by frog
I hopped along to another Arts Festival event this morning, where George Monbiot was beamed in from Wales via satellite rather than flying over for a one hour chat. How Green of him.
Having waxed lyrical about Stiglitz’ support for Green policy last night, I simply fell off my lilly pad this morning when George came right out and endorsed voting for the Green Party in any country, even under the undemocratic First Past the Post (FPP) system like they have in the UK. He said that a vote for Labour was ambiguous because you may be voting against the conservatives, for a particular policy that rewards you or for no particular reason at all other than you always vote Labour. A Green vote, however, is completely unambiguous because it tells the politicians exactly where you stand on climate change, peak oil, social welfare, safe food, etc.
George had an interesting criticism of the global Green movement and it’s persistent call for localisation. He said that this was fine in almost all policy areas, (yeah!), but not in energy. He stated that humanity lives too far away from our natural ambient energy sources, (renewables like wind wave and sun), precisely because these are uncomfortable places for humans to live. (Deserts, mountain tops and oceans) Therefore we need energy infrastructure on a grand scale out there where our daily solar/wind energy budget is and the ability to transmit it back to where we live. This implies large scale projects that governments are particularly suited to pursuing. Only then can we get past the fossil age and still have significant energy for humanity. Food for thought!
He also stated that we are missing the point about the climate change debate. In human terms, it is about food and water for feeding humans, not about how high the seas will rise or how warm it will be in any particular place. Most of the effects of climate change are irrelevant in the face of large scale starvation and/or economic collapse.
With only a few minor technical glitches, the satellite feed was a huge success and clearly a glimpse of things to come.
Published in Economy, Work, & Welfare | Environment & Resource Management by frog on Sat, March 15th, 2008
Tags: climate change, energy, Food, George Monbiot, global warming, peak oil, solar, starvation, water
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Monbiot would do well to remember the adage “think before you speak.” Deserts, mountain tops and oceans? So our best renewable energy sources are the very same types of places that contain our best oil, coal and natural gas resources. How does this observation og unequal distribution of rnrtgy resources lead to the conclusion that there needs to be any form of government involvement beyond profiteering from “airwave” royalties?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kevyn asked:
“How does this observation of unequal distribution of energy resources lead to the conclusion that there needs to be any form of government involvement…?”
If you read the original entry more closely, the point was made that governments are good at large scale projects, not that there needs to be government involvement. In New Zealand’s case, transmission lines will be needed between the renewable energy sources and our cities. There is a checken and egg situation here in that the generation won’t be installed without the transmission lines and the transmission lines won’t be installed without the generation. Government can install both but it is less likely for non-government bodies. SOEs are probably in between.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Monbiot sounds like hes telling it how it is to me, except hes forgetting about all the people who live in delta cities who are going to have their homes flooded/washed away, although lack of food sounds bad too
Ofcourse we might be able to stop most of the affects with technologies such as Low-cost reusable material could facilitate capture of carbon dioxide from power plants but then all the climate change denies would be like “Told you so, it wasn’t going to happen” so we might aswell carry on the pollution path, we’ve had a good run anyways.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Trevor, Since we’ve both been putting words into frog’s mouth I’d better quote the first of the two sentences I was referring to. “This implies large scale projects that governments are particularly suited to pursuing.”
There is no evidence that government’s are any better suited than multinational corporations. I haven’t seen any definitive research comparing corporate and government infrastructure projects. However, considering the nearly identical structures and internal politicking of multinational corporations and governments, I would be surprised if the success rates are much different. The short term thinking of modern corporates is shared by modern politics, as evidenced by the energy policies of the Clark and Bush administrations.
Politicians do love monumental projects, presumably in the belief that history will view the project as a monument to the vision and leadership of that politician. Many corporate leaders share that same fault. Or, where genuine wisdom and foresight is shown this is as likely to from Presidents of countries and corporations.
The other sentence of frog’s that I was referring to was “Therefore we need energy infrastructure on a grand scale out there where our daily solar/wind energy budget is and the ability to transmit it back to where we live.” This is actually the same problem the world had to face when it considered replacing wood with coal, and coal with oil and gas. Some countries did nationalise these resources, others franchised them or leased them or provided tax breaks or subsidies. I don’t think the situation “implies large scale projects that governments are particularly suited to pursuing” but it does seem to be a unique opportunity for history to repeat. The way out of the carbon mess that past government actions created may be as simple as applying those same actions to renewable alternatives to fossil fuels. I suspect from the history of canals and early railroads that the shift from wood to coal definitely required government intervention at least to secure the rights of way.
Investing in grid upgrades assumes that grid transmission will continue to be essential. The Seddon government made similar assumptions about railways when the motorcar was a novelty. To compound that error they threw money at branch lines in Otago where roads are cheap to build and maintain while ignoring railway into Northland where roads are horrendously expensive to build and maintain. With the result that in the 1930s all of the Main Highways in Northland were officially classified as impassible in wet weather.
Neither governments nor corporations can predict the future. The one advantage corporations have over governments is that while there is only one government there can be more than one corporation prepared to invest in their vision of the future. That can avoid the risk of having all our eggs in the wrong basket. Until the future reveals itself nobody will know which technological approach is the right one to take and therefore which investment was the right one. Of course there is no guarantee that competition between corporations will produce the right solution but at least its not an all or nothing gamble.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I read a book called the Logic of Failure where they do computer simulations of towns/ countries and people manage them. There was quite a big difference in success rates and they identified the reasons. It suggests that the right people make a difference.
……………………………………
“A Green vote, however, is completely unambiguous because it tells the politicians exactly where you stand on climate change, peak oil, social welfare, safe food, etc”.
I’m not sure that every environmentalist is behind Sue Bradfords approach to social welfare which is more ant-capitalist than objectively thorough.
Then there is the divide between libertarianism and authoritarianism. I took the bus to the city yesterday and was thoroughly peed off by school kids shouting and playing loud music on their cell phones. As a shop keeper said “my wife takes the bus; you should hear the language; and they don’t stand up if you complain they’ll beat you up” People know where the Greens stand on public safety versus private liberties.
While I’m at it…. the Greens are pro choice/ public pay on large families,
Oh! I forgot the beaches (post modernist, cultural fundamentalism etc).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Did anyone notice the green forestry advert: (we are running out of fuel and polluting with CO2)?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There is a distinct difference between government doing projects and the private sector doing projects. Private sector follows the money, whereas the government follows (for want of a better term) the people. Outlying areas would never have gained access to electricity in the first place had it not been for either the government doing the job itself, or commanding the private sector to do what they didn’t want to do.
In this vein, I’m idly musing which decade I’ll have the option of unbundled broadband; I’m not holding my breath…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Totally ambiguous. That’s the problem. I REALLY want a green party to stand for green issues, not RED or BROWN. You guy just don’t realise how, every time you come out to campaign on some non-green issue, a whole bunch of caring kiwis find another reason not to vote for you. Distance yourselves from Labour, distance yourselves from The Maori Party. Stand tall on GREEN, that’s what he (George) is saying.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
When it comes to building a bridge or a dam or a power station, I am quite prepared to believe that a private company can be as effective as a government department, possibly more so. However when it comes to building a series of bridges or roading improvements and a power station and a dam and a transmission line, private enterprise is likely to say “too risky”, or “what is in it for us” and stick with smaller projects. Government can take on these bigger projects but of course can contract one or more private enterprises to do some or all of the actual work, including maintenance and operation.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Samiam
I have to agree. The party does have some distracting aspects. It is however, the only real game in town if you are actually concerned with the future of the planet. I put up with stuff and I make it clear enough when I don’t agree… but I stick. The reason is that it is the only game in town and in the long run it is more important what we do than whether there’s a law against using your BBQ on alternate Thursdays. The rest of it is irrelevant.
It does annoy me that we spend political capital on irrelevancies, but we aren’t part of government and we don’t actually get all that much choice of what we CAN do. We can’t propose a bill. We can get lucky or unlucky in what private member’s bill gets drawn. That’s about it.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
A Guardian columnist? About as neutral as a Fox News anchor.
>>A Green vote, however, is completely unambiguous
What utter toss. The social engineering and anti-capitalist agenda you’d need to swallow in order to get an environmental position is mind-bending.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kevyn: Governments are better at providing AN answer to a problem when AN answer is what is needed no mater what. Corproations are good at providing answers to a problem when the answer is profitable, otherwise they don’t bother. This difference in motivation is critical to effecting outcomes. If the outcome is deemed to be necessary by ‘society’ and MUST be arrived at no matter what, then governments definitely are out in front for a number of reasons: legislative power to overcome obstacles; tax power to overcome resource allocation issues; regulatory power to require actions that assist the desired outcome.
For example, a government might require a cure for HIV/AIDS, while corporations will be happy with a life-long treatment regime that ensures a long term and reliable revenue stream.
The Internet is another example. Governments funed the development of open technologies anyone could use to innovate further, while corporoations developed closed, proprietary and incompatible solutions that would generate profit.
Similarly, while we had a Ministry of Works charged with providing reliable infrastructure that would meet growing demand, that infrastructure was provided. Now, we have commercialised infrastructure providers who often find themselves in a situation where NOT investing in infrastructure and thus creating shortages is more profitable than meeting rising demand. Some of our power providers – whether private or government owned – find themselves in this position where profit is their primary motive.
When Canada needed a national railway, from coast to coast, the government had to fund this critical piece of infrastructure, building the pieces no one wold build and then also nationalising the failed private providers in 1917 (during WW I), and then finish the investment where the corporations could not.
I could go on at considerable length further illustrating the many very important reasons why government IS better at achieving large scale, long term goals with primarily social benefits….but I think the examples so far more than prove the case.
Private business is very good at a lot of things, but long term planning leading to integrated, coherent infrastructure is most definitely NOT one of them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bluepeter: Greens aren’t “anti-capitalist”. But Greens do recognise that a commercial solution isn’t the only solution and the business model isn’t always the best one for every problem. The “More Marketeers” are like a car mechanic with one tool he truly belives will fix every problem – whether it does or not. Greens are more pragmatic and more ready and able to see when the religion of the market is all talk and no walk as far as actually dealing with a particular problem is concerned. The bottom line for Greens is compatibility with sustainability and doing so in a way that doesn’t sequester wealth an power in the hands of a few. Greens are democratic. our preconceptions about the Greens are what ned adjusting. Grens are doing just fine with a more balanced view of the world and the place of people in it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
fwwog for gods sakke pull youself together
thares an election coming your way,
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Wow! I think everyone missed the point. It was never about whether government or the market was better equipped for large infrastructure projects. In my opinion both parties suffer about as much inefficiency, but for different reasons. Who care who builds it as long as the greater societal good is met?
My real point was about localisation. This idea is dear to the heart of the green movement. Monbiot said this was not good, at least in the energy area. That was it! Nothing more insidious. I thought we might debate that.
As for the Greens being anti-capitalist. Hogwash. Find it in our policy. Which party has been calling for a price on carbon, (a market mechanism), long before anyone else? Sure, some of our members could be described that way, but social justice is the issue, not specifically which ‘ist’ is used to deliver it. That comes down to appropriate decision making, which the Greens generally believe is better done as locally as possible. But not always.
Too many wingnuts from both sides of the old paradigm want to pigeon hole the Greens for convenience. As OutInFront says. We’re out in front.
My favourite Monbiot quote from yesterday:
You cannot shop yourself out of climate change.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Hogwash
Individual rights?
Private property rights?
Free market economy?
Income distributed largely through the market mechanism?
I don’t see much support for capitalism from the Greens, and much support for state interference and control. But hey, I look forward to you partnering with ACT.
>>calling for a price on carbon
But not a price set by the market, though. What if the market price of carbon is very low, or collapses entirely? Artificially setting it high becomes just another socialist tax.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
frog, thanks for the clarification. I think dbuckley stated one side of the argument very well “Outlying areas would never have gained access to electricity in the first place had it not been for either the government doing the job itself, or commanding the private sector to do what they didn’t want to do.”
The other side of the argument is based on the old saying “Necessity is the mother of invention.” Outlying areas already had some solutions in place before they got grid electricity. Petrol powered milking machines and wind powered well pumps for instance. Think of all the renewable or small scale energy systems we might have had in widespread use today if governments around the world hadn’t insisted on rural grid electrification.
Or alternatively, without the government’s commitment to rural electrification would they have invested as much time and money into developing marginal farmland? Has the downstream impact of soil erosion on marginal farmlands ever been worked out. Has increased flooding on prime river flats reduced agricultural production more than marginal farms increased it? How much of the money spent on flood protection is an indirect consequence of rural electrification?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sorry frog, I didn’t realise you wanted to debate localisation. I’m with Monbiot on this one.
Solar waterheating and limited solar photovoltaic panels are fine, but the latter can only provide enough electricity even for a house less than 25% of the time. This means that we require either storage – lots of it – or diversification. Local wind generation suffers from the flip side of economies of scale and I wouldn’t really want to live surrounded by wind turbines on all my neighbour’s roofs. In addition, most people live in sheltered areas rather than on windy ridges. This suggests to me that we need centralised wind generation but we also need spatial diversity, such as wind farms north of Kaitaia and down south.
We also need energy when the wind isn’t blowing, particularly in winter, so I am all for investing in wave, tidal flow and geothermal generation. There are only a few locations suitable for tidal flow, but the resource is very good and very predictable – gigaWatts available around 50% of the time, every 6 1/4 hours. Geothermal has to be used where it is available so localisation isn’t really an option, although at least geothermal areas are largely benign (if you can handle the smell). Wave generation is usually a bit out to sea, with costly cables – not something that favours small scale development.
JMHO
Trevor.
PS: did I see you on the cover of the current Listener?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Trevor29 – You did see me on the cover of the March 15 issue of the Listener. I am very upset with Sarah Barnett for trading on my illustrious image without even consulting me for her article! At least there was a green halo. Surely that means they recognise my environmental street cred. LOL!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mr George Monbiot is a love/hate figure in NZ. His opposition to globalised food markets makes him the natural enemy of our primary produce sector, yet he is the darling of many in the intellectual and environmental worlds.
I am very interested to hear that his ideas on distributed generation are not favourable, because I personally thought that this was the way to go.
Incidentally, I support the Greens for having a net wider than conservation and environmentalism because that is the reality of being a high-profile party. Obviously they have to keep these two issues as their main catch though – they abandon them at their political peril!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Greens holistic approach to politics is not just due to the reality of being a high-profile party. It’s not even the main reason. The Greens believe that the four principles of Ecological Wisdom, Social Responsibility, Appropriate Decision-making and Non-Violence cannot be achieved separately, but fundamentally depend on each other.
For instance, you can’t achieve environmental sustainability where people are living hand-to-mouth. Desirable social outcomes are likewise not sustainable unless they are based on sound environmental practice. How non-violence and appropriate decision-making fit in is left as an exercise for the reader, but is hopefully obvious.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes, I agree with Valis – they are all Green issues.
One of the things I appreciate about being in the Green Party is the range of discussion and the willingness to learn from and debate new information – it is the long-term sustainability of the planet and its inhabitants that is the point.
To achieve that, the process itself must be part of the outcome: you should not try to bomb a world into peace or destroy a community in order to save it. You cannot ignore the physical environment and expect society to survive in the long term and vice versa.
All four principles work together, not separately.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Can anyone name a party which doesn’t claim to promote some version of social justice and non violence?
PS does the Green party need more social activists (John Minto clones) no, it needs practical people closer to the middle.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)