23 thoughts on “Voicing opposition to deep sea oil drilling

  1. 4,000,000 Kiwis
    100 protesters

    Democracy suggests you guys lost this issue!

    Good on ya for speaking your minded though, that’s democracy too.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10 (-7)

  2. A good 100 people plus those behind us who couldn’t be there for all different reasons;
    still enough people with intelligence and conscience out there to stop those environment murderers, this crowd will only grow bigger.

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

  3. Yeah, 100 protestors against, meanwhile 100,000 kiwis went to petrol stations today and voted in favour with their wallets. And tomorrow, the same number will vote again. And again the day after. Every day.

    They call that The Silent Majority.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6 (+1)

  4. Catherine says “…urged them to support a sustainable future and a transition away from fossil fuels!”

    Meanwhile the vehicles, bicycles and shoes the protesters used to get there, would never have been manufactured and transported to where they can purchase them, without fossil fuels.

    Ditto for the clothes they were wearing, the food they eat, the computers and phones they use, and the materials for the houses they live in.

    In fact they wouldn’t even have the paints and boards for their protest signs, without fossil fuels.

    The oil companies only produce the fuel people need to use – they don’t force them to use it.

    It’s all about the protesters trying to shift the blame so they can delude themselves that they are not the cause of the problem.

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

  5. What choices are offered Photonz, DBuckley? How does one individual alter the economic marketplace that he/she lives in? That “silent majority” wasn’t offered any choice at all by the monied up extraction industry that dominates the global energy supply.

    Did we have streetcars once? Yup. Did we build rail? Yup. Did “cheap energy” from the extraction industries destroy those modes? Yup.

    Was it really cheap? Nope. Did we know how much it would likely cost us 20 years ago? Yup. Have we done anything but push those costs off on our kids? Nope. Have the extraction industries acted ethically in the process? No “economic” incentive to do so.

    So we’re stuck with what we’ve been given by successive irresponsible governments and unethical multinational corporations. All blaming “the other guy” all the time.

    People are forced to use their fuel because the alternatives have been rendered uncompetitive by both national AND international market failure.

    The true costs are not applied in the economic environment we live in.

    http://www.carbontracker.org/carbonbubble

    http://m.rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/2001/20120294.full

    Burning all fossil fuels, we conclude, would make most of the planet uninhabitable by humans, thus calling into question strategies that emphasize adaptation to climate change.

    You blame us as individuals? Fools both of you. The cause of this problem is far larger than any individual. The only thing an individual can do is “die”, removing his/her personal consumption, and THAT fails because consumption will quickly be replaced by someone else’s because the PRICE that the “market” charges for all the extraction industry derived energy is subsidized by future generations. They will bear the costs or die. The commons is breaking, and when someone calls for limits on its use you two fools think THEY are to blame.

    There is, particularly in New Zealand, an abject ignorance of the limits to what the market gets right and what it will ALWAYS get wrong. This gives us the global market failure that is the fossil fuel industry, and its dominance of our economic environment.

    The only way to stop this problem is at the government level and the international level. Individuals can’t fix it. We can make trouble for those who promote it, and try to educate the ignorant.

    However, talking to advocates of the status quo is much like trying to educate my pet rock… except that the rock seems to learn faster.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6 (+1)

  6. If you bothered to ask ‘That “silent majority”’ you’d find they are quite accepting of burning petrol for personal transport. Pushed, they would like cheaper petrol, and newer, safer, cheaper cars.

    If you ask them “would you like us to not drill / frack / extract in New Zealand, and pay more at the pump for that benefit”, the “silent majority” (and actually, quite a lot of the non-silent minority, I suspect) would say “hell no”.

    This isn’t supposition: we know New Zealanders are less concerned about the environment than they used to be; the research has been done.

    We all know how this will end up: your quote “…would make most of the planet uninhabitable by humans” is about on the money.

    You blame us as individuals?

    Nowhere did I attempt to assign blame anywhere. I rarely assign downticks, but by attacking me for something I didn’t actually say you have righteously earned the red.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 (+4)

  7. Yes, sadly, most of us want short-term benefits but the long-term effects will still happen. Prophets are always unpopular, that doesn’t make them wrong.
    Two hundred and fifty years ago it was unthinkable that you could run an economy without slaves – not nice of course to buy and sell people but the world as it was known could not carry on without it.
    A few brave souls protested against that and were told much the same thing: but YOU benefit, so you must be hypocrites.
    Time went by, more was discussed and discovered – it took about a century all up to move beyond depending on slavery for the British and American economies, but it happened.
    It has to start somewhere. If we want a world that can move beyond oil dependency (and its accompanying wars and environmental destruction) then someone has to do the research, others have to voice their opposition and governments have to act.
    We have more to lose on this one.

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

  8. 100 protestors against, none for. That’s a democratic win.

    Sorry to burst your bubble, but probably everyone attending the conference is on the “For” side.

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

  9. The real issue being that no-one is offering viable alternatives. Having lived overseas, I saw large train networks (Sydney & London etc) BUT NZ Govt.s tend to just promote more roads & cars.. the majority of ‘middle NZ’ just go along with the ‘norm’ (not I.. buses, bicycle & feet are my main modes of transport).
    If people insist on cars, then they should look to bio-fuels as an alternative to fossil fuel..

    kia-ora

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

  10. DBuckley… if you asked them if they would like to pay more at the pump, do no more deep sea drilling and have access to working public transport and electric vehicles and roadways the answer might not be so clear cut. The problem with that sort of question is that the personal car is the only transport option on offer. Period.

    That said I would accept your point about New Zealanders not being all that environmentally minded. Not that I’ve ever met any who fit that mold but they did put National into power.

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

  11. I’d like to think that the future of personal transport is the (electrically powered) Johnnycab. The question is do we have time to get from where we are now to where we need to be.

    Public transport that we think of today has had it’s run. Except in limited (but important) situations, it just doesn’t have the efficiency, and rarely has the required flexibility.

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

  12. “…probably everyone attending the conference is on the “For” side.”

    Probably, but how many of them aren’t being paid to attend? I have no doubt that lots of people are in favour of deep sea drilling because they expect to make a buck out of it.

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

  13. Probably, but how many of them aren’t being paid to attend? I have no doubt that lots of people are in favour of deep sea drilling because they expect to make a buck out of it.
    Well, it’s hard to know who is being paid to do what, nowadays. People get paid to go and collect signatures for green’s citizens initiated referenda. For all I know, the protestors there were being paid, too. I’m sure greenpeace pays their employees.

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

  14. BJ says “The only way to stop this problem is at the government level and the international level. Individuals can’t fix it. ”

    Bollocks.

    I bought a car that uses HALF the fuel of my previous vehicle. And now a motorbike which uses even less than my new car. With insulation, efficient heat pump, energy efficient lighting, thermal drapes, I’ve cut my power use by a third.

    If everyone did that, we’d be well below 1990 emission levels.

    Bit if everyone takes the easy option and shifts all the guilt onto the government and oil companies, nothing much will ever change, (except they can delude themselves that they are trying to make a difference).

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

  15. Photonz – while you did that a farmer in the Waikato bought a Land Rover the size of my Lounge and his mate imported a ‘stang with a big V8.

    What you did is a matter of choice and chance rather than to a clear market signal or a clear regulation of the market and in no wise did you suffer a clear impediment to your ability to function in the society as a result of those choices, laudable though they are.

    Greens position is that we ALL must do the same and more; that we must all accept equal responsibilities and SIMILAR reductions in our circumstances if we are to keep the commons available to us for the next 200-300 years.

    Your “bollocks” actually expresses the position that a “tragedy of the commons” isn’t a real event/problem, yet it is one of the most commonly observed forms of market failure.

    You probably have to do that because it is impossible to deal with regulating the commons effectively using free-market fundamentalism.

    The people in a community must by your theory individually and simultaneously act together to assume the exact same level of responsibility to voluntarily protect the commons before it is destroyed.

    Anything else results in penalties for those who recognize the need early or react more strongly and perks for those who decide to lead from behind or freeload. Perfect information delivery to each person and identical thought processes, ethics and timing would be required. Maybe ants or bees could do it. Humans? not a chance.

    The only way commons protection can actually happen is by the community organizing itself to regulate and control the use of the commons.

    An organization of the community that imposes regulations on ALL the members of that community is usually considered a form of self-government.

    We already have a government. If some of us decided to have another it would be the start of a civil war, not the start of a solution to the problem of the commons.

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

  16. Spam my dear fellow, the lie that Greens got paid to collect petitions is apparently common on the right. I don’t expect that you realized it was untrue. Someone however, is lying and wants to have his head handed to him for it. Lies about the Greens are common on the right.

    There were perhaps a couple in the admin offices who are paid to perform general staff duties who counted, collated and shuffled papers into boxes, but I collected hundreds and was not paid a cent.

    I would be surprised if anyone at all was paid to collect them.

    I paid to print the blank forms and the postage to send my collection of signatures in. That would be the case for all of the membership you saw on the streets collecting petitions.

    I had people so glad to see the petition brought to them that they were snatching it out of my hands in their eagerness to sign it. Asset sales are not popular with anyone but the most blindly loyal followers of Key.

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

  17. Asset sales are not popular with anyone but the most blindly loyal followers of Key.

    Yeah, and there are enough of them to get him elected, and more than once…

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

  18. BJChip and PhotoNz are actually agreeing violently over what needs to be the outcome, only the how to get there differs.

    BJ is arguing for top down, Photo for bottom up.

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

  19. No DBuckley, there are enough disaffected Labour voters to get him elected by simply not voting.

    Very few citizens are offering blind loyalty, as the numbers I saw ran 80% against the asset sales.

    The ones who said “I trust John Key” were pretty much the only ones who didn’t sign.

    As far as the bottom up approach to the commons is concerned, there is no such thing in a society made up of humans. I’ll be happy with any approach that will actually have a prayer of working, but the only one I know of is that the community organizes and enforces restrictions on the use of the commons.

    I think Photonz might have been accepting “the need” for arguments sake. I could be wrong about that. I certainly won’t assert that he agreed with me about anything, the odds are too long. :-)

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

  20. Spam my dear fellow, the lie that Greens got paid to collect petitions is apparently common on the right. I don’t expect that you realized it was untrue. Someone however, is lying and wants to have his head handed to him for it. Lies about the Greens are common on the right.

    Nice spin. I never said “Greens got paid to collect petitions”, I said that people got paid. The Greens confirmed that they hired people to collect signatures from the Leader’s fund.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10813920

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

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>