Published in THE ISSUES by frog on Sun, July 8th, 2012
Tags: general debate
More posts by frog | more about frog
Hide all Facebook comments on this site
Hide comments with a score of
Like or Dislike: 5 2 (+3)
Peak oil always included the price rising to make “more” available, it was not about just running out. Peak oil was not a “con” so much as a lot of people misunderstanding what the peak actually meant.
One thing it NEVER meant, was that “peak oil” would rescue us from having to address CO2 directly. The price mechanisms in place guaranteed that the oil would get more valuable and the more expensive and inconvenient sources would start to be drilled and pumped.
Which has happened. We are fracking the planet for oil and this has increased the supply, but not the supply of conventional oil, which peaked some time ago and remains flat or declining.
… and there are some aspects which YOU are probably not understanding perfectly if you are here “crowing” about it.
The way the fracking wells operate they decline in production quite rapidly. The available oil is obtained through MANY wells, and the cost and the EROEI sucks compared to the conventional resource.
So while shortages aren’t going to stop the CO2 increase (as long as it is at $70 and up a bbl) they are going to keep the price high, and push it higher over time.
Yep – BJ am sympatico with most of your views – you are not to whom my comment was pointed…..others who don’t think as well treated me like a Lud for saying it – as though I had not researched same.
There is nothing to Crow about….best
Like or Dislike: 1 0 (+1)
Yes… I think Monbiot (among others) was hoping that peak oil would save us from the CO2 issue… but it doesn’t work that way and they are quite disappointed about that.
Thinking it through, putting a price premium on OIL which is what this “peak” does, does nothing but bring more exploration and pressure to drill. If you want CO2 to be addressed you have to address CO2, not something else no matter how tight the relationship appears.
Making that point here has caused a few scraps as well. It remains true.
Like or Dislike: 3 3 (0)
Peak oils is not a “con” – it is a geologic certainty. The only question is when. The other certainty is that we will only know historically when peak oil was, once it’s in the rear view mirror by a goodly few years.
The only important question of peak oil in relation to CO2 is which legs us over first. I still think peak oil will be the winner of that race. But one or other “winning” won’t negate the effect of the other.
Like or Dislike: 1 2 (-1)
Pushing up the price of oil will trigger some reduction in demand – unfortunately not as much as one might wish for. Some of the reduction comes from efficiency improvements, but some comes from switching to alternative fuels, including natural gas and coal, or renewable energy sources. And some reduction will come from people simply choosing to travel less.
A CO2 price – whether by ETS or tax – will have the same effect except it discourages switching to coal and makes switching to natural gas less attractive.
Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)
dbuckley – peak oil will hit us first, then AGW will hit us harder – a double wammy!
Like or Dislike: 0 4 (-4)
And James here says the production projections are the real hoax:
Like or Dislike: 2 1 (+1)
We desperately need increase investment in alternative power for motor vehicles. It will be better long term for everyone. We need leaders who have the political ambition to take drastic measures which may not seem popular in the short term.
Like or Dislike: 0 1 (-1)
and that folks is the real difference between now and the Great Depression. Then they had oodles of virtually free energy gushing out of the ground to mop up the financial bloodbath. (remember money IS energy). This time there ain’t.
Then there were a bunch of deranged tyrants to play war games, now we are much nicer people…yeah right!
Valis – so does the link at “the oil drum” above, and it does it in detail. James is right. The report is a load. He’s right again, that we have to do the CO2 thing properly. Third time pays for all, and he’s right AGAIN that the government is doing exactly the opposite of what it needs to do. Not that this is any surprise from this government.
Like or Dislike: 2 0 (+2)
There is always the silver bullet.
Democracy in the UK, Egypt, China and the Pacific?
Clegg seeks to democratise the Lords and support Tory gerrymandering of the first past the post Commons as his price.
The Egyptian President recalls parliament and wants it rather than the military to draw up a new constitution – though allows new parliamentary elections after this is done.
China’s future as a high tech surveillance state based on old concepts of imperial (central political command) administration as a meritocracy.
“However, this meeting is in fact one of the final conclaves to secretly negotiate the economic structural adjustments necessary to appease the world’s largest multinational banks and multi-unit corporations.
Make no mistake, these talks have nothing to do with free trade between equal nations. Rather, they are negotiations being conducted on behalf of these corporations and banks by their willing and highly-paid governments (supported by their militaries and police departments) to systematize the exploitation of the Pacific Rim peoples and increase the capital acquisition rates of the 1%.
The essence of these talks is to privatize natural resources (despite the wishes of the world’s indigenous peoples;) restructure each country’s trade, labor, environmental, and finance laws; and reduce or eradicate social services to the people.”
“The Guardian has analysed UK Private Finance Initiative contracts, and found they result in the government massively overpaying for infrastructure:
Even at a ridiculously high 10% interest rate, you only end up paying 5.5 times the cost over twenty years. And governments don’t pay anything like that; the UK government can currently borrow money at around 2% (giving a total multiplier of 1.5 over 20 years). So why are they paying so much? The answer is that PPPs let the government hide debt, by shuffling it off the books. But this costs money – and a great deal of it, from the UK experience. PPPs are a very good deal for politicians (who get to hide the long-term costs of their policies, as well as being able to favour cronies in handing out contracts) – but a very bad one for the general public. We should not be buying in to this madness in New Zealand.”
Like or Dislike: 4 1 (+3)
Ironic that anti-privatisation campaigners want to privatise all the fresh water in NZ, because they are against the privatisation of half of three generators.
Like or Dislike: 3 5 (-2)
Hmmm…. the Maori who are the legitimate caretakers of this land under the terms of the treaty, and who were letting us use the water for the good of the country, object to the SALE of the land which they have never given permissions for, and suddenly it is privatization?
That’s a really funny interpretation. Twisted… or maybe you were talking about something else I haven’t seen.
Like or Dislike: 4 3 (+1)
“use of water” requires definition of ownership. You saying ALL fresh water flows in Nerw Zealand is owned by Maori?
Because they “owned” the land it flowed on?
Tui ad for that concept.
Now a river or lake bed I can understand.
But the water which cycles from the sun drenched oceans into clouds and percipitates onto my roof is owned by Maori?
Or are they just claiming ownership of the water after it lands on my roof, flows down the road into the drain and thense rivers back to the ocean for another cycle?
Be a nice perputual motion money machine to buy into.
Like or Dislike: 2 2 (0)
You (perhaps deliberately) misunderstand the claim. The Maori Council are are not claiming that Maori own the water in the lakes and rivers, and are not seeking to gain any form of title to that water. What they are claiming is that Maori have, through continuous use, acquired a customary law interest in the lakes and rivers, and that interest will be abrogated by the proposed privatisation of 49% of Mighty River Power.
Like or Dislike: 6 3 (+3)
Do Maori want to charge for “use of water” or not?
Or are they fudging by charging for the use of lake beds and rivers to “transport” the water that no one owns
Seems like you know what is going on so pray tell?
What do Maori want money for?
Where do we find definitive answers to what is “customary law”?
Maori have been breathing the air in NZL for longer then Tauiwi so is the air subject to this law?
Like or Dislike: 4 5 (-1)
I don’t know what all the different iwi and hapu involved in the claim want, and what they want may vary between them. What Tony Wihapi of Te Arawa has said on behalf of his iwi is that Te Arawa has accepted the right of the Crown to use their water for the good of the nation, but when it seeks to use that water 51 per cent for the nation and 49 per cent for others, they disagree.
That would indicate that Te Arawa would be quite happy with the status quo where the water is used for the public good, but if it is used for private profit they are likely to want compensation.
The Wai 2357 claim argues that the privatisation would prevent Maori from receiving stakes in power companies as redress for yet to be determined Treaty of Waitangi claims over fresh water and geothermal resources.
The Wai 2356 claim argues that the partial privatisation alienates maori from the freshwater and geothermal resources in which they have a customary law interest.
Like or Dislike: 7 3 (+4)
“Or are they fudging by charging for the use of lake beds and rivers to “transport” the water that no one owns”
Our local council is constantly reminding us, as they push for a user-pays system, that the water nobody owns costs money to transport to us – what we pay for this presumably includes the cost of the land involved, so why shouldn’t Maori charge for benefits gained from the land they own?
I’m not suggesting this is a good idea – just saying that once you create an economic system that sanctifies private property rights and lets you put a price on anything you can get away with putting a price on, this sort of thing is the logical result.
Like or Dislike: 3 1 (+2)
to use their water
So Maori are claiming ownership of fresh water.
Well it is not customary title then but outright ownership.
I guess the council acts for ALL members of the community to bring water to our front doors over public land. Maori want to charge for fresh water use through ownership of the water not the transportation of the water over Maori owned property (lake and river beds).
What Tony Wihapi of Te Arawa has said on behalf of his iwi is that Te Arawa has accepted the right of the Crown to use their water for the good of the nation, but when it seeks to use that water 51 per cent for the nation and 49 per cent for others, they disagree.
Thing is, the water isn’t “used”. The water is still there, available to be “used” after it has flowed through a power station.
Like or Dislike: 3 0 (+3)
“Maori want to charge for fresh water use through ownership of the water not the transportation of the water over Maori owned property ”
OK, so why did you ask about ‘fudging’ by charging for use of land?
And who is this ‘Maori’ who want to charge for water? I never hear that its ‘Pakeha’ who are responsible when a corporate or the government decide to do something.
And who is this ‘Maori’ who want to charge for water?
Good point, Sam.
I suspect the water “ownership” issue is nothing more than a way of framing the public debate within the ever present ‘Cheeky bloody grasping Maaaaaaris’ meme, in order to distract from the real legal contention around lake / river bed property rights and stewardship, which will absolutely be a fly-in-the-ointment in rapidly proceeding with PowerCo asset sales.
I would have thought just by reading what is happening at the Waitangi tribunal and by whom, would have informed you.
I never hear that its ‘Pakeha’ who are responsible when a corporate or the government decide to do something.
Correct representation desription of non Maori New Zealanders is Tauiwi.
Pakeha make up but 60% (and diminishing) of the population.
Government is ressponsinble for ALL New Zealanders and as such does not racial devide its decision making process.
Corporates are responsible to its shareholders. Even Maori corporates arer answerable to its shareholders.
When Ngai Tahu sold land its sole responsibility lies to its shareholders
$800 Trillion – ignored.
If a dozen or more banks can collectively manipulate something as central to the everyday functioning of our economic system as LIBOR, and in the process play games with an $800 trillion mountain of leveraged securities, is there any corner of our financial markets that can be deemed safe from such reckless and deceptive behavior?
I ask AGAIN!
What did John Key know about this? If he didn’t why not?
The John Key who worked for Merrill Lynch. The John Key who worked for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The John Key who said “I understand this stuff”. The John Key his fellow bankers called “The smiling assassin”. THAT John Key.
We are ignoring something very important here. Is it too big to grasp? Is that it? The FACT that bankers have been stealing from us for AT LEAST a decade? So we’re smart enough to elect a banker because HE knows how to swim with the other sharks?
The game is rigged. It has always been rigged. It is time to change the rules and reset the game. Iceland showed the way. Sweden showed the way. We can and MUST change the way we deal with banks and money, to make the game honest and the players answerable.
What was it that Rothchild said?
Oh yes, “Give me control of a nations money supply, and I care not who makes it’s laws”
The game isn’t rigged, BJ; its the wrong game.
Bj asked “Is it too big to grasp?”
Probably, but it will be interesting if the avaaz petition get a few million signatures
Budget cuts cause failures
Having tens of thousands of people, many of them business owners not being provided an essential service is completely unacceptable!
ACC do it again. Sending documents to the wrong person. Privacy breach. Calls for dreads to roll, including Judith Collins.
Although ultimately Collins is responsible in a buck-stopping sort of way, her demise will do nothing to stop the rot.
This is’t ACC’s failure, nor a corporate failure, this is the fault of one individual, an incompetent caseworker. Identify this caseworker and fire their ass. Straight out the door. Gone. Preferably by lunchtime. Gross professional incompetence.
Only once rank and file staff realize that they will be canned for privacy breaches will it stop happening.
Think our government and the Transpacific trade partnership are opressive? Check this
You are not logged in. You can reply by using the form below but your comment won't be visible to others until it is approved.
Log in to have your comments appear immediately.
Mail (will not be published) (required)
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Notify me of follow up comments via e-mail
Subscribe without commenting
Please use on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Authorised by: Jon Field, Level 2, 17 Garrett Street, Wellington. Copyright © 1996-2013 The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand