The Green Party mining our future community tour

77 comments on “The Green Party mining our future community tour ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Pete George 1

   5 April 2012 at 1:41 pm

   From coal (lignite and conventional), gold, iron sands and other mineral mining to fracking and deep sea oil drilling

   Do the Greens want to stop or prevent all of that?
   • alex 1.1

     5 April 2012 at 6:18 pm

     Why not stop trolling on the internet, go to a hui, and find out for yourself?
     • Pete George 1.1.1

       5 April 2012 at 8:20 pm

       I am considering going to one, but I wanted to try and find out more about it first. I didn’t expect to be hissed at for asking basic questions.
       • alex 1.1.1.1

         5 April 2012 at 9:59 pm

         A basic question which a)nobody on this site can answer
         and b) is designed to subtly ridicule the Greens in the process.

         Stay classy Pete.
         • Pete George 1.1.1.1.1

           6 April 2012 at 6:35 am

           a) This is a post about a Green tour about key Green policies, right here on this site, so I think it’s reasonable to expect someone should be able to answer questions about it. Otherwise it would just be a drop and run an advertisement.

           b) Clarifying a key policy position should not ridicule, unless it’s a ridiculous position. You seem to be a bit sensitive and defensive about it.
           • Richard McGrath 1.1.1.1.1.1

             9 April 2012 at 10:11 pm

             I’m staggered at the rude response to your rather fundamental question, Pete. What springs to mind is that the Greens want to make all miners redundant immediately. Alex seems to know this and wants to avoid addressing this rather obvious corollary of an anti-mining policy .
             • Jenny …

               9 April 2012 at 11:51 pm

               The hoary old chestnut dragged out by all those who support exploitative industries, “it provides jobs”.
               Richard, Like the mining companies are doing this as a charity. Yeah right.

               If the mining lobby could get away with this sort of immoral and dishonest rationale, they would still have us mining asbestos. Think of all the jobs created they would say, as if this was the motive.

               The naked truth is that virtually any other industry you could name would provide more jobs than the extractive industries.

               I think most miners and their families would be happy if their menfolk could leave the mines, pick up their redundancy pay, and to go to safer and healthier alternative work at similar pay. What, I hear you cry, “but they’re not qualified for it.”
               Then they should be trained for it at government expense.

               If you think we can’t afford it, then I think you should watch the Utube link provided by Matt 8 April 2012 at 9:47 am

               Note particularly, the chart with the figures that show how pitifully little, New Zealand spends on R&D compared to almost all other developed countries.
               • Bernie Napp …

                 27 April 2012 at 10:11 am

                 Mining is a hi-tech, knowledge-based industry, as is the wine industry. Both are mostly foreign owned, and overseas shareholders deserve a return on their investment. Most miners I have met are sociable, intelligent, fit, family-minded people, who enjoy the outdoors. Are you seriously suggesting mining should be banned because it does not employ many people? With respect, I suggest you get some facts before interviewing your typewriter.
   • bad12 1.2

     6 April 2012 at 7:14 am

     Sounds good to us,sunsetting the present mining that is now occurring and canning the notion that Drill it, Mine it, Sell it, is some form of sustainable economic future would seem to be the Greens policy,

     We agree with that whole-heartedly, it now appears that more and more Kiwis also hold such beliefs…
   • Jenny 1.3

     7 April 2012 at 8:15 am

     Pete George
     5 April 2012 at 1:41 pm

     From coal (lignite and conventional), gold, iron sands and other mineral mining to fracking and deep sea oil drilling

     Do the Greens want to stop or prevent all of that?

     The question is Pete.

     Do we need it?

     I challenge you, (or anyone else), to justify any of it.
     • Jenny 1.3.1

       7 April 2012 at 8:23 am

       Apart from providing profits for some fat cats and despoiling the environment, what other purpose does it serve?
       • Jenny 1.3.1.1

         8 April 2012 at 8:22 am

         Still no takers.

         Is no one prepared to justify, rationalise, or explain why there should be any mining at all in New Zealand?

         Come on. I have given you an open field.

         How about you Pete?
         • Pete George 1.3.1.1.1

           8 April 2012 at 8:47 am

           I thought it was self evident head in sand Jenny.

           Like iron sands. Fertiliser. Coal. Oil. Gas. I guess we could do without them if we really wanted to – and needed. Try getting popular support for doing away with them. Or for just importing everything.

           Try suggesting it to the people of the West Coast, or Taranaki. And all the others who get employment and earnings and benefits.

           We could choose no mining or drilling. But New Zealand would be a very different place. Has anyone made it clear what sort of place that would be? Or is it all just naive ideology?
           • Jenny 1.3.1.1.1.1

             9 April 2012 at 12:52 am

             A much better defence of mining and drilling than CV’s intellectually lazy effort.

             Let us tackle the issues as you raised them, one by one.

             Iron sand, personally this is one I could live with, as the extraction of this resource is pretty much non polluting . But even here it is mostly not necessary. For instance the Glenbrook Steel Mill that processes iron sand into steel was originally built to operate on 50% recycled steel. However the plant lay around mothballed for more than a decade before being eventually demolished and broken up. The reason: it is more profitable to keep extracting raw materials than recycling the ones we already have.

             This story could be retold for most of all mineral exploitation around the globe. Destruction and waste are more profitable than recycling and conservation. Instead valuable and irreplaceable minerals are ending up in landfills, buried in a toxic sludge, mixed carelessly with the all the broken and deadly shards of glass and tangles of plastic, pieces of twisted broken metal, along with all the chemicals and poisons and rotting organic waste of our throw away society, combining them all in such a manner that almost deliberately makes these resources irretrievable in any meaningful way ever again.

             The other products you mention of mining and drilling, “Fertiliser. Coal. Oil. Gas.” all of these have renewable alternatives, ones that are sustainable and will not degrade the environment, or risk stranding our society up a technological dead end from which there is no hope of return, or recovery.

             The job creation myth, ie. that the removing these extractive jobs would be resented by those involved in them. No doubt this is true. But it needn’t be.

             Because the mining industry actually employs relatively few workers, indeed most of the alternative green technologies that could replace them are much more labour intensive ie could provide far more jobs, and probably more pleasant and safer as well.

             Your last point: “We could choose no mining or drilling. But New Zealand would be a very different place. Has anyone made it clear what sort of place that would be?”

             Yes I agree, New Zealand would be a very different place if we were to forgo exploitative extractive mining and drilling. Hopefully if the transition is well managed, New Zealand will be different in the sense that it will be better.

             We have reached a place in history where change will be thrust upon us.

             Change is inevitable and New Zealand is going to become a very different place, and in a relatively short historical period, when all these finite resources run down. If this transition is not managed in an orderly and timely manner and while there is still time to do it properly. Then New Zealand will be a very different place indeed. Different in the sense that it will be in a much worse off state. Not only will we no longer have the throw away materials we are currently dependent on, we will also have to deal with having to cope with a severely degraded and polluted and over heated natural environment.

             The question is:

             Which sort of different place would you rather see?
             • Colonial Viper …

               9 April 2012 at 10:07 am

               So are you proposing that NZ immediately transitions to a low energy, salvage/recycling/scrap based economy?

               A much better defence of mining and drilling than CV’s intellectually lazy effort.

               No, you’re the one refusing to intellectually go through the consequences for the people you will be affecting with your moral outrage. The intellectually weak platitudes you come up with for instance:

               Yes I agree, New Zealand would be a very different place if we were to forgo exploitative extractive mining and drilling. Hopefully if the transition is well managed, New Zealand will be different in the sense that it will be better.

               What if the transition is NOT well managed? And who would you trust to manage the transition?

               Come now Jenny, now time to be intellectually ducking and diving. You are proposing big economy moving changes now let’s hear the detail.
             • Bernie Napp …

               27 April 2012 at 10:14 am

               One question Jenny. What are wind turbines made out of?
         • Colonial Viper 1.3.1.1.2

           8 April 2012 at 8:57 am

           Is no one prepared to justify, rationalise, or explain why there should be any mining at all in New Zealand?

           Deglobalisation and localisation trends will increase very strongly in the next 4-5 years as fuel and transport costs continue to skyrocket.

           We will need to utilise our own heavy industries, energy reserves and sources of minerals/raw materials in that scenario. OR suffer a transition into a largely scavenging/recycling economy.
           • Matt 1.3.1.1.2.1

             8 April 2012 at 9:47 am

             Might be time to watch this again, posted here last year. A very worthwhile 20 minutes, or if you’re in a rush, catch the last five minutes first and go back to see the rest later.

             http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhCAyIllnXY  
             • Colonial Viper …

               8 April 2012 at 9:59 am

               Thanks
             • Jenny …

               9 April 2012 at 11:59 pm

               I tautoko that thanks Matt.

               Sir Paul Callaghan convincingly dissects and then flays, the drill it, mine it, frack it, lobby.

               10:19

               “If we as a nation continue to think that we can make a living by exploiting our resources we are in serious trouble.

               We have to change the way we live in New Zealand.”

               18:21

               “If we don’t understand the importance of the environment and social justice and liveable communities and good transport and a good education and good heath system, (then) we don’t get it.”

               8 April 2012 at 9:47 am
               • Colonial Viper …

                 10 April 2012 at 12:56 am

                 Yeah except Sir Paul was talking about creating high tech industries here in NZ. Which all require significant quantities of high embodied energy materials and components, whether they be advanced alloys, cutting edge electronic parts, PC’s or servers, as well as significant and reliable energy sources to run them.
           • Jenny 1.3.1.1.2.2

             9 April 2012 at 1:14 am

             I am not against heavy industry, CV, and believe that if done right can be sustainable. I almost find it humorous that you deride recycling as akin to scavenging.

             To not embrace recycling now is to condemn us to having to scavenge in the opened up toxic and deadly landfills to get the resources we need. (After of course, we have finished blasting and drilling for all possible recoverable resources to the point of the ruination of the environment).

             You along with many others CV will have to accept that BAU is not an option. It is just simply not sustainable.

             I think the Greens should be commended for having the courage to face these issues. I would recommend as many people as possible to attend.
             • Colonial Viper …

               9 April 2012 at 10:13 am

               Empty platitudes.

               You can’t recycle steel into a full range of uses without having virgin metal to add to the mix.

               Same with paperboard fibre. And there are some food and medical contact uses for which you need brand new pulp, and after which the product can never be recycled again.

               I am not against heavy industry, CV, and believe that if done right can be sustainable. I almost find it humorous that you deride recycling as akin to scavenging.

               More empty platitudes.

               I’ll give you three examples of heavy industries NZ relies upon and you tell me how they could be done right in your view:

               1) The oil refinery at Marsden Point.
               2) The aluminium smelter in Bluff.
               3) Phosphate fertiliser production.

               I think the Greens should be commended for having the courage to face these issues. I would recommend as many people as possible to attend.

               The Greens aren’t facing any of the real issues. Yes they have more awareness of what they may be compared to some of the other large parties.

               But they haven’t suggested what I believe you are suggesting (or at least implying): that NZ pursue a low energy, low GDP per capita, scrap/salvage/recycling economy.
               • Jenny …

                 10 April 2012 at 8:29 pm

                 1) The oil refinery at Marsden Point.

                 The hard one first.

                 Luckily apart from transport, New Zealand generates 70% of it’s energy from renewables. A vast scaling back of Marsden Point would be possible with a big switch to public transport in all our major cities and towns. Alongside this, legislation that favours rail freight and coastal shipping over road haulage. (as New Zealand used to have).

                 To further cut the need for imported oil, full electrification of the rail network. (Like most other 1st world countries)

                 Less demand, less need to spend foreign reserves on imported fuel. Less need for Marsden Point.

                 2) The aluminium smelter in Bluff.

                 Surely the simplest and most logical thing to do, would be to close it down.

                 This would have a number of positive effects. The most obvious one would be to free up all the electricity this foreign owned company gets at discounted rates. Estimated to be in the region of 15% to 20% of New Zealand’s total electrical generation. This would see a huge reduction in the use of the Huntly coal fired power station. This one act would would see New Zealand electricity supply become almost 90% renewable. This is without even looking at solar wind or tidal renewables.

                 With a few other bold and imaginative moves, I could see New Zealand becoming the first country to announce to the world the achievement of 100% renewable electricity generation.

                 3) Phosphate fertiliser production

                 In a word, Bio-char.

                 As well as being a miracle fertiliser, bio-char can be used as a coal substitute in industrial processes.

                 In fact bio-char is better than coal for steel production, because it is not contaminated with sulphur, which changes to sulphuric acid when steel is wet, and why steel rusts so badly.

                 If the Glen Brook steel mill switched to Bio-char they could market their product all over the world as high quality corrosion resistant “Green Steel”. (New Zealand Steel are already making a global name for themselves turning their smoke stack exhaust gases into fuel, as well as generating almost 70% of their own electricity from their waste heat.)

                 A national bio-char industry, as well as adding value to our renewable exotic forestry resource, would soak up all the workers laid off from Comalco, Huntly and the coal mines, and the Marsden Point oil refinery workers.
                 • Jenny …

                   11 April 2012 at 5:37 am

                   P.S. Google biochar CV, and tell me what you think.
       • Richard McGrath 1.3.1.2

         9 April 2012 at 10:13 pm

         “Is no one prepared to justify, rationalise, or explain why there should be any mining at all in New Zealand?”

         How about: harnessing otherwise unused and useless minerals for the greater benefit of mankind?
         • Jenny 1.3.1.2.1

           9 April 2012 at 11:17 pm

           How about: despoiling unused wilderness and useless climate for the greater benefit of fat cat investors?

           There fixed it for you, Richard.
           • Colonial Viper 1.3.1.2.1.1

             9 April 2012 at 11:36 pm

             Smart ass reply, not that useful as usual however because you haven’t thought through the ten year consequences.

             NZ as we know it today could not have been built without our own coal, our own steel, our own gas.

             And it cannot be maintained at current levels of operability without those things either.
       • Bernie Napp 1.3.1.3

         27 April 2012 at 10:12 am

         Um, without mining you would be sitting on the ground with no food and no clothes.
   • Jenny 1.4

     8 April 2012 at 8:28 am

     Why is it that those who support the mining don’t have to justify it?

     Why don’t/can’t they?
     • Colonial Viper 1.4.1

       8 April 2012 at 10:13 am

       Perhaps you think that other countries can do the mining/resource extraction and we just import, pay for and use the refined materials and energy that they then provide to us?
       • Jenny 1.4.1.1

         8 April 2012 at 11:39 pm

         Is this the best anyone can come up with?

         That because everyone else is ruining their environment, we should do so too.

         I’m afraid that this is not the sort of insightful sort of reasoned defence of mining I was looking for.

         Come on CV surely you can do better than this?
         • jbc 1.4.1.1.1

           8 April 2012 at 11:51 pm

           Jenny, do you know where all the materials come from that make NZ function?

           The iron and copper needed to generate and transmit electricity to our homes.
           The oil to power the ships and trains, and to make plastics, fabrics, etc.

           CV was just pointing out that those materials need to come from somewhere.

           Without mining we would be back at some pre-historic time cooking in clay pots, burning trees to cook our meals and burning animal fat to light our homes.

           So, presumably you are OK with the mining needed to support modern technology. Just you prefer it to happen outside NZ (like in Australia, China, Russia, etc)
           • Jenny 1.4.1.1.1.1

             9 April 2012 at 1:35 am

             CV was just pointing out that those materials need to come from somewhere.

             jbc

             And I was pointing out with real world examples the shocking waste that sees these finite resources burned up and dumped in the environment like there is no tomorrow.

             Waste, that if it was addressed would see a lot less exploitative mining and drilling and dumping world wide.

             Doesn’t this make anyone else angry?
             • Colonial Viper …

               9 April 2012 at 2:14 am

               Answer the question please, don’t dive around it with platitudes of moral outrage. I asked you:

               Perhaps you think that other countries can do the mining/resource extraction and we just import, pay for and use the refined materials and energy that they then provide to us?

               to which you replied:

               Is this the best anyone can come up with?

               That because everyone else is ruining their environment, we should do so too.

               Which is of course not a frakking answer at all. And to top it all off you then had the nerve to say that I didn’t come up with an adequate answer when you came up with NO answer. You just ducked and dived behind some bullshit moral outrage.

               So let me ask you again:

               Do you expect other countries to do the resource and energy extraction on our behalf therefore allowing us to import, pay for and use those materials and energy?

               You have not thought through the 5 year consequences of what you are proposing IMO. If WE don’t extract the energy and minerals ourselves, and we don’t IMPORT that energy and those minerals (both refined and raw) from elsewhere, then you are in effect asking us to immediately and rapidly transition to a low energy, scavenging/scrap/recycling economy.

               So to clarify, are you asking New Zealanders to immediately and rapidly transition to a low energy scavenging/scrap/recycling economy?

               Our economic and agricultural output would plummet by over 25% in 12 months, and another 25% in the 12 months after that. And a lot of Kiwis are going to be cold, hungry, and stranded.
               • Jenny …

                 9 April 2012 at 9:12 am

                 CV at least you’re engaging now.

                 Yes, I admit that my reply to your rejoinder was shallow. Deliberately so. And I apologise for that. But we as a nation need to look seriously and fearlessly into the face the very dire crisis the whole world is entering as we continue down the same path of recklessly extraction and wasteful consumption and pollution.

                 BAU is not an option.

                 Here, or anywhere else.

                 Do you accept this fact, or not?
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   9 April 2012 at 10:15 am

                   CV at least you’re engaging now.

                   Don’t be condescending. I understand these issues as well as you, and I suspect that I understand the 10 year implications (although perhaps not the longer term ones) much better than you do.
                 • Jenny …

                   9 April 2012 at 10:24 am

                   I am gladdened to see CV that you are prepared to peer over the edge of the abyss. I believe that if it is managed right, it need not be as bad as you paint it.

                   So to clarify, are you asking New Zealanders to immediately and rapidly transition to a low energy scavenging/scrap/recycling economy?
                   Our economic and agricultural output would plummet by over 25% in 12 months, and another 25% in the 12 months after that. And a lot of Kiwis are going to be cold, hungry, and stranded.

                   In the World War II scenario, yes, there was rationing and no doubt hardship. But I believe, that we can have outcomes that will be nowhere near as extreme. That is if we act now.

                   If we don’t act now to conserve our resources, and protect our natural environment. Then when the crunch finally does come, (which it will). “a lot of Kiwis are going to be cold, hungry, and stranded.” With never any relief or possibility of improvement, or escape.

                   Do you doubt it?
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     9 April 2012 at 10:32 am

                     You’re not talking about “conserving resources” you’re talking about ending all mineral and energy resource extraction within NZ, as well as not using extracted minerals and energy imported from overseas.

                     Don’t take a softer line now to try and appear palatable.

                     In the World War II scenario, yes, there was rationing and no doubt hardship. But I believe, that we can have outcomes that will be nowhere near as extreme. That is if we act now.

                     You’re wrong of course. Its likely going to be worse. You are proposing we transition immediately to a low GDP low energy per capita salvage/recycling/scrap economy.

                     As I said, around WWII NZ still owned its own assets, was highly self sufficient, and controlled its economic destiny. No more, not for a long time.

                     Prepare to give up even once a year plane flights to visit relatives and friends in the other island.
               • Jenny …

                 9 April 2012 at 10:12 am

                 So to clarify, are you asking New Zealanders to immediately and rapidly transition to a low energy scavenging/scrap/recycling economy?
                 Our economic and agricultural output would plummet by over 25% in 12 months, and another 25% in the 12 months after that. And a lot of Kiwis are going to be cold, hungry, and stranded.

                 Colonial Viper 9 April 2012 at 1:35

                 CV this is the sort of scenario that New Zealand found itself in, at the outbreak of World War II. Rubber, glass, fuel oil, and most imported raw materials virtually disappeared from the economy overnight. As a nation we successfully navigated the transition to become what you would call a low energy, scavenging/scrap/recycling economy

                 We are at war now, but this time we are at war with the very biosphere that sustains our existence. And we are losing.

                 In particular, humanity needs to rather than expand, cut fossil fuel mining and extraction and use drastically.

                 (The Greens with their open agenda, are suggesting that we also need to try and conserve some of the other finite resources and minerals as well.)

                 Climate change, general pollution, habitat destruction, peak oil, are all a global problem

                 As a small nation we can not have much affect on the direction which the rest of the globe is heading.

                 What we could and should do, is be an example, or even a template if you will, of what a first world country and a government, if it actually explored and applied itself to the problem, could and should do.

                 Some country will have to be first.

                 And it would not be the first time that New Zealand provided world leadership by way of example.

                 If not us who?
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   9 April 2012 at 10:21 am

                   So you aren’t hiding behind the consequences of what you are suggesting.

                   And I’ll tell you one thing: today’s soft middle/upper middle class class are completely psychologically unprepared for the rationing, narrow choice of products and foods, fuel shortages, and physical labour which marked the WWII and immediate post war periods.

                   Look at how people squeeled when shops were shut for a couple of days. How peoples’ anxiety skyrocketed in the supermarkets on Thursday night before Good Friday – just because shops were going to be closed one day. It was pitiful.

                   Further, in the 1940’s NZ was extremely self sufficient in industry, skills and materials. We are no longer.

                   Think of a future with no new computer parts, no imported medicines, no fertilisers, no imported fuel, no spares for cars/boats/planes, no rice or other “exotic” imported foods, no more new power generating wind turbines.
                   • Jenny …

                     9 April 2012 at 10:32 am

                     I am gladdened to see CV that you are prepared to peer over the edge of the abyss. I believe that if it is managed right, it need not be as bad as you paint it.

                     So to clarify, are you asking New Zealanders to immediately and rapidly transition to a low energy scavenging/scrap/recycling economy?
                     Our economic and agricultural output would plummet by over 25% in 12 months, and another 25% in the 12 months after that. And a lot of Kiwis are going to be cold, hungry, and stranded.

                     In the World War II scenario, yes, there was rationing and no doubt hardship. But I believe, that we can have outcomes that will be nowhere near as extreme. That is if we act now.

                     If we don’t act now to conserve our resources, and protect our natural environment. Then when the crunch finally does come, (which it will). “a lot of Kiwis are going to be cold, hungry, and stranded.” With never any relief or possibility of improvement, or escape.

                     As for computer parts etc. I am desperately trying to weave myself a new desktop out of wicker work as we talk.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     9 April 2012 at 10:55 am

                     As for computer parts etc. I am desperately trying to weave myself a new desktop out of wicker work as we talk.

                     That, and the HVDC link between South Island and North Island would fail without routine supplies of parts full of refined metals, sourced from Europe.

                     I guess you’ll have to make an exception for those because wickerwork won’t cut it as replacements.
             • jbc …

               9 April 2012 at 2:21 am

               Waste and recycling are very critical areas for improvement and I would likely agree with strong conservation approaches there.

               I don’t like mining either, but I see it as a necessary evil at present. Heavy metals mining and smelting areas are among the most polluted places on the planet. Zinc, copper and other metals are very messy to refine too.

               My point would be that all of that seems to be conveniently ignored. Whether or not we mine it in NZ, we are still mining it elsewhere and using the end product it in NZ.

               With much of the world’s population largely undeveloped by NZ standards I don’t think this is a problem that will go away.

               I’d prefer a clean mine in NZ to a dirty one elsewhere in pure ethical terms. I suspect China and Russia have some mines that would make Pike River look like a holiday park.
       • jbc 1.4.1.2

         8 April 2012 at 11:40 pm

         That seems to be a rational deduction when you include other Greens’ policy. They like ships, trains, compact fluorescent lights, and presumably a whole lot of other modern technology.

         All of these things are made out of materials extracted from the ground (metals, rare-earths, oil, etc). When you consider the raw materials behind everything required for people to post on The Standard then you will realise most of it comes back to mining (metals, semiconductors) or oil (plastics, fuel) as a primary source.

         I asked a question [below] about the Greens’ view on mining worldwide to clarify that point. It remains unanswered.

         I suspect the position is more “not in my backyard” than “not anywhere and we should not import”.
         • Jenny 1.4.1.2.1

           9 April 2012 at 1:43 am

           I cannot speak for the Greens, but personally world wide there needs to be a lot less of it.

           BAU is not an option.

           The world is not infinite.
           • Jenny 1.4.1.2.1.1

             9 April 2012 at 1:56 am

             It is because the world is not infinite, that those who persist in BAU are increasing and expanding the mining and drilling in parts of the world where it has never been considered before, places like the arctic, and the deep sea and even distant far away clean green New Zealand.
             • Jenny …

               9 April 2012 at 2:11 am

               Desperate to counter the effects of declining peak oil, alongside the expansion of drilling and mining into new territories . Dirtier and riskier methods are also being used.

               Lignite to diesel, Tar sands to fuel oil, deep see drilling, mountain top removal. The inevitable catastrophes deaths and pollution. And hanging over everything the grand daddy of them all ‘Climate Change.’

               Does any of this give these idiots even a minute of reflection?

               Not a bit of it.
               • Colonial Viper …

                 9 April 2012 at 2:16 am

                 Physical economics are going to do the heavy lifting for you here. You don’t have to keep up the indignant moral outrage, energy depletion is already in strong and increasing affect around the world.

                 $3/L petrol is going to get more cars off the road than your hot air ever will.
                 • Jenny …

                   9 April 2012 at 9:27 am

                   …..energy depletion is already in strong and increasing affect around the world.

                   $3/L petrol is going to get more cars off the road than your hot air ever will.

                   Colonial Viper

                   Yet the madness continues.

                   Solid Energy (and others) hope to exploit the rising cost of petroleum and are currently building a pilot plant to turn coal into diesel, with plans for a whole industry.

                   To coldly decide on this policy direction is to condemn us all.

                   Admittedly it will take a lot more than my “indignant moral outrage” and “hot air” to stop this act of deliberate ecocide.

                   For this I salute the Greens for raising this topic for nation-wide debate.

                   As climate change makes itself more apparent, this issue will become the defining policy for all political parties and movements.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     9 April 2012 at 10:00 am

                     So are you advocating that NZ transitions immediately to a low energy use salvage/scrap/recycling economy?
                   • Jenny …

                     9 April 2012 at 12:26 pm

                     So are you advocating that NZ transitions immediately to a low energy use salvage/scrap/recycling economy?

                     Colonial Viper
                     9 April 2012 at 10:00 am

                     If that is what it takes, CV. Then, yes.

                     What do you think New Zealand should do?
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     9 April 2012 at 12:40 pm

                     If that is what it takes, CV. Then, yes.

                     What do you think New Zealand should do?

                     I think NZ needs to prepare hard out for the coming collapse (probably an extended decline actually) in globalised energy, financial and physical resources. It can do so by setting up extremely robust infrastructure and systems designed to squeeze the last bit of goodness from every litre of diesel, every kilogram of plastic and every tonne of steel. These flexible, robust systems will have a lot of utility in a world of industrial scarcity transitioning into a salvage economy.

                     It also needs to invest massively in those under 30 years of age. They will have a tough burden to bear and over the next 20 years society is going to be relying on them to get the things we need, done.

                     It also means not giving up the use of our heavy industries and mineral resources today, but significantly retasking how and where they are used.
                   • Jenny …

                     9 April 2012 at 4:16 pm

                     I think NZ needs to prepare hard out for the coming collapse (probably an extended decline actually) in globalised energy, financial and physical resources.

                     Colonial Viper
                     9 April 2012 at 12:40 pm

                     CV, As of yet, I have not seen any political party, not even the Greens put up such a programme.

                     I hope you can make it to one of the Green’s hui to argue your case, and from there, explain how the Greens can win over the other ruling parties to their programme.

                     P.S. I would also like to hear discussion on some real world solutions on how, CV, you think we get from the current global state of frenetic global wide expansion in drilling, mining, fracking and increasing CO2 pollution, to a “globalised “extended decline”?

                     I know this is a big ask, but I am sure you would get an appreciative audience for your ideas.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     9 April 2012 at 11:44 pm

                     P.S. I would also like to hear discussion on some real world solutions on how, CV, you think we get from the current global state of frenetic global wide expansion in drilling, mining, fracking and increasing CO2 pollution, to a “globalised “extended decline”?

                     There are no real world global solutions. As Greer suggests, the energy depletion/fossil fuel over-reliance scenario we find ourselves in is not simply a problem to be solved. It is a predicament. And predicaments have no answers.

                     That’s globally of course. Locally there are a lot of things we can and need to do. Of course, no political party in Parliament today is even whispering about them. All of them are too busy pretending that “growth” is right around the corner (whether its GDP growth, jobs growth or ‘green’ growth).

                     My aspiration is that NZ will eventually settle into quite a comfortable sustainable mode of life not unlike the 1940’s and 1950’s in terms of energy and resource consumption.
2. Dr Terry 2

   5 April 2012 at 2:08 pm

   This time, I shall be foolish enough to answer you. There is damn all difference between “stopping” and “preventing” – unless you want to play around with words. Just get yourself into gear,
   stop mincing words and ACT.
   • Pete George 2.1

     5 April 2012 at 3:58 pm

     Does that mean Greens want all current mining and drilling ceased, and no more allowed? The meaning of the words are important.
     • Matt 2.1.1

       5 April 2012 at 4:08 pm

       Then you shouldn’t be asking some other spectator what the Greens mean, should you. Go drink some drain cleaner.
3. LoveIT 3

   5 April 2012 at 3:47 pm

   I love how you are supporting the Greens, the new opposition party!

   Anyways, you come along like good little puppies now.

   Whistle whistle.
4. Robert Atack 4

   5 April 2012 at 4:51 pm

   The Greeds are such a joke
   We have Norman going on about how a 25 yo Kiwi Saver having his/her funds managed by Kiwi Bank would save them big bucks in administration fees over the 40 years the investor was in the fund.
   Yet the fools can’t work out that without continued growth the Kiwi Saver would be broke, and to have continued growth the system must have an uninterrupted supply of cheap energy.
   Until the wankers come clean on this scam who in their right minds would consider anything they have to say?
   The Greed Party is as much to blame for the fucked up situation we are in and the even worse one we will be in, due to the governments bullshit and continued lies, they are all the same – trash humans
   • Matt 4.1

     5 April 2012 at 5:13 pm

     Really, the Greens will be as much to blame for not-cheap energy prices as National, who wants to sell off energy producers to private interests? The Greens do appear to have figured that part out.

     Ask the people with methane coming out of their taps how great unregulated — or insufficiently regulated — fracking is.
     • Robert Atack 4.1.1

       5 April 2012 at 6:44 pm

       Ask the people with methane coming out of their taps how great unregulated — or insufficiently regulated — fracking is.
       I agree Matt, but to maintain Kiwi Saver (which the greeds voted for, and continue to support) we must have more of everything, that is what growth is after all.
       We are about to start the global head dive into a very dry oil well, the average price of oil is higher than in 2008 (see IEA), so to maintain this system TPTB and basically all of us have to keep discovering and using, more fossil fuels.
       That is what 1.3(?) million Kiwis Savers have committed to, I’m sure some of them vote Green?
       There is no substitute for fossil fuels, and even if there was, it isn’t here now, the transition to whatever ???, will take more time than the fossil fuelled economy has, so logic says Kiwi Saver is dead in the water, and every politician that stays quite on this fact is supporting the finial dying grasp of this failed experiment.
       It is so way to late now, no matter what we do, so we might as well frack, being as we are fucked)
       It is just sad that people keep chucking more babies at this unavoidable future. If for some unknown reason this shit storm doesn’t hit us (we are over 85 maybe) it sure as will hit say …. Gareth’s children?
       The Greeds have figured one thing out, most ‘voters/humans’ are fucking idiots, selfish, and short sighted. Just like them.
       So we get what we deserve.
       • Matt 4.1.1.1

         5 April 2012 at 7:58 pm

         Robert

         I am not sure I understand some of this. I don’t see the direct oil/energy >> Kiwisaver connection. Would you elaborate please?
         • Pete George 4.1.1.1.1

           5 April 2012 at 8:22 pm

           Some advice from further up for asking questions:
           “Then you shouldn’t be asking some other spectator what the Greens mean, should you. Go drink some drain cleaner.”
           • Matt 4.1.1.1.1.1

             5 April 2012 at 10:17 pm

             Moron, I was asking Robert what he thinks, not his characterization of what someone else thinks. [Deleted – steady on eh. — r0b]
         • Robert Atack 4.1.1.1.2

           5 April 2012 at 8:55 pm

           Matt
           Kiwi Saver is dependent on a growing economy. And a growing economy needs a growing supply of energy, be it a coal fired power plant in China, or a fracked gas powered electricity in the US.
           I don’t agree with the idea of fracking, I think it is the final insult to the planet, but if people like Gareth want to have children, then ‘the system’ is going to have to keep trying to find more gas etc, to clothe and feed the growing number of people . … And that is the horse Kiwi Saver is backing. The simple fact is you can not have infinite growth on a finite planet, which is 100% ignored by the concept of Kiwi Saver, And as the Green Party is meant to be pro the planet, they should stand up and say Kiwi Saver is dependent on destroying the planet, not voting the poxy scam in, or ‘promoting’ it during the elections, or keeping quite about it now, while crying crocodile tears over anything anyone does that encourages bloody growth.
           I’m not for ‘it’ I’m just pointing out the Greens are full of shit, just like every other politician.
       • bad12 4.1.1.2

         6 April 2012 at 7:31 am

         We see Kiwisaver funds when in the hands of the private sector as being as near to a PONZI scheme as can be legitimized by a Government anywhere,

         As the Capitalist money system has at its core a propensity for cyclic collapses and retractions in the calculated ”growth” and in consideration of the fact that tho the investments are supposedly ”spread” to alleviate risk in the future such privately managed funds will have to rob Peter to pay Paul once the drawdown on the funds start in earnest,

         Many of these funds will simply collapse…
5. jbc 5

   5 April 2012 at 11:52 pm

   It is clear that the NZ Greens are against mining in NZ, but what about mining worldwide?

   In the past few years I’ve been made aware that the technology behind a lot of energy saving technology is rather dirty itself. For example these things:

   http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-04-rare-earth-metals-green-economy.html
   http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=21777

   I’ve heard the story about how hybrid cars are actually the dirtiest when you consider the whole lifecycle (manufacturing, operating, disposal). I’m open to hearing the science behind all of this but haven’t read any sound rebuttals of the rare earth mining environmental problem.

   What is the Green’s position on this? Big oil conspiracy or actually true?
   • Jenny 5.1

     9 April 2012 at 1:45 am

     Quite true.
     • Colonial Viper 5.1.1

       9 April 2012 at 12:43 pm

       It takes years and years for a Toyota Prius to become carbon/energy neutral, once you factor in what went in to make the damn thing in the first place. And the only way to make it really “pay off” is to be putting lots of km’s on it so the “savings” with an ordinary petrol car improves. A kind of “the more you drive, the more petrol you save” logic. More moronic economics.
6. bad12 6

   6 April 2012 at 7:22 am

   40,000 Kiwis took to the streets of our largest city in effect to tell the National Government that Drill it, Mine it, Sell it, is not an acceptable economic platform for ”now” or the ”future”

   High profile people have risked their lucrative careers to reinforce that message,

   National have chosen to ignore this, ignorance equals peril and National will pay the price electorally…
7. millsy 7

   6 April 2012 at 1:51 pm

   To me, it is not so much the drilling/mining itself but the fact that it is very much looking like that all the resources are going to be dug up, and shipped offshore, with the profits not too far behind, and all of us kiwi’s will be left with is a bunch of dirty stinking toxic sludge pits, and little else to show for it.

   It may be argued that ‘jobs’ will be created, but seeing as businesses would rather import workers from offshore than train our young people, that argument is blown out of the water in spectacular fashion.

   What we really need (and what the Greens should be arguing for), is a national oil/mining company and a sovereign wealth fund.
8. vanakast 8

   6 April 2012 at 4:22 pm

   The greens advocate for the use of technology yet vehemently oppose the extraction of minerals needed in such technology, they are inconsistent hypocrites who should be deported to antarctica.
   • felix 8.1

     6 April 2012 at 4:35 pm

     “yet vehemently oppose the extraction of minerals needed in such technology”

     [Citation needed]
   • Robert Atack 8.2

     7 April 2012 at 8:55 am

     Citation http://www.greens.org.nz/
     they are full of shit
     • Colonial Viper 8.2.1

       9 April 2012 at 11:48 pm

       Yes but no worse than anyone else in that mad house.
9. Bernie Napp 9

   27 April 2012 at 10:05 am

   The Green Party, unfortunately, is a fact-free zone. We have repeatedly offered to provide real information on minerals and mining in New Zealand, and, sadly, have been routinely ignored. Nonetheless, we will keep trying. Meanwhile I look forward to spotting Gareth Hughes MP travelling around the country on his wooden bicycle, hand carved with stone tools.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS