CK to save $billions

October 15, 2018

The government has a new strategy to save billions of dollars – relying on common knowledge (CK) instead of research and facts.

The seed for the initiative was planted by Energy Minister Megan Woods.

When asked about advice to back up her assertion that MBIE was wrong to say a ban on oil and gas exploration would have a negligible impact on domestic emissions and likely increase global emissions she said it was “very common knowledge” that was “widely held”.

“When the Prime Minsiter heard this she said a light went on and she immediately ordered a whole-of-government strategy to base all policy on CK,” spokesperson Bright Spark said.

”We’ll be able to ditch all the working groups for a start and that will save millions, but that’s only the beginning.

”With CK to guide us there will be no need for most of the roles at Treasury and the research positions in policy development at all the ministries and government departments will go too.

”We’ll be able to get rid of all the research bodies and a lot of the work of universities will become redundant.

”We won’t need robust data and scientific methods if we’ve got CK, especially if it’s widely held.

MS Spark said she didn’t have exact figures for the savings, but based on CK, she could confidently say they would soon amount to billions.

When asked about National’s Energy and Resources spokesperson Jonathan Young‘s assertion that Woods had failed to defend the indefensible, Ms Spark said it was common knowledge that this was merely an opposition tactic to discredit assertions based on facts.

”With CK, facts are an outmoded, and expensive concept. We won’t be taking any notice of them.”

Ms Spark said the government was working on an even more radical suggestion to base all policy on common sense (CS) as well as, or instead of, CK.

”But we’re having difficulty finding any. It’s a pretty rare commodity around here and we’re not sure there will be enough to make it work.”

 

 


What’s green & what’s greenwash?

April 16, 2018

How do we know what’s green and what’s greenwash?

The green mantra is reduce, reuse and recycle.

It ought to be safe to claim reducing our use of limited resources and our impact on the environment is green.

Reusing and recycling aren’t so clear-cut.

Reusing some things can be better for the environment than chucking them in the rubbish – providing whatever needs to be done to make them reusable has a lower environmental footprint than dumping.

But that isn’t always the case.

Take reusable shopping bags and the so-called single use plastic ones for example.

 It’s counterintuitive, but  are far more energy efficient than any of the other options. Paper’s out – it causes seven times more global warming than a plastic bag reused as a bin liner. A cotton bag would have to be used 327 times to break even with plastic, and trendy “organic” cloth bags are hopelessly inefficient.

 

You also have to take into account what people use in place of the single-use plastic bags.

. . .The supermarket chains can’t believe their luck. The overseas experience suggests they’re about to receive a massive boost in the sale of bin liners, which they essentially gave away for free all these years, and come out of the whole thing looking like heroes, despite potentially making global warming worse. . . 

However, it’s not that simple. An environmental footprint takes into account more than the energy and emissions used to produce and dispose of it.

What happens to the bags when they’re no long wanted also has an impact as the number of plastic bags littering land and sea show.

If you dispose of plastic bags properly you’re probably treading more gently on the environment than using reusable ones. But does that counteract the damage done by people who don’t dispose of them carefully so they pollute oceans and endanger sea life?

Then we come to recycling.

If the whole pathway of recycling which includes transport to and from processing as well as the processing itself is taken into account then it isn’t always as green as it’s painted and might have a higher environmental cost than dumping in an environmentally safe landfill.

 

Energy use in transport as well as the potential for air and water pollution from processing can more than counter the benefit of less rubbish being sent to landfills.

Supermarkets are full of products claiming to be eco-friendly but it’s very difficult for consumers to know whether their claims are empty, if they do have a lesser impact on the environment or if they do more harm than alternatives which don’t make any claims.

It is much easier to see the greenwash in the government’s ban on off-shore oil exploration. As Taranaki MP Jonathan Young says:

. . . The Government may think they have attacked the problem, but unfortunately, they have attacked the solution.

As National’s Energy and Resources spokesperson I would support a transfer of knowledge, skills and investment into the greening of the petroleum industry rather than ending it.

Apart from 50 per cent of all oil produced being for environmentally benign purposes, we should continue to pursue the goal of utilising hydrocarbons as feedstock for ultra-low or zero emission fuels. 

Research is already underway for this, such as methanol, and hydrogen. There is a tremendous amount of research taking place on improving engine and fuel efficiency. The petroleum sector has some of the smartest people in the country when it comes to understanding carbon and molecules. Utilising their knowledge and skills here and collaborating with other industry-based research is the smart thing to do.

The Ardern-Peters Government has made a significant misstep in their approach. New Zealand has 10 years of known gas supply lefts. We haven’t had a gas discovery for eight years. With existing exploration hoping to make a discovery, it has a 10-15% chance of success.

When a discovery is made, it will take a further ten years of development before gas is available for market. Just do the math, without considering any chilling effect on investment the Government’s decision has created, we should get ready for a gasless future. 

With every fifth day of our electricity generated from fossil fuels, mostly gas – we have a problem. When electricity demand increases because of the growth of electric vehicles in New Zealand, we have a compounded problem. Wind and solar energy might contribute, but both are intermittent. This will require overbuild and capacity charging, leading to higher electricity prices. With gas possibly gone, and any shortfall in renewables, we’re left with coal to keep our lights on. Emissions will likely rise rather than fall. 

In a contest between energy security and the environment, the need to keep lights on will win.

Considering New Zealand’s contribution to world Green House Gas emissions is 0.17% of the total, our energy emissions (including electricity generation and transport) is 40 per cent of that 0.17 per cent. 

If the petroleum industry was to completely disappear tomorrow, then our emissions profile will remain unchanged as we import crude for all our liquid fuels. What we sell overseas will be sold by someone else, as supply exceeds demand. No change here both domestically or globally.

If we were able to replace half of our liquid fuel fleet with zero emission electric vehicles, we’d be down to 0.136 per cent of the world’s emissions. The sobering truth is our reductions will get swallowed up by the massive increase of emissions in a growing and developing Asia. So, while we work hard to do our essential bit, world emissions increase for some time yet.

We ought to be realistic about being “world leaders” as James Shaw wants. Norway are world leaders, but they do that through giving all electric vehicles free electricity for life, free parking and exemption from any congestion taxes, arguably afforded through their wealth derived from oil production. 

World emissions are set to increase for a while yet, which is why I think we must take a global and rational approach. We should find more gas and export it to Asia. We should encourage the industry rather than close it down. It’s counter-intuitive, but it works!

Gas replacing coal is one of the key reasons why energy emissions stalled in their growth in 2014, 2015 and 2016 according to the International Energy Agency. . . 

The ban on future exploration will have no affect on demand for fossil fuels here or anywhere else.

It will almost certainly add to our emissions and to the cost of fuel not just for private cars which the eco-warriors hate but for heat, light and industry, including food production.

There’s nothing green about the exploration ban. It’s quite clearly greenwash.

 


Anti-oil greenwash adds costs for no gain

April 13, 2018

A friend who has a horticulture business estimates the government’s ban on further offshore oil and gas exploration will add around half a million dollars a year to his costs of production.

That comes on top of a similar amount more he’ll be paying for labour with the increases to the minimum wage.

He might be able to absorb some of the increased costs but will have to pass on at least some of the increase.

Food in New Zealand is already expensive. Government policies will make it even more expensive and will also lead to job losses.

Adding extra costs for green wash is economic vandalism for no environmental gain.

The Government’s decision to ban gas and petroleum exploration is economic vandalism that makes no environmental sense, National MPs Jonathan Young and Todd Muller says.

“This decision will ensure the demise of an industry that provides over 8000 high paying jobs and $2.5 billion for the economy,” Energy and Resources Spokesperson Jonathan Young says.

“Without exploration there will be no investment in oil and gas production or the downstream industries. That means significantly fewer jobs.

“This decision is devoid of any rationale. It certainly has nothing to do with climate change. These changes will simply shift production elsewhere in the world, not reduce emissions.

“Gas is used throughout New Zealand to ensure security of electricity supply to every home in New Zealand. Our current reserves will last less than ten years – when they run out we will simply have to burn coal instead, which means twice the emissions.

“The Government says that existing wells will continue but that’s code for winding the sector down.

Climate Change Spokesperson Todd Muller says the decision makes no sense – environmentally or economically – because less gas production means more coal being burnt and higher carbon emissions.

“Many overseas countries depend on coal for energy production. Those CO2 emissions would halve if they could switch to natural gas while they transition to renewable energy.

“By stopping New Zealand’s gas exploration we are turning our backs on an opportunity to help reduce global emissions while providing a major economic return to improve our standard of living and the environment.

“We need to reduce global CO2 emissions. But there is no need to put an entire industry and thousands of New Zealanders’ jobs at risk.”

Mr Young says the Government’s decision today is another blow to regional New Zealand, and Taranaki in particular.

“It comes hot on the heels of big decisions that reduce roading expenditure, cancel irrigation funding, and discourage international investment in the regions.

“This is simply Jacinda Ardern destroying an industry in the cause of a political slogan pushed by Greenpeace.”

You can sign a petition against this economic vandalism for no economic gain here.

When oil and gas are mentioned, we think of fuel for vehicles.

But oil isn’t just used for fuel.

Filling up at the gas station is certainly one of the ways to use oil that is most familiar to us. But guess what: of all the oil we use, only 43 per cent goes to fueling our cars.

Given this, can we seriously consider ending our “dependence on oil”, as some would suggest? Someone who wants to stop using oil will have to say goodbye to smart phones, ballpoint pens, candlelight, clothing made of synthetic fibers, glasses, toothpaste, tires (including those on bicycles), and thousands of other products made from plastic, a petroleum derivative.

Good luck with that program.

Problem is, the anti-oil discourse so demonized this resource that we came to forget the many benefits conferred by its use. Oil and its derivatives have improved living conditions in Western industrialized societies, as the list quoted above quite clearly demonstrates, but also worldwide. In Africa, for example, earthenware jars used to transport water have been replaced by plastic jars, which are much lighter, providing some relief to women who have to carry out this task.

What’s more, some of these products shaping everyday life are designed locally. That’s the case for Eska water bottles or Kraft mayonnaise recipients, manufactured in Montreal. So much so that a high-technology sector has emerged around Montreal refineries over the years, providing quality jobs for more than 3,600 workers. . . 

Like other greenwash, the anti-oil movement has gained traction based on half-truths and emotion.

Like other greenwash, the government’s decision to ban offshore exploration will come at a high economic and social cost with no environmental gain.

Like other green wash the ban is about doing something, not doing the right thing,


O&G exploration ban greenwash

April 12, 2018

The government’s decision to stop offshore oil and gas exploration is nothing but greenwash.

National Opposition energy and resources spokesman Jonathan Young said the decision had come without any consultation with industry.

“The Government had promised to consult but have now made an abrupt decision to stop any new offshore exploration,” he said. 

New Zealand has only about 10 years supply of gas reserves left, he said.

“So in 10 years time we will be buying imported gas to fire up the barbecue,” he said.

Young said 20 per cent of nationwide electricity generation depended on gas.

“What will replace gas as the demand for more electricity rose with electric vehicles and we don’t have enough renewables.

“It will be coal – good one Government.”

This move will do nothing to reduce the use of oil and gas in New Zealand or elsewhere.

It will just mean importing oil and gas from elsewhere. That will be more expensive and worse for the environment.

New Plymouth mayor Neil Holdom called the decision a “kick in the guts” for the Taranaki economy.

The industry provided directly and indirectly up to 7000 jobs in the region.

“It was a kick in the guts for the long term future of the Taranaki economy and urgent work was needed on a plan to maintain Taranaki’s position as the provincial powerhouse of New Zealand’s economy,” he said. . .

Any gain from the projects which got money from the Provincial Growth Fund last week will be more than cancelled out by the jobs lost in the oil and gas industry and those who service and supply it.

This policy is economic sabotage for no environmental gain from a government long on rhetoric and virtue signaling and very short on reason.

 

 


Rural round-up

February 8, 2018

NZ needs more water storage in a changing climate:

The importance of water storage in helping provide a reliable supply of water for urban communities, and for food and energy production in a changing climate needs to be recognised, says IrrigationNZ.

“We are seeing the effects of poor future planning for the effects of climate change on water infrastructure overseas, with Cape Town expected to soon run out of water. By ratifying the Paris Agreement in 2016, New Zealand confirmed it will plan for and take action to adapt to the impacts of climate change. Developing more water storage to supply towns, rural communities and for food and energy production is important to protect the future wellbeing of Kiwis,” says IrrigationNZ Chief Executive Andrew Curtis. . . 

Dairy product prices climb for third straight auction amid supply concern – Margreet Dietz:

(BusinessDesk) – Dairy product prices rose at the Global Dairy Trade auction, rising for the third straight time, as buyers stocked up in anticipation of easing output.

The GDT price index climbed 5.9 percent from the previous auction three weeks ago. The average price was US$3,553 a tonne. Some 22,197 tonnes of product was sold, down from 23,319 tonnes three weeks ago.

Whole milk powder rallied 7.6 percent to US$3,226 a tonne. . .

Have your say: Bill aims to deter livestock theft:

Parliament is now seeking public submissions on a bill aimed at deterring livestock rustling (the theft of livestock from farms or property).

Livestock rustling is estimated to cost the farming community over $120 million each year and is a major threat to farming businesses. It also puts the safety of people in isolated, rural areas at risk because rustlers are often armed. . . 

Bay of Plenty Maori partner with Japan’s Imanaka on high-value dairy products – Tina Morrison:

(BusinessDesk) – A group of Maori organisations has partnered with Japanese food company Imanaka to develop a milk processing plant to make high-value niche products in Kawerau.

Kawerau Dairy is a collaboration between 11 Maori Bay of Plenty entities, which own two thirds of the venture, and Imanaka’s Cedenco Dairy unit, which owns the remaining third. They expect the first stage of the $32 million project to begin operations early next year.

The dairy venture is following the model of the Miraka milk company in Taupo which was set up by Maori interests with an overseas food group as a cornerstone shareholder, with power supplied from Maori geothermal assets and much of the milk supply sourced from local Maori farms. . . 

Eugenie Sage has questions to answer on cancelled land sale:

Eugenie Sage has questions to answer on her reasons for turning down the sale of the Sullivan Mine on the West Coast to Bathurst Coal Limited against the advice of overseas investment officials, National Party Energy and Resources Spokesperson Jonathan Young says.

“Ms Sage needs to give an absolute assurance that her views as Conservation Minister and as a Green Party MP have not coloured her statutory role as Minister for Land Information,” Mr Young says.

“Bathurst is a significant investor on the West Coast and Southland, creating jobs and economic activity in each region. . . 

NZ’s first avocado shipment arrives safely in China:

The first airfreighted consignment of fresh New Zealand avocados has arrived safely into China, the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) said today.

This follows agreement and signing of a protocol on phytosanitary requirements between New Zealand and China last November, and a technical audit of New Zealand’s regulatory system for exporting avocados by Chinese officials in January.

“Securing export access for our avocados into China has been New Zealand’s top horticulture priority,” says MPI Director-General Martyn Dunne. . .

Wellington to host FMG Young Farmer of the Year regional final:

A former cocktail bartender, an award-winning contract milker and a drone-flying drystock farmer will face off in the Taranaki/Manawatu Regional Final of the FMG Young Farmer of the Year.

Farmers will descend on the nation’s capital for the event on February 24th.

It’s believed to be the first time the regional final has been held in Wellington. . . 

Nominations Open for Silver Fern Farms Co-Op Board Directors:

Nominations are now open for two farmer-elected Board positions on the Silver Fern Farms Co-operative Board.

Directors Rob Hewett and Fiona Hancox retire by rotation at the Company’s 2017 Annual Meeting.

Rob Hewett and Fiona Hancox have advised they will seek re-election.

Nominations close on Monday 5 March 2018 at 5pm. . .. 


Too little support for Little?

July 3, 2011

Understatement of the week from Trans Tasman:

It would be a serious blow to Little’s ambitions if he had to rely on a list placing to get him into Parliament.

It’s referring to a poll in which Jonathan Young gained 41% and Labour’s recently ex-president gained only 25%.

However, David Farrar sees some light for Little:

His 25.3 per cent on the electorate vote is more rosy if you accept Labour’s party vote figure of 16.5 per cent. That is saying that for every 10 Labour party voter, Little is picking up 15 votes. And by contrast Jonathan Young is picking up nine votes for every 10 National Party voters.

Now if the party vote turned out to be the same as in 2008, then applying the above ratios would have Young on 46 per cent and Little on 48 per cent.

This is not to say that this poll shows Little ahead of Young. It does not. But it does show that he is attracting more electorate votes than his party, and that if Labour lifts its party vote, then the seat would be closer than this poll suggests at first glance.

Little has a reasonably safe place on the Labour list but that would be seen as a second best option.

All MPs are supposed to be equal but in the eyes of many electorate MPs are more equal than those who enter parliament on the party list.


%d bloggers like this: