by frog
I’ve just spotted two letters in the papers today from a J Fitzsimons. First this one in the Independent Financial Review where she notes that her Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act which passed in 2000 is now saving 19 petajoules of energy each year:
Then this one in The Press where she again clarifies that the Greens are, and always have been, well aware of the links between unsustainable biofuels and food production:
Published in Environment & Resource Management by frog on Wed, April 30th, 2008
Tags: , biofuels, climate change, Energy Efficiency, Food, Frog, frogblog, green party, greens, Jeanette Fitzsimons, new zealand, peak oil
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Hang on the recent review of EECA showed that any efficiency savings were effectively organic – they would have happened anyway. isn’t a bit hard to claim such savings are the consequence of the EEC Act?
On biofuels, I think it is fair to say the greens’ concerns have been muted in pursuit of the wider gains of getting a mandate, so it it is a bit rich to be holier than now on this. The mandate level is specifically based on the expectation of corn being grown in NZ specifically for ethanol. I don’t recall any strong green objections at the time of its announcement and I;m sure Jeanette would have had a role in reviewing the recommendations going to Cabinet.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hmm, the sentiments are mostly aimed at ‘environmentalists’ and ‘greenies’ not just The Greens. I know of no such person who is not aware and deeply concerned about the push to biofuels.
The attacks in the press, on the forums and blogs, and at the water cooler have been getting more and more persistent and ignorant of late.
Jeanette’s rebuttal is timely and well needed. Good one.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yeah…people seem to be saying ‘greens’ instead of the ‘Bush Administration/US corn lobby’…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What steps are the Greens taking to ensure they don’t run into the same problems with advocating public transport as a solution to climate change?
On the principal “do it once, do it right” I would recommend these minimum standards for land transport investments.
1) all output classes including maintenance be subject to a carbon audit or carbon benefit/cost analysis. For instance if it turns out that chipseal has a higher carbon cost than hotmix then all resealing would have to be done with the more expensive hotmix. Or if building tunnels and viaducts releases more carbon than will be saved then that project should not proceed. If some railway upgrades get caught by this provision that will actually be a good thing for the credibility of other rail upgrades and the pro-PT funding advocated by the Greens.
2) All new buses must be hybrids.
3) All new trains must be electric and have regenerative braking.
The last two are real important because the technology is available from major suppliers such as BAE and Seimens and with the long working lives of these vehicles now is the time to be thinking post peak oil levels of energy efficiency. You don’t want to end up wth egg on your face in five or ten years. These points are vital when considering PT as a more efficient alternative to cars in smaller centres where load factors don’t get such a big helping hand from office commuters.
These points might also provide a good starting point for giving smaller centres a fair share of the PT funding. How long can we afford to allocate 90% of PT funding to only three urban centres when they account for only half of our urban dwellers? I know these aren’t precise figures but in this case it’s the overall point that’s important.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Anyone going to respond to insider’s first paragraph?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“recent review of EECA” When and by whom and is there a pdf anywhere?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)