Seismic events in Christchurch, food & fuel

20 comments on “Seismic events in Christchurch, food & fuel ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Lanthanide 1

   28 February 2011 at 11:08 am

   This seems like a good post to point out that with Key apparently ruling out a one-off tax to help rebuild CHCH and instead “permanently increasing” the EQC levy and possibly raising the payout level, he’s really doing a bait and switch.

   A tax-rise to help pay for CHCH’s rebuild would be money that directly goes into building things within CHCH, right now.

   Raising the EQC levy permanently means we are putting money away for the future, not increasing revenue to spend it right now. As I commented here http://thestandard.org.nz/some-personal-reflections-on-the-quake/#comment-302758 EQC is not actually in hugely dire need of funds right now.

   It seems that rather than tax our own populace to help re-build CHCH, Key’s plan is to go out begging cap-in-hand to the rest of the world for money to do it, using his pals Letterman and Oprah (that sounds like a joke, doesn’t it?): http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10709224

   Also, S&P and Moody’s have both come out and said that despite the new quakes taking a toll on the government’s balance sheet, NZ once again has much lower public debt than many other western countries, and so they are not concerned. Further puts paid to their desperate need to sell off state assets (the forth-coming spin to be that it is now required to help re-build CHCH?)
2. Colonial Viper 2

   28 February 2011 at 11:19 am

   I hope calls are being made to city planners around NZ (and around the world), starting to look at options for what a renewed, vibrant, future resilient Christchurch might look like.

   Nervous that the temporary mass exodus from Christchurch risks becoming more permanent as the months go by.
   • Shane Gallagher 2.1

     28 February 2011 at 12:45 pm

     On the topic of resilience – it has become very apparent how bad it is for resilience to have centralised distribution networks. Most of the south island had centralised networks for milk and bread based in Chch and now getting bread and milk to people is a bit of an issue. All our local supermarket has is white bread and they had problems with having enough milk for everyone. Also other food lines are short as well. Now this is nothing compared to what has happened in Chch but the point is that if there were distributed systems then we would be much more able to cope with disasters and Dunedin could have been a major supply point for Chch for example.

     Also if there were distributed power generation systems (eg. solar and local CHP systems etc.) then supplying people with power would be a lot less of a problem – as each local area could supply at least some power for places like GP surgeries, pharmacies and clinics.

     Anyway, just a thought…
     • Colonial Viper 2.1.1

       28 February 2011 at 12:53 pm

       Multiple redundant systems, highly localised and designed to fail gradually is a very important aspect of resilient systems engineering and preparing for the unexpected.

       But from the capitalist’s way of thinking, having increased safety margins, more stock on hand and keeping backup facilities ready but which are not normally used is inefficient and lowers profits.

       Nature is actually much smarter. It costs the human body a lot two build and maintain two kidneys, but nature has decided that its worth having a backup. Of course you might choose to asset sell one but then…
       • Peter 2.1.1.1

         28 February 2011 at 6:16 pm

         Nice analogy. Nature has evolved resilience over eons, but as industrial capitalism is a relatively new phenomenon it is still highly R-selected (placing value on growth over stability). Time will tell if it can easily transition to a more K-selected approach.
         • ZeeBop 2.1.1.1.1

           28 February 2011 at 8:25 pm

           DPB solo mums have much easier lives thanks to technology, like washing machines, where women needed to partner up and reach pragmatic solutions they can now go it alone. Transition may solve some of our social crisis-es but return us to some of the social problems of yesteryear we thought long gone. Overcrowding, disease. Bedbugs? A transition phenomena? But luckily our elites and chattering classes are not working the problem so we won’t know until its too late, well no money in it.
3. Bored 3

   28 February 2011 at 11:42 am

   Nice article George. I saw the devastation first hand, and it is grim. When I got back I had a read of Middle East news, then checked the Brent Crude price (US$110). Hard times await.

   Thinking back on the last week we all have a head full of ideas that we all need to express. We mourn our lost city, but our lost people we must mourn more. If one thing happens out of this tragedy it is that we don’t allow anybody to build a building that can trap and kill people. No more steel and concrete tombs. No more landlords renting out crappy unsafe buildings when it should have been obvious that they are death traps. Enough said.

   On the economics of the rebuild we have some sterling examples of how it is done. Europe post war, Kobe etc. Argentina post default. All of these had massive capital injections. We may not be so lucky so referring to the national development efforts heralded in by the First Labour government may be more appropriate. We are a nation rich in raw materials and land to grow resources; we need to add our own value to these resources to rebuild our cities, starting with Christchurch in a safe sustainable fashion. Now we face the dire consequences of dismantling the Ministry of Works and Development, selling off the state forests etc. Remember capital is the accumulated value added by labour: we have the labour and raw materials; we can create capital by using what we have. It is time for the people to decide what they want , and to plan it rather than leave it to the mythical “market”.
4. oscar 4

   28 February 2011 at 11:55 am

   The business roundtable reptile mouthpiece, Roger Kerr, has suggested christchurch could sell off the airport, lyttelton port, and orion energy to pay for rebuilding.
   I mean, seriously? Does anyone take him seriously anymore?
   If they do, the denizens of christchurch need to be ready to say no. It’s the income stream from these companies that help CCC pay for long term infrastructure.
   • Lanthanide 4.1

     28 February 2011 at 12:01 pm

     Yeah, completely ridiculous. I was going to mention it in my comment above but it was getting a bit long and varied already.

     Orion in particular seem to be doing a stellar job. I’ve been very impressed with the guy fronting up to the media – he seems to know exactly what’s happening, authoritative and clear.
     • Peter 4.1.1

       28 February 2011 at 6:34 pm

       Yes, Roger Sutton from Orion has been doing an excellent job. There was mention of the Ministry of Works and Development before, and in my short experience of working with local government, I view the local lines companies (most of which remain publicly owned) as having much of the public service ethos that was inherent at the old PWD. We called it nation-building once upon a time.

       Might be time for Labour to reclaim that phrase.

       Captcha is on fire: intervention
5. Afewknowthetruth 5

   28 February 2011 at 12:38 pm

   The decline in global oil extraction that will occur over the next few years will make the events in Christchurch look like a Sunday afternnon picnic in the park. Best evidence indicates we will be at below 1970s levels of oil availability by 2020.

   Meanwhile the clowns and criminals in government continue to promote policies predicated on increasing availability of oil at ridiculously low prices. It is quite surreal.

   We are in the early stages of a reversal of the Industrial Revolution. Most people are totally blind to it.

   As for rebuilding Christchurch -nice joke! Of course the notion will give the proles a bit of false hope as the ship goes under.

   P.S. The time to implement strategies for a soft landing was 5 years ago, when ‘nobody’ was listening. Most are still not listening
   • Colonial Viper 5.1

     28 February 2011 at 12:46 pm

     Time to finish with the doomsday rhetoric and start debating constructive and detailed courses of action for NZ eh?
     • Peter 5.1.1

       28 February 2011 at 6:35 pm

       Yep, no time for doomsday rhetoric. Collapses are slow affairs at best, and there is plenty of time to make strategic decisions knowing the likely outcome of the future.
6. Afewknowthetruth 6

   28 February 2011 at 2:35 pm

   I spent from 2001 till 2009 promoting appropriate courses of action. ‘Nobody’ was interested. Only about 1% of the populace seem to ‘get it’.

   Anyway, it’s too late now. All the wondows of opportunity have closed.

   The other thing to consider is that governments and local bodies are ideologically opposed to approptiate strategies and do their best to block them. Their ‘job’ is to facilitate the agendas of multinational corporations. I didn’t fully realise that until I tried every door and found it formly bolted. 🙂

   So, we’re off the cliff and in Wily E Coyote land; the whirring of the legs is somehow preventing an immediate fall …. but the moment we [collectively] look down it’s all over.

   Sadly, most people are going to learn the hard way.
   • Lanthanide 6.1

     28 February 2011 at 2:45 pm

     If the future you are envisioning unfolds as you think it might, at some point it will be 99% of the people that “get it”. What are you going to do then? Be pro-active and constructive and try and improve the situation as much as possible, or just say “it’s too late, don’t bother”?
     • ZeeBop 6.1.1

       28 February 2011 at 8:32 pm

       Solution # move to a country that cannot be invaded, has low population and is exporting its young people, grow a vegie garden. Watch the stars pass by. Not bothering is a good stance if you find the right place for it. North Coast of the South Island, a plot of land with a high gorge to dam for power and lots of wood. – now to win the lottery.
7. Draco T Bastard 7

   28 February 2011 at 3:30 pm

   The suggestion that Working for Families should be scraped should also be obvious to most. Obviously a silly idea that is. At a time where wages are low and stagnating, unemployment is high and living costs are increasing the last thing the government needs to do is remove some of the financial props that are helping families get bye.

   WfF and most benefits should be replaced by a Universal Income. This does two things:
   1.) Ensures that nobody is living in poverty
   2.) Shows the minimum that our economy needs to produce to maintain a high living standard for everyone
   • ZeeBop 7.1

     28 February 2011 at 8:41 pm

     One odd consequence of inequality is it become harder to redistribute as more people are spread across a range of unhealthy situations, from the extremes of people owning leaky homes, to long term generational beneficiaries (even creating its own forms of poverty trap).
8. ropata 8

   1 March 2011 at 12:47 am

   Time for a boost in state housing stocks (with tenants given assistance to purchase). A lot of our skilled tradesmen are in Aus profiting from their ongoing housing bubble. But maybe we shouldn’t require certified builders for everything, but strict standards and inspectors as the job progresses. There are a lot of of handy guys out there with CPIT diplomas in building.

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 27 February 2011 at 9:40 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS