How green is your policy?

If you want to be green you should recycle, right?

Not necessarily.

Recycling does reduce the amount of waste going to landfills. But that is only one measure of environmental impact.

If recycling uses more energy and/or causes more pollution dumping could be the greener option.

Alternative forms of energy might look greener but as Andrei and Gravedodger pointed out yesterday appearances can be not just deceptive but dirty.

They were commenting on the Green Party policy to provide cheap loans for the installation of solar panels.

When we altered our house 12 years ago we looked into installing solar panels but were advised it would cost too much for too little power.

We investigated solar panels again before undertaking further  alterations a couple of years ago and were told the technology still wasn’t good enough to be worth it this far south.

There might be a better ratio between the cost and benefits further north but that still doesn’t counter the criticism about the environmental cost of making and disposing of solar panels and batteries.

Then there’s the Green’s mistaken assertion that there are no government subsidies involved.

The Green Party’s belief in their ability to make money magically appear seems to have no limits says Energy and Resources Minister Simon Bridges.

“The Greens’ solar power policy creates low interest loans that make expensive solar power suddenly a cheaper option for kiwi families, with ‘apparently’ no government subsidy involved.

“I have news for the Greens — if it’s a lower interest rate than normal, it must involve a government subsidy. And if it makes the cost of solar power cheaper for families than existing power options it also must involve a subsidy.

“Everyone wants something cheaper but someone has to pay. Solar is about three times more expensive than grid-scale generation from wind, hydro or geothermal power stations. If solar power was to be made more affordable other taxpayers and power users would have to pay for it.

“There is certainly a place for solar in New Zealand, but given the abundance of lower cost renewable alternatives, it can’t be a priority to subsidise solar power or change the rules to suit a specific technology.

“We’ve seen that with expensive solar subsidies in other parts of the world, including Germany and Spain. The irony is that New Zealand already generates 75 per cent of our electricity from renewable sources and the percentage is moving higher without any need for government subsidies.

“No matter how you dress it up the Greens’ grab bag of power ideas, which also includes nationalising power purchasing and a more expensive ETS, will heap higher prices on Kiwi households.

“If the Greens are serious about their policies, they need to front up and explain who pays for all of this, or whether they would roll out Russell Norman’s printing press again.”

David Cunliffe made a mess of his party’s big baby bribe announcement by saying one thing and meaning another.

Norman’s assertion that there are no government subsidies involved is not just misleading, it’s wrong.

If the environmental impact of the materials, manufacture and disposal of everything involved in solar energy is taken into account the claim that this policy is clean and green is also wrong.

 

 

 

 

About these ads

97 Responses to How green is your policy?

  1. robertguyton says:

    “When we altered our house 12 years ago we looked into installing solar panels but were advised it would cost too much for too little power.”

    I see.

  2. TraceyS says:

    Did you not read the next paragraph?

  3. TraceyS says:

    You are right that technology has moved a long way in 12 years. It will move a long way in the 15 years it takes to pay for the installation. Therefore the investment will be out of date by the time it is paid for.

  4. Will the printer that Russel Norman uses to create the money to pay for this non-subsidy be solar-powered?

  5. robertguyton says:

    Keeping Stock’s comment is typically idiotic and shallow (it’s okay to say idiotic, isn’t it? Key uses it and if the PM can do it without criticism, must be good for ordinary folk as well).
    Tracey’s is the same. Don’t invest now because technology will be better in the future.
    Brilliant.
    It all comes down to the Luddites here fearing modern technology.

  6. robertguyton says:

    Low-interest loans to aid householders to install solar panels is a subsidy, and we can’t have that, you declare,
    but tax-cuts that favour ‘wealth-creators’ is not a subsidy, and we MUST have that, you declare.

    I see.

  7. TraceyS says:

    “Our findings suggest that, as of 2011, utility-scale PV projects generate electricity at a cost (LCOE) that is still some 35–50% above the comparable cost of generation facilities powered by conventional fossil fuels. This assessment is based on the assumption of a most favorable location of the facility in the U.S. and the availability of the current federal tax incentives granted to solar PV installations. Removing this tax incentive would single-handedly increase the cost of electricity from solar PV by 75%.”

    The study the goes on to say how commercial installations are already cost-competitive (albeit still on the basis of tax incentives and favourable location eg. California). However, this analysis is also dependent on electricity prices remaining relatively high.

    Presumably commercial installations can be cost-effective because of the benefits of scale. So shouldn’t the focus of policies to promote solar be aimed at commercial rather than residential electricity consumers? Answer: “No”. Why? Businesses don’t vote.

    Reichelsteina, S. and Yorstonb, M. The prospects for cost competitive solar PV power. Energy Policy, Vol 55, April 2013, pp. 117–127.

    http://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publication/359530/doc/slspublic/prospects_for_cost_competitive_solar_pv_power.pdf

  8. TraceyS says:

    I’m right though eh Robert? Never buy a computer before you need one because they are forever getting cheaper and better.

    We don’t need solar yet. The present system isn’t broken as Russel misleadingly suggests. “The 77% share of renewable energy sources makes New Zealand one of the lowest carbon dioxide emitting countries in terms of electricity generation.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_New_Zealand

  9. Paranormal says:

    I investigated Solar power 10 years ago when we were building our house. The costs were about $10k per kwh (or roughly $10k per panel then) plus the cost of batteries and inverter for a stand alone installation.

    I also attended the alternative energy conference at Te Papa last year to investigate further. Costs had halved with a system without batteries but including panels and inverter costing roughly $10k.

    In the New Zealand environment the economics don’t justify solar – even though the costs have halved in the past 10 years.

    It seems you’re the only green luddite here RG.

  10. Paranormal says:

    Oops, your economic ignorance is showing again.

    If you reduce the drag of taxation then the economy will benefit. What the Greens are proposing is the opposite of that.

  11. TraceyS says:

    Robert, I’m not bothered by the Green’s solar proposal, just not excited about it.

    The Green’s proposal is little different to a council proposing to build or upgrade any utility. There would be some benefits for individuals and the wider community or it wouldn’t happen. In exchange for these benefits residents would expect to pay more on their rates in order to pay off the investment. How is the Green’s proposal any different?

    Nothing to get excited about at all. Not until it becomes compulsory and we are all asked to part-fund some of the cost upfront.

  12. robertguyton says:

    “The cost of solar has fallen dramatically. Between 2011 and last year, the price of installing PV dropped 36 percent.

    It now costs about $10,000 to put in a 3kW PV system. That’s impressive when you consider it was about $40,000 in 2004.”

    This from Russel’s 3014 Campaign Conference speech. Makes ’12 years ago’ seem a little … dated, doesn’t it. Still, if that’s where your thinking is, you can hardly be blamed.

    I’ll post the url for Russel’s speech so that you can read what he’s really proposing, rather than reading Simon Bridges sweaty attack linked-to by Ele.

    http://thestandard.org.nz/russel-normans-campaign-conference-speech-2014-going-solar/

  13. robertguyton says:

    The Greens are proposing something that will benefit New Zealand people directly.
    That’s why you don’t understand, paranormal. Direct benefit to New Zealanders – warmer homes, cheaper electricity, a degree of independance from industrial providers – I’m betting this is what New Zealanders want. At the coming election, we will see. If you read Russel’s speech, you’ll see from his introductory statements, that he shares with me the confidence that the Greens will be in Government and their implemented policies improving the quality of life of all New Zealanders. He’s a good, clever and thoroughly nice bloke, just like me.

  14. TraceyS says:

    “3014 Campaign Conference” Wow that is thinking ahead, Robert!

    You think Russel and the Greens will still be around then?

  15. TraceyS says:

    Within hours of his 2014 Campaign Conference speech Dr Norman sent out an email asking for donations to help “…get more Greens in Parliament to make Solar Homes a reality.”

    Obviously planned ahead of time. Isn’t that interesting?

  16. robertguyton says:

    Good grief!
    The Green Government won’t last that long, Tracey 2014 – 3014 – that was a bit optimistic, I think you’re right about that!

  17. Paranormal says:

    Yet again showing emotion over reason and reality RG.

    The people already have cheap power. This is all about form over substance. The greens just want to bribe the people with their own money and give them more expensive power than they already have. It’s just not an investment that stacks up in any way but politically.

  18. Paranormal says:

    Fifth Reich anyone? ;-)

  19. Paranormal says:

    And as I noted above even at $10,000 for a system it still doesn’t stack up against national grid supply.

  20. wildninja says:

    Here in the U.S., evidently the gigantic solar plant in Nevada is frying birds. Not so environmentally friendly… http://www.examiner.com/article/world-s-largest-solar-power-plant-opens-nevada-1-000-degrees-fry-birds.

  21. robertguyton says:

    Here in NZ., evidently the gigantic hydro plant in Fiordland is mincing eels.
    Not so environmentally friendly.

    Good grief.

  22. Paranormal says:

    In the North Island the biggest eels are found before the intakes of the hydrostation. The mainland ones must be of a slower moving variety I suppose?

  23. robertguyton says:

    I wonder how your North Island eels get to the ocean to spawn?

    Fly?

  24. JC says:

    But its already a reality.. after all, every single Green voter and half the more responsible Labour voters already have solar in their homes.

    If not.. why not.

    JC

  25. John Dobson says:

    This Green policy has been released now to take the heat off Norman’s corrupt dealings with Kim Dot Com . It should have been totally ignored by all reputable media while the very important issue of possible criminal interference with our democracy was subjected to some proper investigative jouaranalism

  26. TraceyS says:

    Good question.

  27. Mr E says:

    I’ve got solar panels. Several, of all types. A fortune spent.
    None of them stack up. This year the maintenance cost equals the power savings. Forget about repaying capital or interest.
    That’s ok, I’m poorer for having them, the banks richer. The price I pay for being an environmentalist.
    Robert’s suggesting tax payers should be poorer to make environmentalists feel better. That doesn’t wash with me.

    Being really green costs lots. The irony is the greens want to tax those that are most likely to afford it, effectively turning many off green attitudes. It’s what I call a self perpetuating disaster.

    Greens – saving the planet? Yeh nah.

  28. Paranormal says:

    I’ve no idea but they seem to do it well with no shortages of eels in the Waikato

  29. robertguyton says:

    John Kerry, US Secretary of State, said yesterday that Climate Change is perhaps the world’s most fearsome destructive weapon and he mocked those who deny its existence or question its causes, comparing them to people who insist the Earth is flat.

    The United States of American Secretary of State.

    “We should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy science and extreme ideologues to compete with scientific facts,” John Kerry said, “Nor should we allow any room for those who think that the costs associated with doing the right thing outweighs the benefits”.

    Makes you deniers and apologists here look stink, doesn’t it.

    Kerry singled out oil and coal concerns as the prime offending ‘big companies’ and ‘loud interest groups that sought to hijack the climate conversation’.

    The Key/Slater National Party are the prime offenders here in New Zealand, with lackies like those here who have their heads buried deep in denier-sand encouraging the sort of behaviour that the US Secetary of State deplores.

    It’s a dark day indeed for you mini-Rodney Hides in the Homepaddock.

  30. Mr E says:

    A politician trying to discourage science debate – FAIL

  31. robertguyton says:

    The United States Secretary of State making a powerful statement to underline the newly brokered US/China agreement on Climate Change.
    Your response, Mr E, is feeble in the extreme and marks you as the very sort of person John Kerry lambastes – a ‘ head in the sand extreme ideologist’.
    No surprises there. And no surprise that, by your own admission, you’re a Key/Slater Government supporter.

  32. TraceyS says:

    In case you haven’t noticed, Robert, there are people in this country who have problems far more immediate than climate change. Such as caring for a wee premature babe, or a kid being bullied at school, or wondering who will look after the family when mum needs an operation. Solar panels will be the last of things on their minds. I would be embarrassed to suggest this as a priority to them. A caring society will be one that first addresses the things that are broken before the things that are not.

  33. Mr E says:

    WRONG- again!
    Robert this is becoming too frequent for you. Erroneous assumptions indicates to me that your ability to read people and their statements is poor, and that is a sad indictment for a politician.

    Is John Kerry a politician? Yes
    Is John Kerry trying to discourage science debate? I can’t see how you could argue otherwise.

    Does pointing this out infer anything about my opinion on climate change? No. I’ve not stated anything any view on climate change. I’ve simply frowned on a politician who appears to meddle with the process of science.

    You have taken 2 + 2 and ended up with something that is not 4. That is a sad indictment for a trained teacher.

    I wonder what motivates you to make such bizarre assumptions.

    Is it possible that you are a politician yourself? One that is part of the Green party? A party that seeks POWER? A party that will increase significantly in wealth if it achieves its goal?

    Or is it simply that you see the world through green tinted glasses. Blurring your vision. Making it hard for you chose the right from the wrong?

    Or other things?

    Hmmm? I wonder.

    Putting that aside for the time being. Let’s investigate John’s statements.
    Do you really support this:
    “Nor should we allow any room for those who think that the costs associated with doing the right thing outweighs the benefits”.

  34. JC says:

    A brilliant statement from RG.. clear evidence that he has no interest in the hard science on climate.. only bluster and insults.

    Quoting with admiration the insults of politician John Kerry makes it pretty clear that AGW is a political tool in the hands of the Greens and has nothing to do with the science.

    JC

  35. robertguyton says:

    Mr E. Secretary of Sate, John Kerry has made the US position CLEAR. He and they publicly dismiss deniers such as yourself outright and there’s nowhere for Hide-wannabes to …hide. Game over, the worm has turned. Prevaricating and quibbling over what to do now is all that’s left to you, so I guess we’ll have to put up with that for a few years yet, but like your rejection of the climate science, that too will change as the world changes around you. What will Key and Slater chat about over their next phone-in, do you suppoose? Slater’s an overt denier and Key listens, you know, listens to Cam. I predict there are going to be some loooong silences during that call.

  36. robertguyton says:

    Prevaricating, Tracey, avoiding, looking the other way, pretending it’s not happening, burying your head in the sand, just as John Kerry describes. You’ll the poster-girl for the deniers. Your time though, is up. The tide of world opinion has turned and you better learn to swim.

  37. TraceyS says:

    “poster girl for the deniers”? Why’d you say that Robert?

  38. JC says:

    Because he only has insults and doesn’t know or understand the basic science behind climate issues.

    Its all a far cry from Green Party Values..

    (6. Engage respectfully, without personal attacks”)

    What with Russel getting caught trying to sell justice and lying about Colin Craig and his co-leader trying the racist gambit something has happened to the GP.. maybe their internal polling is showing some bad trends.

    RG also seems woefully ignorant of US politics and the current state of foreign policy.. and why Kerry is unaffectionately known as “Lurch”.

    JC

  39. Mr E says:

    Denier – Me? Evidence please or revoke thanks.
    You and Russell are doing a great job of accusing all sorts of people of things at a whim. Principled, vote winning Greens? I think not. Not at the moment at least.

    Sometime ago I participated in an ‘influencing people’ workshop. It is fair to say that ‘defamatory’ behaviour was not part of the advice given.

    You have promoted John’s statement:
    “Nor should we allow any room for those who think that the costs associated with doing the right thing outweighs the benefits”.

    How many solar panels do you have Robert? How much power are you drawing from the grid? What is your percentage of saving. I’ll accept and estimate.

    Or is it possible that you are one of these people who have not done it because of costs?? Surely not. According to John that should be tolerate as much “head in the sand extreme ideologist”.

    So which are you Robert – Head in sand – Or principled?

  40. TraceyS says:

    And perhaps they know the time is nearing when they’ll have to admit their social and environmental ambitions don’t meet up.

  41. Mr E says:

    They have social ambitions? Did you miss the word “anti”

  42. Mr E says:

    Actually that comment is not fair on Dave. I apologise and withdraw that statement.

  43. Paranormal says:

    Funny, I was listening to a climate scientist from the university of Wisconsin weather centre this morning who said there was no clear link between extreme weather and man made climate change – if it exists at all. One of them can’t be right.

  44. robertguyton says:

    The statements from the US Secretary of State will be hugely influential and cast your denials into such a light that they’ll look ludicrious and that’s what’s upsetting you here. Kerry’s globally-reported statements are going to knock the denial tribe badly and I for one am delighted by that. It’ll cast the Slater/Key Government into a bad light also, illuminating the appalling level to which they’ve taken the country. New Zealand, taking responsibility for it’s contribution to climate change?
    Hollow laugh.

    As to the Greens and their principles, Russel’s manning-up, isn’t he, calling a spade a spade. I like it. Key calls David Cunliffe an “idiot” and there’s not a peep of protest from his fawning adorers here. He calls Labour the “Devil-Beast” and not a squeak here, curiously, but when Russel does what Steven Joyce, Gerry Brownlee and John Key do regularly in the House, you wax sanctiminious in the Homepaddock – I love it – Go Russel!
    As someone pointed out when Russel Norman put himself in the path of possible assault by the Chinese security squad, that man’s got courage and the mocking response from the righties around his demand for the return of his flag (something held by a New Zealand politician was forcibly taken from him, in public and you’re okay with that? Interesting…) Yes, yes, there’s great mileage for the low-brows in “give me back my flag” but it irritates you so much because it was a ballsy thing to do. Russel has no fear of Key whatsoever and it disturbs you and Key in equal measure. His ‘in your face’ approach might set the blue-rinse brigade a’tut-tuttin’ (I can see here that it does) but I’m backing him 100 % and laugh at your spluttering about the Green code of conduct.

  45. Paranormal says:

    RG your rant here is totally misplaced. if you’re suggesting that New Zealanders switching from the grid to solar will somehow miraculously change their carbon footprint, you are seriously mistaken. Then again that matches a lot of your ranting on here today.

  46. robertguyton says:

    “One of them can’t be right”.

    Sorry, Paranormal, one of them can be right. In fact, both of them could be right – their being no clear link doesn’t mean there is no link – it’s just, in the opinion of the Wisconsin scientist, not clear.

  47. robertguyton says:

    “If you’re suggesting…” no, I’ve not made that suggestion. I do suggest that you read my comments to see what I’m suggesting. It’s a common habit of yours to assign claims to me, but it’s tiresome after a while.
    Gareth Hughes cuts to the chase and gives the reason for the Green proposal that I’m sure drives commenters here into a teeth-gnashing state:
    “Solar Homes is about breaking free from the big energy companies and taking the power back.”

    Yes, indeedy – that must sting.

  48. Mr E says:

    No solar Robert?
    Remember , No action = “head in the sand extreme ideologist”

    BTW – I’m not upset. I tend to laugh at your silly comments. Now and again I think you overstep the mark. But generally tend to see it as feeble politics. Avoid all questions, bang all drums to try an deafen people.

    I am not anti renewable energy. But we do need to understand the sacrifices made for it to happen. And the limitation of its effectiveness. I’ve taken renewable energy steps for many reasons. Some of those reasons ended up being wrong. And some of that reasoning was because of misleading advice.

    100% – I have no doubt. You are doing that indeed. I can see you and him share similar political styles and thirst for power.
    I’ve seen such attitudes before and it never ends well.
    Placing oneself on a pedestal throwing stones, only to be hit with tomatoes is never a good idea (so to speak).

  49. JC says:

    “but I’m backing him 100 % and laugh at your spluttering about the Green code of conduct.”

    Good. Glad we’ve established more formally the Greens have abandoned their Values statement and code of conduct.

    JC

  50. Mr E says:

    Haha, JC. That was sharp.

  51. Mr E says:

    Robert – Please apply yourself.

  52. jabba says:

    hi bOb .. I’m back from 5 days of Guyton free bliss (or so I thought, but that story can wait) .. I read that a massive solar park in the US is cooking birds and has destroyed the habitat of all sorts of wildlife .. no eels were armed though.
    You see bOb, NZ is full of people demanding wind farms and solar farms and using waves to power up the country .. 1 small issue and that is the MIMBY’s .. and the worst NIMBY’s are Greenies, go figure.

  53. TraceyS says:

    I may have misled you Mr E and should have included the word “policy”. Social policy ambitions. Many smart people can see these will fall victim to non-negotiable environmental policy ambitions. Unfortunately some can’t. Not sure which camp Robert is in. Dave is definitely in the latter.

  54. jabba says:

    I missed you bOb .. so, many, if not most of the low income people who may like to have solar in “their” homes are renters. Not sure how the greens financial wizard will work that one

  55. TraceyS says:

    When he sees it, Dave will go back to being red, and Robert will probably stay green. And divided they will be as in truth they are.

  56. jabba says:

    I would suggest the former option Mr E but would change sand to something more relevant in bObs case

  57. robertguyton says:

    “More formally”
    You goose. I live in Riverton and my hot-line to the Greens atrophied years ago. Bolstered my ego though, your assumption that I speak for the Party.
    Cheers for that.
    Personally, I’m delighted with Russel’s approach. He’ll do very, very well. You’ll grizzle and gripe every time he knocks your guys about, but I’m good with that – makes for great entertainment.
    “Sharp”, Mr E?
    Pleeeeeease.

  58. robertguyton says:

    Very good, Mr Enonymous!
    Michael Leunig is my favourite cartoonist.

  59. Dave Kennedy says:

    I know it is bad practice to link to one’s own blog, but it does save me from writing my views and supporting links on this topic again: http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2014/02/greens-solar-sense-and-nationals.html

  60. robertguyton says:

    Just beat me to it, Dave!
    Your post is in striking contrast to Ele’s negative, naysayers post and is receiving much acclaim. I especially liked this part:
    “National have already been burnt by the reception of the Greens’ well received education policy when their own expensive education initiative received lukewarm support. Simon Bridges desperately suggested that the modest loans were somehow “magic money” and an unnecessary subsidy. Bridges incredibly didn’t believe that solar energy was necessary in New Zealand. John Key bizarrely claimed that the scheme woulddestabilise the current system and would cause companies to increase charges. National would rather see people dependent on the current flawed system that has seen a 22% increase in power bills over their time in office.”

    Russel and the Greens have got National on the run and have forced Key into revealing the shallowness of his understanding of Kiwi’s and their independent characters. Key is touting for big business and it looks kinda icky.

  61. JC says:

    They also serve who just rent because they will be required to pay for the extra power required on standby for when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind don’t blow for their richer neighbours with their subsidised renewable systems.

    JC

  62. JC says:

    “You goose. I live in Riverton and my hot-line to the Greens atrophied years ago. Bolstered my ego though, your assumption that I speak for the Party.”

    So what makes you think Slater speaks for National when he famously resigned from the Party years ago?

    Maybe we just better assume you have the same role as Slater.. just that he’s wildly more successful than you.

    JC

  63. robertguyton says:

    Did you think we were joined at the hip?
    Goodness, Tracey, how your fevered mind doth churn!

  64. TraceyS says:

    You are metaphors in my comment. For the parties of the respective colours. Can’t believe you missed that!

  65. robertguyton says:

    What makes me think Slater speaks for National?
    OMG – what a gift!

    Key told the nation he rings Slater regularly to find out what’s on his mind. Slater told the nation that Key tells him things.

    Again, OMG, JC.

    You’re letting the side down (by ‘side’ I mean the Slater-Key Government and it’s hangers-on)

  66. JC says:

    So I guess I was wrong.. its not the Russel/Robert Party but the Russel/Dot.com party.

    Sorry about that.

    JC

  67. jabba says:

    5 days at the beach and it’s like I have never been away .. you are a prat .. they had a mag at the batch that had an article about the Guytons on Riverton .. pure gold.

  68. robertguyton says:

    Yes, JC, the Russel/Dotcom Party and we’re coming to get you!!!

  69. JC says:

    “Yes, JC, the Russel/Dotcom Party and we’re coming to get you!!!”

    Finally we get the admission from a prominent Green Party activist that the Greens have no problem with selling justice and using up to $2 million of the Dot.com millions to attack the Govt in part(?) payment for services rendered.

    Its taken a while but kudos to Bob for breaking the Omerta.

    JC

  70. robertguyton says:

    Yes, it’s true, every fevered, imagined word you say, JC. Man didn’t walk on the moon and chemtrails are forever threatening our sexuality in the kitchen and in the closet! Slaters are up-standing and Kim Dotcom is Evil Personified. John Key tells the truth and John Banks really can’t remember!
    Have a good sleep, JC. Tomorrow, you’re going to need your strength, BECAUSE THE GREENS WILL STILL BE HERE AND WE’LL BE BIGGER AND RUDER!

  71. JC says:

    And just as dirty

    JC

  72. Mr E says:

    I’m pleased you appreciated it.

  73. Mr E says:

    Dave
    You know it’s bad behavior but you do it anyway? Don’t let other greens rub off on you.
    You’ve been rapidly becoming my hope for the party future. Id chose you over Norman any day of the week.

  74. Dave Kennedy says:

    Thanks for sharing this Jabba, it seems that there are very few totally safe ways of producing electricity. Hydro kills fish, windmills also kill the odd bird I hear, but coal and oil will probably kill the planet. I think I’ll stick with solar and see if we can work out how to limit the occasional unfortunate fly by.

  75. Dave Kennedy says:

    Flattery Mr E, but I would have to admit that Russel deserves to be a our co-leader. He is one of the hardest working and most capable politicians I know. There also are many other capable MPs that should be ahead of me, Metiria is amazingly sharp and composed, Kevin Hague has huge credibility, David Clendon is incredibly knowledgeable and our youngest MPs Holly Walker and Julie Anne Genter run rings around most National MPs. I will have to just stand in line.

  76. Paranormal says:

    Nope – Kerry can’t be right. i suggest you listen to the Radio Pravda interview. Kathryn Ryan was really trying hard to get the respected climate scientist to link the weather extremes experienced lately with man made climate change and he was firm in saying there was no clear evidence. As that is the view of science then Kerry is just blowing smoke.

  77. Paranormal says:

    Breaking free from the big government owned power companies that the Greens are going to deal to with their kiwi power tomfoolery when (if) they ever get into government? Riiiiiiiiight.

    You should have stuck to the carbon footprint silliness. At least it’s a little more logical.

  78. Mr E says:

    Noooo. Dave! A politician without ambition?
    Let me here you say, “I know can, I think I can, I know I can, I think I can”
    You appear to have humility, and you’ve displayed it again above. A quality that you’ve not mentioned. A quality that endears people. A quality, that to me, used to define the greens.

    It saddens me that I hardly see it in the greens anymore. It seems to me that the greens have dropped their ‘make love not war’ signs and picked up their ‘We want you’ signs. Its not a slight change. Its a reversal. One I can’t support.

    Perhaps I have been tarnished by behaviours on this blog? I think that is true. However I honestly believe that what I see in the media is a sad portrayal of how I used to view the Greens.

    Disclaimer.
    Other parties disappoint me as well. Name calling etc that Robert likes to gleefully point out. But when did 2 wrongs make a right?

  79. Mr E says:

    You’ll stick to solar Dave? Do you have solar panels? How much is your net energy and financial savings?

  80. TraceyS says:

    Mr E, your comment above got me thinking about this wonderful guy I met yesterday in the course of my business dealings and the opinion he expressed about politicians. He lamented that once upon a time in New Zealand a large number of people who ended up in parliament had worked hard in the real world for at least a couple of decades, had succeeded – often on the land, were practical no-nonsense thinkers, and were entering politics primarily because they saw it as a good way to give something back.

    In respect of the trait of ambition, the drive was to give back, not to take. And in respect of giving back, it was to give back of themselves, not of other people’s money above all else.

    I still think that should be what drives political ambition. Maybe many others do to and that’s why around half of New Zealanders find John Key their preferred Prime Minister.

    Young MPs who “run rings around” others do not interest me as representatives. They are there for a career alternative – not the right reason. That’s about taking rather than giving.

    Metiria’s recent opening up of her personal life in the media does not inspire me that she has ‘made it’ either.

    I read somewhere that David Cunliffe wished he’d made more money for himself. If that is so, then he should be out doing it.

    Has Dave here reached the top of his game? Achieved all the goals he wanted to in the real world? If not, that may explain his apparent lack of political ambition, and maybe that’s a good thing.

  81. Mr E says:

    Interesting thought. Philosophical issue I think.

    Southland recently completed a ‘happiness’ survey. When asked ‘one thing you’d improve’ most mentioned a financial improvement.

    Those that represent us should note that. People want financial improvement first and foremost.
    I suspect those with successful financial backgrounds are more likely to consider this and achieve it. They’re motivated that way.

    That’s not to say others can’t, simply that I think it is more likely that the wealthy do.

    There’s no doubt that other traits aren’t also needed. A balanced approach is important.

    I guess with Greens now representing 10% or so of votes we should expect a greater financial prowess.

    I’ve noted that the Greens have exited this blog when I asked them about the savings from their own solar systems. I know Dave has a solar system and his avoidance of savings is curious.
    I dare not presume why Robert avoids the question altogether. I’m guessing readers will draw their own conclusions.

    So I am calling out all Greens – How does your solar system stack up? Show us your financial credentials.

    My Solar systems do not stack up – They would never pay for themselves. Not by a country mile.

  82. Mr E says:

    Don’t arm eels. That would be frightening.

  83. robertguyton says:

    You folks is fascinated by the Greens, aren’t you.
    I’m guessing it’s because you are ashamed of the behaviour of your own representatives.
    If mine were relying on Slater for salacious raked-muck to fling at my opponents, I would be too.

  84. robertguyton says:

    Mr E’s ‘divide and conquer’ strategy is as transparent as weak tea and as dull as ditch-water. Dave’s the Good Green, Robert’s the Bad. Rod Donald the Good Leader, Russel’s the Bad. It’s just so…feeble. All delivered very earnestly though, as if you were genuine…Mr Enonymous. There’s nothing that an anonymous commenter can say that can be regarded as genuine as everything said is tainted by the dis-honesty of a fake name. Can’t be helped, it’s just the way it is.

  85. TraceyS says:

    Why don’t you take the opportunity to feed our fascination and add something useful to the discussion at the same time?

  86. jabba says:

    “fascinated by the Norman/Dotcom Green Party” bOb, um, no, not really.
    This party of hypocrites make up about 10% of the voting public so should be subjected to some sunlight. This, and other blogs that you are banned from, often include Gween issues, as they should.
    On this blog, you constantly post stupid comments which get responses that you desire ..you really are odd, as people of the area you live in said in a article about the Waltons of Riverton.

  87. TraceyS says:

    Btw, my name is not fake.

  88. TraceyS says:

    Getting some of your own back and don’t like it eh? I’ve seen you try the same re. National. Complete with anonymous commenters too! Didn’t worry you then.

  89. robertguyton says:

    Ah, the Waltons! Was there ever a cleaner-living, more God-fearing, wholesome, loving, family-orientated, loving, honest-to-goodness, hard-working family than the Waltons?

    Bless your heart, Jabba.

  90. Mr E says:

    When did I say you’re bad Robert? FAIL

    You’ve come out all foaming at the mouth because I complimented Dave. That’s three year old behaviour. Throwing a tantrum out of jealousy, is sheer childishness. I complimented you another day and you’ll just have to wait your turn for another my boy.

    I wonder if this fizzing is simply a distraction to avoid the questions I have been asking?
    How does your solar system stack up Robert? Let’s see your math… You’re a teacher, it should roll off your tongue like oil out of a well, spewing forth with great gusto.

    Regarding your persistent name calling. I’ll not acknowledge it again on this blog. I’ve said my peace.

    Regarding my anonymity. I am happy to be judged for the content of my opinions. And many here seem happy to judge me for them. You can spit and spat all you want about it. It is trite, you might say. I’m working within the rules of this blog and many others. Most commenters have anonymity, pretending you are better, paints you as having elitist attitudes

    And yes I am interested in the Greens. It’s election year and I like to measure all parties leading up to it. Don’t you? Oh know that is right, you are 100% blinkered.

  91. Dave Kennedy says:

    Mr E, watch the Green MPs during question time in Parliament and note the focussed questions and the lack of interjection that other parties engage in.

    Our people have not changed but after attending our campaign conference in Auckland I can tell you that we are far more professional and organised than ever before. We had twice the number of candidates vying for list ranking and the quality would blow you away. We are ready for government.

  92. robertguyton says:

    Mr Enonymous, you are a dag! Yes, Dave’s a great guy, I’ve said so many times. He’ll make a great Green MP too, later in the year. Personally, I’ve hopes he’ll take the Invercargill seat and given the support that he’s already got around the town (Riverton’s in the Invercargill electorate, you’ll know that – there’s lots of Dave Kennedy supporters out here and potential for a landslide at our booths :-) he’s in with an excellent chance.
    My solar system (you are a dag, Mr Enonymous!) is pretty good thanks, despite its simplicity. I’m a solar-heated water kind of guy, so the stats won’t be relevant to your inquiry, but rest assured, I’m really happy with how that’s shaping up.
    Describing my behaviour as “three year old” (you don’t mean behaviour that’s three years old, do you, Mr Enonymous? It’s just that language is important when you’re trying to convey ideas accurately and you’ve mucked your intended insult up with sloppy grammar), seems a touch on the ad hominem side, don’t you think? Addressing me as “my boy” seems to confirm that you meant to demean and that sits at odds with your claims to be above that sort of behaviour but of course there’s no way you have to assume responsibility for your personal attacks, as you are posting anonymously and don’t have to take responsibility for what you say here.
    Do ya.

  93. jabba says:

    you heat your water with solar bOb Walton .. I thought it was with the fire within a steal/stainless fireplace out in your garden bush?

  94. jabba says:

    “We had twice the number of candidates vying for list ranking and the quality would blow you away”. Dave, I just checked the present Green MP’s .. it wouldn’t take much to find candidates of a higher quality.
    I assume from what you say, they are all going for a list position .. I wonder why?

  95. Mr E says:

    I know the inside and out of some solar water systems. So hit me with your details. Fire away.

    You seem a sensitive fella. I hope you don’t mind me calling you fella. You seem hurt by “my boy”, which is bizarre considering repetition for the word chuptza. I’m left wondering if you spent too much time in the garden sniffing flowers or dicing onions in the kitchen? Or perhaps you are genuinely hurt by a phrase like “my boy”. I do find that later hard to believe to be frank.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,330 other followers

%d bloggers like this: