Anti-deepsea drilling petition

41 comments on “Anti-deepsea drilling petition ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Afewknowthetruth 1

   18 October 2011 at 10:51 am

   I am totally opposed to off-shore drilling but I won’t bother to sign the petition.

   One thing is very clear: governments take no notice of petitions. We saw that on the law and order issue, when the government totally ignored the 87% support.

   Indeed, I now conclude that governments are not interested in what is good for people and are especially not interested in the welfare next generation.

   Governments are simply the national agents for global corporations and money-lenders. Local councils and regional councils act as the local agents for enforcement of the dysfuntion promoted by global corporations and money-lenders.

   At this point in time there is ‘only one game in town’ and that is to ‘loot the till while there is still something left to loot’ (plus keep the masses distracted and dumbed-down with rugby etc., of course)
   • Blighty 1.1

     18 October 2011 at 11:13 am

     you know, you’re right about some stuff but you’ll never get people to agree and act accordingly while you’re so disempowering, AFKTT.
     • Lanthanide 1.1.1

       18 October 2011 at 11:47 am

       AFKTT has already made his mind up about everything in the world and is always correct about everything. His views on other peoples motivations for doing what they do are the only acceptable opinions anyone is allowed to hold, and if you have a different view (regardless of your reasoning for it) you’re wrong.

       We should elect him dictator and he’ll solve all our problems.
     • Colonial Viper 1.1.2

       18 October 2011 at 11:09 pm

       I have had a few goes against AKFTT, his negativity etc. but basically he’s right.

       Anyone under 30 today has been seriously lied to. The future is not what we have been sold and that will become clear fairly shortly (for many of the 46M on food stamps in the US its already crystal; also for recent NZ uni grads with many thousands in student debt but who can at best land a crummy $14-$15/hr job in this economy and thats if they are lucky).

       Now this is not to say that happy, productive, sociable, enjoyable lives are not going to be possible once peak energy really starts biting. In NZ its going to be quite within our reach.

       But damn we better get a move on before even those modest dreams slip away.
   • Enough is Enough 1.2

     18 October 2011 at 12:27 pm

     AFKTT there are always good people and there is always hope.

     Your approach is to rant daily about there being no hope and that in effect we are all doomed.

     Things need to change, considerably. There are very few people who doubt that.

     However your negative “we are all completley fucked” approach to educating us almost has pushes me in the opposite direction. If the clock is ticking and society is on a one way street to implosion, why would or should we try and clean up this mess. We may as well go out in style, get a big credit card, buy a gas guzzling V8, invest recklessly with other peoples money in the forex market, and vote ACT so that I can at least have a year or two of enjoying my life before it all falls down on us. Why build a better society for all if we are all fucked anyway?

     Perhaps you should get outside, take a deep breath of fresh air, enjoy the sun and think, how can I change this world for the better? Stop being so defeatist.

     The left holds the answers. We now need to embrace them and encourage the elctorate to do the same.
     • Lanthanide 1.2.1

       18 October 2011 at 12:35 pm

       I’ve said similar things in the past, although not as eloquently. Didn’t change his behaviour at all.
       • Armchair Critic 1.2.1.1

         18 October 2011 at 10:51 pm

         His predictions of the world ending in the next three or four years are totally wrong – it’s all ending this Friday.
     • Colonial Viper 1.2.2

       18 October 2011 at 11:21 pm

       The left holds the answers. We now need to embrace them and encourage the elctorate to do the same.

       Being a Left kind of guy I’ll let you in on a difficult to swallow little secret.

       The crushing political economic problems that crony cartel capitalism has brought to us is beyond Left and Right politics. This is about the 99% versus the 1%. This truth is typified by the broad political and non-partisan nature of those participating in OWS.

       The cliff drop that energy depletion brings to us is also beyond Left and Right politics. It is about those who have the mental aptitude, physical health, and skills to get important things done now in preparation and in the future.
   • freedom 1.3

     18 October 2011 at 1:38 pm

     AFKTT, You needlessly dismiss the impact such information can have upon the dialogue. Even simple petitions, though not binding or even taken seriously by many, are still reasonable and useful barometers of a topic’s place in society. Their content has a habit of insinuating itself into a psyche. When combined with purposeful messages this can contribute to what we secretly wish for, a better life for all.

     You can bet a few bars of bullion that the powers that be most certainly take notice of these petitions.
     If nothing else they are vital in the framing of the general propoganda of press releases. For this reason alone it is imperative that people address every opportunity to publicise the need for change in our society.

     I freely state i have numerous issues with what Greenpeace became but on certain issues the need for coming together as one voice is more important than the perceived futility of the action.
   • Jenny 1.4

     19 October 2011 at 7:04 pm

     I am totally opposed to off-shore drilling but I won’t bother to sign the petition.

     One thing is very clear: governments take no notice of petitions.

     Afewknowthetruth

     Afew…. I think your approach is completely wrong headed. Already the Labour opposition have promised to put a moratorium on deep sea oil drilling on their return to the treasury benches. A huge response to the Greenpeace petition could encourage them to make their ban permanent.

     If not next year, eventually Labour will be the government again.

     This is how change happens, it may be little and it may be late, but it may be the beginning of even more and further reaching anti-climate change policy.

     I have signed and will encourage all my friends to sign too.
2. Uturn 2

   18 October 2011 at 12:36 pm

   I guess you have to consider what oil is making possible in your life. If you own anything made overseas, or even in a city in another Island, you might want to reconsider a hard-line stance.

   If the argument was hydroelectric vs. Nuclear reactor power, an uncompromising stance would be viable. But that’s not what no oil means. The Rena wasn’t even an oil tanker. It’s like what happens if your car ruptures its sump after you drive it over a curb, but on a much larger scale. No one would call for the end to cars because of a freak accident. Ships like the Rena don’t go crashing onto reefs every other day like cars do on the road. How many ships have entered and left NZ ports since the Rena ran aground? The idea that once is too much is not realistic.

   So tell me how NZ will cope making everything it now consumes at home? How many urban dwellers will starve because food cannot be transported fast enough in large enough quantities? Or is it all just another comfortable urban hippie luxury ideal (no drilling here, but we’ll take the goods supported by overseas drilling). Should we tear down the CBD accounting firm sky scrapers and plant market gardens instead? Will it just be a case of see who survives? I’m sure there are any number of beautiful ideological justifications, but none of them are responsible and no responsible government would consider them. Get the alternatives FIRST, then reduce your use of products supported by oil.
   • lprent 2.1

     18 October 2011 at 2:53 pm

     For me (and many people) the issue isn’t about the uses of oil or gas as you mistakenly seem to think is the main issue. That attitude speaks volumes about your monumental ignorance on the issue.

     It is that NZ is completely unready to handle oil-spill disasters while actively soliciting offshore oil exploration and extraction in areas that are literally kilometers under water. We also essentially have no effective (ie knowledgeably inspected) controls over the oil companies or their exploration crews. We also have no way to realistically put such a control regime in place in less than a decade.

     Oil companies are amongst the worst organisations in the world at being massively environmentally dirty if they can get away with it. Try the Nigerian deltas if you want to see how they will crap all over the landscape if there are no effective controls on them. Quite simply they are an industry where if you give them an inch, they will contaminate a mile with leaky pipes because it is cheaper to bribe a government minister than it is to fix their equipment.

     NZ’s economy is largely based on producing from reasonably sustainable resources – farming, forestry, fishing, tourism, etc. Only a complete moron would let oil companies come in here and start destroying parts of the ecology that those industries depend apon. Of course that is what our past and current MED ministers or Brownlee and Parata appear to want to do. They simply don’t have the expertise in their department or in Maritime NZ to control the oil companies, to put in effective legislation, or even to evaluate the oil companies proposals for risk to other industries.

     After that of course there are the issues of what this will do to our obligations under the Kyoto agreement and its successors and the question of if we want this country to extract that oil now (when it will be worth a hell of a lot more in a few decades). These are the issues that this government is trying to avoid looking at while they arrange to have their friends make a quick buck at our expense.
     • Afewknowthetruth 2.1.1

       18 October 2011 at 6:38 pm

       Sorry, you are way off track if you think that farming, fishing and tourism are sustainable.

       All are totally dependent on oil (and farming is dependent on imported phospahe and potash, and urea manufactured from natural gas).

       All are predicated on adding huge amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere,thereby rendering the Earth largely uninhabitable by the end of this century if we are lucky and by mid-century if we are less lucky.

       Kyoto was doomed to failure a decade ago, and now nothing whatsoever is being done to prevent abrupt climate change: watch the video, it’s all there

       http://guymcpherson.com/2011/09/couchsurfing-with-my-soapbox/
     • John D 2.1.2

       19 October 2011 at 9:36 am

       I do actually agree with some of your points lprent, on the issues of our preparedness for oil spills. NZ does have a rather unfortunate “she’ll be right mate” attitude to safety in many domains.

       I would have thought a sensible approach to this would be to demand that Oil companies provide sufficient contingency plans to handle the worst scenarios. It is our geographical distance from big machinery (as seen in the Rena case) that leaves us exposed to these situations.
       • lprent 2.1.2.1

         20 October 2011 at 1:36 pm

         Contingency plans by anyone are worth approximately the paper that they are written on unless that are checked. Part of that check is to regularly ensure that the plans are feasible – ie that the required people and equipment are capable of responding to the crisis. This is part of the reason why the armed forces and civil defense regularly have exercises – because they have the issue of long times between events.

         One thing thing is quite clear is that some of the other disaster relief contingency plans are not exercised to the same level (and I think that the CD exercises are way too inadequate). That is what has shown up with the Pike River mine, the Rena spill, and in my opinion with the government & EQC response towards making Christchurch habitable until he city can be rebuilt.

         If oil companies are responsible for deep offshore spills, then they should have to demonstrate that their contingency plans are workable. To date I haven’t seen anything that requires that they are, nor have I seen that the MED/Maritime NZ have the capabilities to even look at those contingency plans to see if they are adequate.

         Consequently, I don’t think that anything apart from passive scans should go ahead until those government organisations can demonstrate that they are up to scratch. Rena demonstrates that they have about as much expertise as Joyce has at being a minister – sweet FA.

         These types of capabilities and exercises are expensive to do, but will massively pay off for NZ when there is a problem. I really couldn’t give a shit about oil companies profits. They don’t live here.
   • Draco T Bastard 2.2

     18 October 2011 at 5:33 pm

     http://www.zeitgeistmovingforward.com/

     There you go. Ideas on how we can have a sustainable high-tech society without oil (or having to work 40+ hour weeks).
     • Colonial Viper 2.2.1

       20 October 2011 at 1:41 pm

       I’ve got a suggestion for a new working week. Four days on, three days off.

       For everyone.
3. infused 3

   18 October 2011 at 1:58 pm

   “Or is it all just another comfortable urban hippie luxury ideal (no drilling here, but we’ll take the goods supported by overseas drilling). Should we tear down the CBD accounting firm sky scrapers and plant market gardens instead? ”

   ^^++
   • Colonial Viper 3.1

     18 October 2011 at 11:28 pm

     Hey infused, the skyscrapers will tear themselves down.

     Really, they will. In an era of steep energy depletion they will no longer be used. Seriously.

     Wall St layoffs for the last one year and the next one year will easily exceed 100,000.

     That’s a shit load of empty skyscraper floors and unused accountants.

     Man you are so behind the curve its embarrassing.
4. pollywog 4

   18 October 2011 at 3:00 pm

   FUCK OIL !!!

   Humans are dumb. It’s like we have a collective deathwish. As though deep down we know we don’t really deserve or are worthy of being the ‘masters’ of this planet…

   The first century of the Industrial Revolution, the 1800s, was powered by coal, whale oil, and slaves. The 20th was the century of petroleum (though 40 percent of U.S. train freight is still coal). World electricity generation is still two-thirds combustion (40 percent coal, 20 percent natural gas, six percent oil); plus 15 percent nuclear, 16 percent hydropower, and 2 percent other renewables. That’s how we get energy.

   Here’s a taste of how we waste it…

   http://www.pacificvoyagers.org/voyage/blogs/energya-taste-of-waste.html
5. Afewknowthetruth 5

   18 October 2011 at 6:17 pm

   After spending 20 years trying to persuade people to adopt the solutions (powerdown and permaculture etc) to the problems I highlight, I now recognise that people are essentially stupid, stubborn and lazy. And councils and government are corrupt.

   Many people are very happy to criticise on blogs and forums but don’t actually want to do do anything. (Today I spent several hours working with the awarebness group who are ‘occupying’ in NP, delfected a council attack on them, showed them how to tackle the council at a full council meeting, tackled two MPs who were in town on the dysfunvtion they promote, talked to a dozen other people, incluing one from Paraguay, about all the issues and what they need to do to become informed.)

   As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, I am already way ahead of most people in planting (100+ fruit trees), sustainable livining (passive solar etc.) A couple of weeks ago I did two radio interviews.

   But when I point out what people need to do, most people give me a blank look of disbeleif or ‘that’s too hard’, and carry on doing exactly what they were doing before. As i point out in TEW, most people are unreachable. I have probably got through to about 0.2% of the populace of this distrcit after pressing the major issues of our time for the past 5 years (having given up on Orcland, where I wasted the previous five pressing the same issues. ). That’s why there is no hope.

   The crisies that were highlighted decades ago have now morphed into calamatous predicaments; and people are still in denial, still locked into the dysfunctional arrangemens that are rapidly destroying the habitability of the Earth.

   It’s not my fault that CO2 emissions are now almost certainly beyond the point of no return and that the planet is largely fucked. Nor is it my fault that people on this forum cannot handle the truth.

   Armchair critics are ubiquitous.
   • higherstandard 5.1

     18 October 2011 at 7:26 pm

     The planet is not largely fucked – it will continue on quite nicely without nay concern to the CO2 emissions.

     Whether the same can be said for society as we know it – time will tell.
     • mik e 5.1.1

       18 October 2011 at 7:47 pm

       co2 at record levels and going higher head in the oily sand syndrome
     • Afewknowthetruth 5.1.2

       18 October 2011 at 9:18 pm

       HS

       When you write:’The planet is not largely fucked – it will continue on quite nicely without nay concern to the CO2 emissions.’ presumablky you are refering to the rocks that constitute the bulk of the Earth, rather than the living systems that inhabit the Earth.

       Living systems are extremely sensitive to the kind of changes in CO2 levels we are witnessing, of course.
       • Colonial Viper 5.1.2.1

         20 October 2011 at 1:50 pm

         I’m with hs here, the Earth will keep going quite happily whether or not our current biosphere is cooked or not.

         Homo sapiens are a mere blip on the geological timescale after all. Blink and you’d miss us. Or rather, no one would miss us.
6. travellerev 6

   18 October 2011 at 6:17 pm

   Einstein said it: There are two things infinite; the universe and human stupidity and I am not so sure about the universe! We’ll make all the stupid choices, you can bank on that.
   • Afewknowthetruth 6.1

     18 October 2011 at 6:48 pm

     Another great quote from Einstein: ‘The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has linits.’

     Einstein was lucky to have lived in a world that had not been severely depleted of resources and has not been severely polluted, yet he saw human nature for what it was. If he could be with us now, I wonder what he would make of the shocking mess humanity has made of things since he died.

     Recognising resource depletion and the collapse of civilisation that was to come, he did say: “I know not what the next war will be fought with but the one after that will be fought with sticks and stones.”
     • travellerev 6.1.1

       18 October 2011 at 7:01 pm

       Yeah and we are heading for that unknown war as we write this:

       http://www.infowars.com/us-begins-huge-military-maneuvers-aimed-at-iran/

       Another great example of human stupidity in the making!
7. Scott Chris 7

   18 October 2011 at 8:21 pm

   Enough is Enough says:- “Things need to change, considerably. There are very few people who doubt that.”

   So how do you propose selling the idea of making hydrocarbons more expensive to a skeptical and self interested public addicted to consumerism?

   Personally, I’d like to see petrol at $5 per litre world wide, but I can’t see it happening because there isn’t the political will to make that come about.

   I too think we’re fucked, but rather than berating me, as you did Afewknowthetruth, perhaps you could propose one or two realistic ideas.
   • Colonial Viper 7.1

     20 October 2011 at 2:12 pm

     One realistic idea is to add 30c to the price of petrol, and put all those additional funds directly into public transport infrastructure and subsidies.

     Another realistic idea is to add a 10% sales tax on all vehicles over 2L in engine displacement, and put all those additional funds directly into public transport infrastructure and subsidies.

     A third realistic idea is to get every hot water cylinder in the country fully insulated, paid for by a 5% surcharge on every high use electricity bill in the country.

     A fourth realistic idea is to require every local authority to redesignate land as being available for community gardens and to support their basic maintenance.
8. Afewknowthetruth 8

   18 October 2011 at 9:09 pm

   Enough is Enough.

   By the way: ‘The left holds the answers. We now need to embrace them and encourage the elctorate to do the same.’

   I have yet to meet anyone from the left who has any answers to the crucial questions:

   1. How do we prevent mass malnutrition/starvation that will occur when the industrial food system goes into severe decline [3 or 4 years from now]?

   2. How do we rapdily disengage from dependence on fossil fuels in order to prevent abrupt climate change rendering most of the Earth uninhabitable?

   Months go by and I never see anyone from the left address either of these issues. All I keep reading is bullshit about GDP, the gap between NZ and Austrralia, tax regimes and other totally irrelevant matters.

   Hence the first predicament will be solved the Albert Bartlett way:

   http://www.albartlett.org/presentations/arithmetic_population_energy.html

   In otehr words, Nature will deal what humans refuse to deal with.

   As for the second pedicament, Nature will deal with the plague of humans that have overrun the planet via a surge in temperature beyond what the ‘stupid greedy ape’ can stand unless drastic action is taken now.

   I don’t see much sign of discussion of the issues, let alone drastic action, by either the left or the right. Ignorance, complacency and denial continue to regn supreme as far as I can tell (though The Standard has highlighted the issues on several occasions)
   • Draco T Bastard 8.1

     18 October 2011 at 10:42 pm

     In otehr words, Nature will deal what humans refuse to deal with.

     Yep, Nature’s negotiating technique is simple: Live with her or be eliminated.
     • Colonial Viper 8.1.1

       20 October 2011 at 2:43 pm

       With the proviso that nature doesn’t really negotiate at all, and she is definitely not swayed by clever spin.
9. Steve Wrathall 9

   18 October 2011 at 11:25 pm

   So you’re calling for the shutting down of all Taranaki drilling rigs?

   Mik E: “CO2 at record levels” Yes, isn’t it great! All that long-dead carbon now atmospheric CO2 fertilising the production of millions of tonnes of extra food and fibre for the worlds people.
   • Lanthanide 9.1

     18 October 2011 at 11:50 pm

     If that were all it was doing, I’d agree with you that it was a great boon.

     Unfortunately that’s just the very narrow silver lining on the thundering clouds of doom that is climate change.
   • Afewknowthetruth 9.2

     19 October 2011 at 12:52 am

     Steve Wrathall

     You demonstrate gross ignorance, as is the case with so many people who comment.

     CO2 is not a fertiliser.

     In fact, raised CO2 levels lead directly to climate instability which wrecks food production.

     Raised CO2 levels also increase the acidity of the oceans and destroy organisms at the base of the food chain, eventually leading to dead oceans [and elimination of oceans as food sources]..

     As time passes and the level of ignorance remains the same it becomes increasingly clear that ignorance and stupidity will lead to the death of the planet we live on.
     • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 9.2.1

       19 October 2011 at 1:00 am

       Luckily you (and a few others) know the truth. What a responsibility!
     • John D 9.2.2

       19 October 2011 at 9:29 am

       CO2 is not a fertiliser.

       yes it is, sorry.
       Without CO2, life on Earth would cease to exist.

       I am not going to get into an argument about “climate change” or whatever, but your statement is just plain wrong.
       • Afewknowthetruth 9.2.2.1

         19 October 2011 at 11:10 am

         John D

         Without uranium life on Earth would not exist. That does not make uranium a fertiliser.

         The word fertiliser is normally applied to substances, particularly elements such as nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium (but also elements such as magnessuim, essential for the formation of complex biochemical systems ), which promote fertility.

         CO2 is merely a raw materail that plants extract from the air to form carbohydrates.

         However, it is clear that certain people are either grossly ignorant of biochemistry or simply like to argue for the sake of arguing.
         • John D 9.2.2.1.1

           19 October 2011 at 11:32 am

           I don’t quite understand your comment about Uranium.
           If CO2 levels drop below about 180ppm, then plants would not grow. That was the point I was trying to make.

           The expression “CO2 fertilisation” is used in the agricultural industry. Greenhouses that grow tomatoes sometimes increase CO2 to 1000 ppm for their “fertilisation effect”.

           This video shows CO2 fertilisation :
           

           As I said, I am not going to get into a discussion about optimum levels of CO2, climate change etc.

           It is also a bit off topic to “deep sea drilling”, it has to be said.
   • Draco T Bastard 9.3

     19 October 2011 at 2:43 am

     Here ya go, Steve Wrathall, a small amount of education in reality for you.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS