NRT: Some “strategy”

Written By: - Date published: 10:31 am, August 31st, 2011 - 39 comments
Categories: climate change, energy, sustainability - Tags:

Some “strategy” -NoRightTurn

Yesterday the government released its National Energy Strategy [PDF]. I harshly criticised the draft version when they were released and leaked for replacing Labour’s goal of shifting us to a sustainable, low-emissions energy-future with a dream of finding oil, and for failing to provide any concrete measures for achieving its goals. The final version is, if anything, worse.

While the government has switched the ordering of the goals, so that it no longer puts finding oil first and the environment last, it has also put a much greater emphasis on its quest for oil, with an extended preface about how important oil is, and the simultaneous release of a report on how much money the government could make out of it. The government is spinning this as pushing for “diversity”, but its nothing of the sort. Because we lack export facilities, any gas discovered will be used domestically – meaning that the push for exploration and exploitation directly undermines the stated goal of 90% renewable electricity generation by 2025. So instead of a strategy for a greener future, we have a strategy for a dirtier one, with millions of dollars in subsidies spent to undermine sustainability.

And then there’s the Energy Efficiency and Conservation part of the document. The previous version [PDF] had been weak, and had not listed specific programs to achieve its goals. The new version is even weaker, having replaced almost all numerical (and thus quantifiable and accountable) goals with vague, fuzzy statements. For example the previous version called for 29 PetaJoules of savings in transport energy, and a 4% improvement in vehicle fleet efficiency. The new one simply says that

The efficiency of light vehicles entering the fleet has further improved from 2010 levels.

And its the same all the way through. The previous version called for 21PJ of energy savings and a 14% improvement in industrial and commercial energy intensity; now the government just wants “an improvement”. A 10% reduction in energy use / staff member in the public sector has been similarly reduced to a desire for improvement. Only one numerical goal has been retained, for energy generation from biomass. That goal has been halved.

This isn’t a “strategy”. Instead, its an abdication of responsibility. The lack of targets is a commitment to doing nothing, to business as usual. While that does produce slight improvements in energy efficiency, the government – and New Zealand – should be demanding more.

39 comments on “NRT: Some “strategy””

  1. Lanthanide 1

    I guess their aim of 90% renewable for electricity generation is really a con-job too.

    They’ll try to achieve it by replacing electricity with gas (eg gas oven instead of electric oven), thereby being able to scale back the amount of non-renewable in the national grid by simply shifting the demand to local gas.

    • Draco T Bastard 1.1

      National is a con-job.

      • Jim Nald 1.1.1

        Strategy? Sounds like it was printed on toilet paper.
        They zapped, errrr, capped the public service. Now it is a more efficient propaganda-making, errr, policy-making machinery. So who woo woo really are the unholy ghost-writers who magicked the words?

        You and I know that regardless of the ‘strategy’, the Nats will just plunder and blunder ahead with what they want to do anyway.

    • aerobubble 1.2

      every so often a story crops up about bacteria will turn wood, algea, biomass into oil.
      I have yet to see any large scale neighborhood environmental action groups condeming
      the new biomass plants being put in their neighborhoods, or being paid to give their
      grass, wood, food scraps ups into their home biomatter reactor. Is the rubbish to
      be collected and taken to a massive biohazard plant on the edge of everytown,
      have councils been given consent yet? No. Its all pipe dreams.

      • grumpy 1.2.1

        Not really, there are some good prototype plants on a few diary farms, the Christchurch city council has one at Bromley and Louis Arnoux had one going at Burnham.

    • grumpy 1.3

      Apart from Auckland, the rest of the country could easily achieve 100%.

  2. Spam 2

    Because we lack export facilities, any gas discovered will be used domestically – meaning that the push for exploration and exploitation directly undermines the stated goal of 90% renewable electricity generation by 2025
    Yes, it will be used domestically (unless there is a find big enough for LNG), but no, it doesn’t necessarily undermine the 90% renewable target. New Zealand has an impending gas supply gap. because Kupe and Pohokura have not offset the decline in Maui

    They’ll try to achieve it by replacing electricity with gas (eg gas oven instead of electric oven), thereby being able to scale back the amount of non-renewable in the national grid by simply shifting the demand to local gas
    What? So people at home will go and replace electric ovens with gas for political reasons? Or are you assuming that the Nats will use Greens tactics and simply ban electric ovens?

    • Lanthanide 2.1

      People seldom make economic decisions with purely political motivations.

      Obviously if you have a perfectly good electric oven you’re not going to go replace it with a gas one.

      But if a developer is building a new subdivision of brand new houses, they might like to go with gas ovens as the default cooking appliance in their plans (especially if a new gas well is discovered, driving the cost of gas down).

      • wtl 2.1.1

        Perhaps gas hot water heating would be a better example?

      • aerobubble 2.1.2

        I disagree. Developers are unlikely to do something unless there is a pay off.
        Just like Key can say 90% target for a government he won’t be leading in a
        decades time, or can justify that oil has yet to be found so a present the
        90% fantasy target is justified.

        One question, with all the infrastructure needed to be built in Chch, to
        these new sprawling housing estates well away from downtown ChCh,
        whose going to pay, and realistically why would we build such
        high carbon surburbs at the end of peak oil? Its just so lazy and stupid.

        But hey we so innovative in NZ and coming up with bollocks to paper
        over any nagging questions.

        • grumpy 2.1.2.1

          Why the fuck would anyone seriously consider gas in Christchurch. Not only is it a grossly inefficient fuel that needs to be physically shipped from wherever it is sourced from but it really is one of your “carbon” nasties.

          Electricity, on the other hand, is 100% renewable in Christchurch.

      • Spam 2.1.3

        Who is the “they’ll” referring to in your post above? You implied it was the National Government.

        By the way – the majority of the cost of gas is in transmission and retail charges, not the cost of the raw gas.

    • bbfloyd 2.2

      you’ve got to try and make sense when attempting to criticize posts spammy… it’s not sufficient to simply wave a blue flag and talk out of your arse…

      people will replace electric appliances with gas when the economics dictate.. for example, if gas was cheaper(no guarantee with the govt we have now) then on an individual level it makes sense to switch… assuming the cost of the re-tooling for gas isn’t out of reach for all but the wealthy..(govt subsidy anyone?) ….

      or, there could be compulsion brought to bear in forcing new homes to be connected to the gas lines… another thing this govt has shown a willingness to do… force people to behave as they want them to regardless of the impact to the individuals concerned…or the damage to communities…

      either way, it will be cheered on by the poodle pack…

      • Spam 2.2.1

        it’s not sufficient to simply wave a blue flag and talk out of your arse…
        So what have I got wrong?

        I agree – people will change to gas if it makes economic sense for them to do so. Lanthanide implies that the government would push people to change to gas, in a dedicated effort to subvert the 90% renewable target. In your reference to “compulsion” it sounds like you agree to some degree.

        Do you honestly believe that? The only party that I can imagine using such compulsion would be the greens (or any dog wagged by them), and they’d be pushing the other way.

        Who is talking out of their arse?

        • Lanthanide 2.2.1.1

          Actually I’m not saying that the government is going to push people to change to gas.

          What I’m saying is that there are two ways to achieve a 90% renewable rate: increase the supply from renewables, or decrease the total demand. I think the government’s only hope of achieving 90% on the back of this report is by reducing demand, and since they aren’t providing for any actual efficiency means (as outlined in the post), it’s reasonable to assume they’ll do it through substitution.

      • grumpy 2.2.2

        So what are you saying – let’s get people to use gas so that we have a CO2 producing fuel that we can then get them to use less of????

        Electricity in hydro, geothermal, solar and windpower is 100% renewable and non poluting. The best that can be said about gas is that it used to be cheap!

  3. Ianupnorth 3

    I love the line

    The previous version had been weak

    Sounds like their tobacco legislation, their alcohol legislation, the response to ChCh, etc.

    Anyway, whilst we have mass unemployment we should be spending and developing renewable sources of energy; an example would be ground based heat pumps; these use underground pipes to extract solar heat from the group; more effective and efficient than current heat pumps. Any brave government would make sure strategies like those were in the building code for all new dwellings, but not NACT!

  4. UpandComer 4

    It really is amusing. Carbon emissions were the highest they have ever been, under Labour, and were growing!
    Deforestation was the highest ever, under Labour.
    Labour’s environmental record was appalling, but it’s okay because it’s you guys huh, all the rhetoric in the world, but terrible terrible record.
    It’s also amusing to see the graphs of electricity pricing that shows the steep slopes of rising prices under Labour before a flattening out under partial private ownership.
    Seriously, Act would do a better job on the environment then Labour, no joke. They would be straight up about the environment and not talk weaselly myth and non-reality all the time.
    So what if carbon that is discovered is consumed domestically, it will mean fewer carbon imports, so is still good for the economy and that can help pay for increasing the renewables percentage.
    A few rogue polls out there at the moment huh guys.

    • thejackal 4.1

      I find this argument interesting because it completely ignores reality. National is doing far worse things for the environment than Labour ever did. Why the hell should the negative aspects of the previous Labour government’s policies give an excuse for the current National government to be a failure? It’s childish nonsense.

      You’re clearly uneducated in a RWNJ school of non-thought like Kiwibog UpandComer. Act would get rid of the RMA for starters… how is that good for the environment? We would have most of the country reduced to picking through rubbish to survive while a bunch of elitists whipped, ate caviar and drunk champagne. We would have American nukes up the wazoo.

      National’s dirty fuel dream hasn’t helped the economy at all, it’s simply creating more CO2. Whether foreign or domestic, it is the increased reliance on petroleum and coal etc that is the problem. Once again National has no solution. They are a complete failure for New Zealand.

    • JonL 4.2

      Of course, you have impeccable documentation for your assertions……

  5. tc 5

    ‘This isn’t a “strategy”. Instead, its an abdication of responsibility’ yup what did you expect, addressing the issues of peak oil/ensuring NZ resources are maximised to benefit NZ….yeah right.

    The photo is her laughing at us as she builds up all those backhanders to wealhy energy interests (a good hedge for the whanau ora trough) to ensure a warm glow remains long after they’re gone.

  6. exit lane 6

    Royalties may be just a mirage. The Woodward report released with the “Strategy” confirms domestic production is falling off a cliff and royalties with it. The much hyped frontier royalty figures are 10 years away and with guess piled on guess just assume more oil will be found.
    Meanwhile the ANNUAL cost to NZ of importing ever more expensive oil could rise by 2015 to $10 billion which is equal the cost to Govt of the Christchurch earthquake EVERY year. $19 billion by 2020.
    http://oilshockhorrorprobe.blogspot.com/2011/08/christchurch-quake-cost-added-to-our.html

    Even if new oil was discovered tomorrow none will come on stream for at least 5 years more likely 10 years. While we wait for the govt’s massive gamble to pay off — the oil crunch for prices and supply is NOW …

    What part of oil above $100 a barrel for over 6 months and the world economy stalling as a result does the govt not understand? It received advice from officials in 2009 that NZ was more vulnerable to oil shocks than other OECD nations but ignored it.

  7. Afewknowthetruth 7

    The document is utter garbage and is full of oxymorons and neuro-linguistic programmng.

    We are at the point of major dicontinuity in human history due to the peaking of global oil extraction. That will demolish most present economic and financial arrangements by 2015.

    The greatest threat to continued habitation of this planet by humans and other mammalian life forms is abrupt climate change. National’s policy it to promote abrupt climate change via the insane obssession with economic growth.

    Fortunately, fossil fuel depletion will put an and to the economic absurditities National proposes. However, fossil fuel depletion may not be fast enough to prevent abrupt climate change.

    • grumpy 7.1

      Oh? So the end of the world is National’s fault?????

      As if some little tin pot country in the Pacific could cause alll that???

      How about China, India, Russia, US etc? Oh – that’s right – they’ve all got “magic chimneys”.

  8. Jenny 8

    The lunatics have taken over the asylum

  9. Afewknowthetruth 9

    grumpy

    The fact is, everything you write is utter shite.

    Take the nonsense you wrote about gas. Burning gas for heating is close to 100% efficeint, whereas converting gas energy to electrical energy is approximately 65% efficient. And when electricity is distributed there are futher losses in cables and via transformers etc..

    Take heat pumps. These are superfially efficient movers of heat from one place to another, yet when you look at the complex systems required to make, install, and maintain heat pumps and the fact that they break down after a while (in fact quite quickly in some situations) they are not so marvellous after all. Heat pumps are okay for heating air, which has a low specific heat, a few degrees (say from 10oC to 20oC but would be pretty hopeless for heating water, which has a high specific heat, to any kind of temperure that would be of use domestically.

    ‘Electricity in hydro, geothermal, solar and windpower is 100% renewable and non poluting.’

    Utter crap!

    The construction of hydro dams requires the consumption of huge quantities of fossil fuels, and if concrete is used, the massive emsiions involved in the manufacture of cement. There is a huge amount of embedded CO2 in geothrmal and widpower just in the materials required, let alone the transport to site, installation and maintenance. And the sediments that build up behind dams means not only that there are methane emissions but that most dams have a limited life before becoming choked. The carbon footfrint of renewables is substantially lower than other forms of energy conversion, but they are not ‘non-polluting’.

    Then there is the nonsense you wrote about ‘Oh? So the end of the world is National’s fault?????’

    Nobody is talking about he end of the world. What people with braisn are talking about is the collapse of present economic arrangements, for which National has made zero preparation. In fact National is in total denial of reality on practically any issues you care to name except the establishment and mainenance of rorts, which for which they are experts. (not that Labour was much better when in office).

    ‘How about China, India, Russia, US etc? Oh – that’s right – they’ve all got “magic chimneys”.’

    Before you start pointing the finger at other nations I suggest you look at the PER CAPITA emissions of New Zealanders. They are utterly applalling.

    Yesterday it was utter nonsense about ‘no polar bears drowning, no ice caps and no glaciers melting’.

    You really need to grow a brain before coming back to comment on this site.

    On the other hand, if you are happy to continue being ‘the village idiot’ in order to give others the opportunity to present the facts, carry on.

    • TEA 9.1

      Well said “Afewknowthetruth” !

    • Jenny 9.2

      The construction of hydro dams requires the consumption of huge quantities of fossil fuels, and if concrete is used, the massive emissions involved in the manufacture of cement. There is a huge amount of embedded CO2 in geothermal and windpower just in the materials required, let alone the transport to site, installation and maintenance.

      Afewknowthetruth

      Brain, while this is the case at the moment, these problems are not as insoluble as you make out.

      There are alternatives:

      http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2011/07/solar-powered-factories.html

      If you read the link you will see that concrete production, metal smelting, hi tech fabrication, all the things necessary for modern industrial civilisation and human progress are able to be done without massive CO2 emissions.

      I have touched on alternative sustainable technologies before and you have remained silent. Even when I challenged you directly to critique the science, and tear apart my argument if you can.
      Yet you refused. Why? Because it might puncture your wallowing in defeatist negativity? Because it might mean you have to do something yourself?

      Brain, you are correct in your analysis of the gravity of the problem, and of the very real danger that humanity and the planet are facing. Yet you are just as guilty as the deniers in that you also refuse to act against climate change. In your case your negative defeatist outlook is your excuse for doing nothing. Nothing can be done, because it’s all hopeless let’s do nothing.

      There are solutions. Again, and again I read from all sorts of different sources, it is not a technical problem, the thing that is missing is the political will to implement the changes necessary.

      • Colonial Viper 9.2.1

        I have touched on alternative sustainable technologies before and you have remained silent. Even when I challenged you directly to critique the science, and tear apart my argument if you can.
        Yet you refused. Why? Because it might puncture your wallowing in defeatist negativity?

        Best best best case scenario is that you could sustain growth for another century or three. Then it would still be end of line.

        http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8155

        Yet you are just as guilty as the deniers in that you also refuse to act against climate change. In your case your negative defeatist outlook is your excuse for doing nothing. Nothing can be done, because it’s all hopeless let’s do nothing.

        There are solutions. Again, and again I read from all sorts of different sources, it is not a technical problem, the thing that is missing is the political will to implement the changes necessary.

        I used to have a go at AKFTT for this exact same reason. You are right, things could be done, and many of the problems are political and an issue of political will and funding, not technology. Yet that’s exactly the problems will NOT be solved, despite the fact that technical solutions are available to some degree.

        Yet you are just as guilty as the deniers in that you also refuse to act against climate change. In your case your negative defeatist outlook is your excuse for doing nothing.Nothing can be done, because it’s all hopeless let’s do nothing.

        I take Orlov’s line here. What do you mean “do”? Many of the most critical things ‘to be done’ are now completely outside of the control of any single person, single country, single corporation. This is the prisoners dilemma writ large. You cannot tell defrosting artic tundra what to “do” nor can you tell the currents of the Atlantic “what to do”.

        Do you want to spend your time valiantly screaming against the tide not to come in? Maybe beat drums, draw symbols in the sand, build a few levees? Go on, if it will make you feel better.

        There are solutions.

        Not to saving an industrial globalised economy supporting 7B humans there ain’t.

        I’ll tell you what, even with massive implementation efforts around that technology you linked to, to desertec, to other renewables, you will be looking at a stable world population of around 1.5B. Maybe two billion if you did it in a hurry and we really got our shit together.

        Because the loss of fossil fuels in a world almost totally reliant on an industrial farming set up to feed it means that collecting all the heat energy and renewable electricity in the world still means squat in terms of kJ of food produced per square metre.

        And forget about climate change. The killer is energy depletion. Climate change is a problem for 100 years time, if we make it past the next 10-15.

        • Jenny 9.2.1.1

          Kia ora CV thank you for your response.

          I was trying to get Afewknowthetruth to respond. Though we disagree on whether anything can be done or not, I value Afktt’s contributions, because generally his comments are considered and thoughtful and he is well informed as to the scientific facts of climate change.

          Of your response unfortunately, I cannot say same. Most of your rebuttal to my argument is obviously straight off the top of your head.

          Your comments are so spontaneously spurious, that they manage to be misleading as well.

          I have never been a supporter of the growth economy, as you purport. It is plainly unsustainable. The sea of un-recyclable plastic waste that clogs our landfills and despoils our oceans, the hell for leather, burning up of all our natural resources like there is no tomorrow, (which there won’t be), wasteful destructive, exploitive, all part and parcel of an economy based upon unimpeded “growth”.

          I don’t support the endless growth paradigm expounded by mainstream economists and business leaders and championed by the MSM and most governments for the past 150 years. This irrationality is being brought to a screeching stop by the physical limits set by the carrying capacity of the planet.

          In my opinion the growth economy never really worked as advertised, even in it’s salad days. (1945- 1975)

          Unlike the author you linked to, I and I am sure, a growing number of others don’t “have a difficult time imagining a different trajectory.”

          What I support is a progressive and sustainable technological civilisation.
          I think this is worth fighting for.

          Civilisation that values the protection and development of the human and natural environment, over a ‘civilisation’ which at present deliberately and carelessly degrades both the human and natural environment in pursuit of endless spendthrift “growth”.

          The alternative? (that is if anyone survives the collapse of civilisation based on endless growth).

          After a massive and cataclysmic die back of a large part of humanity, a return to an agrarian past, (even in a world not ravaged by pollution), the average life span was 40, the products of science and industry, like vaccines and social medicine can’t exist, plague and famine again become regular occurances, mass ignorance and superstition fill the place left empty by universal education. A new dark ages descends likely only to be relieved by extinction.

          CV. even though you have misrepresented me, for supporting the “growth” economic model, in the same sentence you admitted that if we adopted some of the measures I suggested even with the growth model we “could” delay the inevitable for up to 300 years.

          Obviously this is just as spurious a comment, as the more negative part of your statement.
          However it is an admission by you, that in your opinion, if we did (as a global community) take some concrete actions against climate change, then at the very least it would buy us some time.

          So why are these things not being done?

          On this question CV you again admit that it is a matter of political will:

          ….. You are right, things could be done, and many of the problems are political and an issue of political will and funding, not technology. Yet that’s exactly [why] the problems will NOT be solved, despite the fact that technical solutions are available to some degree.

          And further:

          What do you mean “do”? Many of the most critical things ‘to be done’ are now completely outside of the control of any single person, single country, single corporation.

          The second paragraph is made up of a question, and a statement. Before I answer your question “What do you mean “do”?; Let me address your statement “Many of the most critical things ‘to be done’ are now completely outside of the control of any single person, single country, single corporation.”

          CV, is this the reasoning behind your argument for doing nothing?

          If it is, it is a fallacious. Of course it is impossible for the whole world to agree to do something, – anything. What it takes is leadership. One country has to be the first to take the lead, this puts the matter on the agenda for all other countries. To a greater or lesser degree, other goverments will either have to measure up to, or reject the leading country’s position. If the science and the facts back the lead country’s example as being the right thing to do, it will be hard to ignore. Some other countries, (probably only a few to begin with) will follow. But as more and more countries follow the lead the question will become unavoidable for even the most intractable polluters.

          When it comes to taking the lead, why not New Zealand?

          I know the boys and girls over at the Farmers Fed and other business forums will scream blue murder. The Feds in particular have argued very strongly and publicly against New Zealand taking a lead on climate change.

          But, New Zealand has been a world leader many times, over universal sufferage, over social welfare, over nuclear proliferation, over apartheid in South Africa.

          CV this leads to your question: “What do you mean “do”?

          Greenpeace New Zealand have called for a ban on all coal exports. Their direct action protest flotilla has blockaded the coal ships to try and stop them leaving our ports.

          But what if their protests were heeded by a mainstream political party in parliament rather than political activists?

          Such a policy target, would be the sort of iconic stance that to gain the world’s and the nation’s attention.

          As ‘The Standard’ authors of this post say:

          The lack of targets is a commitment to doing nothing, to business as usual. While that does produce slight improvements in energy efficiency, the government – and New Zealand – should be demanding more.

          The Standard

          I take it CV that you are a Labour Party supporter

          So forgive me CV, but I have to ask:

          Could it be, you are just scrambling around trying to find reasons for the Labour Party’s soft line on climate change, or indeed since you raised it, peak oil?

          Wasn’t it the last Labour Government that signed away $billions of public money to expand our unsustainable motorway system at the expense of much more sustainable public transport?

          For instance the Clark government approved the unpopular and unloved Waterview motorway tunnel, costing billions, taking 5 years to build, demolishing hundreds of homes and some businesses as well.

          What on earth are we to make of this decision by the governing Labour Party?

          Surely this was a huge white elephant even in 2008?

          As to what calamity will get us first or which is the biggest danger, climate change vs peak oil they are both symptomatic of the same lack of leadership facing up to these issues.

          And they both require the same remedial action.

          Yet our leaders are headed in the opposite direction:

          For instance the pending peak oil emergency is being seen as a potential profitable venture by the (still so far) government functionaries at Solid Idiocy who are planning to turn low grade coal into liquid diesel and gas.

          Obviously this sort of insanity in the face of impending oil depletion will increase the danger of global climate change.

          The two impending cataclysms of Climate Change and Peak Oil are linked by the failure of leadership.

          So what if the Labour Party opposition adopted as a policy banning all fossil fuel exports, including coal, from New Zealand?

          Apart from creating a huge splash in the local media, there would be some other immediate local effects. The National Government’s intention to open Dennistion Plateau for major open cast and underground mining would be put in jeopardy. The National Government’s plan to privatise Solid Energy would have no buyers. Overseas, this would be taken by the Australian Labour leader Julia Guillard under right wing siege over her climate policies as an act of solidarity. Guilard could point to New Zealand Labour as an endorsment of the rightness of her cause.

          On (eventually) becoming government again, and framing the necessary legislation the ripples would be likely to spread even further afield becoming a cause celebre throughout the world.

          Wouldn’t this be better strategy than the current government and opposition policy of just ignoring the problem?

  10. Macro 12

    The sad fact is that neither the Govt nor the leader of the opposition, if the sound bite we were permitted to hear the other day is accurate, understand the problem.
    The world has now a LIMITED Carbon BUDGET – if we go BEYOND that budget we are toast! End of story. There can be no “and ….and ….and… ” solution to this problem – We HAVE to stop burning fossil fuels – and soon.

    • Jenny 12.1

      …..neither the Govt nor the leader of the opposition, if the sound bite we were permitted to hear the other day is accurate, understand the problem.

      Macro

      Macro, how could the government and the opposition not understand the problem?

      Doesn’t the government have the best scientific advisers in the country?

      If our leaders don’t understand the problem, then what on earth are these experts telling our MPs?

      Alternatively are the MPs of National and Labour just willfully choosing to ignore the government’s scientific advisers?

      Are our leaders intimidated and frightened of the fossil fuel lobby?

      Why do our leaders lack conviction on the questions of climate change? (for or against)

      Is it cowardice?
      Is it denial?
      Is it fear?
      Is it dishonesty?

      • Colonial Viper 12.1.1

        Is it cowardice?
        Is it denial?
        Is it fear?
        Is it dishonesty?

        Simpler. No money to be made in climate change. More money to be made in the status quo.

        Not hard.

        Alternatively are the MPs of National and Labour just willfully choosing to ignore the government’s scientific advisers?

        You seem to have picked up the (mistaken) belief that science and evidence generally back what governments choose to do.

        You should disavow yourself of that position before you are disappointed.

        Further, scientists have no answers to the real questions. Convincing people that their incomes will no longer rise, that people need to tell their children that life will not get shinier and easier, that 30% of people will need to go back to the fields to work, that being a lawyer, doctor or accountant is going to be generally useless.

        Never seen any scientific advisor give any credible advice on those counts.

  11. Jenny 13


    The PERIL theses lists the five terminal crises of late capitalism.

    L is the last letter in the word Peril, and stands for the crisis of Legitimacy.

    From the Automatic Earth website:

    ‘There Has Been a Clear Crisis of Confidence’, says IMF head Christine Lagarde. What confidence is she talking about? Turns out, it’s not your confidence in her. Neither is it your confidence in your elected politicians. While both may be shaken to the core, Ms. Lagarde addresses another form of confidence, the confidence “in the markets”.

    Ilargi

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,784115,00.html

    The head of the IMF Christine Lagarde, believes she has a solution to this crisis in confidence. “More Growth”.

    Just wait to read what she thinks we must do…..

    Nothing new from Ms. Lagarde, in other words. What we need is growth! Never mind that with high unemployment in many European countries, as well as the United States, and with housing markets either about to burst (Britain, Holland, Denmark, Sweden) or in just the first steps of doing so (United States, Spain, Ireland), substantial economic growth is but a mirage. It’s not all that far-fetched to say we haven’t seen any real growth for three decades; instead we’ve done nothing but borrow our way into an increase in spending power.

    And the debt we’ve accumulated while we were borrowing has now reached levels that make growth no longer possible. In the US, each additional dollar of debt doesn’t presently have any positive effect on growth anymore. In Greece, government bonds, the favorite debt instrument among politicians, have reached yields that top 70% for 1-year debt and 40% for 2-year paper. Italy needs to roll over €62 billion in debt before the end of September (the most ever in a single month). There are no buyers on the horizon except for the ECB; a scary realization.

    Still, Ms. Lagarde pushes head first and full force for even more debt. In the US, where ..there is probably space at the moment to contain the short-term adjustment .., and in Europe, where ..there has to be fiscal consolidation qualified by growth-intensive measures. In addition, there has to be increased recapitalization of the banks..

    In both cases, this would mean more money to be transferred from the taxpayer to the financial institutions. One might say that the crisis of confidence Lagarde talk about is one in which banks are starting to get worried about the size of their next bail-out. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Ilargi

    • Jenny 13.1

      So to sum up: The IMF chief Christine Lagarde thinks that getting tax payers to again bail out the Uber Rich to the tune of billions of dollars will overcome the “crisis of confidence” in the market.

      As the Tui ads say, “Yeah Right”.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts