New Zealand needs a Government that understands climate change

Written By: - Date published: 9:58 am, January 10th, 2019 - 47 comments
Categories: capitalism, climate change, Economy, Environment, ETS, farming, farming, global warming, john key, national, Politics, same old national, science, sustainability, uncategorized - Tags:

The Government is in negotiations with National to see if a consensus can be reached on climate change policy.  Judging by this recent contribution by Todd Muller published in Stuff the chances are not good.

He starts off with a chip at Generation Zero, why I am not sure, because Generation Zero have performed some outstanding, well thought through and compelling work. But Muller says this:

Despite the claims of Generation Zero, a pseudo-Green Party campaign machine which claims to represent the youth of New Zealand, the National Party has a strong track record on climate issues.

We are not a party of “climate villains” dragging our feet as they would paint, but rather a party of economic and environmental pragmatists who are taking a principled approach to climate change: allowing science to paint the picture, with technology leading the way, pacing ourselves at the pace of our competitors, and being relentlessly honest about the economic implications of the transition.

There is a lot to unpick in that second paragraph as well as a lot of rhetoric. From it you can safely say that one of National’s bottom lines will be that the economy cannot be damaged, that National wants to have its cake and eat it too. When will they realise or acknowledge that the economy depends on the environment stupid. There are no profits to be made in a destroyed world.

Muller describes National’s principles as “level-headed, pragmatic and measured approach that New Zealand would expect from National”. I would describe them as “rhetorical flourishes which refuse to acknowledge the severity of our current predicament”.

For instance why pace ourselves at the pace of our competitors? This means setting our pace the same as the shirkers and climate change deniers of which there are far too many. And the current trajectory is very scary. Everyone needs to do more.

And being relentlessly honest? This from the Government that was prepared to use fraudulent carbon credits to balance the books?

Muller then engages in rhetoric that Crosby Textor would have been proud to have called its own:

National is proud of its record on climate issues, but those who are dead set on New Zealand always moving harder and faster no matter the cost, often under the guise of “ambition”, will never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Who would have thought that emissions didn’t increase under National, but stabilised and then reduced by 2 per cent? Emissions are lower now than they were in 2008. This is compared to a 27 per cent increase between 1990 and 2006.



I am not sure how his figure was arranged at although I am sure there is a particular set of data National will use to back the claim.

There is some data here which suggests that decreasing sheep numbers had an effect as did the Global Financial Crisis. Whatever the cause a 2% decrease is nothing to celebrate.

And the outlook is pretty dismal.

And policies tend to have long term lead in times. The last Labour Government set an energy policy of 90% renewable by 2025 and started to implement this. National opposed it and tried to sabotage it. But according to Muller National is to thank for the change:

National increased our renewable electricity generation from 65 per cent to 85 per cent and implemented a world-class Emissions Trading Scheme that can be held up positively against any other trading scheme in the world. It covers more sectors and gases than the European ETS does – going further to include industrial methane, transport fuels and forestry.

As for the ETS if by “implemented” Muller means “sabotagued” then he has a point. Otherwise this is one big porkie.

Muller then accuses this Government of being radical environmental economy wreckers and of doing nothing different to the last Government within the space of two paragraphs:

Despite the Government’s virtue signalling and trumped-up rhetoric on climate issues, their actual policy response hasn’t been significantly different to that of the previous Government – in fact, the changes to the ETS currently being finalised were initiated by National.

The key difference in policy has been the Labour Government’s ban on oil and gas exploration – a change of direction that the National Party continues to oppose vigorously. This decision was pure politics with the Government’s own officials advising that banning oil and gas would cost our economy billions of dollars and likely lead to an increase in global emissions.

When will he realise that we need to leave new discoveries of oil in the ground and stop building highways if we want to become carbon neutral?

And finally Muller repeats the claim that to preserve our environment we have to wreck the economy. And that we are too small to matter.

Modelling provided to the Minister for Climate Change by NZIER indicated that achieving an all-gases zero emissions target by 2050 would reduce New Zealand wages by 60 per cent and GDP by 40 per cent. This may be palatable to Generation Zero, but I doubt the rest of New Zealand would agree.

When our total emissions account for 0.17 per cent of total global emissions, leadership isn’t being first, fast and famous. Leadership is taking what we already do well, food production, and doing it even better over time by investing in innovation and technology.

The technology claim is a joke and is something that the last Government used to talk about all the time.  For instance in 2015 I wrote this:

[John Key claimed] that within three to four years New Zealand’s scientists will have nailed the science regarding agricultural emissions of greenhouse gasses. From TV3:

“I am actually quite confident, over the next 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years, the world will adopt so many new technologies actually our carbon footprint will reduce.”

Agriculture contributes 48 percent of New Zealand’s carbon emissions, but Mr Key said technology to address that is not far away.

“My scientists tell me within three to four years they are going to have nailed that.”

Hosanna, hosanna, hosanna in the highest, redemption is at hand.  John Key has the solution to Aotearoa’s greenhouse gas emission issues.  Is this why National has slashed funding of research into agricultural emissions? Because they have already discovered the solution?

Four years on and there is no sign of Key’s lauded technology appearing.

The first comment to Muller in the Stuff article nailed it:

Know a fence, Todd Muller, but I could give two shiny tosses as to what “all Parties can live with”. 

We are discussing the viability of the planet, so I’d rather chat about what I can live with, as in, the quality of the air I can live with- or the amount of drinking water I can live with. 

If you’re more concerned with the happiness of “the parties” and not concerned about the wellbeing of the citizens in the country your desperately seeking to govern then I think its time you go get a job in American politics and stay far away from here. 

Well put.

But the chances of a political accord on climate change being reached are?

The portents are not good.

Update:  This is a more recent graph that I have discovered which can be accessed from MPI’s website here.  The net emissions figure is obviously the most important one.

47 comments on “New Zealand needs a Government that understands climate change”

  1. Ad 1

    Shaw’s approach reminds me of NZTA’s approach to the light rail project: say nothing (other than to very small groups) until it’s perfect. That’s a pretty high risk communicative strategy because it invites the extremes of all sides to be perpetually dissatisfied and do battle, as is breaking out with Gen Zero’s needless attack and Muller’s response.

    I’m still confident that Parker, Shaw, Muller, and Upton will table a bill and a framework that is credible and can endure any change of government.

    But it’s well overdue that both the government and National send out a joint signal that an agreement is likely. Or not. They should do so as soon as parliament begins.

  2. Sanctuary 2

    “…Four years on and there is no sign of Key’s lauded technology appearing…”

    For the technology to appear you first have to fund the scientists who will develop it, yet the previous National government defunded anything that might challenge their denialism and wishful thinking.

    Key and the rest of them engaged in massive magical thinking, where you either pretended the problem didn’t exist by not recording or measuring it or as an article of religious zealotry believed the magical mystical fairies of the market would come up with a wand that the government could wave and fix everything with.

  3. Andre 3

    It really twists my knickers when someone goes on about economics as a reason to drag their feet on getting serious about going to zero-emissions.

    Building new renewable electricity generation is a burst of well-paying skilled jobs. Operating and maintaining that renewable generation is long term steady skilled well-paying employment. As it happens, renewable energy is overall cheaper than fossil fuel generation, yet has higher employment for the same amount of energy produced. So there’s more economic activity from renewable generation cycling into local communities rather than getting stashed away by faraway rentiers.

    Getting serious about reducing our agricultural emissions is also likelier to lead to an economic boost. Doing the R & D, then implementing improved processes and products is all economic activity done by people in good well-paying jobs.

    Swapping as much of our energy use over to electric power rather than fossil generates good skilled high paying employment. Even better if we could get serious about doing it all here and tempt back really talented expats like Ian Wright of Wrightspeed.

    And now a question I’ve asked many times before and never had anyone even attempt to answer: What is good for New Zealand’s economy about paying billions of dollars to companies offshore in order to import filthy black stuff that just causes pollution when it’s burnt here?

    • Sanctuary 3.1

      Like right wing parties everywhere, National are increasingly becoming the corrupt voice of the big ends of town, who have it sweet right now thank you very much and want to lock in their economic advantage by stifling change.

    • Draco T Bastard 3.2

      It really twists my knickers when someone goes on about economics as a reason to drag their feet on getting serious about going to zero-emissions.

      People who do that are actually ignoring the economics in favour of their finances.

      As it happens, renewable energy is overall cheaper than fossil fuel generation, yet has higher employment for the same amount of energy produced.

      For now. Sooner or later the tech will be developed that will seriously reduce the number of people involved.

      So there’s more economic activity from renewable generation cycling into local communities rather than getting stashed away by faraway rentiers.

      National’s on the side of the rentiers.

      Getting serious about reducing our agricultural emissions is also likelier to lead to an economic boost. Doing the R & D, then implementing improved processes and products is all economic activity done by people in good well-paying jobs.

      Do you mean getting rid of the farms and developing stuff like this?
      Tesla’s new Solar Roof is actually cheaper than a normal roof

      Excessive farming is causing all sorts of problems and about the only way we can sort that out is to reduce the number of farms and return the land back to the wild.

      What is good for New Zealand’s economy about paying billions of dollars to companies offshore in order to import filthy black stuff that just causes pollution when it’s burnt here?

      Nothing. Muldoon seemed to understand that which is why he tried hard to make us energy independent.

      • Andre 3.2.1

        “For now. Sooner or later the tech will be developed that will seriously reduce the number of people involved.”

        It’s continually ongoing. For example:

        https://skyspecs.com/skyspecs-solution/autonomous-inspection/

        But like almost all technologies, developing and supporting those new technologies spawns new industries of their own. Employment doesn’t necessarily reduce, it changes and often even increases.

  4. Pat 4

    A consensus on CC policy may be preferable , although the overly touted position it is more likely to be adhered to is baseless, I suspect in the desire to present such the resulting policy will be of little real use ..especially with this sort of rhetoric from a party to it a matter of weeks away from its release and post the consultation on CC.

    Not a lot to be optimistic about

  5. Wayne 5

    How plausible is the graph showing a doubling of emissions from 2008 to 2025, which is only 17 years (from 50 million to 100 million tonnes CO2)?
    Our population will grow 25% over that time. The economy maybe 40%. So how would CO2 emissions double, even though at least some mitigation measures will be in place. It simply does not make sense.
    Some explanation is required.

  6. Dennis Frank 6

    Well done, a nicely-comprehensive critique. Funny picture, eh? Having driven that route quite a lot, I have to say the sign is misleading. The road itself is safe, but it is made unsafe by impatient drivers (like me) who compete to overtake.

    Advocating a four-lane highway is just dumb. The Waihi gorge will always be a bottleneck, so all it would achieve is to allow the most impatient drivers to reach the head of the queue, or further up it. Can’t make the travel time to Coro or Ak much different, more likely to jam up the gorge. A crawl would replace the current steady flow at 60/80kph. Anyone in a hurry takes the alternate route over the Kaimais. Duh!

    So he ain’t all that clever. Just a capable advocate for slow learners. His challenge is to reposition National more comprehensively by getting the bluegreens out of their kennel, and into public life. To do that, he has to prevail over the business as usual syndrome, and make MMP work for National again. That also applies to any National leadership contender of course. Currently, they’re all shirkers.

    • patricia bremner 6.1

      Yes, and the Karangahake Gorge between Paeroa and Waihi was undercut to the inth degree and is far from stable. Parts of the road tend to wash out or collapse.

  7. cleangreen 7

    Todd Muller; – cites this as his excuse for doing nothing?

    “Modelling provided to the Minister for Climate Change by NZIER indicated that achieving an all-gases zero emissions target by 2050 would reduce New Zealand wages by 60 per cent and GDP by 40 per cent.”

    Rubbish he speaks,

    If our climate change emissions do not keep pace with our goals set in our global agreements we alll will not have jobs other than learning to cope in a world flooded by high tides and constant weather bombs.

    Todd Muller should know that the forth largest economy globally ‘Germany’ is heading the way here in land freight services using more rail now and not using road freight as Muller advocates with his rubbish of using four lane roads for more trucks..

    Muller should be ashamed for turning away from using rail as a prime mover of freight as Germany is now doing.

    My son who is now in Germany says they are aggressively expanding using all rail services there, while NZ under National was closing down rail and Muller should be ashamed for his party’s disgusting policy of trying to totally destroy rail in NZ.

    Does he have interests in the ‘road freight industry’ we should be asking here????

    Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-10-shipping-freight-rail-environment.html#jCp

    According to the article, rail and inland water are less carbon intensive than roads, but inland water may in some places produce more carbon emissions than rail and ocean shipping. Although many rail systems in the world are electrified, U.S. freight trains run on diesel. The team suggests lowering emissions further by electrifying our rail systems, although this is very costly. In a similar fashion, electric vehicles and electrified roadways could also decarbonize road freight, although this is also expensive and the technologically is difficult to achieve.

    To encourage transitions to these lower-carbon options, the team recommends that policymakers put in place incentives to discourage road freight through tolls and taxes, and should support the construction of intermodal terminals that allow for shipments to be kept on rail as long as possible, before being efficiently and reliably transferred to road for last-mile delivery.

    Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-10-shipping-freight-rail-environment.html#jCp

    • Draco T Bastard 7.1

      Does he have interests in the ‘road freight industry’ we should be asking here?

      The roading lobby provides quite a lot of political funding.

      The team suggests lowering emissions further by electrifying our rail systems, although this is very costly.

      Electric trains are costly to put in place but are highly efficient and far more powerful than the diesel powered ones. One advantage is that they can use regenerative breaking.

      • KJT 7.1.1

        Electric trains are cheaper to build than trucks per unit of freight, and the cost of rail lines is almost an order of magnitude less than roads.
        Trucks have never had to pay as much as the build costs, they incur by using the roads.

        Shipping lanes, of course, cost nothing. However ports, unlike roads, are expected to make 12% on their opportunity costs.

        The road lobbies bribes, sorry funding, to National must be one of the best returns on investment in New Zealand. Almost as good as Pacific Island hotels.

        • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1.1

          If trucks had to pay their way rather than being heavily subsidised by everybody else then their business models would collapse. People would be queuing up to use the trains.

          Oh, wait, they already were but National run down rail as per their normal MO. Really, how much does the roading lobby pay the National MPs to get the bad decisions made?

  8. Robert Guyton 8

    I think National Party MPs loathe groups that have an activist air about them and that’s because they know those groups won’t follow process, keep to the set rules, will talk directly to the media and will mock those MPs who are used to adulation. Todd’s unnecessary attack here is typical of those National Party representatives, imo.

    • mickysavage 8.1

      It was jarring. Why when you are negotiating with the Greens would you publicly have a go at such a pro environment organisation?

  9. Robert Guyton 9

    Todd is ex-Fonterra.

  10. soddenleaf 10

    want good environment policy… ..ban biomass from refuse… …then see market for comfortables grow, national will oppose the entrepreneurical and claim victory for the GDP growth.

  11. soddenleaf 11

    want good environment policy… ..ban biomass from refuse… …then see market for compostables grow, national will oppose the entrepreneurical and claim victory for the GDP growth.

  12. Anne 12

    We are not a party of “climate villains” dragging our feet as they would paint, but rather a party of economic and environmental pragmatists who are taking a principled approach to climate change: allowing science to paint the picture, with technology leading the way, pacing ourselves at the pace of our competitors, and being relentlessly honest about the economic implications of the transition.: allowing science to paint the picture, with technology leading the way, pacing ourselves at the pace of our competitors, and being relentlessly honest about the economic implications of the transition.

    Excuse my language, but what a load of effing bloody garbage! What does it even mean?

    … a party of economic and environmental pragmatists who are taking a principled approach to climate change:

    Translation: We will not be rushed into any action that meets with the disapproval of our mentally challenged red-neck voter support.

    …allowing science to paint the picture, with technology leading the way,

    Translation: God only knows?

    …pacing ourselves at the pace of our competitors,

    Translation: We’ll wait and see what other counties are able to get away with not doing… then we’ll follow suit.

    being relentlessly honest about the economic implications of the transition.

    Translation: Much as we are willing to believe in CC, we also believe for political reasons that the NZ economy must take priority.

    In a nut shell:

    We intend to make incremental changes over time (?) as permitted by the state of the overall economy.

    When will these douche-bags realise this is not either a political or an economic consideration. CC waits for no-one. What’s the use of having a healthy global economy if the planet is dead and every living organism including human-kind wiped out.

    • Anne 12.1

      Oops: it should be douchebags not douche-bags. Oh dearie me……..

    • R.P Mcmurphy 12.2

      they dont give a stuff as long as they have been overseas and stayed in an expensive hotel. banal stuff.

    • patricia bremner 12.3

      Key said “NZ should be a slow follower”
      They took that literally and patted themselves on the back as being pragmatic, not following science and theory.
      So RD was poorly funded, science ignored, and groups putting up theories ridiculed.

  13. Greg #56 13

    https://www.niwa.co.nz/files/2018_Annual_Climate_Summary-NIWA.pdf

    From Brandolino’s Boys themselves: “The nationwide average temperature for 2018… was 13.41°C… This makes 2018 the equal 2nd-warmest year on record along with 1998, only placing behind 2016 [13.45°C]”. So last year was exactly the same temperature as back in 1998 – oops! – 20 years of no dangerous warming, no catastrophic change, no anything apart from some El Niño blips, same as it ever was, flat line fever.

    Page 4 continues: “Thus, the summer of 2017-18 claimed the record of New Zealand’s hottest summer formerly held by the summer of 1934-35.” Qué paso hombré? Eighty-three years we’ve been waiting to break the ‘At Last! A Decent Hot Summer!’ record? 1935 must’ve been existential™ AND sweltering™.

    On their penultimate (2nd-to-last) Page 38, the word ‘snow’ is finally mentioned: “21 February, the Crown Range was dusted with snow as a cold southerly pushed into the South Island in ex-Tropical Cyclone Gita’s wake. The Remarkables ski area near Queenstown reported 50 cm of snowfall, with drifts up to 1 metre deep.” Ex-cyclones dumping snow bang in the peak of high summer – what’s not to like about a little cool change. And it’s snowing in Fiordland tonight, 10 January, excellent. Chill.

    • Pat 13.1

      suggest you read the article again paying particular attention to the trends

      • Greg $56 13.1.1

        Pat, once was enough, thanks (of Brandolino’s BS). When he’s lived here 20 or 40 or more years, I may take him seriously: until then, he’s an imported foreign TV actor cum PR salesman with a mom-and-apple-pie dueling banjos hoe-down attitude. And ‘trends’? Like ‘fashions’?

        There are only two (2) sentences in the whole summary which are important: “This makes 2018 the equal 2nd-warmest year on record along with 1998” and “Thus, the summer of 2017-18 claimed the record… formerly held by the summer of 1934-35.” The rest is fluff.

  14. One Two 14

    +/- 20,000 satellites are expected to be launched over coming years as part of the earth orbit infrastructure for 5G telecomms…

    Combined with on earth infrastructure requirements, and the inherently, extreme radiative qualities of 5G…

    Negative impact to the environment, atmosphere and earths inhabitants, is highly probable…

  15. Brendon Harre 15

    Over the summer holidays I wrote an article about hydrogen fuel cell vehicles for the heavy and long distance end of the market. Plus grid scale batteries like pumped hydro replacing fossil fuel burning coal and gas electricity plants. The article got republished on Interest.co.nz where it was attacked by trolls. So I updated my article to be more trollproof (although now it is quite long).

    On the political front I see little sincerity from the National Party that they agree with the 2050 carbon zero goal or the 2035 goal of 100% renewable electricity production. I think new politicians like Todd Muller and Simon Bridges need to be be commiting to these goals without watering them down with vetos for *principles* or the *economy* to have climate change credibility.

    View story at Medium.com

    • Dennis Frank 15.1

      First impression: that graph you included of Norway car sales trends is a real humdinger!! Nats clinging to oil would be seriously spooked! Clearly that country is a strong contender for market leader on the global stage. I mean a market that is demonstrably transformational. On the road to sustainability. Way down it, too.

      • Dennis Frank 15.1.1

        Second: hydrogen fuel advocacy needs proof of concept via working models. Dismissal as `pie in the sky’ will be routine till the media feature any!

        “Hydrogen trains have a range of about 1000 km so can provide both suburban and regional South Island services. Refueling times are short (15min), which is similar to diesel trains. Hydrogen trains will require its own hydrogen production, distribution and storage facilities. On fixed rail routes this is not a too onerous constraint -the South Island rail network would only need 4 or 5 onsite production and dispensing facilities at strategic locations to provide full network coverage.”

        Sounds good as a strategy. If the Minister of Regional Development were able to get his head into Green thinking, he’d use this scenario to call for a feasibility study by his dept & govt scientist advisors.

        • Dennis Frank 15.1.1.1

          Third: kiwi businesses trending towards sustainability are an escalating trend. Better late than never. Must give credit where it’s due tho, eh?

          “New Zealand businesses want to be part of the zero carbon technological era. The New Zealand Hydrogen Association was formed in September 2018 by private sector companies with seed funding from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. The founding members include Fulton Hogan, HW Richardson Group, Hyundai, Siemens (NZ), Green Cabs, Real Journeys, and Contact Energy. Toyota joined in November.”

          Okay, looks like hydrogen tech is advanced enough for heavy industry to climb aboard the bandwagon. Now let’s see them produce substance to accompany the hype…

          • Brendon Harre 15.1.1.1.1

            Dennis I am not saying we are definitely ‘there yet’ wrt hydrogen but there are indications of a possible path that is worth investigating.
            P.S I like the idea of getting the regional development minister working in this space.

          • Janet 15.1.1.1.2

            And when are the organic and SLM ( sustainable Land Management ) farmers who have been doing their bit for 30+ years get credit and recognition of their financial “sacrifice. ” They are leading the way we have to go. Its BACK a bit to the Future.

    • Andre 15.2

      I used to be a fan of hydrogen – back when NiMH batteries were the ducks nuts in battery tech and before I took a good look into what’s involved in handling hydrogen. (I had a boss that got wind of how much carbon fibre hydrogen storage tanks were selling for and thought we could make them. It didn’t take much research and explanation of the materials tech, monitoring and safety equipment needed and the overall hazards of hydrogen to send him off looking for some other next big thing). The difficulties of hydrogen coupled with how astonishing the improvements in battery tech have been recently means I’m now quite skeptical of hydrogen.

      You’ve touched on the round-trip efficiency and that hydrogen needs to be generated from some other energy source so it’s a method of storing energy, rather than a source. Phew, that usually needs to be covered at the start of a hydrogen discussion.

      As far as flammability goes, hydrogen has the second widest range of concentration that is flammable in air – only acetylene is worse. Natural gas and propane mitigate the flammability hazard by adding odorant, not possible with any candidate hydrogen fuel cell types. A hydrogen flame is also nearly invisible to human eyes, most of the light is UV.

      The way hydrogen permeates through most metals and embrittles them on the way through, and just pisses through any kind of polymer, means the design, engineering, maintenance and operators all need care and attention to detail several levels above what is needed to safely handle fossil fuels.

      The chart comparing Li-ion battery costs and installed capacity looks out of date. Tesla have claimed they expect to be below USD$100/kWh sometime this year at the cell level, and below USD$100/kWh at the battery pack level sometime next year. Energy density of lithium batteries is increasing as well, although nowhere near as dramatically as the price drop.

      It occurs to me there’s a fifth option for powering trains. Smaller battery backs and intermittent stretches of overhead electrification for charging plus powering the train where it’s lower cost to do so.

      Love the write-up on stored hydro. Also, when it comes to generating hydrogen from methane, there’s also techniques to do it by bubbling the methane up through specific molten metals. The carbon isn’t released to the atmosphere, it collects on top of the molten metal as a solid (presumably some kind of sooty dust).

      • Brendon Harre 15.2.1

        Hydrogen vehicles was the more speculative part of the report. Although the climate change question of what can be done at the heavy vehicle end of the market is probably one of the most difficult climate change questions. So worth thinking about.

        Interestingly it was the pumped hydro not the hydrogen vehicles that the trolls really attacked. Probably because it is genuinely doable.

        • Andre 15.2.1.1

          That is interesting about the trolls having a go at the pumped hydro.

          In the North Island I’ve long thought generation on the Waikato would be significantly improved with a few pumped hydro dams and lakes along its length. There’s very little storage in the lakes down the Waikato, so all the generation is more or less operated as run of the river controlled by the gates at Taupo. The ability to run water up into stored hydro lakes would really improve the flexibility to respond to demand changes.

          As far as transport vehicles go, another disadvantage is fuel cells aren’t good at rapid response to demand changes, and can’t regeneratively brake. So if hydrogen takes off, I wouldn’t be surprised to see fuel cell vehicles still carrying around substantial batteries for peak demand and regeneration, with the fuel cells just supplying the overall average demand. Kinda like a BMW i3 in range-extending mode.

  16. Jenny - How to get there? 16

    Todd Muller, who is supposed to be National’s climate change spokesperson, has lashed out publicly in an intemperate attack, on what he calls a Government “….blinded by Green ideology”.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/109826913/new-zealand-needs-a-government-that-isnt-blinded-by-green-ideology-nats

    As well as attacking the government for being “blinded by Green Ideology” Muller singled out the youth pressure group Generation Zero as a particular target for his vitriol

    “….a pseudo-Green Party campaign machine which claims to represent the youth of New Zealand…..”
    Todd Muller

    (I would be surprised if either of these two claims contained in this sentence are true. As far as I know Gen Zero are not the Green Party’s version of the Young Nats, as Todd Muller seems to be alleging. Nor have as far as I know  hav Gen Zero ever made claims to represent the youth of New Zealand)

    “National takes climate change seriously. That’s why have I been working behind the scenes with James Shaw negotiating a framework for an Independent Climate Change Commission to take the short-term politics out of what is a very long-term issue and guide the response of successive future governments.”
    Todd Muller

    This paragraph about sums up Todd Muller’s sleazy manipulative strategy; Paper over the differences in the here and now, on how to tackle climate change, And kick the can down the road twenty or thirty years. So we don’t act now.

    “The key difference in policy has been the Labour Government’s ban on oil and gas exploration – a change of direction that the National Party continues to oppose vigorously. This decision was pure politics with the Government’s own officials advising that banning oil and gas would cost our economy billions of dollars and likely lead to an increase in global emissions”.
    Todd Muller

    Todd Muller is a dirty liar. Where is his proof that the ban on issuing new oil and gas drilling permits will lead to an increase in global emissions?

    Muller has just deliberately decided to spread this lie, knowing full well there is no evidence to back it up.

    “Bi-partisanship is easier said than done, but both parties have to date been negotiating in good faith, and I am optimistic that we can find common ground for the good of New Zealand. We are working towards a framework that all Parties can live with, that will be enduring beyond the next change of Government.”
    Todd Muller

    This paragraph of Todd Muller’s attack piece contains his biggest lie of all.

    Todd Muller and Simon Bridges have both said that they will repeal the government’s ban on issuing new oil and gas exploration permits at the very next change of government. What’s bi-partisan about that?

    Nothing.

  17. Greg #56 17

    Pat, once was enough, thanks (of Brandolino’s BS). When he’s lived here 20 or 40 or more years, I may take him seriously: until then, he’s an imported foreign TV actor cum PR salesman with a mom-and-apple-pie dueling banjos hoe-down attitude. And ‘trends’? Like ‘fashions’?

    There are only two (2) sentences in the whole summary which are important: “This makes 2018 the equal 2nd-warmest year on record along with 1998” and “Thus, the summer of 2017-18 claimed the record… formerly held by the summer of 1934-35.” The rest is fluff.

Leave a Comment

Show Tags

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Growth in Police deployments
    The first Police graduation for 2019 creates a new total of 1,101 frontline officers deployed around the country since the Coalition Government took office. Police Minister Stuart Nash today presented awards to the top recruits of Wing 322, whose Patron ...
    4 days ago
  • Andrew Little to lead delegation to UN Human Rights Review
    Justice Minister, Andrew Little, lead a delegation to New Zealand’s third Universal Periodic Review at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva on 21 January. ...
    5 days ago