The fracking boom is here

BusinessDesk said today, “Onshore Taranaki oil explorer TAG Oil is planning more than 130 new onshore wells, with 13 to be drilled in 2013 and consents sought for platforms from which another 120 could eventually be drilled.”

Not all wells will necessarily be fracked, but you can be certain that fracking technology has made the building of these wells economically viable.

This is why the Green Party has continued our call for a moratorium on fracking. We should not allow a massive expansion of fracking before the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Dr Jan Wright can assure us it is safe. And so far Dr Wright has not given such assurances.

In her interim report on fracking Dr Wright said, “I cannot be confident that operational best practices are actually being implemented and enforced in this country.”

And best practice certainly isn’t being implemented.

Dr Wright has said that the location of the wellsite is of the utmost importance. She wrote, “Drilling should only take place with great care, if indeed at all, if it is in the vicinity of major faults or aquifers which are used for drinking water or irrigation.”

Yet TAG Oil has received resource consent to frack a well that goes through the aquifer that is the source of drinking water for Hawera.

TAG is also preparing to drill exploration wells onshore on the east coast of the North Island, where oil and gas have not previously been produced, despite Dr Wright listing several questions that need to be answered about the safety of fracking on the East Coast.

This is an important time for New Zealand. We can stand up to foreign oil interests who want to make a quick buck here. We can say that we want a clean energy future, green jobs and a stable climate.

The Pure Advantage group of leading business people have identified that New Zealand has a natural advantage in geothermal energy and biofuels.

I know I’d prefer a clean, green future to a fracked one.

 

151 thoughts on “The fracking boom is here

  1. ““Onshore Taranaki oil explorer TAG Oil is planning more than 130 new onshore wells, with 13 to be drilled in 2013 and consents sought for platforms from which another 120 could eventually be drilled.”

    Good news.

    You called for the inquiry. You said wait for the results of the inquiry. It didn’t go your way, so you’ve largely ignored it. By all means focus on higher standards, but drop your call for a moratorium.

    How can you expect people to trust you? If you won’t accept decision making based on evidence, then why should people listen to you when you do take positions based on evidence in future?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 9 (+9)

  2. I’ve changed my position on fracking: I drive a car, so for me to not be pro-fracking in general would be hypocritical.

    The Green Party should be not pushing for a moratorium, which will get nowhere, but should actively be supporting fracking, alongside pushing for ensuring best practice.

    Edited to add: One supplementary reason is that it is much safer for wells to be built for fracking from the outset, rather than try to convert an existing non-frack well to frack-capable.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 8 (+6)

  3. Clarifying the position from opposition to all fracking to

    Fracking conditional on

    1. site risk being low
    2. operational best practice regulatory regime being in place

    ?

    This would be in accord with evidence to ensure environment safety. There would still be efforts to distort the policy, but the centre would be won back on this issue.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 (+7)

  4. Gareth

    The link that you provided to the fraccing of a well in Taranaki says the opposite to what you claim it does. The concil noted that the aquifer was sealed by a double casing string and probably several kilometres vertical separation. Do you know what the burst strength is of drill casing – two strings actually? Do you really care? Or is this just a scaremongering with distorted hysteria posing as impartial information?
    There are significant risks with well drilling and completion tests, of which well fraccing is but one part. The riskiest part is acytually the drilling down to the setting of casing, not the work that comes after that. This has been when almost all oilfield blowouts have occurred. These can be sensibly managed by drilling programmes with hold points that have competent third party signoff. This is an area where Parliament should set the general framework (like reference to standards) and then butt out. There are very few engineers in Parliament and none in the Greens. That lack of technical competence certainly shows on these matters.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 3 (+13)

  5. ChrisM – several kilometres of vertical separation isn’t going to apply. The gas bearing layers are below the aquifers, so the drilling will be through the aquifer – zero separation in any direction. Once the hole is drilled, lined, etc, it is then pressurised – a lot. That burst strength will be put to the test, as will the sealing of the drill shaft to the impermeable layers that it passes through.

    Blowouts aren’t the only problems.

    Trevor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 (+3)

  6. This is exactly why it is better for the wells to be designed for fracking from the outset; the multiple layer construction of the casing.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  7. Trevor29
    I don’t know where you work but you have no knowledge of well drilling and it shows. Go back to the Taranaki report and read it.
    What they do is drill through the aquifer and set a casing. This is cemented in. They then drill deeper to just above the formation they are interested in, then set another casing which is cemented in. Finally they drill into the oil and gas bearing formation logging it while they drill. A plain liner is then put in the open hole section. This is perforated by explosive charges in the areas of interest. This means that the gas bearing rock is separated by two layers of steel and cement from the aquifer.
    Your post shows why the Greens have no engineering credibility.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 (+2)

  8. ChrisM – you have yet to identify anything that I said that was actually wrong. Yet your “several kilometres of separation” has just magicked down to two layers of steel and cement.

    Since I am not actually a “Green”, any issues you may find with my credibility shows absolutely nothing about the engineering credibility of the Greens.

    Trevor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 (+3)

  9. Trevor29 – I suspect where you may have got it wrong was by implying that the drilling is ‘one shot’ to the gas formation then sealed, as opposed to staged.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  10. Trevor: Once the hole is drilled, lined, etc, it is then pressurised – a lot. That burst strength will be put to the test, as will the sealing of the drill shaft to the impermeable layers that it passes through.

    ChrisM: This is perforated by explosive charges in the areas of interest. This means that the gas bearing rock is separated by two layers of steel and cement from the aquifer.

    OK.. you both said the SAME thing. Said it with different emphasis but the hole is lined (with steel and concrete) and there is pressure put on it and the liner is between the pressurised stuff and the aquifer.

    Problem is that ONE of you made disparaging remarks about Greens and their “engineering credibility” in the process of telling us how the other was wrong.

    Except it was the same description of the same hole.

    I suspect that if I WERE a drilling engineer instead of a Mechanical and Software Engineer and I had worked in the gas fields instead of at NASA I might be a lot wealthier… but if I were as I am now, an HONEST engineer I’d still be a Green and I’d still be of the opinion that, as SPC said


    Fracking conditional on

    1. site risk being low
    2. operational best practice regulatory regime being in place

    Number 2 is not present at this juncture, and number 1 takes a professional and DISINTERESTED assessment of the risk which is also IMHO, not present at this juncture…

    Yeah.. I get that it is your meal ticket, and Gareth is NOT an Engineer but he isn’t that far wrong… for the regulatory environment isn’t in place and the site risk isn’t being assessed except by people who make money from drilling. So the conditions we need to accept fracking aren’t in place.

    It is also really dumb to rely on non-renewable resources in the long run, and I’d be a lot more comfortable with the idea of “fracking” (with the conditions noted) in the short run if I saw more effort to put a price on CO2 and build up a base of sustainable energy production.

    I do want gas to displace the coal and to shut down the coal mines. I do NOT want gas exploited until it runs out and there is NO source of energy because we haven’t built the wind turbines, geothermal and tidal generators to replace it – because the gas is so CHEAP you see – even though it isn’t.

    …and what is the EROEI compared to a normal well? We’re sucking harder and harder on the planet… do you recognize the limits?

    Last summer’s heat wave and drought in the US, followed by Hurricane Sandy, followed by this summer’s heat wave and drought in Australia, followed by the floods. How much do you reckon we take? Our civilization was built on cheap energy… but it isn’t as cheap as we thought it was, and it is getting more expensive in every way but the one that makes us notice… economically.

    The subsidies remain in place.

    The destruction continues.

    A lot of Greens hoped that a shortage of the conventional liquids and gas would slow or stop the continuing increase in CO2. Maybe they feel betrayed by the notion of Fracking and at the new price points which make it feasible, seeing the supply grown to the point where the climate and our civilization is doomed unless we find some OTHER way to discourage the practice.

    We know that politically THAT is still a difficult task.

    Mother Nature has to actually beat us all until we are motivated to change the rules and make the emission of CO2 pretty much a prohibitively expensive luxury. That WILL happen.

    … but too late to save our civilization from a very VERY interesting time. It WILL happen before you have drilled every site that can produce hydrocarbon, the damage will be determined by how long you are allowed to continue.

    In the meantime you are perceived as a mercenary character peddling what MAY be a necessary evil fraught with risk. You need to get used to that if you come here… your industry is not trusted, and not really welcome. Shutting down coal plants is my only reason to tolerate your industry and the known fugitive emissions of some gas fields and distribution systems are good reason to suspect that THAT strategy is actually a loser… PARTICULARLY when not regulated.

    You may be a decent drilling engineer, but your knowledge of Greens and our motivations and our understanding is risible. I am hopeful that this may help you understand why we don’t much like “fracking” the planet.

    In most places I’d rather see another nuclear power plant built instead of fracking. Here in NZ our renewables are large enough that it is not really necessary.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 (+1)

  11. bjchip

    Please read what i wrote. We did not say the same thing. It is the liner that is perforated, not the casings. If you don’t understand the difference, then please don’t try to discuss it.
    And Trevor 29. you are just as bad. For gas to get through the aquifer, it has either got to worm its way up through several kilometres of cement outside the casings, or burst through the steel and cement at the aquifer level. It is you who inoke magic.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 (-1)

  12. For the fracking fluids to get into the aquifer they just have to get through any openings between the aquifer and the gas formation.

    Fixed it for you.

    The whole point of fracking is opening up the rock formation more to allow more oil or gas flow.

    Nothing to fucking do with the integrity of the casing.

    Perforating the well is just the normal way of opening up the well to the oil bearing formation to allow the oil or gas to flow.

    What I know about fracking so far in NZ, good practice has been followed. We have been lucky. I expect that may change with gas as the target.

    Having worked in the oil industry, for some time, I know that safety and environmental concerns rapidly take a back seat as soon as they start costing money. Especially when it is a long way from any detrimental publicity in the USA.

    Apart from any AGW considerations, there should be a moratorium on all drilling and exploration in New Zealand until we have people and regulations in place to ensure best practice.

    At present our Governments have shown dealing with mining and shipping safety, adequately, are way beyound their level of competence, let alone more specialist technology.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 (-4)

  13. Thank you Mr/Ms Thomas.

    You have just demostrated why it is useless having any discussion on technical matters with the Greens. You claim to have worked in the oil industry – what as, a desk jockey?

    How do you fracture rocks for kilometres though different stata? Do you have any idea of the forces involved? Most Fraccing is effective for at most about a 50-80m diameter ball around the pressure point. Outside that, the pressure has dissappated to way below the strength of the rock.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 (-2)

  14. ChrisM – the only thing useless here is your comprehension of what is being said…

    “If you don’t understand the” ENGLISH … then please don’t try to discuss it.

    …because there was never any indication or claim, on my part OR on Trevor’s, that casings are perforated. Are you deliberately misunderstanding? Read it again! You are out of line and I am out of patience.

    ANYONE can read what I or Trevor wrote and recognize that what you are claiming we said is not in evidence.

    I suggest that before you put your feet any further past your tonsils that you back up and understand that the only point made was that there is a zone in which the separation is simply casing and concrete… not a large (non-permeable? not indicated) strata, in contradiction to your statement of

    several kilometres vertical separation

    .

    Moreover, I really DO NOT care what the “burst strength” of your casing is… because if the earth moves around it badly, it WILL break, and both the North and South Islands of New Zealand are full of active and unmapped faults.

    I am not invoking “magic”… I am invoking Murphy. If you build it HE will come. Are you REALLY ready?

    I do NOT trust people who get a cut of the proceeds (Council -OR- your Company) to decide whether your plans are safe and the risk of faults in the deep rock is low enough. I think Fracking can be done safely, but I am not reassured by the regulatory environment OR your arrogance… and I am at odds with most of the reasons it is being undertaken.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 (0)

  15. Your “ball” of 80 meters… do you actually know of a certainty what it intersects down there? No. The odds of it getting out may be low, but they are real.

    Outside that, the pressure has dissappated to way below the strength of the rock.

    You cannot prove that the rock has ANY strength in that zone… or anywhere near it. Your odds may be good. Perhaps you improve them with sonic mapping from the well itself?

    That’d be more reassuring to me than your arrogant assertions that you’re smarter than every Green so we should shut up and bow to your insulting diatribes. You are actually very unlikely to be smarter than Kerry, or Trevor or I. You might be at the same level technically, and it is not disputed that you know more about current drilling techniques, but with your attitude and demonstrated communication skill deficit, I have to doubt that you are actually up to our standards.

    None of us are saying it is always unsafe, only that the regulation that is necessary is NECESSARY.

    Now stop being such a jerk and spill some more about how we can “know” (and how well we can know), that the quake and fault risks are minimized. You certainly can’t change anyone’s mind the way you’ve been carrying on.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 (+1)

  16. ChrisM. Want to play “who has more qualifications and experience”

    yippee, yes please. Love that game. LOL.

    Even if you know some of the right words, you are still talking nonsense.

    As well as deliberately or ignorantly misunderstanding what I am saying.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 (+2)

  17. “For gas to get through the aquifer, it has either got to worm its way up through several kilometres of cement outside the casings, or burst through the steel and cement at the aquifer level.”

    I live in Christchurch. Here we have had a number of reminders of the tensional strength of cement/concrete… The cement around the casing where it passes through the aquifer isn’t worth mentioning.

    And it isn’t necessary for the high pressure to burst through the casing – any leak will do. The joints are usually the weak point in the systems I deal with.

    Like BJ, I am not saying that it can’t be done safely. I just question whether it WILL be done safely.

    Trevor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 (+2)

  18. “Most Fracking is effective for at most about a 50-80m diameter ball around the pressure point. Outside that, the pressure has dissappated to way below the strength of the rock.”

    Why a ball? This sounds like PR images of a process under control. In practice, I would expect the fracking fluids to follow the lines of weaknesses in the rock formations leading to fracture lines of all lengths and widths and an overall pattern nothing like a ball.

    Trevor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 (+3)

  19. If the Greens and party members feel strongly about stopping fracking they should cease immediately to use products sourced from fracking activity.

    By their continued use oil and gas from fracked sites they are actually supporting the activity.

    So could Mr Gareth Hughes and all others who are against fracking stop using the products recovered from the wells.

    If in doubt of the origin of the petrol, LPG, aviation fuel, etc. the Green should err on the side of caution and refuse to use those products.

    Fracking only occurs because of demand for the sequestered fossil fuel.

    So let the Greens set an example to us all and stop supporting fracking by simply not purchasing the products released by the activity.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 (-2)

  20. So let the Greens set an example to us all and stop supporting fracking by simply not purchasing the products released by the activity.

    This.

    Anti-frackers using oil aren’t credible.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 (-2)

  21. Unfortunately, Gerrit and Arana (on this issue!) speak the truth, hence why I’ve (reluctantly) changed my position.

    One can’t have ones cake and eat it.

    Everyone who claims to be an environmentalist and an anti-fracker and continues to partake in the petro-chemical driven world we inhabit is now in a difficult position. This is no longer a theoretical issue, or someone else s problem, or not even in our back yard.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 (-2)

  22. Such sophistry is morally repugnant. Even disgusting… and you both know better.

    The only way to protect a commons is through self governance. Self governance meaning actions and restrictions including enforcement, which are argued and agreed and shared equally by the society as a whole.

    That argument can only be made by participants in the society.

    You have just argued that argument within the society for societal restrictions can only be open to those who have abandoned and withdrawn from the society that needs those restrictions.

    Which of course, makes their opinions irrelevant and leaves more of the commons for you to seize. Oh dear, are you motivated by greed?

    reductio

    Influencing our society to take (or not take) some action cannot be undertaken by non-participants in the society.

    The weak point is that use of the commons IS required in order to participate in our society. Abandoning its use entirely, is the same as withdrawing from both the society and the argument.

    Your argument basically is to exclude Greens… that Greens are not to be citizens with rights equal to your own, whose arguments are considered with the same weight as yours, and why?

    FYWAF!-S!!!

    We may not be “credible” in your eyes, but your sophistry is far worse.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 (+2)

  23. Green MPs need to show leadership if they really are anti-fracking.

    This means curtailing oil use to the bare minimum i.e. use only the amount of energy that would be the equivalent generated by non-fossil sources. This means frequent plane flights are out of the question. Travelling overseas is certainly out of the question.

    The excuse that “it’s your job” does not wash. What you’re saying is you’re important enough to use fossil fuels derived from fracking, but other people are not.
    Be the change you wish to impose on others. Else you have no credibility on this issue.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 (-3)

  24. It’s not sophistry, BJ, it’s crystal clear.

    They can’t object to fracking development and continue to use more oil than most. It’s not a credible position. They must become the change they seek.

    There *are* substitutions. Instead of flying to meetings, use Skype. Instead of flying home, live in Wellington. Less than ideal? Of course. Oil provides us the ideal, and if you object to oil use, then you’re going to need to learn to live in a less ideal world – of your own making.

    These are the substitutions they demand of others by objecting to fracking, but seem unwilling to make themselves.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 (-3)

  25. Ain’t Arana quite the little dictator – they must do. Must! Love it!

    “Everyone who claims to be an environmentalist and an anti-fracker and continues to partake in the petro-chemical driven world we inhabit is now in a difficult position.” says dbuckley, and he’s right, it is a difficult position to be in but not one that demands that any one who can see the dangers of continuing to extract and use fossil fuels the way we are, has to completely abandon their use before they can be heard in the discussion. That’s an idiotic argument and why Arana finds it so appealing.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 (+3)

  26. Arana, you can’t see this but your argument with bjchip is making you look under-powered intellectually. When in a hole, etc. I mean this in a kindly way, but at the same time, I’m kinda enjoying the spectacle of bj whuppin’ your ar…gument.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  27. BJ,

    So leading by example is not a Green option?

    For that is what you are saying.

    We have many examples of Green members leading by example (a certain councillor down the bottom of the South Island comes to mind).

    If you want to change anything, lead by example and when many other people join in (a revolution in other words), one can change anything for the better.

    Seems like you are too scared to let go of the old society and afraid to start a new one.

    One can either make changes to society from within (as you are advocating) or by demonstrating a new path towards the future (what the Green party should be advocating).

    You want a revolution in banking but I bet you still utilise the current system.

    Hardly leading by example.

    I know which I prefer.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  28. They can’t object to fracking development and continue to use more oil than most. It’s not a credible position. They must become the change they seek.

    Following the same line of argument: anyone who wants to reduce poverty must give away all their possessions and live like people in sub-Saharan Africa, anyone who wants to reduce sexual abuse is only credible if they have been abused, the only real feminist is a female, etc etc.

    Ridiculous.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 (+3)

  29. Ain’t Arana quite the little dictator – they must do. Must! Love it!

    Must in order to remain credible. Choose not to, and that’s fine, but you lose credibility.

    You can’t have it both ways.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 (-3)

  30. Ridiculous.

    No.

    There is only one reason anyone would frack: to satisfy demand.

    By using oil, you’re creating that demand. The more you use, the more demand is increased.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 (-5)

  31. Arana, you can’t see this but your argument with bjchip is making you look under-powered intellectually. When in a hole, etc. I mean this in a kindly way, but at the same time, I’m kinda enjoying the spectacle of bj whuppin’ your ar…gument.

    BJ is not winning anything. He’s simply demonstrating he’s stuck in the old world and doesn’t think leadership is about leading by example.

    Your cheerleading is just that – cheerleading. You’re not negating the arguments we present.

    If they can’t or won’t lead by example, then their credibility on this issue is low. There are substitutions, they just refuse to make them. In so doing, they stimulate demand for fracking.

    You can attack and ridicule me as much as you like, but it doesn’t stop the argument being true.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 (-3)

  32. Getting back to the headline post, other than commenting that carbon credit purchase to offset consumption is the 21st Century version of indulgences, bjchip and others you need to learn the difference between information and knowledge. The latter doesn’t come from skimming a few articles in Wikipedia. And you learn that out in the real world, qualifications aren’t a foolproof guide either. I’ve met more than a few doctoral types that i wouldn’t less cross the road unaided while I know toolpushers who can dash off the Guardian crossword in their smokos.
    Fraccing is done almost exclusively in shale. Shale is similar to mudstone except it is three phase with significant fissility. It has a compressive strength at 150° of around 40MPa, about twice the strength of general concrete. The distinguishing feature of the rock is it has porosity but little or no permeability. fraccing isn’t to fracture the rock as most of that is done already, but to join the breaks up and prop open the fractures with sand particles or the like. If there are no props there, the permeability disappears as soon as the pressure is released. This is why fraccing has a very tight radius – it runs out of propos as volume is the cube of the diameter. It is also why the effect doesn’t last indefinitely with silt washing out of the rock to close up the cracks.
    If the rock naturally has significant permeability, then one doesn’t need to frac it. Invariably where you get shales, you get overlying mud or limestones. These are the cap rock. They also have poor permeability. Faultlines in the rock tend to be selfsealing from all the clays and silt. That is why traps form.
    The section of the well that is fracced is invariably horizontal to maximise the value of the productive zone. The perforations are also limited. This is why fraccing can be controlled

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  33. Rimu,

    Your argument is ridicilous just as you say.

    If I give away all my possesions I will be in poverty and my neighbour, to whom I gave all my possesions will be “rich.

    That is not aleviating poverty. Just transfering it from one to the other.

    I need to give away half my possesions to my neighbour and teach him how to be as active in building up to self actualisation as me.

    That alleviates poverty.

    The rest of your statement is purely nebulous.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 (-2)

  34. They can’t object to fracking development and continue to use more oil than most.

    WHO uses “more oil than most”? Your sophistry remains EXACTLY that.

    The point I made is that this argument is about what we ALL as a SOCIETY do TOGETHER. It is not about US leading YOU. It is certainly not about us accepting disadvantages RELATIVE to everyone else, in order to make this argument.

    Here we are, 5 guys in a lifeboat with a diminishing supply of provisions. Does the argument that says we should ration our provisions require that a person quit eating in order to make the argument? While everyone else eats their fill?

    I know of nothing in logic or ethics that actually supports such bullshit. You both are smart enough to know better.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 (+4)

  35. BJ,

    So you and the Greens are not leaders?

    More of the “do as I say, not as I do”.

    Sounds very Al Gorish to me.

    Your lifeboat example is being read wrong.

    If one member of the five, as an example to the other four, abstains from food he will set an example to the others that the food supply can be preserved for a later time (Name Shackelton mean anything?) .

    That is leadership, what you are advocating is a cop out.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 (-3)

  36. Gerrit –

    Several things.

    First: One leads by example to the extent one can afford to do so. With others dependent on me I cannot justify disadvantaging them by dropping further out of the mainstream. One has to use the banks and money we have because banks are all there is to use.

    Second: Accepting disadvantages relative to the rest of the society is not a means of making effective argument about what the SOCIETY should do. This is not about “leading by example”. It is about self governance.

    It should be clear by what happens with the people who live in communes and off-grid in this and any other country. Those people are effectively silenced. Their influence on society becomes zero, because society recognizes them as having dropped out. “Kooks” and ignored… or simply physically unable to present their case.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 (+3)

  37. Goodness, Arana, you’re flashing that spade around fit to burst!
    I knew my kindly advice would fall on soil-filled ears, but there we go, I tried.
    I continue to support bj’s position, as it’s the only one of value in this discussion. As I watch you and gerrit missing the point, I’m a little saddened. You have points of your own to make, and while they have their own inner consistancy, they fail to take in the broader picture that bj’s painting for you. Patient as a saint, that bj. Til he gets p*ssed off. Can’t be far off.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 (+1)

  38. BJ,

    Second: Accepting disadvantages relative to the rest of the society is not a means of making effective argument about what the SOCIETY should do. This is not about “leading by example”. It is about self governance.

    Ghandi not an example? How about Castro?

    Back to the Shackelton example. His “society” at the time of the his epic voyage to lead his man to safety, was the crew and his supplies available a the time.

    He led by example and accepted the disadvantages compared to his “society” at the time.

    But the Greens cant even start with a (lets start with) 50% reduction in their use of sequestered fossil fuel?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  39. Russel Norman as Ghandi!
    I like it, gerrit. Think the New Zealand public will warm to the idea?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  40. And gerrit – are you giving away half of your possessions to a poor neighbour? If not, why not? Surely you want to do all you can to alleviate poverty and you can’t afford to behave in the very way you are decrying here!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 (+2)

  41. Half of my possesions have already been taken by the poor (literaly) whilst a 50% slug of my income goes to the state for redistribution purposes.

    Am trying to educate them towards self actualisation but the notion is foreign to most of the “poverty stricken”.

    Not that I see that many here in deepest dark South Auckland. Southmall was particular vacant of people on the poverty line this morning whilst waiting for the train.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 (-2)

  42. So the Green MPs won’t cut down or stop using fossil fuel until everyone else does.

    By definition, that is not leadership. It is even more comical in that the people the Green MPs are waiting to lead them don’t have a problem with fracking.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 (-3)

  43. as it’s the only one of value in this discussion. As I watch you and gerrit missing the point

    You’ve made a point?

    Perhaps it got lost in your rush to abuse people.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  44. Not sure if the sight of the Green co-leaders in white bed sheets will endear them to the public!! :-)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  45. Half of my possesions have already been taken by the poor (literaly) whilst a 50% slug of my income goes to the state for redistribution purposes.

    I think you must have applied the wrong tax code, Gerrit!
    Also possessions means more than income so get cracking and dissolve your assets ;)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  46. Gerrit – Shackleton may have been selfless in giving to men he was responsible for, and heroic in many ways, but we are NOT in the position of being responsible for the well-being of everyone else, or able to take decisions FOR them. We are attempting to PARTICIPATE in the process of governing ourselves as a nation, respecting each person’s contributions and rights, while managing the risks to our future. The two positions are NOT comparable and to “lead by example” is the wrong meme to be applying to the debate. At least when taken to the extreme of making it harder for ONLY the Greens to communicate and travel.

    You and Arana are displaying a viciously cynical sophistry that ill becomes you here AND serves no purpose. Usually you serve as a better foil.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  47. The continuing use of one’s petro-chemical resources is a personal decision

    Also this issue is not about “showing leadership”, it is about one’s personal behaviour.

    No amount of Ghandi-esque comparisons can obfuscate this simple truth.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  48. If it is a personal decision then the Green leaders will be judged on the personal decisions by the electorate.

    Stand by my point that if Green MP’s make a personal decision to use fossil fuels from fracked sources, then we can call them out for that stance.

    Especially if they are opposed to fracking.

    Call it a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning, BJ.

    Doesn’t alter the perception of hypocracy the electorate will read into it.

    Still, as soon as a good argument comes up, the fall back position for the Greens seems to be to call out “we expect better from you”.

    Dont expect a cosy (ah mate?) argument especially when perception is so close to fact.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  49. Unlikely to happen in NZL.

    Indeed. The trough is too deep and sweet, and our politicians too middle class.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  50. Still, as soon as a good argument comes up, the fall back position for the Greens seems to be to call out “we expect better from you”.

    Leaders walk the walk. There aren’t many of those.

    There are a lot who talk the talk, of course, which isn’t really leadership in the eyes of most New Zealanders, unless it is accompanied by walkin’.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  51. Gerrit – His (Uruguay President’s) personal choices about how much he consumes as an INDIVIDUAL, is vastly different from the notion that he should not try to travel or burn energy in the performance of his duties as President. I am sure HE understands the difference.

    You appear to have missed this point repeatedly. But I don’t think so because your goal is not to get us to “lead by example” ( most of us do as much as we can in the context of our work and place in society, to offset and keep our emissions low ). Your argument seeks to use this excuse to tell the Green party that it should either shut up, or effectively handicap itself BEFORE you will entertain any argument that the SOCIETY should address ITS destruction of the commons.

    Greens are 15% of the population on a good day. We already burn (I strongly suspect) a lot LESS energy each, on average, than the other 85%.

    If we as a group decide to wear the hair shirts and indulge your wishes… we will then be listened to…. Yeah Right.

    In the first place it would be difficult for us to move around to speak to people and do the communicating that politicians MUST do. In the second we’d be even further marginalized as being completely nuts. Everyone else including your esteemed self, would ignore our message when even when we managed to get it out because we’d have proven to be completely disconnected from “reality”. The strongest voice raised in protection of the commons would be gagged…

    …Yet the destruction of the commons would continue because this is not a matter of “leadership”. It is a matter of collective agreement for our society to do something to protect its commons and our argument in favor of such action must NOT be stifled by a misguided effort to do individually what can ONLY be accomplished if we act together.

    This isn’t about Greens Gerrit. It is about the society as a whole, and the burden has to be lifted by the society as a whole. This effort on your part to create an unequal burden of responsibility is greatly appreciated, but not in a good way.

    The Greens who have been posting here are AFAIK, unanimous in their opposition to Fracking when it is effectively UNregulated, as it is now.

    I am pretty sure that there is similarly, agreement that it CAN be done safely.

    Opposition to Fracking is largely based on the principle of not burning more hydrocarbons or releasing more CH4… and on OUR perception that regulation of the process is required if we are to be protected from abuse by industry.

    The latter is the objection that has us requiring it be stopped until there is regulation. The FORMER is simply an argument for a proper CO2 emissions cost.

    I expect better from you because I DO expect better from you. Arana… not so much… but you’ve been around the block a few times.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  52. BJ,

    I expect leadership from the Greens.

    All I’m getting is a cop out.

    Not good enough, but the discussion has been a summary of what is wrong in NZL politics.

    No leadership, least of all from the Greens.

    In fact I would go further and summarise that what is wrong in NZl as a society is lack of leadership.

    No Ghandis, No Castros.

    It is all too hard for New Zealanders to achieve anything. The effort is beyond them.

    Had hopes for the Greens to break the mould but am now sadly disillusioned to find no moral principles either in the party or in the people leading the party.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  53. Sadly, it comes down to this, Arana. You are an idiot.

    What a charming person you are. A person without a argument, of course, so you quickly resort to abuse.

    It comes down to this: the more oil a person uses, the more they support fracking. They’re creating the very demand they claim to rally against.

    They cannot have it both ways.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  54. Had hopes for the Greens to break the mould but am now sadly disillusioned to find no moral principles either in the party or in the people leading the party.

    Yes. They say one thing, do another.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  55. Greens are 15% of the population on a good day. We already burn (I strongly suspect) a lot LESS energy each, on average, than the other 85%.

    I walk to work every day and – get this – I live in the same city I work!
    My customers are in the UK and the US, so I have an excuse to travel, but seldom do. I don’t like travel and find Skype is a great substitute.

    I strongly suspect many Greens burn through a lot more fossil fuel than I do. Your man Gareth would make me look like a horse-ridin’ hippie in comparison, given his apparent love of aviation.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 (0)

  56. I expect better from you because I DO expect better from you. Arana… not so much… but you’ve been around the block a few times.

    You’re not pompous at all, then.

    It appears that your idea of leadership and that of Gerrit and myself differ. I do expect leaders to walk the walk and your excuse that they must burn more fossil fuel than most people in order to advocate effectively is simply a cop out. It doesn’t show a commitment to change – it shows a commitment to business as normal.

    If you use fossil fuel, you support fracking (you’re driving demand). Your actions speak louder than words.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  57. More Greens might switch to non-fossil fuelled vehicles if the government didn’t inflict high registration costs for merely having a vehicle available for use and didn’t subsidise the fossil fuel and fuelled industries with tax payers’ money.

    Trevor

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  58. Arana says:
    ” I do expect leaders to walk the walk and your excuse that they must burn more fossil fuel than most people in order to advocate effectively is simply a cop out.”

    So, Arana, let’s cut to the chase and see if you are just blowing. Russel Norman is not ‘your leader’. I’m guessing John Key is. You expect him to ‘walk the talk’?. Do you believe he should swim from New Zealand to Hawaii for his summer holidays? Or are you just bullsh*tting us with your “I do expect leaders to walk the walk” ?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  59. Gerrit – you pretend that you yearn for leadership from the Greens.
    You are bullsh*tting also. You are not a Green supporter. You do not desire leadership from the Greens. What are you really doing here?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  60. You are not a Green supporter. You do not desire leadership from the Greens. What are you really doing here?

    This is a public forum for all (but for those barred by frog) to contribute to the discussion.

    If you are insecure about all members of the public being able to address issues then I suggest the internal Greens only blog is the place for you.

    I was not aware you were in the polling booth looking over my shoulder to see where my vote went in the last election to notice I’m a Green supporter or not. Are you implying only Green party members are allowed to vote for the Greens?

    I’m a voter that the Greens are courting and as a result I have expectations from the party.

    If you think I’m telling lies as you claim, please discuss those with me, as again you are playing the player, not the argument.

    The argument remains that morally the Greens (being opposed to fracking) should not participate in the use of the benefits derived from fracking.

    The is especially true of the leadership of the party.

    While I admire your work as a Councillor in the deep south, I find these personal attacks disappointing.

    Judging by your most excellent personal blog, you seem to have a Jeckel and Hyde personality.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  61. I guess by your logic Arana, if you eat food, you support factory farming.
    If you drink wine, you support alcoholism and domestic violence.
    If you wear clothes, you support child labour.

    I don’t think you really believe that but they are examples of where your position logically concludes.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  62. I guess by your logic Arana, if you eat food, you support factory farming.
    If you drink wine, you support alcoholism and domestic violence.
    If you wear clothes, you support child labour.

    I don’t think you really believe that but they are examples of where your position logically concludes.

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

  63. GregorW,

    Wrong wrong wrong.

    The logic is

    If you eat factory farmed food and objected to factory farmed food being offered for sale.

    If you drink wine but objected to wine growing.

    If you wear clothes made in sweatshops and objected to child labour in those sweatshops.

    That is the logic escaping all who don’t see the hypocracy in objecting to fracking but continuing to use products sourced from fracking activity.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  64. Wrong, gerrit

    You can be an effective Green politician without eating factory farmed food.
    You can be an effective Green politician without drinking wine.
    You can be an effective Green politician, performing all of the duties those who voted you in expect without wearing clothes made in sweatshops but you cannot do those things, be a Green politician who achieves on behalf of the green voters, without using fossil fuels in the pursuit of your political business.
    To demand that a Green politician does that, is silly.
    Silly.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  65. I expect leadership from the Greens.

    Bullshit

    You are asking Greens to perform their duties in parliament and in politics under the handicap of NOT using the resources that everyone else is permitted to use. That is your condition. It has nothing to do with drinking wine.

    One rule for all. YOU are simply making an effort to handicap and damage the Greens.

    That is what your cynical sophistry is about and it does no good for you to protest, because your effort is clearly both discriminatory and illogical.

    You AND Arana Gerrit.

    You basically are both saying that in order to lead YOU, the Green party has to commit political suicide.

    Sorry, we aren’t going to satisfy that apparent wish of yours (and fervent wish of John Key’s). If satisfying your need to diminish Green influence any way you can is the price of your support we’ll do without you, thanks. We aren’t idiots and so we will forever be a minority party, but we DO have our standards.

    Once again, because you both seem to have taken a beating with a stupid stick this morning….

    The Greens advocate a society wide reduction of consumption and limits to the damage that goes with growth.

    All the other parties advocate growing, producing and consuming more, at the expense of future generations both here in NZ and around the world.

    It isn’t hard to see how demanding “lead by example” becomes discriminatory when it is applied to the travel and communications of these respective political parties.

    As far as the private and personal travel and CO2 footprints of our membership and our leadership are concerned, I am quite certain that they stack up quite favorably against any other party’s and the NZ public collectively. We DO walk the walk as a party… but we also live within this society.

    There is not “unfracked” and “fracked” at the petrol pump. Your argument on the basis of demand because I use ANY is spurious as, if everyone lived as I do the country’s petrol imports would be half or less. I am not a source of excess demand, nor do I tell people they must use NONE.

    I tell them to pay a fair price for the damages done… a fair tax applied to the CO2 produced. Paid by each of us THE SAME, as we consume our planet from beneath our children’s feet.

    Because the commons IS NOT EVER PROTECTED BY THE ACTIONS OF INDIVIDUALS! It is protected by self-governance of all those who use the commons.

    Your position that nobody should listen to advocates for protection of the commons unless those advocates give up their use of the commons first, fails because only government can protect the commons. Limits must apply equally to everyone, as the result of unilateral action is indistinguishable from suicide within the society, removing the advocate.

    Clearly your aim with this game.

    FYWAF-S!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 (+3)

  66. “We aren’t idiots and so we will forever be a minority party”

    Gold!
    Printed and pinned on my wall. Thanks, bjchip.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  67. greenfly,

    You can be an effective Green politician without eating factory farmed food.

    Absolutely, but you are still missing the point.

    You cannot be a un-hypocritical Green politician if eating factory food while at the same time calling for banning of factory food.

    Similarly you cannot be a un-hypocritical Green politician if using fossil fuel sourced from potential fracking activity while being opposed to fracking.

    BJ,

    Your logic does not make sense.

    You say it is OK for Greens, in order to maintain their political standing and activities, to be using fossil fuels sourced from potential fracking activities. In fact it would be political suicide, you claim, for them not to.

    But still maintain a stance against fracking.

    Self serving I would call it, not logic. Bit like rallying against Microsoft whilst using their products.

    Alternatives are available, both in fuel and software.

    The argument that not knowing if the fossil fuel comes from fracking or not, is a straw man.

    All fossil fuel is extracted by altering the eco system. Yet the Greens will still use fossil fuel, to push and protect their political agenda.

    Is totally illogical.

    Will go one further, if the Greens are in a position to influence decision making in parliament, will they ban fracking whilst still utilising fossil fuels?

    Will they ban deep sea oil extracted fossil fuel whilst still using fossil fuel from deep sea wells?

    Will they ban the exploitation of the lignite deposits to create fossil fuel whilst still utilising fossil fuel to maintain their political standing?

    If we look at the geothermal bores used to create alternative fuel (electricity) we see similar problems with the eco system as fracking.

    As we see in numerous places, geothermal bore holes are as likely to cause eco damage as fracking for fossil fuel.

    http://www.mendeley.com/catalog/groundwater-contamination-mechanism-geothermal-field-case-study-balcova-turkey/

    Surely the Greens must be against geothermal well drilling as well?

    Are the Greens against geothermal expansion also?

    I can foresee a leaders debate where Russel Normal is standing up and calling for a ban on fracking.

    Any other political party leader can simply ask “How did you get here Mr Normal, used non fracking sourced fossil fuel?”

    Red faced Mr Norman will acknowledge that he does not know, and cannot rule out, that he is using fossil fuel from a practice he wants to stop.

    Not a good tactical position to be in for the Greens.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  68. As bullshit threads go, this one is close to award territory.

    I’m partially resposnible for this shitstorm, so I amn going to cut through the noise. I said I’ve changed my position on fracking: I drive a car, so for me to not be pro-fracking in general would be hypocritical.

    There. Simple. Here the logic:

    Don’t use a oil powered vehicle and are anti-fracking = Hero

    Use a oil powered vehicle and are anti-fracking = Hypocrite

    Use a oil powered vehicle and support fracking = Realist

    Don’t use a oil powered vehicle and support fracking = Realist

    Make a personal choice. Which are YOU? “Use oil powered vehicles as little as possible” is not a get out of jail free card; you are still a user. Same goes for “I only use an oil powered vehicle for my job but personally I ride a horse”. You’re still a user. There isn’t “work” fuel and “personal use” fuel; the fuel comes from the same wells.

    This is not about (deep breath) poverty, sexual abuse, Ghandi, Castro, Shackelton, leadership, fossil fuel subsidies, wine, alcoholism, domestic violence, clothes, factory farmed food or child labour: these are all irrelevant red herrings. The issue is simple enough and big enough it needs no analogues for illustration, or frankly, as attempts to obfuscate the very simple issue.

    Looking at the MPs of the Green Party – on a professional level, MPs (and others in the parliamentary process) have to travel at least some of the time by oil powered vehicle. Apply the same simple logic above, and how do the Green Party come out?

    I repeat: The Green Party should be not pushing for a moratorium but should actively be supporting fracking, alongside pushing for ensuring best practice.

    This is a matter of integrity, and being hypocritical doesn’t make for good integrity. Being pro-something-not-exactly-environenmentally-friendly is never a great position for an environmental-based party to be, but the Greens aren’t that party: their range of portfolio interests and policies goes much wider. Thus they have to be willing to compromise in areas for the overall greater good.

    It turns out that fracking is a test area for the Green Party. How they respond to the challenge will be a defining moment for them.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  69. Gerrit – your thinking is okay, as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go far enough.
    Yes,anti-fossil-fuel extraction campaigner has to be hypocritical if they are benefiting in any way from fossil fuels, but it’s impossible not to. That conumdrum must be borne by them, but it is not reason for them to down-tools and move to the wilderness. Nor should they stop their campaigning. It is difficult for such campaigners, as was pointed out earlier. It’s a bind, but not one that negates their work nor requires that they stop speaking out.
    As dbuckley says, you are still a user, but there is no choice for a Green MP. They must use and at the same time, declare their opposition to aspects of fossil-fuel extraction, in order to facilitate the changes that are needed, especially with regard the climate.
    Green MPs can soften the conundrum a bit, by making efforts to minimize their use of fossil fuels, and I know they do, wherever they can. I’m reminded of Julie-Anne Genter’s cycle ride down the South Island to the ‘lignite festival’ in Southland. I don’t recall any such journeys by John Key, Gerry Brownlee or Paula Bennett (for example). Clearly, to me anyway, the Green MPs and greens generally, in my experience, try to minimise their consumption, but in order to participate in the world of politics and political action, they must use fossil fuels at times.
    If you are saying that they should all shut up until such time as they are entirely removed from the consumption of fossil fuels, then I say your argument is ridiculous.
    You say,

    “I can foresee a leaders debate where Russel Normal is standing up and calling for a ban on fracking.

    Any other political party leader can simply ask “How did you get here Mr Normal, used non fracking sourced fossil fuel?”

    If and when that does happen, you’ll find that Mr Norman will employ the same intelligent reasoning that bjchip does, and that the idiots in the National Party asking the question will argue as you have done, no doubt doing the ‘John Key crow’ all the while, and making no progress at all in their eternal battle against ignorance. Me, I back Russel in that debate.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  70. What is my stance against fracking Gerrit?

    Remember that I as others here have said repeatedly that the PROCESS is not the issue.

    1. It must be done in a properly regulated and safe way.

    2. The use of hydrocarbon based fuels without paying for the CO2 emitted is wrong.

    In other words, there is no “ban” on fracking, there is absolute opposition to the current under-regulated arrangement with the safety of the process being lastmost. The process can be done safely enough to be permitted. It simply requires that the fracked product be appropriately priced, with both regulation and CO2 requirements pushing the price upwards from where it is.

    However, UNLIKE eating factory food while calling for a ban on the same, it isn’t optional.

    We pay our personal emissions down and do not take a lot of foreign vacations… but there isn’t a “fracked” pump at the petrol station with cheaper fuel for us to avoid. The airfare doesn’t contain a choice of fuels either, only the option to pay an offset. We do pay offsets.

    You say there are alternatives, yet no effective alternative to CO2 based travel actually exists, and the true price of it is not costed into anyone’s work. That is THE problem. The commercial market does not offer such an alternative and everyone is not sharing the burden. On this false step your “logic” fails.

    Calling for alternative methods to be used by the society does not entail first abandoning the society’s methods.

    Surely the Greens must be against geothermal well drilling as well?

    How are the geothermal wells sited and regulated Gerrit? That is the only issue about the WELL that is of interest. With Fracking the added issue of burning hydrocarbons exists, but even that is not “forbidden”… it simply needs to have the destruction of the climate commons costed in.

    “How did you get here Mr Normal, used non fracking sourced fossil fuel?”

    This question assumes there is a choice, yet it is the LACK of choice we are debating, and if I were not here I could not participate in the debate. The member’s true motivation is thus revealed to all. Unable to argue his side of this question he wishes to silence those who raise it. His objective is NOT to debate the issue honestly, but to silence the people raising questions.

    I take back my evaluation of your contribution Gerrit.

    This HAS had value as a practice session. I am sure that Dr Norman will have this thread as a reference and will find even more biting ways to expose such a questioner for the utter asshole he is.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  71. I wonder, gerrit, if by way of illustrating the point, I could ask you whether you support the use of landmines that are made to look like colourful children’s toys? I’m going to presume that you oppose such a practice. Why then, have you not given your wealth (for you are wealthy, by comparison with the people living in countries where these landmines have been deployed) to the organization that is working to remove and ban the “toy” landmines?
    Are you a hypocrite, or do you, with your lack of commitment, support the practice?

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

  72. greenfly,

    Again you miss the point. It has nothing to do with “wealth” or support for a worthy cause from me on a personal basis.

    I’m objecting to the political party showing expedience in their cause to maintain an immoral position.

    For you information,

    I support the use of landmines in a theater of war and as defense mechanism against invading opponents.

    it is a nasty peace of defense but a very good one.

    Problem is not the mines (and I have yet to see a military version that looks like a child toy – maybe you can provide a link? – cant find any reference to them being manufactured and used) but the record keeping of where they were sown and the lack of responsibility on the part of the “sower” to clear the field after the conflict has ceased.

    So the question is irrelevant in my case.

    Perhaps the toy decorated mines are placed by revolutionist, freedom fighters, or similar taliban like forces as IED’s to control the local population through fear?

    Mind you there is a potential manufacturing opportunity for a New Zealand company to manufacture mine detector and destroyer.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/futureoftech/wind-powered-toy-blows-land-mines-1C7201762

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

  73. I’m reminded of Julie-Anne Genter’s cycle ride down the South Island to the ‘lignite festival’ in Southland. I don’t recall any such journeys by John Key, Gerry Brownlee or Paula Bennett (for example). …I’m guessing John Key is. You expect him to ‘walk the talk’?. Do you believe he should swim from New Zealand to Hawaii for his summer holidays?

    You constantly miss the point, yet have the audacity to call other people idiots.

    I would have thought this was obvious, but John Key is not against fracking and oil use. He is in favour of it because – like me – he’s weighed up the benefits vs the costs and come to the conclusion the benefits outweigh the costs.

    The Greens, on the other hand, *object to fracking* yet use the benefits it provides. In many ways, your argument is demonstrating the benefits of fracking i.e. you conceed it supports more effective political representation.

    You can’t have it both ways.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  74. Arana – John Key’s against poverty, surely. Has he given away all his wealth to the poor?
    No.
    Hypocrite. He should resign now.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  75. You can be an effective Green politician without eating factory farmed food.

    Missed the point, yet again.

    The logic is:

    You can’t eat meat and call for the banning of meat.

    Question:

    If the Green MPs get fracking banned, will they continue to fly about the country, and overseas, using fuel sourced from fracking? So, it’s just something everyone else shouldn’t do, but for them, it will be business as usual?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 (0)

  76. Arana – John Key’s against poverty, surely. Has he given away all his wealth to the poor?No.Hypocrite. He should resign now.

    Again, you miss the point, and this point has already been addressed.

    That just makes John Key poor. How is this being against poverty?

    You can’t be a vegetarian whilst chomping down a Big Mac. Well, you can be, just don’t expect anyone to take you seriously.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  77. Gerrit – you stated earlier:
    “If the Greens and party members feel strongly about stopping fracking they should cease immediately to use products sourced from fracking activity.

    By their continued use oil and gas from fracked sites they are actually supporting the activity.”

    Can you show which oil and gas from fracked sites are being used by Green MPs? That way we can determine whether in fact they are guilty as you claim.
    Thanks.

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

  78. Arana – you’re a comedian, and not too bad either!

    “You can’t be anti-poverty whilst having a huge fortune. Well, you can be, just don’t expect anyone to take you seriously.”

    Love your work!

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

  79. Can you show which oil and gas from fracked sites are being used by Green MPs? That way we can determine whether in fact they are guilty as you claim.

    The point, which you’ve missed again, is you can’t eliminate them. So err on the side of caution.

    There are alternatives, such as Skype and electric vehicles. Are the benefits as good? No, but then the Green MPs are trying to tell us the benefits aren’t worth the cost.

    It’s amazing you can acknowledge the benefits of fracking, even when alternative travel/technology exists, yet still call for a ban of fracking.

    You know what I see everytime your man Gareth appears on the television talking against fracking? I imagine a guy sitting in McDonalds, loaded high on burgers, telling us all not to eat meat because there are some downsides.

    Nom.Nom.Nom.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 (0)

  80. “You can’t eat meat and call for the banning of meat.”

    You can. It’s quite possible. You’d be accused of hypocrisy, but you could still do it. If meat was the only source of food for you, you’d be a fool to eschew eating it. You’d die. If fossil fuels were essential to your work, you’d be a fool to eschew that as well, but not excluded from campaigning against aspects of its extraction and use.
    You are making me laugh, Arana, and that’s worth debating for.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  81. You can. It’s quite possible. You’d be accused of hypocrisy, but you could still do it

    First thing you’ve said I agree with.

    Substitute meat for fracking-sourced oil.

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

  82. You are making me laugh, Arana, and that’s worth debating for.

    Why must you always resort to childish baiting? Other people have the good grace not to do it to you, even though they may find your arguments less than sound.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  83. Can you show which oil and gas from fracked sites are being used by Green MPs?

    If you get petrol (or diesel) from a pump in New Zealand, you are in part using the product of fracking.

    The title of this topic, penned by Gareth, is “The fracking boom is here”. It is literally true; world oil supplies (of which we are but one tiny user) are now in part the product of what Peak Oil folk call “non-conventional” oil. We know that the supplies of conventional oil continue to decline year on year, and yet oil prices are not rising as was predicted.

    Why? Non-conventional oil is making up the shortfall. The briefest of google searches produced U.S. Oil-Production Rise Is Fastest Ever from the Wall Street journal. They note that US oil production has hit a 15 year high.

    This is why “The fracking boom is here” is true. And we are all benefitting from it. Fracking is the new normal.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 (+3)

  84. “Substitute meat for fracking-sourced oil.”

    Hilarious! And you ask why I talk about getting laughs from your argument!
    How far would your aircraft go with meat in the fuel tank, Arana?

    Honestly!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  85. Hilarious! And you ask why I talk about getting laughs from your argument!
    How far would your aircraft go with meat in the fuel tank, Arana?

    Disappointing bullying behavior in a discussion forum intended for the exchange of views.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  86. Both you and Gerrit had made it absolutely clear that while advocating for free speech, you are adamantly opposed to the equal right of Greens to be present to exercise it.

    What does that make you?

    I can’t think of anything good.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  87. There are alternatives, such as Skype and electric vehicles.

    The rail link between Auckland and Wellington is not electrified Arana. The alternatives do not allow communication with the rest of the people of New Zealand, only the folks who have enough of a tech background, and the money for an internet connection. You can’t argue that the debate is freely available if one side is unable to show up.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  88. Poking the borax isn’t bullying, Arana. Don’t be so precious.
    To recap: The Parliamentary Commissioner has said that the present regulations around fracking are not sufficient to make fracking safe in New Zealand.
    Gareth is calling for a moratorium on fracking in New Zealand.
    That seems entirely logical and reasonable.
    Meanwhile, there are other concerns with oil and gas extraction that concern the Greens, most importantly, those around climate change. They are correct about that, in my view. Some people seek to prevent the Greens from campaigning on these very important issues, by claiming that they can’t speak about fossil fuels, because they use them.
    This would mean that Gareth cannot say, “Fracking in New Zealand is not yet a safe practice, because, they say, he has disqualified himself by flying.
    When you come to Frogblog and make irrational statements, Arana et al, you should expect to be debated with, initially, chastised for your half-argument secondly, then finally, mocked for your intransigence, because it becomes, for a reader like me, a choice between outright mockery and gentle borax-pokery. I choose the latter.

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

  89. “The logic is:

    You can’t eat meat and call for the banning of meat.”

    Sorry to bring this up again, but it’s indicative of your understanding of what logic is.

    Faulty. Your understanding, that is.

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

  90. BJ,

    Both you and Gerrit had made it absolutely clear that while advocating for free speech, you are adamantly opposed to the equal right of Greens to be present to exercise it.

    Now that is getting even more idiotic (clutching onto any straw now?).

    All we are asking for is moral honesty. Either you are against fracking (judging by your previous statements BJ, this is no longer the case) and would not use the products gained by the technique. Or are for it (even with tight regulations same as geothermal wells) and dont mind the consumer using fossil fuel derived from fracking activity (which in now your position BJ – wonder if Gareth Hughes agrees with you?)

    If you are unsure of the origin of the fossil fuel being used, was from an fracked or un-fracked source, then an anti fracking political party would err on the side of safety, No?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  91. Both you and Gerrit had made it absolutely clear that while advocating for free speech, you are adamantly opposed to the equal right of Greens to be present to exercise it.

    Total nonsense. The Greens can say whatever they like, within law, and to whom.

    I’m not sure why you’re trying to blur quite a simple issue. Advocating against fracking whilst using – and in this thread, openly acknowledging – the benefits of fracking is a very weak position.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  92. You can’t eat meat and call for the banning of meat.”
    Sorry to bring this up again, but it’s indicative of your understanding of what logic is.

    You can’t be a vegetarian whilst chomping down a Big Mac. Well, you can be, just don’t expect anyone to take you seriously.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  93. Gareth is calling for a moratorium on fracking in New Zealand.
    That seems entirely logical and reasonable.

    It’s an extreme position given the risks outlined in the report. It is also a very weak position from someone who uses so much fracked oil, and acknowledges and enjoys the considerable benefits thereof.

    You do understand that the use of something increases the demand for something, don’t you?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  94. You can’t be…well, you can be…

    There it is, Arana, in a nut-shell.

    Your logical disconnect.

    Have you given some thought to my question about whether John Key is a hypocrite for claiming to want to alleviate poverty, yet remaining stinking rich?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  95. The Parliamentary Commissioner’s finding that our regulations are not good enough that she can declare present fracking operations safe, is not “extreme”, Arana. Gareth’s support for her finding is not “extreme”. If you believe differently, please expand.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  96. Have you given some thought to my question about whether John Key is a hypocrite for claiming to want to alleviate poverty, yet remaining stinking rich?

    It’s been answered. He’s not saying other people shouldn’t be rich or enjoy the benefits of money. He advocates people do more to become better off.

    If Key was rich himself, but said money was bad and other should have a lot less money, then he would be a hypocrite.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  97. If you believe differently, please expand

    If Gareth’s issue is environmental standards, then work on that aspect. A moratorium is extreme.

    Organic bean sprouts killed 31 people in Germany. Should we call for a moratorium on organics on this basis? Or work to increase standards?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  98. True. My ‘stinking-rich Mr Key’ is a hopeless analogy. Key could though, alleviate a lot of local poverty by shelling out his ill-gotten gains to poor New Zealanders.

    Again, you say ‘a (fracking)moratorium is extreme’, but don’t explain why you believe that. Repeating your claim doesn’t make it so. What’s extreme about calling for a delay in a process that has been declared not safe under present conditions? It seems entirely sensible to me. Are you proposing that the industry goes ahead, against the recommendations of the Parliamentary Commissioner? That’s pretty reckless, Arana.

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

  99. Again, you say ‘a (fracking)moratorium is extreme’, but don’t explain why you believe that.

    Because the risks are negligible and manageable. The benefits, as demonstrated by Gareth and other frequent-travelling Greens, are considerable.

    Again, organic bean sprouts killed 31 people in Germany. Should we call for a moratorium on organics on this basis? Or work to increase standards? A moratorium would be extreme and cost jobs and revenue. It is right, however, to call for appropriate standards in food production.

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

  100. No Arana… a moratorium UNTIL REGULATIONS ARE IN PLACE is not extreme, except in the sense of being extremely reasonable. The extremity is reached by you and Gerrit and in part by DBuckley, by excluding the middle which the Greens actually occupy.

    Excluding the middle is a vice of internet argumentation in general. I have seldom seen anyone online, at least lately, capable of even perceiving the middle.

    Then you compound your error by claiming that if a debate is to occur on the protection of the commons by our society, that it is necessary to exclude people from the debate on the basis that they use the commons.

    This logical fallacy is getting clearer for you?

    Interesting side question about Key, is where his money is from… really, and who does he work for… really. They’ve managed to cover over the LIBOR scandal pretty well, distract, confuse, obfuscate and forget. I haven’t forgotten. That’s OT here.

    This question is really whether ADVOCATING for something to be done by the society as a whole, also entails a requirement for personally doing it whether the society goes along or not.

    There is a degree of this which I accept, where the behavior is optional while remaining effectively a member of the society… and a degree to which it must be rejected, where there is no alternative that does not entail leaving the society. You will find that Greens in general embrace the former, and reject the latter. They understand.

    What do you do?

    So far I have nothing from you but nonsense. Gerrit is finally waking up to the fact that from the top to the bottom of this thread, there has not been a Green position in the form of “Fracking is evil just because it is fracking”. It is evil because the CO2 damage isn’t priced into it, and dangerous because it is effectively unregulated, but not simply because it is “fracking”.

    Now all you have to work out is how you’ve been misrepresenting Green positions through this thread (and elsewhere if you are actually an honest person) and how to stop without embarrassing yourself.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  101. Must be raining somewhere, but I have to go out for an hour or two. Have fun kids.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  102. Arana – the whole point of the Commissioner’s report is that the risks are not being managed sufficiently at present. Are not. Surely, you don’t want an industry to progress where the risks are not sufficiently managed! That is reckless! The Commissioner did not say, ‘the risks are negligible, so don’t worry about them.’ I don’t want to have to ask, are you daft, but it’s on the tip of my tongue. Have you read the report? Or are you just, as I suspect, blowing? A delay until fracking practice is safe enough to satisfy the Commissioner is entirely rational and logical (sorry to use those two words in addressing you – I know they mystify and puzzle.)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  103. No Arana… a moratorium UNTIL REGULATIONS ARE IN PLACE is not extreme, except in the sense of being extremely reasonable.

    We have regulations in place, namely resource consents. We’ve had fracking here for some time, and incidents have been minor. There is no need for a moratorium until we get the specific regulations you’re trying to pass as the risk does not merit such extreme action because the risk is not great.

    I support fracking in the same way I support organic food production. Yes, there are risks involved in both, and we should have sufficient regulation to limit this risks as far as is practical, but a moratorium on organic food production, and fracking, is simply not required in the meantime because the risk is not great. .

    For example, it would be wrong for organic growers to pull up their crops, destroy them, and not start again until some extremists try to pass onerous regulation on the sector. Same goes for fracking.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  104. Surely, you don’t want an industry to progress where the risks are not sufficiently managed!

    Everything has risk. The risk is not great. You don’t shut down something just because there is some risk and regulation could be tighter.

    Else you’d shut down just about anything humans do until regulated to the extreme. Do you acknowledge there is some risk in organic food? Do you think regulation could be introduced that would reduce the risk? Do you think, perhaps, that the risk needs to be balanced against the benefits, price, and what is practicable?

    i.e. we’ll always accept some risk, so long as that risk is minor?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  105. Arana – your ‘organic food’ argument is spurious, as is your fracking effort. You keep saying that the risks of fracking are negligible, yet this is not wehat the Parliamentary Commissioners says. I respect her work and findings, which make yours look loopy. When you say,
    “Everything has risk. The risk is not great. You don’t shut down something just because there is some risk and regulation could be tighter”, I think of Pike River…
    You argue that you are right…because you are right! I’m not swayed by circular thinking and the re-presentation of loopy half-thoughts, sorry.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  106. Btw, your argument: ” Do you acknowledge there is some risk in organic food? Do you think regulation could be introduced that would reduce the risk?” is pure drivel. There is regulation around the sale of organic food. Goose.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  107. “WELLINGTON, New Zealand — Hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, is a safe method to obtain gas and oil if it is managed and regulated properly, a new interim report from New Zealand”s Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Jan Wright has found.

    The report gave a cautious approval of fracking as a technology to be more widely adopted in the country. The proposed idea of having a moratorium imposed on fracking has been ruled out at present but Wright noted that regulation should be reviewed. She claimed that there is no evidence of any danger of water contamination but she would not hesitate to recommend a moratorium if any issues arise during the next phase of her investigation”

    Moratorium ruled out. It’s been ruled out because the risk does not warrant it.

    You’re the one arguing you’re right because you’re right.

    Hughes needs to ditch his call for a Moratorium, work towards agreeable regulation, and support fracking. His actions indicate to me he already does, but clearly his mouth hasn’t yet caught up.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  108. Btw, your argument: ” Do you acknowledge there is some risk in organic food? Do you think regulation could be introduced that would reduce the risk?” is pure drivel. There is regulation around the sale of organic food. Goose.

    There is general regulation around food production, as there is oil exploration and drilling. There is little specific to fracking, just as there is little specific about organic.

    Should we have a moratorium on organic until there is more specific regulation on organic?

    I think you’d agree that would be silly as the benefits outweigh the risk.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  109. The point is not that we have only had minor problems with fracking in New Zealand The question that needs to be asked is, “What are the potential problems with fracking?”

    We need to look at the world-wide experience of fracking problems before we decide whether it is worth the risk. In the same way, ignoring the potential problems of deep water drilling based on a purely New Zealand experience is criminally insane. The east coast of Northland is absolutely gorgeous and is vital to the lives of thousands. A Gulf of Mexico incident there would be indescribably tragic!

    Furthermore, at the rate of world consumption of oil (85 million barrels/day) a total find of say, 5 billion barrels would only last 59 days. Production is falling world wide, we burn six barrels for every new one found and the two most populous nations on the planet are demanding more and more oil. If we we can lead the world with our anti-nuclear stance why can’t we do the same by weaning ourselves off oil? An electrified national railway system, localised, self sufficient communities, NZ based manufacture of clothes, shoes, crockery etc would be a start.We could then go on to removing petroleum based products in food production. Modern industrialised agriculture incredibly wastefully uses 10 calories of fossil fuels to produce 1 calorie of food.We are already 20 years too late to start changing to an alternative energy source and things are becoming critical. Let us stop engaging in mindless petty arguments and start employing our famous Kiwi ingenuity on solutions!!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 (-2)

  110. One point to a moratorium until proper regulations are in place is of course political.

    The ideological resistance of National to putting proper regulations anywhere, is exposed again.

    What would it take to get the regulatory framework in place? Two, maybe three months for a motivated and rational government. Which forever excludes any “National” government. The debate would be over and long forgotten.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  111. I think a key problem is this word: “moratorium”. It has all kinds of connotations. Within the first twenty hits on google for the word comes this heading:

    1982 – Moratorium puts an end to commercial whaling

    And that to me is the issue. People on the “against” side of a debate see a moratorium as being the same as a ban, and thus they’ve sort of achieved their objective, and people on the “for” side of the debate see moratorium as being the same as a ban, and thus they’ve lost.

    The whole concept of some breathing space (which is what I think a moratorium is intended to achieve, and, perhaps more importantly, to convey) is lost.

    So I’m suggesting that the word “moratorium” is almost impossible to use in a political context, as it is a politically charged word, or perhaps more bluntly, it’s typically a lie.

    So I’m now more convinced than ever that the Green Party position on fracking – calling for a moratorium – is not only unsustainable, but a lost opportunity to be a force for good.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  112. The east coast of Northland is absolutely gorgeous and is vital to the lives of thousands. A Gulf of Mexico incident there would be indescribably tragic!

    It is highly unlikely to happen. We can’t not capture the benefits just to avoid an event almost certain not to happen. It’s a question of balancing risk with reward. Hughes does it every time he flies – he has concluded the risks of oil drilling and fracking are worth the benefit, else he wouldn’t fly.

    If we we can lead the world with our anti-nuclear stance why can’t we do the same by weaning ourselves off oil? An electrified national railway system, localised, self sufficient communities, NZ based manufacture of clothes, shoes, crockery etc would be a start.

    Few NZers want to live in a third world nation, which is what your plan would create.

    Let us stop engaging in mindless petty arguments

    Is that what you think of Hughes argument?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  113. So I’m now more convinced than ever that the Green Party position on fracking – calling for a moratorium – is not only unsustainable, but a lost opportunity to be a force for good.

    Yes. His agenda appears to be this:

    “I know I’d prefer a clean, green future to a fracked one.”

    It wouldn’t matter how safe fracking was made, he’s against it.

    In any case, fracking and geothermal energy and biofuels aren’t mutually exclusive. We can do all of them, if necessary. However, given the global rise and rise of fracking, we’re unlikely to need alternative energy sources for quite some time yet.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  114. Safe fracking of oil and gas deposits would result in more presently-sequestered carbon being released into the atmosphere and adding to the critical issue of climate change. I oppose all proposed hydrocarbon fracking projects on that ground alone.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  115. Looks like your mates don’t take it all that seriously, as they’re happy to use fossil fuels to fly. For them the benefits outweigh the risks.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  116. You are wrong, Arana. My ‘mates” do take it seriously. They are not “happy” to use fossil fuels to fly. Bjchip explained this to you ad nauseum but you remain impervious to logic and continue to re-present the same failed argument. I’ll persevere though, by asking you to back up your claims that the issue of fossil fuel use is not taken seriously by Green MPs, and that they are happy to fly. I notice you didn’t address the core issue of my comment posted at 10:53, as is you way (avoiding what’s asked of you, dragging another issue across the trail so as to avoid revealing the lack of depth your argument has), so here it is again:

    Safe fracking of oil and gas deposits would result in more presently-sequestered carbon being released into the atmosphere and adding to the critical issue of climate change. I oppose all proposed hydrocarbon fracking projects on that ground alone.

    Have a go at some real debate, Arana, rather than your Clayton’s version. You could, if you were serious about addressing the points I put forward, copy and paste them along with your response, thus:

    “You are wrong, Arana. My ‘mates” do take it seriously.”
    Arana’s response here

    Looking forward to some real answers from you.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  117. Greenfly:

    [extraction of oil and gas] … result[s] in more presently-sequestered carbon being released into the atmosphere and adding to the critical issue of climate change.

    No argument with that.

    But you are arguing the same as government drugs policy, namely that restricting the supply is the way to get people of drugs. We know it doesn’t work for drugs, and thus we can reasonably extrapolate it wont work for oil. All evidence supports this, as despite the fact that oil price has risen dramatically over the last few decades, people are still paying for the stuff.

    If this is really your position, then you don’t have a horse in the fracking race, nor are you actually really interested in a fracking debate other than “all oil use bad and therefore fracking bad”. You want the other issue, that of alternatives use of oil. That’s a very different (and very worthwhile) argument.

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

  118. I, and others, have presented our argument, Greenfly, but you appear to remain impervious to logic.

    Someone can object to fossil fuels all they like, but they are defined by their actions. You even justify their flying based on the *benefits* of oil use i.e. increased political reach.
    What are they saying? They are allowed to fly, but I’m not, because that would involve using fossil fuel?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  119. Safe fracking of oil and gas deposits would result in more presently-sequestered carbon being released into the atmosphere and adding to the critical issue of climate change.

    If you believe that, then surely you should be encouraging your mates to be using as little as possible – if for no other reason but to set an example and show others a new way of conducting business.

    I use Skype a lot, rather than fly, and I’m not a green. I walk to work every day, and I’m not a green. I live in the same city in which I work, and I’m not a green. One would expect a green to show more leadership, perhaps?

    Talk is cheap.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  120. No argument with that.

    This is good start, we have agreement.

    But you are arguing the same as government drugs policy, namely that restricting the supply is the way to get people of drugs.

    I’m not arguing that at all but I do appreciate your saying what it is you think I’m saying. That clarifies the misunderstanding somewhat. I am not saying ‘restrict supply to change habits’. There is plenty of oil and gas, presently, that ‘users’ can get all they want from conventional sources. I oppose new fracking projects, becasue they are additional to the present output, and they are under our control, that is, we could stop them and their additional green house gas contributions. We can’t prevent those in Russia and canada, but surely we can take responsibility for our own proposed fracking extractions. This does not equate with ‘restricting supply to reduce use’.

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

  121. Arana said:
    “I, and others, have presented our argument, Greenfly, but you appear to remain impervious to logic.

    This line of argument is best avoided. You are stupid, no you are stupid! goes nowhere.

    Someone can object to fossil fuels all they like, but they are defined by their actions.

    Yes, they can and yes, they are. However, as has been pointed out over and over, Green MPs have to get about the country to do their job. They cannot stay at home and represent their constituents fairly. You seem quite unaware that the Green MPs do take measures to lessen their fossil fuel use, and to mitigate that they have no choice but to take. Claiming that they have to stop all fossil fuel use in order to speak out against it is shallow, wrong, stupid, short-sighted etc, etc.
    You even justify their flying based on the *benefits* of oil use i.e. increased political reach.
    Yes, of course their use of aircraft is justified, just as that of a defending military force would be. They are not wastefully and mindlessly joy-riding, Arana, they are going about their poitical business. I hope a result they will achieve in that process is a reduction across the country of fossil fuel consumption. If that requires them to burn a tiny percentage of the oil ‘saved’, then it’s well worth it.

    What are they saying? They are allowed to fly, but I’m not, because that would involve using fossil fuel?

    No, I am not saying that. I get irritated with you at this point. Your argument becomes a self-centred one, typical of right-wingers who personalise issues in order to whip up indignation. I repeat, I am not saying that. I notice you are still ignoring my suggested points. Do I frighten you?

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

  122. Arana said:
    I use Skype a lot, rather than fly, and I’m not a green.
    Do you think Green MPs don’t skype? Do you really think they don’t try to maximize their alternatives to fossil fuel use? Do you?
    I walk to work every day,
    Does your family live at the other end of the country from your place of work? Do you expect MPs to walk from Invercargill to Wellington? Do you think Green MPs living withing walking distance to Parliament don’t walk (sticking my neck out here a bit guys, but I recall Nandor used to skateboard to the House and others took buses. I imagine the younger ones at least, cycle.
    and I’m not a green. I live in the same city in which I work,
    Oh, Arana. What a peurile argument. Do you believe all Green MPs should move their families to Wellington and live withing walking disrtance from Parliament for as long as they are in Parliament? Are you not being a little silly here? and I’m not a green. One would expect a green to show more leadership, perhaps?
    It’s clear you have no idea what degree of leadership the Green MPs are showing. Your argument seems childish.

    Talk is cheap.
    Thought, however, cost something in time and effort. Invest, Arana. It’ll pay off in the long-run!

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

  123. Yes, they can and yes, they are. However, as has been pointed out over and over, Green MPs have to get about the country to do their job. They cannot stay at home and represent their constituents fairly. You seem quite unaware that the Green MPs do take measures to lessen their fossil fuel use, and to mitigate that they have no choice but to take. Claiming that they have to stop all fossil fuel use in order to speak out against it is shallow, wrong, stupid, short-sighted etc, etc.
    You even justify their flying based on the *benefits* of oil use i.e. increased political reach.
    Yes, of course their use of aircraft is justified, just as that of a defending military force would be. They are not wastefully and mindlessly joy-riding, Arana, they are going about their poitical business. I hope a result they will achieve in that process is a reduction across the country of fossil fuel consumption. If that requires them to burn a tiny percentage of the oil ‘saved’, then it’s well worth it.

    And so could everyone else, so nothing changes, does it. We had politicians before we had air travel – how did they manage? They didn’t even have Skype! What we’re really saying is they would find their job harder without the benefits of oil.

    Great. Oil is beneficial and it helps us do what we do.

    No one is going to give up or reduce their own oil consumption when the people who demand they make do with less use more than most.

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

  124. Oh, Arana. What a peurile argument. Do you believe all Green MPs should move their families to Wellington and live withing walking disrtance from Parliament for as long as they are in Parliament?

    It indicates to me they care more about the convenient baubles of office than burning fossil fuel. Most people have to relocate with their jobs.

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

  125. I hope a result they will achieve in that process is a reduction across the country of fossil fuel consumption. If that requires them to burn a tiny percentage of the oil ‘saved’, then it’s well worth it.

    No chance. After all, they’re demonstrating the benefits of oil. “Look how much easier it makes our job! The alternatives aren’t very good, are they….”

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

  126. greenfly: a number of distinct threads there, which I hope to tease apart separately

    There is plenty of oil and gas, presently, that ‘users’ can get all they want from conventional sources

    Actually, no. Oil availability has been “constrained” for a while now, and it is only that the happenstance of the global financial crises has reduced the demand for oil that has stopped the lack of lack of supply of conventional oil (ie non-fracked, non-shale, non-deep-water, non-some-other-weirdo-process) being more obvious.

    it is fracking, along with deep water extraction, that have enabled the shortfall from conventional oil being a massive issue.

    There are not separate pumps for “conventional petrol” and “fracked petrol” at your local Z; a proportion of all fuel we now consume comes from wells employing fracking. That proportion will increase as conventional oil supplies continue to reduce, and easy deep water ends, and fracked supplies make up the shortfall, and eventually becoming the norm, and then eventually becoming most.

    Its such a big deal that UK ex-minister Nigel Lawson wrote an oped piece in the Mail, Thought we were running out of fossil fuels? New technology means Britain and the U.S. could tap undreamed reserves of gas and oil

    Graph to see: here.

    The Peak Oilers from the 1950s were absolutely right; they said conventional oil supply will decline, and it has. They couldn’t have known that offshore deep water would become important. They also didn’t figure that when the going gets tough, the tough get going, and hence we’ve figured out how to work harder at getting oil.

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

  127. I oppose new fracking projects, becasue they are additional to the present output…

    Well, maybe. But present output is declining. And New Zealand’s has certainly declined.

    This government graph shows production since the 1970s.

    Its the same old story: a site is discovered, it is exploited, it peaks, and it dies. As oil production is non-renewable, one has to keep going to maintain output.

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

  128. But you are arguing the same as government drugs policy, namely that restricting the supply is the way to get people of drugs. We know it doesn’t work for drugs

    Somehow I suspicion that the ease of secretly running industrial scale fracking operations is somewhat less than growing Cannabis or running a P-Lab. :-)

    Evenso, the consumption of the one product is illegal, the other would/should be taxed.

    ?

    Seems that the analogy isn’t very exact. Understand your point… I can imagine fracking in secret if the price of the product justified it, but the actual approach here is to raise the price to the consumers.

    despite the fact that oil price has risen dramatically over the last few decades, people are still paying for the stuff

    It is still cheaper than water, milk or any of the alternatives that work to move us around.

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

  129. We can’t prevent those in Russia and canada, but surely we can take responsibility for our own proposed fracking extractions.

    Some might call that NIMBYism.

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

  130. We had politicians before we had air travel – how did they manage?

    They were not competing with politicians who COULD fly… and they were truly representatives in the sense that their opinions and expressed judgement in parliament was the only real way that their constituents could voice opinion at all.

    Things change Arana.

    We won’t accept discriminatory standards being applied to us… simply because we advocate for the society adopting limits for everyone.

    I think belonging to National (they SO pwn you guys)… is something people are born with…

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

  131. …but the actual approach here is to raise the price to the consumers.

    Not in the context of this thread it isn’t. Which is kinda my point.

    What Gareth says, which I’m assuming is official Green Party speak:

    This is why the Green Party has continued our call for a moratorium on fracking. We should not allow a massive expansion of fracking before the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Dr Jan Wright can assure us it is safe.

    There is nothing in there about “to raise the price to the consumers”.

    Based on the misuse of the term “moratorium” as I outlined above, Joe Average is far more likely to assume that the Green Party wants to ban fracking and raise prices to consumers, rather than any interest in a “breathing space” to work out if there are unacceptable safety issues.

    Thus it is easy to see that there is the real possibility of a very mixed message. You (and Greenfly, and I think you are both card carrying GP members?) are saying one thing and the Green Party are saying another. Or are they?

    This is why I ranted a little about the term “moratorium” up the thread. It almost invites confusion.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  132. We won’t accept discriminatory standards being applied to us

    That’s fine. Neither will anyone else.

    So the message becomes “if oil use benefits you personally, do it”.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  133. “No one is going to give up or reduce their own oil consumption when the people who demand they make do with less use more than most.”

    By your reasoning, no New Zealander should be willing to forego a pay rise because of tough economic times, because John Key didn’t forego his. People should decry his hypocrisy from the rooftops, according to Arana. Yes?

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

  134. “It indicates to me they care more about the convenient baubles of office than burning fossil fuel. Most people have to relocate with their jobs.”

    I was right, your argument was puerile.

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

  135. “Some might call that NIMBYism.”
    And do you dbuckley?
    I’m calling for New Zealand to lead with a cessation of fracking activities for the sake of humanity’s future, not because I don’t want fracking rigs in my district.
    Did you really think about your statement before you made it?

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

  136. “The Peak Oilers from the 1950s were absolutely right; they said conventional oil supply will decline, and it has.”
    It comes as no surprise to me to hear that we were right. We are right about global warming also. That being the case, preventing new reserves of hydrocarbons from being accessed by fracking becomes doubly important. You are arguing that we need those products of fracking. I’m arguing that we need to leave them in the ground. Looks like we aren’t going to find any more common ground. That’s a shame. You were at least a rational opposition, unlike the flakey Spider.

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

  137. “Based on the misuse of the term “moratorium” as I outlined above, Joe Average is far more likely to assume that the Green Party wants to ban fracking and raise prices to consumers, rather than any interest in a “breathing space” to work out if there are unacceptable safety issues.”

    But you are not thus confused, are you, dbuckley? You are not Joe Average.

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

  138. “So the message becomes “if oil use benefits you personally, do it”.”

    You continue to stun with the shallowness of your argument.
    No.
    The message is, “If it’s unavoidable, use fossil fuels, but do it as responsibly as you possibly can, without jepordising your ability to do your ascribed job”.
    Sorry about the long sentence, Spidey. Read it in three-word clusters and take a break between each.

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

  139. Greenfly, I have no confusion whatsoever as to your position. What I remain unsure about, however, is the official Green Party position. Is this (so-called?) “moratorium” on fracking genuinely a breathing space to ensure the crossing of t’s and the dotting of lower case j’s, or is it a dishonest obfuscation of a bigger goal. I want to know. And I think Joe Public wants to know too.

    Which is why I believe a more straightforward statement of the Green Party’s position would b helpful.

    The bigger goal has no place in this discussion; this is a supply side discussion. As I mentioned in connection with failed drugs policy, being anti-fossil-fuel in general is an argument for elsewhere. That argument can’t be framed in terms of drilling or fracking or nuking; it’s about consumption, urban planning, cars, plastics.

    If consumption can be curbed, then supply will reduce.

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

  140. “Some might call that NIMBYism.” Did you really think about your statement before you made it?

    I think very carefully about every word I write. Even with that degree of care, I still write the odd howler. But that isn’t one of them.

    NIMBYism is about fairness.

    In this context it could expanded to mean “I’m willing to use the products of fossil fuel extraction (including those obtained by fracking, because they all are) but I don’t want one of those fracking things in my country”.

    This, of course, takes us full circle.

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

  141. “If it’s unavoidable, use fossil fuels, but do it as responsibly as you possibly can, without jepordising your ability to do your ascribed job

    Meh. Mine is snappier, and the end result is the same.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 (-2)

  142. dbuckley@3:23

    It could, but it might also mean, “the problem is so huge that our small act here in NZ is the only thing we can do to lever change and is therefore the best thing we can do. Reducing our use of oil and gas won’t be effective in affecting world opinion and direction, but declaring fracking unwanted, might.It’s that whole ‘mouse that roared’ thing. I’m for that.”

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

  143. You were at least a rational opposition

    I’ll take that as a sort of complement, but don’t think of me as “opposition”, think of me as an “explorer”…

    I am an environmentalist, and a long time Peak Oiler, and I know of what I do. I also understand what sort of world I live in. I also understand that politics is the art of the possible, and will take a few percent of something over a hundred percent of nothing any day of the week.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  144. Book-ends are in opposition to each other, though they may look similar and serve a similar function.

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

  145. Meh. Mine is snappier, and the end result is the same

    Neither encompasses a requirement though, to eschew the use of the resource in order to advocate for limits to its use.

    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>