NRT: Past time to end fossil fuel exploration

Written By: - Date published: 6:13 am, March 3rd, 2018 - 64 comments
Categories: capitalism, climate change, disaster, Economy, energy, Environment - Tags: ,

Idiot/Savant at No Right Turn writes:
______________________________________________________________________

Over on SciBlogs, Massey University’s Ralph Sims argues that we should end exploration for oil and gas. The basic argument is that we have already polluted the atmosphere with too much carbon, and if we are to have any hope at all of avoiding dangerous levels of climate change, most of the fossil fuels we know about will have to stay in the ground. Which means that future exploration is pointless – after all, what’s the point in discovering new sources of fuels that can never be burned or utilised?

And he’s right. In the current carbon situation, future exploration is pointless. All it does is create a temptation to destroy the planet, and ammunition for foreign fossil fuel companies to whine about how they should be allowed to profit by doing so. Instead of allowing exploration and issuing new permits, the government should be sending a clear message to the fossil fuel industry that it has no future. The foreign shareholders in that toxic industry will kick and scream, but its basicly them or the planet – and if we want to save the world and keep our own coastal cities above water, they have to go.

64 comments on “NRT: Past time to end fossil fuel exploration”

  1. cleangreen 1

    Global warming is now a reality; like it or not, it will cause harm to our economy and future lifestyle.

    US government scientists have used new analysis systems proving sceptics wrong, and that a critical part of out atmosphere temperatures are rising at an alarming and unnatural rate.

    Sceptics argued temperatures were rising as a ‘natural variation to a mini ice age.’

    The atmospheric changes occurring rapidly now are what the scientists say they would expect to see if ‘man made gasses were causing it to heat up.’ They claim ‘this latest evidence could convince not just scientists but the public as well.’

    Us citizens attended a NIWA seminar in HB on 29/4/04, where senior atmospheric scientist, Jim Salinger, forecasts long term global warming and adverse weather events that will affect our farming and horticulture sectors. We will feel these effects by damage to our economy and lifestyle.

    We must attempt to reduce our spiralling increase of fossil fuels. Transport is our fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions, according to government. The ‘more roads for more cars and trucks’ policies must be replaced by increased rail freight and more use of public transport, if we are to limit the future damage to our lives and those of our generations to come. Diesel engine exhaust contains 100-200 times more small particles of pollution than petrol engine exhaust. These particles are responsible for cancer and respiratory disease and, according to scientists, cause an increase in melting of polar and glacial ice fields.

    We now have little time left.

  2. patricia bremner 2

    Government have to make “end use industries” too expensive by loading fees on. So petitioning them to start helps.

    Germany has taxed Diesel fuel to such an extent, trains trucks and buses are electric. (savings from the health budget for asthma/heart conditions will occur)

    Once demand dries up oil industry will have a natural death like other industries before it.

    We can do small but important things. Move back to glass storage in the pantry, not plastic, and cooking in pyrex or similar, which can be used in all ovens, including the microwave.

    We have, in our family agreed to use non plastic items where possible. That means no acrylic paint for us when we do our repaint.

    This winter I will buy a swandri or modern woollen equivalent. Natural fibres are the order of the day. It won’t be convenient or cheap, but it will be satisfying and value for money in many ways.

    I’m haunting second hand places and Trade me for “treasure” It is a start.

    • francesca 2.1

      I’ve discovered our local organic shop that has bulk bins for the usual nuts , grains, rice,spices
      etc(and often cheaper than our only supermarket)
      also stock bulk eco store laundry liquid, dish wash, shampoo etc so refills are an option
      Our plastic rubbish was driving me crazy, but we’ve managed to reduce it by quite a lot
      Online purchases are the worst.
      Anything originating from China is overkill plastic wrapped
      Gladwrap is now out,I just put a plate over a glass bowl for storing leftovers etc in the fridge
      Only cotton dish cloths
      Be interested in your paint choice

      • Janet 2.1.1

        Thanks Patricia, Francesca and Weka
        You have started the Self Help list of what we all can do NOW to help save the world.
        1/ Local bulk bins for the usual nuts, grains, rice, spices
        etc ( often cheaper than our only supermarket)
        also stock bulk eco store laundry liquid, dish wash, shampoo etc so refills are an option
        2/ Avoid anything originating from China as it is overkill plastic wrapped.
        3/ Gladwrap is now out, I just put a plate over a glass bowl for storing leftovers etc in the fridge.
        4/ Only cotton dish cloths
        5/ Glass storage in the pantry, not plastic, and cooking in pyrex or similar, which can be used in all ovens, including the microwave.
        6/ Use non plastic items where possible .
        7/ Re-use the plastic items you inadvertently end up with where ever and when ever possible.
        8/ Do not use acrylic paint to repaint.
        9/ Use Natural fibre clothing , wool cotton, linen.
        10/ Use Natural fibre bedding.
        11/ stabilise population growth.
        Add to it, please, everyone …..
        Lists of simple personal actions need to be widely and publicly promoted so everyone knows ways to personally make a difference; then finally everyone will feel empowered and responsible to make a difference.
        It’s a good start.

    • weka 2.2

      Wool is a good option because it also biodegrades at the end of its useful life.

      I think we have to look at the whole ecological footprint issues. I like glass, but it’s heavy and bulky to transport, so it’s good for some things but can be a problem in a society that still favours disposability. It requires extraction from nature, and is recyclable only to a certain extent before it has to be repurposed or becomes waste. We can improve our recycling tech but ultimately we just need to use less.

      I love glass jars because they are reusable. We could improve jar design to make that easier and more functional.

      We also need to stabilise population. This is such a no brainer from a sustainable systems perspective, but politically many are still arguing that we can keep increasing population because. I see few of those arguments looking at NZ’s resource base and what it can support, but I guess people (not you) look at glass and think sand is infinite. Or that we can grow soy to make bioplastics, and land is infinite.

  3. Which means that future exploration is pointless – after all, what’s the point in discovering new sources of fuels that can never be burned or utilised?

    Which is a wrong argument. If you want to stop the exploration for them then you actually need another argument.

    Oil and coal are resources that can and are used to produce a significant range of products. They don’t have to be burned.

    In fact, to stop the burning of fossil fuels we should simply pass a law that they can’t be burned and no products made from the burning of them can be produced, sold or imported.

    Note that such a law would probably break every single FTA that we have and probably the WTO rules as well. If it would then this would prove that these are about forcing trade rather than free-trade.

  4. Pat 4

    “In fact, to stop the burning of fossil fuels we should simply pass a law that they can’t be burned and no products made from the burning of them can be produced, sold or imported.”

    Which would rule out virtually everything currently available

    • That would be the point wouln’t it?

      • Pat 4.1.1

        cant see anyone buying that sales pitch…or surviving it if they did

        • I can. The majority of people support doing something about ACC.

          Give a time frame and a plan that sees little disruption to people’s lives while achieving the removal of products made by burning fossil fuels and I doubt if it will be a major problem.

          And do note that it a ban on products made by burning fossil fuels. Cellphones won’t be banned but cellphones made by burning fossil fuels will be, i.e, we won’t be importing them from China but we could probably import them from Germany or make our own.

          • Pat 4.1.1.1.1

            so now a qualification…ok so what is the timeframe?

            • weka 4.1.1.1.1.1

              Qualifications are useful e.g. laws often don’t get made overnight or mean something has to stop right then.

              We could have a transition/powerdown plan. Personally I think we need to do this urgently even if the economy takes a hit but if we want to not scare the horses and thus make transition viable*, how about we do it in stages. We could ban all oil exploration in NZ today. We could transition to 100% renewable energy within a few years. Transport fuels are harder, but let’s say the govt fleet has to transition to electric within something like five years (I made that up, they may already have a target, and I’m guessing that the normal turnover of the fleet would be a factor).

              It’s not that hard.

              *viability isn’t an issue of physics but politics.

              • Transport fuels are harder

                Actually, what we’re discussing here doesn’t even touch upon transport except for the fact that we wouldn’t be importing cars/trucks/trains from Japan or China because fossil fuelled energy is used in their construction.

              • pat

                “We could ban all oil exploration in NZ today”

                Agree

                ” We could transition to 100% renewable energy within a few years.”

                Doable I expect though perhaps with reduced security of supply

                “let’s say the govt fleet has to transition to electric within something like five years”

                They may have though I doubt whether the time frame would be that tight…(I know the CCC renewed its fleet 2 years ago so are unlikely to do so anytime soon)…but even that aside it will be expensive AND theres no guarantee of supply ability (I can hear the rates and tax revolt already and nissan have only just returned electric vehicle supply to NZ due to supply constraints)

                Lets say all that occurs….it is a tiny fraction of our fossil fuel use.

                • weka

                  “Doable I expect though perhaps with reduced security of supply”

                  Yes. I think this is the next big issue. We need to lower our expectations.

                  I thought care fleets have the individual cars replaced quite often for depreciation reasons.

                  • Pat

                    is not just cars however…ChCh replaced their fleet around two years ago….most the vehicles got rid of were around 15 years old…so on that basis they wont be replaced for another decade…although they are trialing a shared use electric vehicle programme.

                    Its not that I’m trying to place a downer on the attempt ….I just think too many have no idea of whats involved…and the kickback the attempt will engender

                    • weka

                      no, that’s useful commentary. I’m probably mistaken that cars are replaced sooner than that because of depreciation, although that might also be something specific about Chch.

                      It’s actually a big issue, replacing the NZ vehicle fleet and the carbon footprint involved in that. We are trying to change boats while racing against an incoming tide, and the changing of the boats may make things worse.

                    • Pat

                      it may…though the attempt needs to be made….but with one eye on disruption…too much and you( any programme) will lose support….its going to be one hell of a balancing act….and all under time pressure.

                    • weka

                      I’m hoping we get enough renewable infrastructure online before things go baldy, and then we can power down fast if we need to and still have some decent supports in place. I can live without my car if I have to, but only if I have another way to get my groceries etc.

                    • Pat

                      and preferably locally run renewable infrastructure

                    • weka

                      That would be fortunate if we can achieve that for sure.

            • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1.1.1.2

              The qualification was always implied. In reality nothing can be done instantly and I’m all about reality.

              I’d like to see it fully implemented in 5 years but would have to get research done to see what is possible. Implement it over five years but allow research to extend it beyond that but no more than ten.

  5. funstigator 5

    Carbon fibre & other oil based products used as a light, strong material making electric vehicles etc. Let’s ban them! Let’s Do This!!
    FFS – are you sure that your issue isn’t with any “big corporate” regardless of whether they are tied to hydro carbons?

  6. patricia bremner 7

    Well guys you were quick to say what we couldn’t do and why.
    What do you personally plan to do?
    When a product is no longer purchased, it quickly loses backers.
    I don’t see why you feel big corporates are being attacked, and as an individual, bound by government, I do what I can. FTA’s etc.
    As I said, What are you doing to stop oil and gas exploration? Wringing your hands?

  7. jcuknz 8

    “and if we want to save the world and keep our own coastal cities above water, they have to go.”
    Lets give this author the prize for hopeless optimism in face of reality…. the deed is done and somehow we have to live with it.
    It makes sense to know what our country holds so we can decide if it is worth fighting to preserve it, not that I have much confidence in that being a feasible action.

    • weka 8.1

      Climate change isn’t a discrete process, we didn’t have it, now we do. It’s a long process of many changes over time, and that continues to change over time. It’s never to late to limit the worst effects, and that includes sea level rise.

      The difference between 1m and 1.5m might not seem a big deal until you have a house with no insurance or resale value that is affected at 1m but not 1.5 😉

      • jcuknz 8.1.1

        I am merely highlighting the foolishness of the statement and living in an area where even a .4M or .5M rise will make the area untenable it makes the closing statement worthless.
        Insurance may be affordable now but I doubt if it will continue to be so …. short of an end to capitalism. Third party may continue for longer but full cover .. no way.

        Even today I know of areas which flood at Spring HT…. just a road BUT…..

        • weka 8.1.1.1

          Not sure what you are saying. Who lives in such an area?

          Not everyone in NZ lives in an area where .4/.5 will make the area untenable and my point stands. If we can prevent 1m rise, that’s good.

          The insurance industry has already made a clear indication that CC isn’t considered an accident and thus there won’t be cover.

          • jcuknz 8.1.1.1.1

            South Dunedin has a water table close to sea level. Not that it was a consideration when I bought my current property but I am glad that I am around ten metres* above HW and subsequently I have watched as folk built or improved their S Dn properties over the past 25 plus years … quite mad IMO.
            Of course people can raise their homes of stilts and remain inside around high tide but …..
            *The wonderful beaurocrats in city hall tell me I am liable to be washed away in a tidal wave but since access short of being a mountain goat would be blocked by a rise in both directions I’ll be stuffed if I live that long.

            I think moveable small homes will be one of the options in the future as suggested elsewhere here. My flat mate didn’t think I could live in an old bus but I adapted so personally I do not fear the future. But small homes are the answer for those with the gumption to try it and build it yourself…. one year carpentry in prep school was all the experience that I had.

            • weka 8.1.1.1.1.1

              Small, moveable homes seem like a good option for many people.

              Sth Dunedin will need to be moved at some point, and I hope NZ figures out how to do that in a community positive way.

      • jcuknz 8.1.2

        “Climate change isn’t a discrete process, we didn’t have it, now we do. ”
        Tosh!
        It has been with the earth since it was created.
        Just that Man has discovered it is the downside of progress/ invention.

        • weka 8.1.2.1

          I think you misunderstood my point. Discrete is what you appeared to be arguing e.g. you said “the deed is done and somehow we have to live with it.”

          It’s the basis of the ‘it’s too late argument’.

          CC is ongoing, there are always ways we can intervene, and worse potentials we can avert.

      • fustercluck 8.1.3

        That is absolutely hilarious. Please point to any period since the Earth coalesced from a ball of gas where the climate was not changing.

  8. jcuknz 9

    Sorry Cleangreen BUT ….The ‘more roads for more cars and trucks’ policies must be replaced by increased rail freight and more use of public transport, if we are to limit the future damage to our lives and those of our generations to come.

    I strongly suspect that a shift to rail is not possible and would in fact [ unproven of course] create more trouble than sticking with road. I am a railfan and would like to see it used more but doubt that the reversal is possible now. The change to road was an abberation of decades ago and one cannot go back only forwards.

    Humans will simply have to move to the hills assuming they have not died of starvation due to crop failures. That seems more likely than trying to keep coastal cities above water or protected by earthworks.

    Have you heard about if NZ changed its ways it would amount to a ‘drop out of a bucket’.
    True we could lead the world , as with nuclear, but how many followed our example?

    • patricia bremner 9.1

      Look, at one point the Thames was a sewer and smog a killer. People thought it impossible to change, but change they did. (They even stopped the worst flooding with the Thames Barrier in recent times)

      Progress (so called) has always had a price. Often it was ignorance. We can no longer plead ignorance as to a contributor to sea rise. We need to limit our carbon use, and one of the outcomes is insurers are saying sea rise is no accident. Outcome, no insurance near the beach, so no mortgage. End of homes near the sea. So having transportable Tiny homes may be an answer.

      NSW in Australia ban all building and roading within 200 metres of the high tide line. This has led to beautiful clean pristine natural beaches, though some early settlements are affected by storm surges.

      We are now aware of invisible but dangerous pollution That means we need to educate legislate and police practice, plus make doing the helpful thing rewarding, and the unhelpful thing unrewarding. Basic behaviour management.

    • I strongly suspect that a shift to rail is not possible and would in fact [ unproven of course] create more trouble than sticking with road. I am a railfan and would like to see it used more but doubt that the reversal is possible now. The change to road was an abberation of decades ago and one cannot go back only forwards.

      Of course it’s possible – build the rail and it’s done. That’s not going backwards – its fixing the mistake made decades ago of supporting cars only.

      • That disaster inflicted on the people of ChCh, Brownlee, said a business case couldn’t be made for rail from Rangiora to Rolleston! So hundreds of cars sit in traffic jams on, for instance, the northern motorway each day – burning, unproductively, fossil fuels!

        The Natz solution – the northern corridor which, as Russel Norman (I think) so succinctly put it, only gets you to the next traffic jam quicker. We can’t pave our way to prosperity!

        The answer, even though it is akin to bailing a swimming pool with a thimble, is political. We have to find a political solution!

        • Tamati Tautuhi 9.2.1.1

          Brownlee and John Key were big shareholders in one of New Zealand’s biggest bitumen suppliers and roading contractors ?

  9. jcuknz 10

    The well minded intentions of Green folk have made it impossible for rail to be other than long distance bulk carriers and as a child I went to school by rail and today I live within a few yards of where a long gone passenger station was and suffer from 5am as trucks carrying logs to the port pass my house while a few trains come through at hourly intervals [ roughly] …. more busy in the tour boat season of course 🙂
    The delays caused by NIMBYs working the tedious process of the RMA make rail as an alternative to road almost or quite out of the question. I might have some hope for/with a National Govt but Labour not a dog’s chance for all their waffle.
    Essentially one needs a population in clumps, not spread out as today with personal vehicles being the only way folk can exist.
    Before I used rail to commute to one school I used to bike 5 miles and back to another. But that was in another world 🙂 England during WWII.

    • The well minded intentions of Green folk have made it impossible for rail to be other than long distance bulk carriers

      And how’d they do that?

      Time line and actions please.

      The delays caused by NIMBYs working the tedious process of the RMA make rail as an alternative to road almost or quite out of the question.

      I’m pretty sure that the NIMBYs would be more against road – it’s louder and causes more pollution.

    • savenz 10.2

      @ jcuknz, it;s not the NIMBY’s stopping rail, they want it, it’s the trucking industry stopping rail and the government that gets donations from it!

      As for the RMA, i’t useless in the opposite direction that you say, it stops nothing, projects that should never be allowed to start that are polluting and unfair are rubber-stamped through.

      Most of the time polluting trucks don’t even need to worry about going to court, the council are only too happy to put trucks on the road and mines on people’s doorsteps.

      https://localmatters.co.nz/news/20403-sand-project-kaukapakapa.html

      Something like 99% of all applications are approved, who would not be attracted to those odds if you were a polluter or free loader (water).

  10. timeforacupoftea 11

    We won’t need airports when fossil fuels are banned.
    I can’t imagine a Boeing run on compressed air, can you.
    Auckland Airport will make an excellent housing estate, we best get that train through pronto.

    • I can’t imagine a Boeing run on compressed air, can you.

      No but I can imagine it being electric:

      he first piloted distributed electric propulsion X-plane will also seek to reach the goal of zero carbon emissions in flight, which would surpass the 2035 N+3 efficiency goals. Electric propulsion provides not only a five-to-ten times reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, but it also provides a technology path for small aircraft to eliminate 100 Low Lead AvGas, which is the leading contributor to current lead environmental emissions.

      Additionally, since the X-57 will be battery-powered, it can run off renewable based electricity, making clear the environmental and economic advantages.

  11. Jenny 12

    I came across this piece while I was Googling ‘Anita McNaught’ because of McNaught’s known firm views on the nature of the Syrian conflict based on her own lived experience in the field as a war journalist.

    Anita McNaught, who was born in the UK and raised in New Zealand recently Middle East correspondent for Al Jazeera English, was being interviewed by Altug Akin for the Turkish Faculty of Communications, where she aired her view on climate change.

    I was so struck by it, that I personally transcribed parts of the interview I thought relevant to this topic.

    (You can find my original transcription, Here)

    McNaught:

    If we are lucky enough to live for a another few decades, to give us the luxury of looking back over history. I think we will all agree that this was the most remarkable period in human history, where some remarkable things went wrong, and some remarkable things changed, and some remarkably good things happened. And a great deal of heat and light was expended. And at the end of it all, there was no oil left and everything changed again……

    There are rarely times in history where so much change happens is such an accelerated area of time, Where so many factors, cultural, religious, economic, converge in an area.

    But of course if you are an addict of history, then the Middle East defines Western civilisation as much as Middle Eastern and Near Eastern civilisations…….

    I do worry though, because all of us have had a thrilling stimulating and enlightening and profoundly moving time working in this region during this period. And I include Turkey in this……

    But there is always for me, and there has always been, and in this I am not sure whether I share this with Robert Fisk, because we have never discussed that, him and I.

    I worry that a lot of this is just a distraction. I worry at the end of the day if the biggest story isn’t climate change. In fact I know it is.*

    However people may get gloomy about the future of the world when they look at movements like the Islamic State, and nihilistic suicide bombers, and economic decline and peak oil and all these other things. And I think, and Al Qaeda, and American military failures. And all the other ways we express disastrous political choices. I wonder still, if the big story all of us have missed, while being terribly excited about the Middle East, is the change in the global climate, and what that is going to mean for every human on this planet.

    And that we will look back from the luxury, if we have them, of those decades in the future and say, you know, that Al Qaeda business, that 9/11 business, took our minds off the real story, and the real story was climate change, which we can’t fight, which no army can be raised against, which no religious power can be invoked to stop. And which humanity now has to fight in a different sense.

    So, on one hand it has been fascinating, on the other I do worry if it has taken our minds of something much more important……

    *(My emphasis), J.

  12. Jenny 13

    “NRT: Past time to end fossil fuel exploration”

    New Zealand’s new coalition government has committed to introducing zero-carbon legislation that would set the country on a course to be carbon neutral by 2050.

    At the same time, it is not ruling out new permits for coal mining, offshore oil drilling and fracking during a transition away from fossil fuels.

    https://sciblogs.co.nz/guestwork/2018/02/28/new-zealand-not-explore-natural-gas-reserves/

    “Stop Te Kuha Coal Mine”

    The Buller District Council has just granted resource consent for Te Kuha mine, a 109 hectare opencast coal mine on the West Coast, but the government has yet to decide whether to allow the miners to take the top off the mountain – the 12 hectares that are part of the Mt Rochfort Conservation Park.

    The Department of Conservation has stated that this area is “recognised as nationally and internationally unique and for having very high ecological and conservation value.” It contains Great Spotted Kiwi and other rare and endangered species and plants.

    At a time when our government is claiming that climate change is our generation’s “nuclear-free moment,” and has recently said that there will be no new coal mines on conservation land, it must say no to this mountaintop removal. Without access to this precious DOC land, the mine is unlikely to go ahead.

    Hon Dr Megan Woods (Minister of Energy and Resources) and Hon Eugenie Sage (Minister of Conservation), have the power to stop this mine.

    Call on Megan Woods and Eugenie Sage to live up to their words, and pull the plug on this dirty and short-sighted project.

    https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/stop-te-kuha-coal-mine

  13. savenz 14

    How can anyone ban oil and gas exploration as under TPPA type agreements it is not allowed.

    • Jenny 14.1

      Kia ora, savenz, Exactly. Which is why I wrote the following more in depth comment below. I am sorry that I missed your comment while I was composing my own longer form version.

      Cheers, J

    • Tamati Tautuhi 14.2

      That’s the reason John Key and the National Government signed a 6000 page legal agreement under the premise of Free Trade, I call it BULLS**T ?

      • savenz 14.2.1

        Kia ora Jenny, Tamati Tautuhi, Apparently the US made every mention of climate change to be removed from TPPA.

        USA uses TPP-like trade-court to kill massive Indian solar project

        “The Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission was on track to deliver deploy 20,000 MW of grid connected solar power by 2022 (“more than the current solar capacity of the world’s top five solar-producing countries combined”) but because India specified that the solar panels for it were to be domestically sourced, the USA sued it in WTO trade court and killed it.

        The USA has its own domestic solar initiatives that generally have “buy local” rules, but those are permissible under the WTO. The WTO court ruled that India’s buy-local rules were not, and ordered the initiative’s cessation despite its role in helping India to meet its obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

        The Trans Pacific Partnership, a secretly negotiated trade agreement, expands the sorts of powers the WTO creates to allow multinationals to sue governments to repeal policies that undermine their profitability. Expect lots more of this in the future if the TPP passes.”

        https://boingboing.net/2016/03/13/usa-uses-tpp-like-trade-court.html

  14. Jenny 15

    Everything is connected

    Caught between a rock and a hard place

    Related terms:

    “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t”
    “Between Scylla and Charybdis”
    “Lesser of two evils”
    “Between a rock and a hard place”, since both objects or metaphorical choices are rough.
    “Between the devil and the deep blue sea”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilemma

    Massey University’s Ralph Sims call for the government to get out of new coal oil and gas exploration, runs up against the cold hard reality that these agreements, to explore and/or exploit these resources, have, (on the most part), been made with overseas multinationals who will soon be given the right to sue our country for huge and damaging projected losses, that is, if our government dared to exercise its democratic mandate as a sovereign and independent nation, and acted to cancel these projects.

    The implications are clear, despite the dire warnings of scientists like Ralf Sims, this country will be locked into a fossil fuel economy for the foreseeable future.

    “TPPA-II DON’T DO IT!”

    ….the Government says it intends to sign the TPPA-11 in Chile on 8 March 2018.

    The agreed text is still secret and we can’t see it until it is signed.

    The threats to our regulatory sovereignty remain the same as with the original TPPA.

    So we are inviting you to sign our newly launched petition to Parliament.

    In summary, the petition calls on the Government not to sign the new Agreement,
    to suspend negotiations for all similar deals, not to embark on new negotiations until they have developed the inclusive and progressive approach that they promised towards deals, and engage fully with Maori on protecting Te Tiriti.

    It also calls on the Parliament to pass new laws that exclude the rights of foreign investors to sue the government (ISDS), and to require independent impacts assessments on the
    economy, health, human rights, the environment and climate action, and a review by the Waitangi Tribunal, prior to signing any future agreement.

    https://thedailyblog.co.nz/201802/21/tppa-11-dont-do-it-petition/

    https://dontdoit.nz/

    Join the Nationwide protests today

    TPPA – It’s Our Future! Don’t Sign!

    Auckland Rally

    Sunday, March 4 at 1 PM

    Aotea Square

    https://www.facebook.com/events/805505526324341/

    • Jenny 15.1

      P.S. To the mod.

      I was unsure whether to post this comment under this heading, or in Open Mike. Please feel free to move it, if you think it would be better placed there.

      Cheers, J.

    • Tamati Tautuhi 15.2

      I thought John Key and National had already signed the Agreement ?

      • Jenny 15.2.1

        Fortunately;
        No.

        Unfortunately;
        The new administration seems to carrying on seamlessly from where the last one left off.

        Fortunately;
        Politics is all about pressure,

        Unfortunately;
        Currently most of the pressure to sign, is coming from the corporate lobbyists and business interests most likely to benefit.

        Fortunately;
        We still live in a democracy, with the right to protest, which is our way that we can build up a counter pressure so big that our politicians can’t ignore it.

        Unfortunately;
        We don’t seem to be at that level of groundswell political counter pressure yet.

        However.,.
        I could be wrong, and today’s protests could be the start of building that groundswell counter pressure.

  15. Pat 16

    some numbers to consider…..

    NZ Gov has a stated aim of GHG neutrality in NZ by 2050…our emissions break down to roughly 50%, energy(mainly transport) 50% agriculture.Roughly 30 years.

    If we put ag to one side and accept that the solutions will likely involve land use change. research breakthrough and stock reduction with the balance offset by planting and deal directly with energy.

    we have roughly 30 years to electrify our energy consumption ( there may be advances in hydrogen cell or other tech but currently not an option) …what does this mean?

    An entirely electrified transport fleet, including rail.

    We currently have 2400km of track…a small proportion of which is electrified…NZR estimated it would cost 4 billion to electrify entire NI….so double that if you include SI

    https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2017/09/19/kiwi-rail-de-electrification/

    No mention of timeframe to complete

    We currently operate approx 3.5 million private vehicles and 140,000 heavy trucks and 500,000 light commercial vehicles….annual turnover is approx 100,000 car pa and 50,000 commercial vehicles pa.

    Last year a total of 546 fully electric vehicles were imported into NZ.

    https://www.mia.org.nz/Portals/0/MIA-Sales%20Data/Vehicle%20Sales/EV/EV%20Stats%202017.pdf

    So to reach our goal , even not considering all the infrastructure and process change required to support this we need to be replacing our existing fleet at a rate roughly 250 times faster than we currently are….

Recent Comments

Recent Posts