Thank you for your answers to my questions (and statements!) Michael.
I feel you - and others - may have been seduced by the powers-that-be of the
PR and advertising world! So, we see lots of expensive advertising telling
us to conserve our water (when clearly we don't actually have a shortage of
it) in the hope that people will see them, modify their behaviour and either
use less (which is soon used up by the less easily affected and influenced
who will, naturally, use a little more....) . Or, they will see the ads and
start feeling guilty and pressured into worrying about future possible
shortages - added to the rent or mortgage, increasing ACC levies,
electricity costs, worry about holding onto a job, the kids that are turning
into teenagers.... and the high cost of the morning newspaper! Oh great!
I think the ads are wasteful - and are setting us up to be contumacious,
unhappy, cynical and selfish.
The electricity market as we have in NZ may have its faults.... but it is
beginning to indicate where and what the market needs. I do think it is
riddled with imperfections - such as the inability to price coal-powered
generation into the equation (yet we can sell as much as we like to other
users overseas AND in NZ!) So, for all it faults it is providing us with a
more-or-less consistent supply.
But I am interested in your comments about our deep artesian water. It seems
there is plenty of opportunity to allocate the stuff on an open market
basis - and that it will not run out within a few years. Naturally, the
costs will go up if the demand gets to be higher than the supply, so
theoretically it will not "run out". The pressure or "foundation" that the
deeper, older water provides is OK - except that IF brackish water could
seep in it would not change the nature of the shallower supplies - so
"mining" the deeper water could still be carried out (albeit in the longer
term on a non-sustainable basis.)
I think the water-saving ads have been a bit of a con-job. I object to them!
While on the topic - energy supply in Christchurch - I observe the
correspondence in "The Press" about light rail and buses. People are missing
the point! Light rail - and to a large extent buses - take people from the
suburbs to the centre. Why? Who needs to go to the town centre? Public
servants, CCC employees and office wallahs in the Regional Council - plus a
few bar-tenders, restauranteurs, and those ghastly baristas who spend far
too long making up cups of fancy, calorie-laden coffee for fat
administrators!
Most people commute from suburb to suburb - and for this they need a car.
Others (including, it seems, an awful lot of women with jobs that finish at
1500 hrs) need to pick up their little Dharlings from school - to go to
ballet and music lessons. You cannot do that with light rail or buses!
Others need to get to their rock-climbing or surfing venues - they have to
carry their gear - you can't get there, or carry the gear, on light rail or
a bus!
Finally, roads are for transport - transport of GOODS - you can't deliver
Nescafe to all the supermarkets on the back of a bus! While city roads are
clogged (to a mild degree) with Mum's picking up their Dharlings, once you
are out of the city most transport appears to be trucks and road lice (road
louse = a truckie's term for a hired motorhome)
But I'm ranting on about a different topic now....
Oh cripes! Another year has started!!!
Cheers,
Tim Kerr
Rest of post
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rik Tindall" <<email obscured>>
To: <canterburyissues@forums.e-democracy.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2010 12:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Canterbury Issues] Energy supply in Canterbury
> Happy 2010, CPIF readers.
>
> Some answers to tie off the tangential drift.
>
> Tim Kerr wrote:
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>> I have noticed a spread of adverts that appear to be sponsored by the CCC
>> about running short of water. I have no idea of the cost of the ads - and
>> even less idea of the purpose of them. Why are these expensive ads being
>> run? Can anyone explain?
>>
>
> Tim, a new terminological concept sometimes heard these days is
> 'Negawatts'.
>
> Meaning, given the prohibitively runaway cost of new infrastructure
> projects now, it is often deemed more cost effective to reduce demand
> than to lay on new supply - in this example, for electricity. Hence the
> rapid mainstreaming of Energy Efficiency and Conservation politics, and
> the high value placed on capping energy demand growth. And the exact
> same thinking applies to urban water supplies.
>
> Whereas 2009/10 may not be an extreme dry summer that requires garden
> watering restrictions in Christchurch, the investment in habituating
> users to water conservation measures now is seen as best preparation for
> that inevitable dry summer when changed behaviour is actually needed.
> This advertising and educational approach, over years, will be far
> cheaper than trying to meet unlimited new demand for water that cannot
> anyway forever be met.
>
>> We are not short of oil - oil is about our 5th largest export.... and we
>> have plenty more where that stuff came from. We export it - apparently -
>> because we do not have the refining technology here in NZ for such a high
>> quality oil.
>>
>
> Much as it would seem wise to conserve this valuable resource for an
> eventual processing capacity - and transport independence - here, we
> really need to smarten industry for leaving the hydrocarbons in the
> ground. This is possible to start work on today, with political
> corruption (misleadership) being the main obstacle that I have observed.
>
>> .. a drop in price will result in an increase in demand....
>>
>
> True, a global transformation of transport energy politics is required.
> Starting with a viable prototype..
>
>> Water is a difficult issue. We have plenty of it in Canterbury - but some
>> of
>> it is very old and very deep. The ancient water is lying there waiting to
>> be
>> "mined" under the Canterbury Plains.
>
> No, it is all seeping or running inexorably out to sea. The deeper, the
> slower the flow - hence 'older' water flows.
>
>> So what should we do? Leave it in the
>> ground - like the purported "family silver" - or mine it (literally -
>> just
>> like coal)? If we leave it in the ground, then no one gets to benefit
>> from
>> it - so how long can we keep up a scenario like that? A generation? Two?
>> Nah!
>>
>
> Be aware of the place of every element in a healthy, functioning
> ecosystem, and that human impacts unavoidably degrade this so need to be
> reasonably restrained.
>
>> Of course, if we "mined" the deep artesian water then we may find
>> brackish
>> ocean water will seep through the layers of gravel leaving us with a
>> layer
>> of brackish water - hundreds of feet below us. Ancient, clean, fresh
>> water
>> replaced by brackish water. Would it matter? No, not if we had already
>> "mined" the fresh stuff and used it on improved crops and thus improved
>> incomes and standard of living. Would it matter if we didn't mine it?
>> Yes -
>> because it will just sit there doing nothing but keeping out the brackish
>> ocean water. It is too deep for casual use - so it does not really matter
>> if
>> the stuff is pure artesian - or brackish ocean....
>>
>
> Total myth, I have been informed. The scale of the flow in the
> Canterbury aquifer system is such that we are at zero risk of salt water
> intrusion here. The Heathcote Valley catchment is a local exception,
> requiring separate management methods. And deep aquifer water is never
> "doing nothing" - it maintains the pressure in the aquifers above it, as
> vertical linkage of groundwater bodies is now better understood. The
> pressure keeps excess contaminants out, and the resident filtering
> microorganisms alive - maintaining groundwater quality.
>
>> But to continue with water issues - everyone should have an equal right
>> to
>> the stuff - but it has to be allocated fairly. The fairest way is to
>> auction
>> its use on a daily (or even hourly) basis - so, you only pay for what you
>> want - and obviously at certain times of the year you want a lot - as do
>> everyone else.... and you have to match the strength of your desire to
>> purchase the stuff with the going price created by everyone else wanting
>> it
>> when you do.
>>
>> This would be called a "water market" - but would be similar to our
>> electricity usage market.
>>
>
> Yeah, and we know how well that is serving its 'public owners' /
> consumers, and the touted reinvestment in infrastructure - Not.
>
>> Sure, you and others would not actually want to see such a scheme.... but
>> if
>> the alternative is a city watering and showering and running industry
>> with
>> no limits on water usage... and some farmers well set up with allocated
>> "water rights" - while others have no access to the same water.... Well,
>> you
>> get a feeling for the unfairness of the current hap-hazard allocation
>> system...
>>
>
> Again, I'd say "clean out the political corruption around water use
> issues", to achieve a level playing field, and we'd then be started down
> the track to a rational (environmentally sustainable) natural resource
> model. That is, prioritise the clean-up campaign.
>
>> So, could someone explain WHY the CCC is spending money on expensive
>> water
>> usage billboards?
>>
>
> Because 'economic sustainability' is the very poor cousin of
> environmental sustainability, which the (linguistically) corrupt for too
> long have gotten away with confusing.
>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Michael Campbell" <<email obscured>>
>> To: <canterburyissues@forums.e-democracy.org>
>> Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 1:04 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Canterbury Issues] Energy supply in Canterbury
>>
>>
>>> Hi there
>>>
>>> While we've been worrying about water in Canterbury of which we have
>>> lots
>>> of it and arguing over who has a conflict of interest - whether those
>>> who
>>> have rural water permits have more interest in charging everyone for
>>> water
>>> as opposed to the also conflicted city-dwellers who want to avoid paying
>>> for water and push it onto rural dwellers - while we focus on something
>>> we
>>> have lots of we forget about something we'll run out of shortly - oil.
>>>
>
> Yes, well, the voting public can easily understand why a prominent
> representative of the wine industry would want to 'change the subject',
> and shift the focus off the recently state-documented corruption of his
> political associates. But the reign of Roman methods - maintained
> inebriation of the disenfranchised and of physically challenging youth -
> are at the end of their natural course, obviously.
>
> It is entirely wrong to counterpose the hydrological and energy systems,
> in this way, for political ends. In combining water and land use to make
> food (also alcohol), the most significant product is energy for human
> consumption - too often via domesticated animal intermediaries. Such
> obfuscation (intentional confusion) is the main reason human lives and
> potential are wasted, around the world, and increasingly so through
> systematically destablised climate. Philosophically integrating water
> and energy (food = weather etc) is our essential starting point today.
>
> Michael needs to confront the key obstacles to necessary change, rather
> than toy with peripheral aspects that already have currency.
>
>>> Last night's docu-drama on Prime should have us urgently working on ways
>>> to become energy self sufficient in Canterbury. The only issue I have
>>> with
>>> the doco was the name - "If the oil runs out" - when not if......
>>>
>>> I argued this point 2 years ago yet no-one has done anything about it
>>> and
>>> another 2 years worth of oil has disappeared
>>>
>>> Have you ever heard the comment of any project that it will never be
>>> cheaper than it is now as costs always increase? Another way to look at
>>> it
>>> is when the oil runs out we'll be too late to get anything built - so
>>> what
>>> do we need and what do we have?
>>>
>>> We have great sustainable energy generators:
>>>
>>> Waves
>>> Rivers
>>> Wind
>>> Solar
>>> Bio fuels
>>>
>>> We also have some great seasonal variation - greater wind in spring and
>>> autumn, while there are less river flows in summer there's more sunlight
>>> for solar power and so on
>>>
>>> We should also look at more individual sustainability for the likes of
>>> heating and other housing energy - solar panels on the roof etc
>>>
>>> Our transport infrastructure should be looking to self sufficiency and
>>> sustainable transport options - electric trains and buses from local
>>> generated electricity from the sources mentioned above
>>>
>>> In the documentary last night the suggestion was made that we will
>>> adapt -
>>> however the pain that other parts of the world will feel if they don't
>>> adapt quickly enough could be avoided here if we start right now.
>>> Remember
>>> that as the cost of oil increases it will impact on our (local
>>> Canterbury)
>>> economy. Our oil dependence or independence will mean we can get ahead
>>> as
>>> a region if we are visionary enough to start now.
>>>
>>> Imagine a scenario where we have no dependence on oil and produce food
>>> for
>>> the rest of the world - we would be one of the richest region's in the
>>> world.....or we could be oil poor...
>>>
>>> We have lots of water but not oil - what are we doing about it?
>>>
>>> Michael Campbell
>>>
>
> At the local regional level, where Michael has engaged the voting public
> before, as a first step he may choose to distinguish himself from the
> unprincipled and self-interested representation - a vacuity of
> functional ideas, impugning the reputation of politicians - that has
> placed itself determinedly in the way of practically resolving the
> energy (food and water) future of Waitaha-Canterbury (as a global subset).
>
> Only an holistic, democratic community response can progress these
> matters. An economic turning-point - 'peak everything' - has now been
> reached, that is certain, and workable solutions are well overdue.
>
> Waimarie, kia ora, Rik
>
> Richard Tindall
> Cashmere, South Christchurch , O-Tautahi
> Info about Rik Tindall: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/riktindall
>
> View all messages on this topic at:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5fFeTaBLOp1EQxWbxHfmpu
> -----------------------------------------
> To post, e-mail: canterburyissues@forums.e-democracy.org
> Use "Reply-to-All" via e-mail to post publicly.
> To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on"
> in subject, then send to: canterburyissues@forums.e-democracy.org
>
> More information about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
>
> E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 270.14.132/2610 - Release Date: 01/09/10
19:35:00