Dear Judith burning Oil and Gas is the worst thing for the climate

Written By: - Date published: 8:45 am, April 14th, 2018 - 73 comments
Categories: climate change, Environment, ETS, global warming, jacinda ardern, Judith Collins, national, same old national, sustainability, the praiseworthy and the pitiful, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags:

Climate change has been the issue of the week.

Watching the debate is interesting. No longer is it a contest between those who believe climate change is happening and those who think it is a figment of our imagination.  The deniers have changed tack. Now it is nominally a debate between what action is best to address the problem. But the right make good use of the dog whistle to bring behind them those who are still sufficiently deranged and confused to think that it is not happening.

The right, having been shown to be completely and utterly wrong on the issue, have not had the decency of acknowledging their mistakes. That they are a a major impediment to humanity and have seriously damaged our ability to adapt to the change that is happening is not something they have ever admitted.

Instead they are fighting collateral fights suggestion that although we have been right about the issue all along we are not quite right about this particular aspect and this is why they should be listened to.  And meanwhile the dog whistle is being blown hard.

The latest example is National’s treatment of the Government’s decision to stop further offshore oil drilling. Conceptually the decision is absolutely rational. If the problem is pumping CO2 into the air then we need to stop using fuel supplies that pump CO2 into the air. But the right is seeking to confuse the debate. Apparently burning natural gas is fine because we could be burning dirty coal instead.

And Judith Collins had leapt into the debate.  From Radio Live:

National has promised to reverse the decision, saying it will not only “throw away” 10,000 jobs, but accelerate New Zealand’s growing rate of carbon emissions.

“This is the worst thing you can do in terms of carbon emissions,” Ms Collins told The AM Show.

“Natural gas is a very clean-burning fuel and currently fuels about 16 percent of our electricity supply, plus many homes and many businesses all around particularly the North Island.”

She said electricity generators would be forced to turn to dirty coal to meet energy demand.

According to the US Energy Information Administration, burning natural gas releases about 40 percent less carbon than coal and 25 percent less than gasoline. But drilling for it can release methane, which is around 30 times worse than carbon dioxide when it comes to warming the atmosphere.

At current usage rates New Zealand has enough natural gas to last 11 years, according to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. But this could change as new fields are discovered and the total held in known fields is recalculated.

If it begins to run out prices are expected to rise, slowing the rate of use and perhaps encouraging consumers and industry to switch to other sources of energy.

The claimed loss of jobs needs to be very carefully analysed.  As Keith Ng has pointed out on twitter the actual number is 4,300.  And it needs to be reemphasised that this stops the further offshore exploration of areas to drill.  Current exploration permits stay in place.  New fields can still be discovered and drilled.

And the market was already reacting.  In 2014 15 exploration permits were granted, in 2015 there were nine, in 2016 one onshore permit only, and in 2017 one offshore permit only.  The market was already adjusting to a future world where oil and gas was not going to feature.

Then Collins went full tin foil hat.

Ms Collins accused Labour of lying about its intentions ahead of last year’s General Election, suggesting Ms Ardern only made the announcement this week to impress other world leaders at the upcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in London.

“They have totally misled the New Zealand public, plus the oil and gas industry. The oil and gas industry’s consultation was the night before they made the announcement. That is their consultation. No consultation.”

This claim has as much credibility as the claim that global warming is not occurring.

From Labour’s 2017 election policy on climate change:

Climate change is the greatest challenge facing the world. If we do not urgently reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases, warming will disrupt the climates our agriculture and other industries depend upon, sea-level rise will affect our coastal cities, and ocean acidification will affect the marine food chain.

We have built our infrastructure, our society, and our farming practices around a certain set of climatic conditions. Abrupt change would carry with it huge costs.

The cost of doing nothing is far higher than the cost of mitigating climate change. In fact, many of the actions that reduce climate pollution also have other positive impacts and create jobs.

New Zealand must do its part, along with the rest of the world, in reducing climate pollution. It is not good enough to say we are too small to matter – most countries individually could claim the same. We must take our share in the effort however small, just as we did when dealing with CFCs, or opposing apartheid, or fighting fascism. Kiwis are not shirkers.

…

Labour will:

  • set a target of net zero for greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, with legally binding emissions reduction targets, and carbon budgets to keep New Zealand on track to this goal

  • establish an independent Climate Commission to recommend interim emissions reduction targets and provide advice on the ramifications of not achieving them …

  • show government leadership by requiring state-owned enterprises and other government organisations to actively pursue low-carbon options and technologies including all future purchases of all Government vehicle fleets to be electric vehicles unless there is an exceptional reason otherwise …

  • support a just transition for workers in industries that need to reduce emissions and the creation of jobs in sectors that are carbon-free or carbon sinks, such as forestry

I mean how much clearer can you get? And the oil industry being caught by surprise?  Helen Clark floated the idea that New Zealand should be carbon neutral back in 2005.  And how could the industry have listened to Megan Woods’ speech to their conference and not known what the Government was thinking?

The decision is welcome but not overly radical.  There is still a lot of drilling that can occur and there needs to be a transition plan in place so that alternatives are available.  But it is the right decision to make if we are going to make New Zealand carbon neutral.  And hope by then that this will be sufficient to help ensure that climate change is not out of control.

73 comments on “Dear Judith burning Oil and Gas is the worst thing for the climate ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Ad 1
    14 April 2018 at 8:56 am

    National just need to wait for the first set of attributable redundancies and let the camera do the work. The first leatherneck holding a redundancy envelope, with a refinery backdrop, on a cold New Plymouth day.

    Because that’s the point that this government’s “transition plans” either work or they fail, in public. That worker either says “yes, it sucks but there’s a clear plan for me.” Or the National narrative wins.

    Labour and the Greens have delivered for Greens’ base. As Mickey says, there’s no surprise.

    But the heavy lifting actually falls on New Zealand First. And that vote is National’s target.

    If you were going to make this a one-term government, that’s the target. And New Plymouth is a good battleground for it.

    • Pat 1.1
      14 April 2018 at 9:11 am

      the election can reasonably be expected in 2020…and one would expect that considerably before then a relatively detailed transition plan will have been presented to the public to vote on.

      All as the evidence of the need to change mounts.

      • Ad 1.1.1
        14 April 2018 at 9:22 am

        Those are the same kind of dumb-assed reassurances that Roger Douglas gave every time he laid waste to another industry in the 1980s. Labour should know better – so far it’s words but pretty poor in actual plans.

        For example, here’s the regional economic development plan for Taranaki:

        http://www.newplymouthnz.com/-/media/NPDC/Documents/Council%20Documents/Plans%20and%20Strategies/Plans%20and%20Strategies%20Economic%20development%20strategy%202014-2024.ashx

        Reasonably fulsome.

        And here’s the current initiative from the Minister of Economic Development just a couple of days before this oil exploration release: a sum total of $175,000, on a page:

        https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/diversifying-taranaki-through-future-food-opportunities

        LIke I said, shit gets real once the redundancy notices get handed out.

        • Pat 1.1.1.1
          14 April 2018 at 9:28 am

          what part of “considerably before then’ did you not understand?

          • Ad 1.1.1.1.1
            14 April 2018 at 9:47 am

            Go ahead and point to even the start of one.

            Any time your relatives hold on to a redundancy notice caused by a “carbon transition”, you can come back with a bit of authority instead of spouting the same transformation-wank that the Lange-Douglas government did.

            Same facile political lines, same cold reality that actual workers and families face.

            • Pat 1.1.1.1.1.1
              14 April 2018 at 9:54 am

              “Go ahead and point to even the start of one.”

              Already did a day or two ago…

              https://zerocarbonact.nz/getting-us-to-zero-carbon/the-climate-commission

              Your criticism is premature….better to present a timely well thought out promotable interconnected (and agreed) suite of policies than to charge in with a half arsed flawed policy that will be gleefully publicly dismantled and trashed by both the opposition and vested interests.

              And you dont need to quote Douglas’ reforms and their short-comings at me…I remember them all too well.

            • red-blooded 1.1.1.1.1.2
              15 April 2018 at 10:52 am

              Ad, when it comes to the mammoth issue of climate change, the possible impact on votes isn’t the main issue to consider. If we keep on pandering to the gas and oil industries to keep the people of Taranaki happy, when do we actually step up and make change? And who else do we have to keep on pandering to, with what effects on our environment and climate?

              This probably isn’t a vote winner, as the Labour-Greens combination are likely to already attract the votes of those most concerned about climate change. But that’s not the only lens to apply.Sometimes, you have to do what’s right, over what’s politically convenient.

              And actual workers and families are being given decades of warning before any of their jobs will be affected. That’s very different from the abrupt – “That’s it, mate!” they got from the Rogernomes. It’s also plenty of time to develop alternatives, with a focus on regions like Taranaki.

    • alwyn 1.2
      14 April 2018 at 10:13 am

      ” with a refinery backdrop, on a cold New Plymouth day.”
      That is going to have to be a very, very, very long focal length lens isn’t it?
      New Plymouth in the foreground and Marsden Point also in shot.
      Actually there did use to be refineries in New Plymouth. The last one closed in the early 1970’s. About 1972 I believe, after they had closed the wells at Moturoa. It was essentially an old converted steam engine from a train. At the end about all it was doing was getting rid of the water in the material recovered when they cleaned the tanks of the oil tankers taking condensate away from New Plymouth. They ended up with very heavy fuel oil that was used in the dredge at New Plymouth I believe.
      Shell BP & Todd, as it was known at the time owned the place. The only really valuable asset was a wholesalers licence for selling motor spirit.

    • mauī 1.3
      14 April 2018 at 10:47 am

      Disagree. Did the ending of native timber felling on the West Coast bring down any Governments of the 1970’s or 80s? This is a slow burner that people from the affected regions will have to adjust to.

    • Bearded Git 1.4
      14 April 2018 at 12:52 pm

      @Ad

      It’s better to lose sticking to your principles and saving the world than to win doing the opposite.

      Maybe the NZ electorate is smarter than you think.

    • Draco T Bastard 1.5
      14 April 2018 at 1:02 pm

      Because that’s the point that this government’s “transition plans” either work or they fail, in public. That worker either says “yes, it sucks but there’s a clear plan for me.” Or the National narrative wins.

      Didn’t work when they dumped tens of thousands of government employees on the scrap heap.

      But the heavy lifting actually falls on New Zealand First.

      No it doesn’t. If anything, NZFirst will have to be dragged along kicking and screaming until they realise that the Green vision is better than theirs or Labour’s.

  2. Jimmy 2
    14 April 2018 at 9:09 am

    A friend of mine in in Oil And Gas Industry is of the view that
    Jacinda has duped the Greens.
    He says NZ offshore has been extensively surveyed had there is no need for more exploration as it has already been done.
    With enough data to keep us in oil and gas for the next 100 years.
    Drilling and production permits remain the same with plenty of oil and gas available onshore in Taranaki.
    So no change just a win that’s not a win the Greens.

    • BabaYaga 2.1
      14 April 2018 at 11:48 am

      That is interesting…I hope you’re right.

    • Bearded Git 2.2
      14 April 2018 at 12:55 pm

      @Jimmy
      So Judith Collins is lying through her teeth yet again about the 10,000 jobs. Now there’s a surprise. She is not fit to be in government and should be struck off as a lawyer.

      It’s about time NZ had a truth-checker website.

      • Jimmy 2.2.1
        14 April 2018 at 1:37 pm

        Perhaps or maybe it’s Jacinda lying to the Greens, as far as I can tell when I fill out the voting paper the only one to trust is Orange guy. (Not Trump)

    • red-blooded 2.3
      15 April 2018 at 10:58 am

      However this decision is not just about surveying, it’s about new mining permits.

      It’s not the end of the mining industry in NZ – there are already permits that last decades into the future and in practical terms there’s bugger all the government can do about that, but it’s the beginning of the end (and about time too).

      As for Ardern lying to the Greens:
      1) She’s been very clear about what this does and doesn’t cover, and
      2) Why are you assuming that the Greens are that stupid/gullible? Shaw is Minister for the Environment – he’s been intimately involved in this, and he knows his stuff.

    • Matthew Whitehead 2.4
      15 April 2018 at 5:44 pm

      This is a thing the Greens have been asking of our own accord. Labour only ending offshore exploration is absolutely a half-measure at best, (but we can fight to end onshore offers another day, at least) but our focus has been on OFFSHORE exploration deliberately given the impacts it has on marine life as well as the climate conversation.

      I honestly doubt they would spend money exploring if they expected to find nothing of significance.

  3. Cinny 3
    14 April 2018 at 9:21 am

    Scaremongering and exploiting the uninformed, that’s how judith rolls.

  4. Sanctuary 4
    14 April 2018 at 9:28 am

    “…Watching the debate is interesting. ..”

    Astonishing at times, at least to me. Yesterday (just for an illustration) Jim Mora had Chris Wikaira and Janet Wilson on his show. You would have to go a long way to find to finer representatives of the upper class establishment Very Serious People (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Very_Serious_People) that that egg Mora so adores on his show.

    Anyway, you would still expect two such (self appointed) rational people to understand the threat of climate change and the need to start taking concrete steps to do something about it NOW.

    But no. They prevaricated, they mumbled, they noted they both shilled for the oil and gas industry. They kinda sorta oughta support the government but they kinda sorta didn’t without being absolutely explicit about it. Lots of “well, yes, no, maybe, but, I’m doubtful”.

    I have been frankly astonished at the revealed ambient hostility of the liberal middle and upper class, with it’s veneer of Greenwash, to actually doing anything about climate change if that doing anything threatens their income stream this VERY MODEST first step has revealed.

    The (not so) new tactic of the very serious people of the liberal elites who are embedded in the current capitalist paradigm is to admit climate change is real but then to claim doing anything about it is to hard, impossible in fact, and implicitily counsel a policy of supine hopelessness whilst trumpeting over lunch at Prego to anyone within earshot your worm farm, rigorous household recycling scheme, and your brand new Nissan Leaf.

    • Pat 4.1
      14 April 2018 at 9:39 am

      and maybe a week without power might dampen some of the posturing and bring some deeper thought…..but I agree , its disturbing.

    • Anne 4.2
      14 April 2018 at 9:50 am

      I gave up watching that show because of the affected, entitled ignoramuses most of them prove to be. Apart from the odd exception who pop up from time to time, their lack of knowledge about anything very much is deeply disturbing.

      • Sanctuary 4.2.1
        14 April 2018 at 9:59 am

        “…I gave up watching that show because of the affected, entitled ignoramuses most of them prove to be…”

        Jim Mora ADORES entitled twits and ignoramuses though, he finds them re-assuringly like himself.

      • Anne 4.2.2
        14 April 2018 at 4:28 pm

        A bit of a faux pas whilst on the run…I used to listen not watch. 🙁

    • veutoviper 4.3
      14 April 2018 at 11:10 am

      Thanks you Sanctuary. That was an absolutely superb description of yesterday’s Panel! Eat your heart out Morrissey. LOL.

      I am an addicted RNZ National listener while doing other things – except for The Panel. I usually structure my day around doing things at that time where I am not listening such as shopping etc. But not yesterday. Mora is a Wanta Bee IMHO, and those two Very Serious People yesterday were just the pits. So bad I just had to keep listening and pour a wine or two. Your description encapsulates the discussion and the position of all three on climate change perfectly.

    • Bearded Git 4.4
      14 April 2018 at 1:00 pm

      @Sanctuary
      The previous day Mora had an “expert” on who “forgot” to mention that solar power is the fast-developing and best replacement for fossil-fuels.

      And before the trolls come along and say this only works when the sun shines, new battery technology has put paid to that argument.

    • cleangreen 4.5
      14 April 2018 at 2:17 pm

      Jim Mora and his panel is always hand picked national ‘stool pigeons’ as Mora is a devout national man to the core, and his show should be removed from the RNZ network as it is anti labour and is very pro-national so it is biased which breaks the broadcasting rules.

  5. JohnSelway 5
    14 April 2018 at 10:38 am

    National has accepted climate change as real for some time now.

    But they just preferred to kick the can down the road rather than do anything

    • BabaYaga 5.1
      14 April 2018 at 11:50 am

      I think it’s more about protecting NZ’ers from senseless policies that do nothing (materially) to address climate change but hurt local jobs and investment.

      • mickysavage 5.1.1
        14 April 2018 at 12:02 pm

        OK Baba what would you do? That is presuming you also believe in climate change. And do you think we should try and protect the environment?

        • Jimmy 5.1.1.1
          14 April 2018 at 2:04 pm

          How about giving every product consumed an oil rating and tax the products with the highest footprints massively.
          This would make everyone think about and be aware of what’s ok to consume and what’s not so ok.
          Also affects everyone and not just people employed in those industries.

          • Tuppence Shrewsbury 5.1.1.1.1
            14 April 2018 at 2:44 pm

            No new taxes remember? No matter how sensible. Better to just kill off the already existing tax paying industries

            • Jimmy 5.1.1.1.1.1
              14 April 2018 at 3:29 pm

              Oh gummon, we just need a working group, too work out what too call it, something that doesn’t end in tax or excise.
              For a fee I will work something out, how about Save The Earth Money or STEM for short?

            • patricia bremner 5.1.1.1.1.2
              14 April 2018 at 6:56 pm

              An oil levy then. There, fixed that for you. LOL

          • Johnny on the spot 5.1.1.1.2
            15 April 2018 at 8:59 pm

            We could bring back carless days, reduce consumption, we can stop importing oil, or is that too much of an inconvenience? We need to bring in alternatives pretty smartly, stopping the exploration here is not doing anything about demand, and that is where it needs to be targeted. One thing is certain National will hold New Plymouth at the next election.

          • sirpat 5.1.1.1.3
            19 April 2018 at 4:45 pm

            I wonder how that might affect solar panel/battery production/pricing?

        • BabaYaga 5.1.1.2
          15 April 2018 at 1:18 pm

          Yes I believe mankind is having an impact on climate, although I do get a good laugh out of some of the alarmism. Yes I believe we should protect the environment. But any measures we take will be meaningless in effect.

          • Incognito 5.1.1.2.1
            15 April 2018 at 1:54 pm

            Whoa! Contradiction upon contradiction upon confusion!

            Let’s do nothing because nothing we do will do anything although we should do something because if we don’t we’re screwed and that doesn’t do, does it?

            • BabaYaga 5.1.1.2.1.1
              15 April 2018 at 5:42 pm

              Is that your view? I disagree. The evidence is anything we do will not have any material impact, so why throw away economic advantage? Oh yes, that left wing obsession – virtue signalling.

              • Incognito …
                15 April 2018 at 9:18 pm

                Is that your view?

                Yes, it is my view of the contradiction and confusion you displayed @ 5.1.1.2 and thinking that it is just one big joke, which is unfortunately quite common.

                A pre-schooler could unpack and destruct your comment @ 5.1.1.2 and the joke would be on you.

                And now you are trying to convince by using the latest weapon in National’s arsenal: “virtue signalling”.

                https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/13-04-2018/all-the-things-national-mps-think-are-virtue-signalling/

                I have no come-back and surrender to this intellectual might. I mean, who in his right mind would throw away economic advantage!? To Hell with the environment and that pesky climate and may the economy rule supreme forever and beyond!

                Goodbye

                • Baba Yaga …
                  16 April 2018 at 11:18 am

                  Virtue signalling is not a weapon, it is a strategy of mostly left wing idiots. Meanwhile, I invite you to carry through your threat and demonstrate how any action we could take in NZ could possibly have any material impact on climate change.

    • Matthew Whitehead 5.2
      15 April 2018 at 5:48 pm

      But being willing to kick the can down the road *is* the new denialism. They have accepted they can no longer convince the public by outright arguing against climate change, so instead they pull up outdated objections to the current approach, like carbon leakage, or that we should have a smoother step-down, (what else is banning new exploration but not revoking mining rights?) or whatever. It’s just denialism in its new outfit of “delay, delay, delay.” They are acting like we don’t have strong hydroelectric generation that we can use as reserve power when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining.

  6. patricia bremner 6
    14 April 2018 at 11:05 am

    Or that strange position, JS where the righties say “We are doing climate change… but but… what about China India?? My bit won’t make any difference.”

    • BabaYaga 6.1
      14 April 2018 at 11:52 am

      It’s not strange, its true.

      • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1
        14 April 2018 at 12:57 pm

        Actually, it’s a lie.

        • BabaYaga 6.1.1.1
          15 April 2018 at 1:27 pm

          No, it’s not. Why should NZ lose revenue and export jobs AND end up achieving nothing?

          • Matthew Whitehead 6.1.1.1.1
            15 April 2018 at 5:50 pm

            It’s only achieving nothing if you believe nobody else is taking any other action either. (which is demonstrably not the case- China is actually stepping UP more, even though historically they have not been the biggest emitter and have a valid argument that they can slow-roll their response) Remember that thing the right used to talk about from time to time, you know, Leadership? Sometimes that means giving up a lucrative opportunity because you know it’s good for you in the short term but it’ll hurt you long term. This is a small dose of leadership, and I know your lot hate the taste but you’re just gonna have to swallow it from time to time.

            • BabaYaga 6.1.1.1.1.1
              15 April 2018 at 5:56 pm

              “It’s only achieving nothing if you believe nobody else is taking any other action”

              Illogical. This achieves nothing no matter what any other country does because our emissions are infinitesimal.

              This decision is not leadership, it is appeasement, with NZ jobs and wealth put at risk for nothing.

              • Incognito …
                15 April 2018 at 9:00 pm

                Illogical. This achieves nothing no matter what any other country does because our emissions are infinitesimal.

                By your ‘logic’ we could double our emissions and they still would be “infinitesimal” and thus not make a difference. Your ‘logic’ is a pseudo reductio ad absurdum and has led you to a completely absurd and erroneous conclusion.

                Climate change is occurring because of innumerable infinitesimal contributions, not by a few really big ones. Thus, the only way to do something about it is to change these innumerable infinitesimal contributions. Where would you start?

                • Baba Yaga …
                  16 April 2018 at 11:20 am

                  “By your ‘logic’ we could double our emissions and they still would be “infinitesimal” and thus not make a difference. ”
                  Correct. It would take long, long time for our emissions to even approach materiality on a global scale, even if every other country stopped their emissions increases immediately.

                  “Climate change is occurring because of innumerable infinitesimal contributions, not by a few really big ones.”
                  No, climate change is occurring in part because of the activities of mankind. Global population and emissions are heavily concentrated in certain regions. NZ is not one of them. There is no point the smallest contributor making what are effectively meaningless gestures when many of the largest contributors do nothing.

            • Chuck 6.1.1.1.1.2
              15 April 2018 at 6:45 pm

              I should be jumping for joy with the ban on any new offshore oil and gas permits because I am involved in clean energy and stand to benefit.

              However, I am not jumping for joy, because I know the alternatives are not yet ready to be implemented in any meaningful way.

              There is not a lot of gas still to find onshore, its offshore in shallow waters. We are really playing Russian roulette in thinking we can replace gas in the next decade. Oil will still be imported, it will take decades to change over to any meaningful EV fleet. The electricity network needs massive upgrades and a lot more generation to allow for the EV fleet, plus all industry changing from gas to electricity.

              Even if National is elected in 2020 the damage has already been done. No company will risk spending $ to explore in NZ.

              Arderns nuclear moment has the potential to put NZ back decades…

              A more sensible way would have been to back/fund clean tech and scale up while scaling down gas/oil. Ardern has it back to front. The Greens will have a lot to answer for…sorry to say, Matthew.

              • Ed …
                15 April 2018 at 6:52 pm

                That’s ok then, we’ll keep exploring, extracting and burning.
                And life on this planet will be decimated.

                Still we’ve have foreign investment when the climate catastrophe occurs.

      • patricia bremner 6.1.2
        14 April 2018 at 12:57 pm

        No it is not. China implemented a “One child policy” probably the biggest help for their contribution to use of materials. They are making villagers change to less polluting cooking methods. They are making efforts.

        India the Capitalist one, less so!!

        • BabaYaga 6.1.2.1
          15 April 2018 at 1:26 pm

          But that wasn’t what you wrote. You wrote about the ‘why are we doing this when the big polluters do nothing’ argument. If you think the one child policy was about climate change I have lots to sell you.

        • sirpat 6.1.2.2
          19 April 2018 at 4:52 pm

          I thought india was bounding ahead with solar??….up to 20 gw this year?

  7. bruce 7
    14 April 2018 at 11:09 am

    Perhaps one day there could be jobs producing clean burning hemp oil, a sustainable solution, but no money for the dinosaurs in charge, never mind,I’m sure their cash will keep them safe.

  8. Stuart Munro 8
    14 April 2018 at 12:51 pm

    The measure of these transitional steps away from oil is not in the negative steps, banning behaviours, but in the positive steps creating workable alternatives. The same might be said of the condemnation of Winz tenting grants – it’s not stopping them, but providing something better, that’s required.

    • Bearded Git 8.1
      14 April 2018 at 1:03 pm

      Solar Power….repeat a million times. And before the trolls start saying this only works when the sun shines, new battery technology has put paid to that argument.

      For those advocating nuclear power, when decommissioning and waste disposal costs are added in this is a very expensive alternative. My guess is that solar is already cheaper than nuclear (I stand to be corrected here) but if it isn’t it will be in 10 years, the time it takes to build a nuclear plant. Solar costs have been halving every 2-3 years.

      • Chuck 8.1.1
        14 April 2018 at 2:10 pm

        “Solar Power….repeat a million times. And before the trolls start saying this only works when the sun shines, new battery technology has put paid to that argument.”

        Solar has a place. Battery storage via Lithium-ion while expensive has improved, and the cost will continue to come down (depending on our ability to find more raw materials).

        However, the toll on the environment for the lithium extraction and other raw materials like cobalt, nickel, and graphite cause huge contamination issues and deforestation.

        So while solar might be clean energy, its very dirty energy when you take into account the extrication of the raw materials to make the various components.

        And then we have the issue that lithium is a finite resource. As far as I know, the known reserves at current production will last for a very long time. However, if the scale-up happens as suggested (electric cars, batteries etc) the known reserves will run out in less than 20 years.

        The other option is to find other raw materials that can substitute lithium.

        • Bearded Git 8.1.1.1
          14 April 2018 at 2:44 pm

          @chuck
          A quick search shows that the world has known reserves of 14 million tons of lithium, enough for 280 years at current approximate usage of 50,000 say tons a year (37.800 in 2016). See:

          https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/lithium/mcs-2017-lithi.pdf

          Substitutes for lithium are already being developed. Solar technology, production and batteries, will advance massively long before lithium runs out.

          Solar is the go. Keep most of the oil in the ground.

          • Chuck 8.1.1.1.1
            14 April 2018 at 3:29 pm

            “A quick search shows that the world has known reserves of 14 million tons of lithium, enough for 280 years at current approximate usage”

            Yes at current production levels. However, if production is scaled up to meet the requirements for battery production (EV car fleets and PV storage) that 280 years turns into less than 20 years. Not counting the other uses lithium is required for.

            The batteries can only cycle so many times before needing replacement (per your cell or laptop battery). That also produces disposal issues…and an ongoing requirement for raw materials.

            Agree new technology will come along, hopefully, without the mess we make taking out the current raw materials.

      • Stuart Munro 8.1.2
        14 April 2018 at 10:37 pm

        I’m sure solar is part of a decent solution – tidal might be another good component.
        But a general trend towards smaller more efficient vehicles and houses should probably be part of the deal too. When we reach the point where solar handles the sunlight hours and hydro smoothes the peaks and darkness we’ll be getting somewhere. Long way off at present, and the powercos aren’t leading the way.

    • Chuck 8.2
      14 April 2018 at 1:20 pm

      “The measure of these transitional steps away from oil is not in the negative steps, banning behaviours, but in the positive steps creating workable alternatives.”

      I have not met anyone that does not believe that one-day fossil fuel will be consigned to the history books.

      The key is as you put it Stuart Munro is “workable alternatives”. For example natural gas replaced coal and oil-fired process’s, we have some biomass wood-fired boilers, however, to obtain the fuel supply (wood) requires intensive use of fossil fuels.

      The South Island does not have the same network of gas pipelines, so in the South, they still rely on coal and oil-fired burners in the main.

      If the NZ oil and gas industry closed their doors next week it would not make one little bit of difference to our use of fossil fuels. Other than to lead us down the path of supply uncertainty and price escalations.

      Arderns announcement the other day was all about virtual signaling.

      When workable alternatives are available to the masses then fossil fuels will be consigned to the history books as a transport/heating fuel.

      • red-blooded 8.2.1
        15 April 2018 at 11:05 am

        Actually, here in the South, very few people have burners for heating. The permitting standards are very restrictive, especially in ChCh (air pollution). Most people heat with electricity and government subsidies for insulation and heat pumps have been part of a general shift away from burners (thanks Greens).

        • Chuck 8.2.1.1
          15 April 2018 at 2:43 pm

          “Actually, here in the South, very few people have burners for heating.”

          I was referring to industry / commercial for the South Island. They do not have natural gas infrastructure available.

  9. cleangreen 9
    14 April 2018 at 1:55 pm

    TO Judith Collins,;

    Judith; – why did you hide this important EY rail report your Government ordered in 2016 but hid when it showed regional rail was viable then? Is that why you hid it?

    Well it’s just as well Phil Twyford found it now isn’t it?

    Based on research conducted by EY and Vivid Economics, the report shows the New Zealand economy could benefit by $30 billion by 2050 if government and business take early action on climate change”

    National also hid another ‘EY’ study that validated the regional use of rail would save us billions and the planet too, but the study was produced for National at their request in 2016.

    But you in National did not release the study from EY and Labour found it buried in the Kiwrail and NZTA files two months ago so Government must ask National and Simon Bridges again why he buried this important climate changing study proving (quote) “The value of rail in NZ by EY for NZTA/Kiwirail.”

    http://www.kiwirail.co.nz/uploads/Publications/The%20Value%20of%20the%20Rail%20in%20New%20Zealand.pdf

    • NZJester 9.1
      14 April 2018 at 6:14 pm

      The Labor Government, unfortunately, is now swamped with all the stuff the former National government has hidden from them and the country. A lot of what has been hidden will most likely go unnoticed for a little longer while Labour tries to unbury us from the piles of crap they have already unearthed.

      • Bewildered 9.1.1
        14 April 2018 at 8:46 pm

        What a sad narrative to justify COL incompetence and lack of a plan to back their sloganeering , I am not sure a bit of mould at Middlemore Hospital is going to absorb the quickly evapourating shine on this rabble of a coalition

  10. NZJester 10
    14 April 2018 at 6:09 pm

    National don’t give a damn about climate change either way. It is all about trying to find a talking point to attack the government with.