the country to keep “policy analysts” in employment. Knowing the breed quite well, as I do, this will be planned as a (minimum) three year study and will (conservatively) require something in the order of 75 FTEs across the country, making some 225 man years (or 468,000 man hours) of work. AT an average total cost of (very conservatively) $40 per hour per policy worker, we will have spent a total of Eighteen Million, Seven Hundred and Twenty Thousand dollars ($18,720,000) on deciding how to dispose of these bulbs – the equivalent of 1,069,714 Light Years cash savings at a (stated above) benefit level of $17.50 per year per bulb.

    Then of course, we have to establish the cost of the disposal, which may add a few more light years to the calculation. Perhaps this work could be undertaken by ONE POLICY group rather than dozens, and the benefits reaped much sooner!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  13. photonz1

    Regarding your comment that “It (saving $17.50 per year) certainly makes normal bulbs look very expensive”
    this would make sense if the bulb lasted more than a year and cost less than $17.00 (a traditional bulb can be purchased in most discount stores for $0.50 in batches of a dozen). I don’t think we have reached that level of economy yet, especially with the purchasing power of the NZ$ down by 30% in just a few months.

    Mind you, I do accept that if you laid every economist in the country end to end, you would still not reach a promise!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  14. Give him a chance I say. They jockeyed around one hellava lot before they sorted out the best man for the job – Im’ interested to see just how long ‘inclusive’ Government endures. In some ways it’s already fallen flat on it’s face.
    Mayhap you should talk with ‘em at least – can always throw the fish back -as I tend to do……no bites one day, and Yellow Carp all day yesterday – I save my bait by trolling the lines a little – it’s such a waste and even the dogs won’t eat them.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  15. Katie

    The only person you make look stupid is yourself.
    The physics is very simple. Thus, you appear to be a dullard.

    And you appear to be a fruitlo#p. Guess we’re even :)

    Reducing energy use for domestic purposes is going to help households struggling to pay their monthly energy bills. Fact.

    Straw man.

    The same households that National’s bailout policy is trying to keep in their homes, paying their mortgages, which just got harder again.

    Your argument is all over the place.

    It’s none of you business what lightbulbs I use in my house, just as it’s none of my business how many elements you use on your stove.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  16. “Tax the energy wasting Bulbs”

    Yeh and then round up the Unemployed hee hee….when I hear the word Tax; I reach for my Accountant

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  17. BP “It’s none of you business what lightbulbs I use in my house, just as it’s none of my business how many elements you use on your stove.”

    Contrariwise, it is my business. Multiply these inefficiencies by all those who follow your example and I have to pay more tax to build or maintain the extra generating capacity required. Or I have to forego some facility that I currently enjoy or I have to forego some other facility that I would like to enjoy in order to maintain the inefficiencies. Or perhaps it show up by my not getting a tax reduction.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  18. Rubbish Michaela the cost of using the inefficient lightbulb is paid for by BP in higher electricity bills not you.

    Tax dollars shouldn’t be spent on maintaining or building electricity generation capacity. That cost should be bourne by the company collecting BP money each month.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  19. michaela

    None of your business, just like it’s none of my business if you choose to use a bar heater.

    Perhaps I’ll make it my business and ban bar heaters, arguing that you could simply wear a second jersey instead. After all, that would save power, wouldn’t it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  20. Anyways, I have halogen lights.

    The few bulb lights I do have are in specialist lamps. I won’t be changing these to eco bulbs as the light quality would change the character of the lamps, and wouldn’t fit anyway.

    All this is a bit academic, as the pool sucks a far amount of juice, lit or otherwise….

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  21. “The few bulb lights I do have are in specialist lamps. I won’t be changing these to eco bulbs as the light quality would change the character of the lamps, and wouldn’t fit anyway.”

    Similar situation with my household, we have been switching over to eco-bulbs as the old ones blow except for applications where we cannot use them, such as lamps.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>