It’s almost like we shouldn’t leave the climate crisis to the market

60 comments on “It’s almost like we shouldn’t leave the climate crisis to the market ”

• Comment on post

1. tsmithfield 1

   28 November 2024 at 8:44 am

   We had a look at Solar Zero and decided it wasn't worth it, all things considered. There were a lot of fishhooks. And, there model was problematic in situations such as selling our house. Also, we didn't think that the projected savings justified the ongoing cost.

   So, it may be something to do with their model more than anything else.

   I still don't understand why the government isn't subsidising solar on roofs. Surely, that would be a lot cheaper than building massive solar farms around the place. And may have made models such as what Solar Zero were promoting more viable.

   Reply
   • gsays 1.1

     28 November 2024 at 9:01 am

     "I still don't understand why the government isn't subsidising solar on roofs"

     I commented about this yesty. The ‘market ' wants Solar Zero out of the loop. The market wants monopoly, the shareholders want a dividend. The system is working as intended.

     Reply
     • weka 1.1.1

       28 November 2024 at 9:48 am

       exactly.

       Reply
     • tsmithfield 1.1.2

       28 November 2024 at 11:45 am

       "The ‘market ' wants Solar Zero out of the loop."

       "The Market" doesn't want anything. It is just the accumulation of interactions between buyers and sellers.

       Reply
       • gsays 1.1.2.1

         28 November 2024 at 12:08 pm

         C'mon t, you can do better than that.

         Free market enthusiasts speak as if the market has will.

         But if you prefer, in yr language, the accumulation of interactions between buyers and sellers prefers scarcity and monopoly.

         The 'market' is an environment where one is free to ignore environmental degradation, socialisation of costs and inequality in the pursuit of personal interests.

         Reply
         • Dennis Frank 1.1.2.1.1

           28 November 2024 at 12:24 pm

           Scarcity drives prices up, but only upon demand. In the language of complexity science, it is an emergent property of the system – produced by the overall interaction of players in the game (as you imply).

           Imagine a hypothetical world in which Green parliamentarians are competent, ignore wokeist posturing, and inform the public of fundamental Green economic principles – the relevant one here being true-cost accounting. Just cos it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that world is too distant from us to become real…

           Reply
   • weka 1.2

     28 November 2024 at 10:01 am

     I still don't understand why the government isn't subsidising solar on roofs. Surely, that would be a lot cheaper than building massive solar farms around the place. And may have made models such as what Solar Zero were promoting more viable.

     The current government won't do it because it would have to admit that the climate crisis is real, serious and imminent. And then most of it's other policy would look as daft as it is.

     The Greens tried, really hard, for a long time. NZ doesn't want what you suggest. The question is why.

     Reply
     • Obtrectator 1.2.1

       28 November 2024 at 12:08 pm

       Uncomfortable truths are always hard to face, until there's literally no alternative. Among the older voters, there's also very likely a widespread attitude of "apres moi le deluge".

       Reply
   • joe90 1.3

     28 November 2024 at 12:44 pm

     a lot cheaper than building massive solar farms around the place

     Doubtful. Aside from economies of scale, the installation of anything on an upper level can double the cost.

     Reply
   • Jack 1.4

     28 November 2024 at 1:43 pm

     4,000,000 Australian homes have roof top solar panels. Something to aspire to.

     Reply
   • roblogic 1.5

     28 November 2024 at 5:31 pm

     Our continued population growth means we need to expand and diversify infrastructure of all sorts. But this government isn't interested in the boring mechanics of actual governance, all these fsckers want is higher dividends from their cartels in power, real estate, oil, tobacco, and pretty soon, our water systems

     Solar Zero is a long-term investment, which right wing plunderers see only as a cost.

     Reply
2. gsays 2

   28 November 2024 at 8:54 am

   Thanks (again) weka, for bringing this to our attention.

   Kate Rowarth's doughnut economics is the best alternative I've heard. We do need a 'drier' messager though. Being urged to sing is going to make it easier for a lot of Kiwi folk dismiss the message.

   Hearing Gareth Hughes on The Working Group on Tuesday was refreshing. He cut through Grant's tedious, money money, last century thinking.

   It pays to skip the bits where Damien Grant is talking, it’s the same oratory over and over.

   Also Rena Williams was a breath of fresh air
   https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2024/11/26/8pm-live-tonight-the-working-group-with-arena-williams-gareth-hughes-and-damien-grant/

   Reply
   • weka 2.1

     28 November 2024 at 9:59 am

     thanks gsays. I will watch that this morning while sitting out the gale force winds 😉

     Reply
     • roblogic 2.1.1

       28 November 2024 at 5:32 pm

       I've just landed in Wellington this arvo. Windy AF here too

       Reply
   • weka 2.2

     28 November 2024 at 2:29 pm

     crikey, that economics discussion is a bit much, lol. Arena Williams talking about turning all of NZ into a bustling metropolis. I like her generally, and agree she is good, but she reminds me of why Labour are such a big problem. Civ is on the verge of collapse, bustling metropolis suggests to me she doesn't actually understand what teh crisis is.

     Reply
   • weka 2.3

     28 November 2024 at 2:29 pm

     what's the singing bit in doughnut economics?

     Reply
     • gsays 2.3.1

       28 November 2024 at 6:28 pm

       In the TED talk You Tube link, she was encouraging the crowd to sing in rounds.

       Reply
       • weka 2.3.1.1

         28 November 2024 at 8:27 pm

         oh yeah, that didn't land well. Nice song and idea, but not the right audience. Agree it needs to be different to land well in NZ.

         Reply
   • weka 2.4

     28 November 2024 at 8:28 pm

     fuck me, Damien Grant is painful. His arguments do explain quite a lot about what is going on in the heads of some right wingers.

     Reply
     • gsays 2.4.1

       29 November 2024 at 12:42 pm

       Yep, it is the same, tired and, considering his intelligence, disingenuous.

       It is a struggle to understand anyone that can only see politics through a money lens.

       All of these 'efficencies', job cuts, community group funding cuts, school lunch rationalisation etc, have a human cost.

       A cost that Tories are all too happy to ignore.

       Reply
       • weka 2.4.1.1

         29 November 2024 at 1:40 pm

         I couldn't believe someone in his position could be so ignorant about Te Tiriti too, which did make his line of questioning sound disingenuous. That or he simply can't grasp the concepts that have been at play for the last half century.

         Reply
     • Karolyn_IS 2.4.2

       29 November 2024 at 1:29 pm

       Grant is a right wing libertarian, so not necessarily representative of all right wingers.

       Reply
3. Dennis Frank 3

   28 November 2024 at 9:17 am

   If not the market, the state: that's the trad binary. We could use a warp factor to shift it up a gear: generative AI. Trad statist thought uses socialism as default: create a ministry of climate change, jam it full of useless bureaucrats to ensure it is permanently dysfunctional, whilst presenting voters with the illusion of progress.

   Such traditional leftism can be replaced by intelligent design. The viability of the gen AI option is appraised here: https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/11/27/the-rise-and-rise-of-generative-ai/

   This year, the AI Forum New Zealand, in conjunction with the Victoria University of Wellington and Callaghan Innovation, surveyed 232 New Zealand organisations to measure their use of, and views on, AI.8 The survey found that 67% of respondents reported using AI in their organisations, and 96% of respondents agreed that AI has made workers more efficient in their work.

   So instead of just another wanker addicted to normalcy, the ministry would be supervised by a clever robot, doing intelligent design of ops according to plan. Actual public service instead of the usual pretend shit. Oversight by an independent panel would help sell credibilility, especially if a suitable procedure for amending tweaks is designed in…

   Reply
   • Drowsy M. Kram 3.1

     28 November 2024 at 10:20 am

     Oversight by an independent panel would help sell credibilility [sic]…

     Maybe "gen AI" (trendy!) could replace traditional leftism, and rightism. Perhaps replacing Lester Levy ("just another wanker addicted to normalcy"?) with "a clever robot" would be a good place to start – "bottom feeders" should have nothing to fear.

     As an aside, some academics are embracing AI services in their research, from the drafting and debugging computer code, to prediction of macromolecular structures.

     Demis Hassabis and John Jumper from the team that developed AlphaFold won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2024 for their work on “protein structure prediction”.
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaFold

     https://guides.library.harvard.edu/c.php?g=1330621&p=10034534

     Reply
     • weka 3.1.1

       28 November 2024 at 10:24 am

       which just proves that scientists are like everyone else and ignoring the crisis elephant in the living room.

       Reply
       • Drowsy M. Kram 3.1.1.1

         28 November 2024 at 1:49 pm

         which just proves that scientists are like everyone else and ignoring the crisis elephant…

         I'm not seeing how the fact that "some academics" (including some scientists) are embracing AI services "just proves that scientists are like everyone else and ignoring the crisis elephant" – is that about AI's environmental footprint?

         There are people ("science heads", non-science heads and anti-science heads alike) who ignore 'crisis elephants', and there are people who don't, but they're all 'people first.' My awareness and partial understanding of the polycrisis owes a lot to creative environmental activists, researchers included.

         An insider’s story of the global attack on climate science [22 Jan 2014]

         Activism, Science and the Infinite Game: Exploring the relationship between science and environmental activism [Siana Fitzjohn – MSciComm thesis, 2019 – University of Otago]

         The Fight for Freshwater – Mike Joy [July 2024]

         World-leading climate change scientist calls for 'rebellion' against Donald Trump [1 Feb 2017]
         Professor Michael Mann says the US is ‘firmly back in the madhouse’ as new president launches ‘dizzying, ongoing assault on science’

         Eight years on, whatever happened to Trump? I heard he's a convicted felon now.

         The IPCC’s latest report is downright grim—Yet climate scientists are still being silenced [1 Sept 2023]
         Climate scientists continue to be targeted simply for conducting their research and sharing it with the public.

         Exclusive: the Trump administration demoted this climate scientist — now she wants reform [24 July 2024]
         Virginia Burkett has filed a whistle-blower complaint, asking for an investigation and better policies to protect scientists against political interference.
         …
         Her supporters say the proposed reforms could help her agency, the US Geological Survey (USGS), as well as others to safeguard science in the event of a second Trump administration, which many fear will be even more efficient than the first at sidelining science and scientists.

         Reply
         • weka 3.1.1.1.1

           28 November 2024 at 2:16 pm

           There are people ("science heads", non-science heads and anti-science heads alike) who ignore 'crisis elephants', and there are people who don't, but they're all 'people first.'

           yes, that was my point. Among scientists, and every other group of people, there are those who are ignoring the crisis. Most people are, hence my statement that most scientists are like everyone else.

           It wasn't so much the use of AI, as the example of them embracing a dangerous technology (again) to advance their area of science while ignoring the elephant in the living room.

           My question to you is the same as the others. If we think the climate crisis is urgent and serious, why aren't we all on war footing? How do you see it all playing out with the things you support and advocate for?

           Reply
           • Drowsy M. Kram 3.1.1.1.1.1

             28 November 2024 at 7:50 pm

             My question to you is the same as the others. If we think the climate crisis is urgent and serious, why aren't we all on war footing?

             Few of our MPs have natural science backgrounds. There’s no guarantee we would be closer to a "war footing" if there were more scientists around the govt policy table, but it seems to me that we couldn't be much further away.

             Anyway, I put your questions to https://chatgpt.com. Can't disagree with most of what it wrote, but it could be more concise, i.e. GIANT Black Friday Sales!

             The discrepancy between the urgency of the climate crisis and the level of global mobilization often boils down to a combination of political, economic, social, and psychological factors. Here’s a breakdown:

             1. Psychological Barriers

             • Diffused Responsibility: The crisis is global, making individuals, corporations, and governments all feel like their contribution is too small to matter. This can lead to inaction.
             • Temporal Distance: Many people perceive the worst effects of climate change as being in the distant future, even though they are already happening.
             • Normalcy Bias: People often struggle to grasp the scale of unprecedented threats and instead focus on maintaining the status quo.

             2. Economic Interests

             • Fossil Fuel Dependence: The global economy is still heavily reliant on fossil fuels, and powerful industries lobby against rapid change to protect their profits.
             • Cost of Transition: Shifting to a green economy requires significant upfront investment, which can deter policymakers and businesses, even if the long-term benefits outweigh the costs.
             • Short-Term Profit Focus: Many corporations prioritize quarterly profits over long-term sustainability.

             3. Political Challenges

             • Partisan Divide: In some countries, climate change is a polarized issue, making coordinated action difficult.
             • Global Coordination: Climate change requires international cooperation, which is hampered by competing national interests, economic disparities, and trust issues.
             • Policy Inertia: Governments are often slow to act due to bureaucratic processes and fear of political backlash from unpopular decisions.

             4. Communication and Awareness

             • Complex Messaging: The science of climate change is complex, and this complexity can dilute urgency in public perception.
             • Media Prioritization: Climate issues often compete with more immediate or sensational news stories, reducing consistent coverage.

             The cricket test against England is nicely poised at the end of day 1.

             5. Societal Systems

             • Infrastructure Lock-In: Much of our global infrastructure is designed for a fossil fuel-based economy, making the transition to sustainable systems slow and expensive.
             • Consumer Habits: Modern lifestyles are deeply embedded in carbon-intensive practices, requiring significant behavioral shifts.

             What Does "War Footing" Look Like?

             Adopting a "war footing" approach to climate change would mean:

             • Mobilizing resources at an unprecedented scale, similar to efforts during World War II.
             • Governments directing industries and economies toward renewable energy and sustainability.
             • Coordinating globally to ensure equitable access to green technologies.
             • Framing the climate crisis as an existential threat in political and public discourse.

             While some regions are taking ambitious steps (e.g., Europe’s Green Deal or China's renewable energy investments), the global response remains uneven. Achieving a true war footing would require aligning political will, economic incentives, and public demand—an immense but not impossible challenge.

             How do you see it all playing out with the things you support and advocate for?

             Not well. To (re)state the obvious, 'our' ecosphere has a worsening energy imbalance, and human civilisation is in ecological overshoot.

             Predicting how the climate crisis will play out is inherently uncertain, as it depends on many variables: the pace of technological advancements, political will, public behavior, and the physical response of Earth's systems. However, there are several plausible scenarios, and the outcome will likely be a mix of them. Here's how it might unfold, alongside strategies and approaches I support and advocate for [headers only]:

             1. The Optimistic Path: Rapid Decarbonization and Innovation

             2. The Middling Path: Incremental Progress, but Lagging Behind

             3. The Pessimistic Path: Failure to Act Boldly

             Hopeful Strategies to Avoid the Worst

             Regardless of the path, the following strategies are critical to steer toward a better future:

             1. Massive Investment in Green Infrastructure: This includes renewable energy grids, electrification of transport, and energy-efficient buildings.
             2. Reimagining Economic Systems: Shifting from GDP growth to well-being and sustainability metrics.
             3. Empowering Youth and Grassroots Movements: Younger generations are already driving change—supporting their activism and innovation is key.
             4. Education and Awareness: Bridging the gap between climate science and public understanding to inspire collective action.
             5. International Collaboration: Ensure wealthier nations fund adaptation and mitigation efforts in the Global South.

             Likely Outcome: A Mixed Path

             While an ideal, rapid decarbonization is possible, the reality will probably involve a combination of progress and setbacks:

             • Some regions will lead in innovation and adaptation.
             • Others will struggle with crises, leading to significant human and ecological loss.
             • Over time, as the impacts worsen, the urgency of collective action will likely grow, accelerating mitigation efforts in the latter half of this century.

             The key is ensuring that the gap between action and consequences narrows as much as possible, minimizing harm while building a sustainable future.

             I didn't ask ChatGPT about degrowth, although perhaps "Shifting from GDP growth to well-being" touches on this.

             Reply
             • Dennis Frank …

               28 November 2024 at 8:07 pm

               So the gizmo is rather good at comprehensive analysis of human inadequacies. A better test would be to ask how it would solve the problem.

               I'd be impressed if it answered thus: magical thinking. Even more so if it went on to provide a selection of options. You'd probably prefer the more prosaic alternative – lateral thinking. That would also be worth exploring.

               Reply
               • Drowsy M. Kram …

                 28 November 2024 at 9:35 pm

                 A better test would be to ask how it would solve the problem.

                 Ask away, and ask ChatGPT to keep it short – like attention spans

                 Reply
   • tWig 3.2

     28 November 2024 at 3:38 pm

     Reading just yesterday that AI language agents released into Wikipedia to clean up text a couple of years ago ended up having wars with each other. They developed different ideas of what was right, then wasted an awful lot of effort in fruitless edit loops. It took a while (at least a year) to tweak the agent settings so they collaborated.

     And of course, each use of chatgp uses 5x the energy of a google search. AI is rapidly contributing more and more to global warming, as the techbros fudge their real energy usage. Will only make eco-sense if you kill off those humans replaced in the decision-making by AI.

     So there are fishooks in a naive belief that AI is the saviour.

     Reply
     • Dennis Frank 3.2.1

       28 November 2024 at 5:29 pm

       Yes I did read a report of wikiwars & AI a while back, and that 5x multiplier is indeed cause for serious concern. Problem is, the shift to AI is driven by huge economies of scale for the corporate owners, which makes the trend to usage inexorable. Investor shareholdings amplify that too.

       Whether AI is the saviour of anything depends on user-driven design of the thing. If users get designed into its feedback loop it will learn to serve users. That makes it a potential tool for good – particularly if the algorithms are designed to scale up influence via common interests. By that I mean ratio & proportionality as design parameters. Could produce socialism 2.0 via such design strategies…

       Reply
4. Bearded Git 4

   28 November 2024 at 9:19 am

   The market is actually doing a pretty good job in California, Texas and Oz where massive solar farms with (importantly) attached storage has taken off. That is because solar is now the cheapest option.

   Oz also has very high rooftop solar though this may have been helped by subsidies. The government should get involved in NZ re rooftop solar.

   The ability to store energy via massive batteries means we don't need Lake Onslow. Storage attached to solar means we can better manage the water in our lakes meaning even in dry years NZ will be fine.

   And as I said yesterday, a new solar farm with half a million panels and attached storage has just been applied for in the Maniototo…the sheep graze around and under the panels. There are several fast-tracked proposals for large scale solar. This, and subsidised rooftop,is the solution.

   Reply
   • Tiger Mountain 4.1

     28 November 2024 at 9:44 am

     Agree Git. There is a recently completed solar farm in Far North and more to come…
     https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/far-north-to-get-third-solar-farm-as-renewable-energy-reputation-grows/CYK3MKG7I5AV7PKE5DJMBSDKSY/#google_vignette

     I have panels on a North facing outbuilding at our Far North home, and they dropped in price while waiting for install so got a big storage battery too. Magic, charge the wife's EV and run everything with a back up circuit for power cuts.

     There remains so much to do with power gen and supply–re-nationalisation! At Ngawha Springs geothermal generates enough power for the Far North–but due to dated network design it gets fed into national grid. Hence when the pylon went down recently causing lengthy power cuts there was no way to access our “own” power. Rio Tinto needs to get the boot too, they have bludged for decades. But experts say that the network would need major upgrades to be able to send current smelter electricity elsewhere.

     Reply
     • weka 4.1.1

       28 November 2024 at 9:57 am

       are you familiar with the Jevons Paradox?

       Reply
       • Tiger Mountain 4.1.1.1

         28 November 2024 at 10:11 am

         Well given the failure of the latest COP29, Jevons Paradox is not the main problem at this time. Over several centuries Industrial and Finance Capital have been the major cause of Climate Disaster, so sure, capital is hardly likely to be the solution…but some mitigation is still useful for us ordinary folks, like solar panels to avoid power company price gouging and EVs to enable you to drive past gas stations.

         I know two people up here who use Pelton wheels on streams on their properties to power a few things. There are many creative solutions.

         Nitpicking about green washing is fine if we had thousands of eco socialists ready for system change, but that is not the case.

         Reply
         • weka 4.1.1.1.1

           28 November 2024 at 10:23 am

           I'm not nitpicking. I'm pointing out a fundamental flaw in leftist analysis.

           Run the scenario for me, because I'd like to understand how you and BG and others see this playing out. We build lots of solar and other green tech, to what end? Do we then shift to a steady state economy? Or do we use the increased production to expand and use more resources?

           Reply
           • Tiger Mountain 4.1.1.1.1.1

             28 November 2024 at 10:41 am

             My view is growth capitalist style for consumerism and shareholder value is neither useful or possible on a finite planet.

             Auckland and other cities should be capped or reduced. Community/Regional based living could be the way to go. Locally produced food and services. But rural and provincial living is not automatic paradise when industrial farming and Canterbury style “water wars” are in the mix along with mining the conservation estate.

             As a lifelong socialist I still support a Labour/Green/TPM MMP Govt. until support is there for something more radical. Solar and Green Tech has to be better than doing nothing. The problem perhaps is more the corporate control of it.

             Reply
             • weka …

               28 November 2024 at 2:26 pm

               all good stuff. My point here is the lack of analysis from the left, including on TS, that takes climate crisis into account in a real way. Relying on building lots of solar farms is rearranging the deck chairs. Actually worse, it's taking our current wealth and spending it without thought for the following generations. Apart from gsays, I'm not sure if anyone understands what I am pointing to, and I'm struggling to understand, because it's just not that difficult a concept. You get the finite planet stuff, this is where the whole conversation should be, every time. Because until enough people understand that it is all about to fall over unless we change, then everything else is a holding pattern.

               Reply
               • tWig …

                 28 November 2024 at 4:28 pm

                 Seems like marxist ideas do contain ecological ideas quite strongly:

                 'As [Marx] declared in Capital, “Even an entire society, a nation, or all simultaneously existing societies taken together, are not owners of the earth. They are simply its possessors, it beneficiaries, and have to bequeath it in an improved state to succeeding generations as boni patres familias [good heads of household].” '

                 https://greattransition.org/publication/marxism-and-ecology

                 Surely that's a plain and self-evident metric against which to measure eco initiatives.

                 Reply
                 • weka …

                   28 November 2024 at 6:21 pm

                   nice one. Pity it doesn't translate into current centre left thinking, but then it's not the only thing.

                   Reply
     • Bearded Git 4.1.2

       28 November 2024 at 10:40 am

       Oops…Tiger see reply below

       Reply
   • weka 4.2

     28 November 2024 at 9:57 am

     SUbsidies in Australia isn't leaving it to the market, that's a remnant social democracy using neoliberal markets to manage things for the public good.

     Which we could do in NZ. Which we have been doing in NZ. The reason why it's not actually working is because as I pointed out in the post the left and swing voters don't actually want a green economy. James Shaw had the ability to set NZ up for the best climate resilience and meet our international responsibilities, and most of NZ doesn't actually want that.

     We all know what should be happening at the level of 'this would be good'. What we don't have is a deeper analysis of the crisis based on understanding that BAU will simply be wiped away by the polycrisis if we don't drop GHGs fast.

     Personally, I'd rather see that sheep paddock reforested and NZ stop wasting so much goddam power and potential. I'm not against solar farms, although I think we're much better off with localised production. But this idea that we can just keep our lives the same if we do green tech doesn't bear up under scrutiny. All those solar panels are being produced using fossil fuels, and most of the infrastructure is not renewables. It doesn't have to be this way, like I said, politic and social issues are the blocks now.

     Reply
     • Bearded Git 4.2.1

       28 November 2024 at 4:01 pm

       I didn't say that subsidising rooftop was the market working. I said grid scale solar is happening on a massive scale through the market because it has realised this is the cheapest most efficient way to make renewable power and presumably this can be done at a profit.

       Reply
       • weka 4.2.1.1

         28 November 2024 at 10:12 pm

         I didn't say that subsidising rooftop was the market working.

         yeah, I got that. I was saying that if Aus did what they did via subsidies, that is not leaving it to the market. Maybe we are talking past each other a bit. There's no good reason for social democracies to not use markets. But I pointed out the problem in the post. Shaw tried this and it hasn't worked because it depends on the voting public choosing progressive governments.

         Cheap and efficient isn't the priority, neither is making a profit, the environment is.

         Reply
     • Graeme 4.2.2

       28 November 2024 at 4:02 pm

       Australia's electricity network seems to be doing a much better job of integrating solar into the grid than we are. The intent is to be fully bi-directional.

       Australia is in the midst of an energy revolution – and it’s rapid. What were once networks of poles and wires operating one way electricity supply to a customer are evolving into a two-way system, where consumers can export power to the grid via their own mini generation systems – rooftop solar and, increasingly, batteries.

       https://www.energynetworks.com.au/assets/uploads/Guide-to-Australias-Energy-Networks_2021-1.pdf (p6)

       Australia has a very different energy mix to NZ, lots more thermal, most of which is quite old, where we have mostly hydro. But the big difference seems to be the attitude of transmission operators, here they sometimes make solar and small hydro quite difficult.

       Reply
       • Bearded Git 4.2.2.1

         28 November 2024 at 9:13 pm

         Graeme…agree entirely.

         Reply
       • weka 4.2.2.2

         28 November 2024 at 10:15 pm

         But the big difference seems to be the attitude of transmission operators, here they sometimes make solar and small hydro quite difficult.

         Councils too, who have made off grid solar difficult for new builds.

         Our situation with power arose from worshiping the market god. I remember ads on the 90s telling people to use more electricity. It was just insane, and here we are.

         Reply
5. Bearded Git 5

   28 November 2024 at 9:57 am

   Brilliant Tiger. Yep network upgrades are a key element…again the government should not be sitting on its hands.

   Is that "wife's EV" like Luxon's "wife's EV"?

   Reply
   • Tiger Mountain 5.1

     28 November 2024 at 10:04 am

     Heh, not quite…I still have a mint ICE XR6 but it sits in garage mostly…

     Reply
     • Bearded Git 5.1.1

       28 November 2024 at 3:57 pm

       Nice

       Reply
6. Dennis Frank 6

   28 November 2024 at 11:11 am

   Market economies are driven by incentives to consume or not, plus the darwinian competing of option providers. Everyone chooses as per their personal values. Global warming is due to states controlling markets via regulation, to retain the status quo.

   Cop28, last year’s conference in Dubai, secured a written commitment from nearly 200 countries to “transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems”. But there was no agreement on how to begin this transition at Cop29, says Jacqueline Peel, a professor in climate change law at the University of Melbourne. https://theconversation.com/why-un-climate-change-summits-are-fundamentally-flawed-244671

   States know they oughta switch to sustainability, & dunno how. I'm referring to the collective mind-set prevailing within the control system elite.

   Kicking the can down the road again is normalcy. Those in control know they'll be dead when the world hits 3 degrees later this century. Those who are christian believe God's will prevails as usual, so they will wait patiently to see if he decides to have 3 degrees of global warming. I suspect Hindus favour the elite likely to reincarnate as roaches thesis.

   Reply
7. Incognito 7

   28 November 2024 at 2:55 pm

   Let me try a metaphor: when it comes to re-acting to climate change, people re-act like a flock of frogs in a pot water that’s slowly heated. Which frog will jump out (first), when and why, leaving the other frogs behind? And how will this other frog convince others to do the same? The allegory of the cave by Plato gives an idea.

   Reply
8. Ad 8

   28 November 2024 at 3:59 pm

   Nothing wrong with admitting that distributed generation doesn't work in NZ, and it's sure better to see a gentailer fail before it got really big and and fail did major social damage.

   As a consequence the existing state-majority companies are best placed to generate sustainable and reliable power, through large-scale renewables.

   Seems we're too small and diffuse for this model.

   Reply
   • tWig 8.1

     28 November 2024 at 4:31 pm

     The only issue I see is that the company was on-sold to a rapacious investor, who wanted to wring 10%+ returns from a social-good investment.
     Nothing at all to do with distributed power benefits.

     Reply
     • Ad 8.1.1

       28 November 2024 at 8:52 pm

       If it really were worth investing in here, more companies doing similar would start up.

       There are plenty of new local investors doing large scale solar, but only 1 who tried distributed solar.

       Failure is a fine market signal.

       Reply
9. Ad 9

   28 November 2024 at 9:07 pm

   Anyone have an alternative set of instruments to capitalist signals for what isn't going to fly?

   Imagine NZSuper and Kiwisaver funds without us customers giving them signals about what we want and don't want to invest in.

   If we don't trust the state, or foreign capital and we don't like capitalism, and communitarian-scale won't shift anything, and iwi are too poor, and the recessions' already 6 years in, and one failure is a calamity, then we're fully self defeated.

   Reply
   • weka 9.1

     28 November 2024 at 10:09 pm

     just wait until you hear what the collapsing climate and ecosystems are going to do. People are pretending we have a choice about whether to change or not. We don't. Either we change now voluntarily, or everything we have will be taken from us. I assume most people don't believe the crisis is that bad, but it's hard to understand why, it's hardly a secret.

     Reply
10. gsays 10

    29 November 2024 at 9:22 pm

    Warning, you will need to gird your loins to watch this.

    Netflix documentary Buy Now. Talks to industry insiders from the likes of Addidas and Amazon. The vision of selling more with One Click Buying, planned obsolesence and fast fashion.

    It occurs to me once again, governments, Amazon, the Chinese aren't the problem. It is us, the easily led, willing consumer.

    Reply
11. Graeme 11

    7 December 2024 at 10:59 am

    The Liquidator's interim report was published on Wednesday, and starts to give a picture of what was going on.

    https://app.companiesoffice.govt.nz/companies/app/service/services/documents/78D392171F50D849C812F15B1C7ECE74

    The securitisation structures look like the US automotive and real estate industry pre GFC with the creation of securitisation of "assets" that were never going to pay their way. I can't see any reference to income from the Virtual Power Plant, just a short reference to the IP as a possible asset.

    The installations appear to be administered by Public Trust and secured to loans advanced by New Zealand Green Investment Finance Limited Fund, both State entities.

    I'm presuming answers why the VPP didn't work will come with time (not really expecting much there), along with the reason the owners elected to wind the thing up. The actual winding up looks very managed, just hope there's not too much, or at best, any downstream damage.

    Something obviously changed between 2022, when BlackRock bought it, put more capital into it, and now.

    Reply

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS