Plane hypocrisy


Guess which back bench MPs spent the most of flights:

The Parliamentary expense disclosure released today shows that, on average, Green Party list MPs are outspending list MPs in all other parties on air travel. On average, the list MPs from the Greens are spending more than a third more than Labour’s equivalent.

Reacting to the figures, Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Jordan Williams said:
“The Greens constantly say that we need to reduce air travel if we are to save the planet. They need to practice what they preach.”
Average air travel spending for non-ministerial list MPs by party:
Greens – $9,816
NZ First – $8,059
National – $7,332
Labour – $6,499

These MPs don’t have the excuse of servicing electorates at either end of the country like Sarah Dowie, Hamish Walker or Matt King do.

The Greens are all list MPs.

They argue that because there are fewer of them, each has to travel more.

But that doesn’t wash when are the ones that preach to the rest of us about cutting down on all but essential travel and the necessity of reducing our use of fossil fuels.

As Heather du Plessis-Allan writes:

. . . This is a plane (deliberate) and simple case of the Greens being a bunch of outstanding hypocrites. This is the party asking Parliament to declare a national climate emergency. It’s the party trying to penalise people who buy petrol cars, asking stretched farmers to pay for their emissions, trying (and thankfully failing) to put a halt to the building of new roads and begging ACC to divest from fossil fuel stocks. Essentially, it’s the party trying to force everyone else to sacrifice a little something for the climate, while they carry on working towards another year of Elite Gold Koru Club status. . .

The Greens hope it’s all okay because they offset their flight carbon by paying for someone to plant trees. Again, nice try. Even the UN says that’s no get-out-of-jail-free card. Trees planted today, to quote the UN, can’t grow fast enough to avoid what the UN calls “catastrophic planetary changes”. Offsetting emissions is like setting a house on fire, giving it a good five minutes to get started, then putting it out and painting over all the damage.  . .

Hypocrisy is never a good look, it’s even worse in this case because it is so much a case of do as we say, not as we do.

The Greens are forever preaching about what the rest of us should be doing, but when it comes to practice, they find that in the absence of alternative time and convenience come before climate concerns.

Responsible use and increased royalties


Responsible use of resources is one of the guiding principles behind the Energy Strategy and Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy which were released today by the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources, Hekia Parata.

Anotther very important part is the potential for $12.7  billion in royalties from oil and gas.

“New Zealand is blessed with an abundance of energy resources,” says Ms Parata.

“Our Government’s goal is to make the most of all the assets we have – hydro, wind, geothermal, oil, gas and minerals.

“We want to use those resources responsibly to secure our energy future and to lift our standard of living.  That is why the Government is taking a balanced approach to building a sustainable energy and resources future.”

On the renewables side of the energy and resources portfolio, New Zealand’s renewable energy levels are the second highest in the OECD, behind Iceland.

“Renewables and energy efficiency are a big part of our energy picture,’’ says Ms Parata.

”Renewables made up 79 per cent of our total electricity generation in the March 2011 quarter. New Zealand has a target of 90 per cent of electricity generation to be from renewable sources by 2025, and we are well on our way to achieving that.’’

Maximising the use of renewable resources gives us a natural advantage which we need to make the most of, although that doesn’t mean damming every river and putting windmills on every hill.

Fossil fuels will continue to play an important role in the global economy. Around half of the energy we currently consume is from petroleum,’’ says Ms Parata.

“We can’t just turn off the tap in our journey to a lower carbon economy. We also can’t ignore the major economic opportunity that continuing global oil demand could provide New Zealand. Petroleum was our fourth biggest export earner in 2010.’’

In addition to the energy strategies, the Minister today released an independent report assessing New Zealand’s oil and gas potential.

The Woodward report shows that New Zealand is set to earn more than $3 billion in royalties from oil and gas fields already in production.

That could increase to $12.7 billion with future discoveries, which would help pay for schools, hospitals, broadband and roads.

“People want to be sure that the environment is protected and they also want jobs and growth,’’ says Ms Parata.

“We have seen the difference the oil and gas industry has made in Taranaki, employing over 5,000 people (in 2009) and contributing $2 billion to our country’s GDP.’’

Sales of crude oil were one of the factors which led to last month’s trade surplus.

The full energy strategies are here. the Woodward Report on future royalty income is here.

Females fail carbon test


Why women take the carbon credit is the heading on Jim Hopkins’  column. As always it’s worth reading in full and I was particularly tickled by this bit:

Ironic then that just as our politicians are wrestling with the sinful issue of emissions, new evidence should emerge from the Czech Republic which shows, on an individualised, gender-specific, preferential activities basis, that women may be making a disproportionate contribution to climate change.

Its impossible here to report all the findings – which have, of course, been suppressed by the mainstream media – but let’s consider a few salient snippets.

The fact that European women do 72.4 per cent of the cooking and 78.63 per cent of the washing up afterwards probably demonstrates traditional roles but the carbon consequences are nevertheless noteworthy.

As is vehicle use. What the Czechs show is that a combination of extended life expectancy and tasks like taking children to school or visiting the supermarket mean women are responsible for 61.077 per cent of all emission-intensive, stop-start, round-town travel miles recorded.

But it’s discretionary areas like grooming and hygiene where the carbon gap becomes genuinely worrisome. Apparently, the average European woman showers an alarming 2.795 times more frequently than her male equivalent. She also remains in the shower 4.21 minutes longer with the water at a higher temperature.

It’s estimated that such habits results in the annual burning of 41.6 million tonnes of fossil fuels that would otherwise not be needed. Then there’s the “garment gap,” which is massive. It turns out, for every garment the average Herr has in his wardrobe, there’s a equivalent 5.19 in hers.

And if the eco-impact of this is palpable, the consequences of the multibillion-dollar cosmetics industry are even greater. It’s estimated (in Europe) that a breath-taking 79.3 per cent of all unguents, creams, lotions, sprays, defoliants, hair lip and eye enhancers are purchased by women.

It’s the enviro-adversity of manufacturing those items – including waste (an estimated 356 million tonnes of discarded packaging per annum) – which should be agitating our legislators.

Especially since the cumulative effect of these and other inputs means the AAFWFCF (Average Aggregated First World Female Carbon Footprint) is either 1.7 or 1.9 times greater than its male equivalent, depending on variations in computer modelling.

If this Czech research can be corroborated, then any feminist worth his salt should be very alarmed. And every parliamentary feminist should be focusing more on changing female behaviour than this daft and costly business of trading emissions.

It would be ironic indeed to find some future historian concluding that we missed our best chance to “Save the planet” by failing to insist that women behave less like themselves and more like unwashed and smelly, ill-clothed and grubby old blokes!!!

%d bloggers like this: