Sustainable development
I’d heartily recommend everyone reading A Sustainable Energy Future for New Zealand by 2050, a report published yesterday by the Business Council for Sustainable Development. The BCSD is a fifty-member business group, which includes The Warehouse, Meridian, Solid Energy, BP and Shell. The report is well-written and, just as important for busy bees, a manageable twenty pages.
I particularly liked the section under the heading ‘Why is Sustainability Important?’, which reads:
Balancing energy supply and demand with affordability and environmental protection is fundamental to our economic and social development. Fossil fuels in the form of oil and gas are a finite resource and there is a growing consensus that global oil production will peak sometime over the next 50 years. Furthermore, a body of science believes that the impact of fossil fuel use on the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere means we cannot go on using these resources in the way we have in the past if climate change issues are to be addressed.
The Brundtland Commission highlighted the conflict between the interests of economic development and the interests of the environment and developed the concept of sustainability where: “Development should meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.â€?…
We assume key aspirations for our country:
- New Zealand will remain a good, global citizen;
- New Zealand will take care of its environment;
- New Zealand should have a world-class quality of life with better-than-average incomes amongst developed countries.
Jeanette has welcomed the report, saying:
It is good to see business endorsing the need for governments to plan, because energy markets cannot respond fast enough to the changes we are facing. The report underlines that we have choices. The key task of energy planning is to distinguish between the things we can plan, like the rate of investment in energy efficiency and the assistance given to renewable energy, and things we can’t - like the international price of oil.
September 27th, 2005 at 1:54 pm
I’m sorry frog - but this is the perfect smoke screen for the BAU team.
The quote from the Brundtland Commission
“Development should meet the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
own needs.� is the first give away. Forests have been destroyed documenting these meaningless weasel words.
Next up “global oil production will peak sometime over the next 50 years” is another completely meaningless statement. It tells you nothing about the quality, quantity, economic, environmental, and social costs of these supplies.
Remind me, why were the Greens banging on about the end of Cheap Oil during the campaign ?
What is the relationship between “…a world-class quality of life with better-than-average incomes amongst developed countries.” And what about the disadvantaged countries ? How does NZ relate to them?
“New Zealand may achieve energy sustainability by 2050.”
Give me a break - no timetable - no plan just soothing words with pretty graphics and lots of assumptions.
“Economic growth is an essential requirement because it funds our improving living standards and social development. This has been fuelled by increasing energy supply.” The usual mantra about infinite growth etc.
And the authors of this report:
-Solid Energy “we have a window of opportunity before Kyoto”,
- Shell “our proven oil reserves aren’t proven at all”,
- BP “we’re not yet beyond petroleum as it’s still way too profitable”
et al
September 27th, 2005 at 7:28 pm
Bloody marvellous. Are we supposed to take this lot seriously when they claim that global oil production will peak in the next 50 years? What planet are they living on. Beam me up Scotty (pity he’s dead!). The consensus of informed and independent opinion is that Peak Oil is imminent ie 2005-2008 and some eg Simmons, Deffeyes believe that it may already be here. Even Chevron are saying that the second half of the oil age will take only 30 years, ie we’ll use up all the affordable oil 20 years before the BCSD think it will peak!! Pity the Greens are softening the message in order to be accepted as political “mainstream and potential coalition partners. Ambition doth make cowards of us all…..
September 27th, 2005 at 8:11 pm
Anything in the report that admits that these businesses may have to “gasp” pay tax if they want the government to do this planning?
And what these businesses might do if this planning affects them adversely?
September 28th, 2005 at 10:33 pm
Hi Tony Kunowski !
As a currently active Green, I don’t believe that “the Greens are softening the message” …
To communicate effectively one needs to pitch one’s message at the level of the audience and move on from there. Otherwise, no matter how worthy, the message will not be heard.
The fact that Green messages still get flack and denial suggests that we are getting through to an increasing number (and in surprising places) but STILL at a level that makes many feel threatened. Our message IS being heard and increasingly accepted, but it takes time.
World / Earth news is helping, and by Greens resisting the urge to say “Nah-Nah Nah! We told you so” people are able to benefit from “their own experiential learning” … More people start to listen without any “loss of face”, and Green channels of communication are enhanced for the future.
We are recognised by many as “nice people … if somewhat nutty and unrealistic.” This is a non threatening place to be, and a good place to move on from.
I think our communication is working very well !
eredwen