All posts in the topic How will future Cantabrians deal with issues? And what happened to the oil crisis? (Short link)
Summary
- There are 10 posts — by 6 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Brian Sandle at Dec 03 01:01 UTC
The problem with these forums Rik is that all the previous contributions are
lost in "the ether".
I have carefully - and robustly - pointed out that there is no "oil crisis".
That as soon as consumption is reduced (or means to process and deliver
increased) the price will drop. That no one member of OPEC can "control"
prices, that some OPEC countries sell their oil with little marginal
return - so when prices drop they have to MASSIVELY increase output - which
increases supply (if one has the means to deliver it...) And increased
supply reduces the price.
Now, I warned everyone that riding their bicycles will NOT save any oil -
just re-distribute it to those who squander the stuff in Dubai or
somewhere....
The Greens do NOT "have it right" - some of their rationale has merely put
up the costs of compliance, and I understand even many of the Greens' lobby
are not happy with the carbon trading scheme.
Sacrificing our standard of living for some holistic international
environmental goal is going to lead our province and our country into
penury!
Rik, we seem to be talking about global rather than local issues here, but
when members of this panel start asking us to follow self-sacrificing Green
policies then it does become a very local issue.
But I have an idea that may cheer some of us up. As I observe the ever
encroaching advances of the vine yards moving southwards (and, if one looks
carefully in the little valleys between the new dairy farms heading up
towards us from the south and one observes a guerilla force of vine yards
from that direction too....) I have this suggestion:
To overcome the rapacious treatment of poor innocent migrant workers
encamped six or eight to a leaky caravan and ripped off for accommodation
and food costs by their kindly contract masters... I propose a new law as
set out below:
"All members of the Chattering Classes be required to do three weeks grape
vine pruning each year."
I think it is a brilliant idea - and maybe this new Government - with all
its right-leaning members is just the Government to bring in such a law.
Sadly, though, as a member of the Chattering Classes, it would mean I would
be gathered up in the rush - and for three weeks of the year unable to
contribute to this forum because my hands will be so sore and swollen...
Cheers,
Tim Kerr
Hi Tim Excellent idea - in fact pip-fruit (not just vineyard) and horticultural managers in Canterbury suggested before the government came up with the Recognised Seasonal Employer Policy that universities, polytechs and senior high schools would undertake 3 to 4 weeks job experience during fruit picking season. The now defunct Labour government decided it was more prudent not to change school and university holidays as it would only infuriate their left wing academic staff who normally take all of December, January and February off (summer!). A second option was to get people on the dole to go and work in the orchards and so on, however again Labour were concerned that their voters didn't like that idea - they'd rather sit at home and earn money doing nothing. David Cunliffe's response to a question from Lockwood Smith on protection of these immigrant labourers was: "All workers in New Zealand, regardless of nationality or citizenship, are subject to New Zealand employment and industrial legislation, including the Employment Relations Act, the Holidays Act, the Minimum Wage Act, and so on. Relevant immigration policies, including the Recognised Seasonal Employer policy, are designed to support and respect that." (Speech in Parliament Wednesday 8 August 2007 - sourced from http://theyworkforyou.co.nz/portfolios/immigration/2007/aug/08/recognised_seasonal_employer_policy) It's interesting to note that Labour were so competent that while Cunliffe was speaking examples such as that you cite of immigrant labourers living in cramped and unhygienic conditions were going on throughout the country. As to peak oil - would the greens change their mind if we struck oil off the coast of Canterbury - is it all just jealousy over who owns the oil? Or would Rik be the first on the picket lines at Lyttelton (where the oil would likely come in from our Pegasus Bay oilrigs) telling us that we cannot earn a crust and to leave the oil in the ground? Why don't ingenious Cantabrians develop a method of using oil in a way that does not pollute the atmosphere - we are constantly moaning that we sell the Chinese our West Coast coal and that they burn it inefficiently - why don't we sell them a method for using it cleanly too. Or is riding bikes, smoking pot and espousing communism all our green colleagues aspire to. Michael Campbell
Michael Campbell wrote:
[...]
> As to peak oil - would the greens change their mind if we struck oil off the
coast of Canterbury - is it all just jealousy over who owns the oil? Or would
Rik be the first on the picket lines at Lyttelton (where the oil would likely
come in from our Pegasus Bay oilrigs) telling us that we cannot earn a crust
and to leave the oil in the ground?
>
>
It does take quite a bit of discipline, but when you see the real
problem then intelligence can start to act.
> Why don't ingenious Cantabrians develop a method of using oil in a way that
does not pollute the atmosphere - we are constantly moaning that we sell the
Chinese our West Coast coal and that they burn it inefficiently - why don't we
sell them a method for using it cleanly too.
>
>
Unfortunately we are getting out of the habit of adding value, aren't
we? -Becoming a comodity tourism economy.
> Or is riding bikes, smoking pot and espousing communism all our green
colleagues aspire to.
>
>
Meridian Energy are currently installing electricity meters, which
cannot run backwards like the older ones. So that works against the
individual selling energy to the network. How about a petition against
any more?
NZers worked together to get a state house system going, and I believe
our PM elect lived in one when young. But I don't think the Green
colleagues would believe in the organised famines often used by some
Communist regimes to try to enforce their ways.
> we sell the Chinese our West Coast coal and that they burn it inefficiently -
why don't we sell them a method for using it cleanly too.
The Chinese burn brown coal. Largely what they dig out of their own holes.
Solid Energy coal is used for reducing ore to steel. It is a carbon resource.
It is, in so far as steel production goes, the cleanest coal. It makes Bunnings
Wheelbarrows and nails and things.
It is a simplistic answer to help correct a common misconception, as there are
other issues with Solid Energy coal not the least the methane created as they
get coal out of the ground, handle and transport etc... But it is just plain
wrong to assert that "OUR CANTERBURY COAL" is somehow comparatively dirty. It
is not THERMAL coal. (while some of it might be, there are uses for such coal
smelting metals - again for its quality and efficiency)
We cannot condemn one SOLID ENERGY's kilo of high grade carbon while we import
carbon by the bazzillion barrels before exhausting it. Steel is highly
recycled. Road miles are not. (esp. those Canterbury 'on topic' road miles)
I might suggest by way of analogy that the high specification of Kiwi coal [in
all likelihood] made the steel for the Olympic Bird's Nest (and more). Were
low-spec coal used,the steel would not have made strong concrete and much more
cement would have been required adding far more CO2 - getting the idea?
PS I was a quality control alloys metallurgist for RioTinto/Sumitomo/Comalco
(not steel). NZ Aluminium is the greenest Al in the world being powered by
renewable E. It makes >60% of the worlds electronic capacitors. How we do
stuff is the stuff of social capital, its just not common knowledge when all
people see is electricity prices and Al cans. Similarly for Coal.
Thanks for your comments Blair. I was aware that we export our good coal for
steel smelting - that was why I was surprised when Michael Campbell stated
it was burned inefficiently in China. It is expensive stuff - and one would
expect efficiency in its consumption!
But it does come back to the resource issue. Like oil, coal cannot just be
"left in the ground" while some other product is used as a substitute. If
coal is cheaper than the substitute then coal will be used. That is why I
cannot get my head around dear, dear, clean and green little ol' Noo Zeeland
way down in the South Pacific madly battling away using wind and water to
power its electricity grid and banning the use of coal-fired power
production. Apart from the lovely high quality stuff that we export for
steel making the rest of the stuff is lying around - and there is enough on
the West Coast alone for a good 2000 years at current rates of consumption.
Meanwhile, we are creating artificial "markets" for swapping carbon credits
and things for bloody inefficient windmills! (I forgot to add that the
propsed new cement works down Oamaru way - and the new Fonterra plant will
both be powered by brown coal.... It's OK for them... but not for an
electric power company....?)
I suppose by not using our coal we are saving a bit of carbon from
re-entering the terrestrial carbon cycle..... but even if we powered half
our power stations by coal the total re-entry of carbon from NZ would be far
less than that entering the atmosphere from, say China. In the meantime
though, we are tying our economy into knots by trying to carbon-neutralize
our lives. The Chinese aren't!
The rest of your comments - you were trying to be brief - make little sense
to me. We have masses of sub-bituminous coal - especially in Southland -
brown stuff that could barely be called coal - but stuff that is very good
for powering coal-fired boilers to produce electricity. Stuff that, I
understand, the Brits have a lot of expertise in scrubbing. Michael Campbell
made the comment that oil could be cleanly burned - if the same or similar
scrubbing technology was applied to it. So why not?
And as our brown coal cannot be exported profitably, why not use it here? It
seems daft to import oil or gas if we can use coal. In fact, if we apply
your own comments, using our home-grown brown coal stuff would end up less
terrestrial carbon distributing than shipping in oil and gas.
We produce something like 60 or 70 percent of our electricity by so-called
renewable sources - hydro, thermal and (inefficiently) wind. That must be
about the highest percentage in the world! Why can't we use a few tonnes of
coal as well?
And then, we are told our little country's emission are amongst the world's
highest because of our gas-producing farm animals. Well! Goodness me!! We
are one of the few countries in the world where cattle are fed on clover and
grasses (and other greens). Elsewhere they are shoving them into feedlots
and fed little else but grain. Now don't tell me that feedlot cattle are
grown using less overall emissions than our happy cattle out in the spring
pastures?
I was pleased to read your comments that NZ Comalco-produced aluminium is
the greenest in the world. I remember the objections we all had to the
scheme! And then my mother went and bought Comalco shares! Boy did we argue
over that one! So she was right - and it is too late for me to apologise to
her.
Hi there
Re West Coast Coal - the comment regarding the clean burning or use of West
Coast coal is comparative - i.e. if the coal was used in NZ it would be used
more "cleanly" than if used in China plus there is the carbon footprint created
by shipping it from the Coast to Lyttelton and by sea to China. However if NZ
uses it, the economics (as Tim points out) are not as solid as NZ selling the
coal and using the income to trade for goods we do want/need
I think we have seen the solution already in that the Nats have announced a
review of the ETS and likely once Rodney gets to work there will be a lot less
regulation - it may not be a good thing but it's who the country (minus
Christchurch) voted for
It would appear too that the foreshore and seabed is back on the agenda - it
will be interesting to see how the litoral fringe of Pegasus Bay develops along
with our 26 rivers
What I do find quite amusing is that Aunty Helen had 9 years in which to engage
with the Maori Party and chose not to and after less than a week the Nats have
signed a deal and gone into (semi-)coalition with them - on the other hand the
greens could have (like the Maori Party) left the door open - now they have
sent themselves to the other side of the house
It's been suggested that we need a new environmental party which is free of
left and right politics - I think Canterbury should look to be first to do this
- then everyone left in the green party would be seen for what they really are
That way we might save our environment for our children without the tag-ons of
cannabis and the like
Michael Campbell
*"That way we might save our environment for our children without the
tag-ons of cannabis and the like"
*
So... social justice for tobacco and alcohol users only then ? Ever wonder
why there is no cost-benefit analysis available about the cost of pot
prohibition ? You're paying for it, its very costly, and its on your watch
that this mayhem is occurring. Everyone who thinks its a minor issue should
think a bit longer and harder about it. I don't like young people being
sucked into such a toxic black market and all the needless negative social
outcomes that entails for them when they're caught.
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:08 PM, Michael Campbell <
Hi Michael et al,
We've already got a Green Party which is "free of left and right
politics" - it's not just about "the environment" as something separate.
I've been a member of the Green Party for over 30 years since I joined the
Ecology Party in the UK in the '70s. Why? I managed an analytical lab and
it was very clear from what we measured that both Right and Left with their
commitment to endless growth were screwing us up (do the maths - try the
eponymous 4% pa over, say 100 years).
Reality rules in the long run and we should take the long view, not just
quick bucks now.
Tom, I get a bit annoyed when people cite exponential concepts regarding
damage to the environment, climate change, economic growth.... my income...
etc.
The worst recent case was the exponential example of bacteria in a
controlled environment cited on this forum. It was silly, because
exponential expansion always has some form of limiting factor. For example
we have been subjected to the "threat" of exponential population expansion.
In fact, the population is declining - in wealthy countries. We have to
import young people to keep our vine yards, dairy farms and old peoples'
homes in business! (Exponential growth of bacteria in a test tube would stop
once the bacteria ran out of food - which is one reason why we cannot, for
example get 95% alcohol in beer, despite a potential demand for the stuff!)
To say the "Greens" are not left of centre in politics is a bit trite - for
most Green members seem to have an anti-war, pacifist non-violent element in
their beliefs. Then in NZ they were saddled with the strident, left of
centre Sue Bradford and her anti-smacking bill.
Now, I don't think most people are keen on physically punishing their kids
(except the strange so-called religious right...) but Sue Bradford's Bill
put the fear into us that we'd get arrested for smacking a kid on the bum
for willful disobedience - and really, when it does happen it is not usually
hurtful. So, we have a "Green" bill that scares most self-respecting
parents, but no let-up in actual family violence.
And then we had the concept of regulations to limit light bulbs and hot
shower pressure. Come on!!! As I argue, if we have to "ban" incandescent
light bulbs, then candles should be banned. They use up more energy - and
are more polluting! Or do you agree with this argument?
The trouble with many Green enthusiasts is their lack of appreciation of
economics. I won't say "market forces" because they are a SYMPTOM of
economics. Imagine economics as something like the air we breathe - a mix of
gases. The gases vary - but the air is still there. As with economics - it
just won't go away. So, we have people reacting to price-rises in oil by
saying we should all ride bicycles or (heaven help us!) catch a bus. But no,
you see, sacrificing YOUR space on the road only allows someone else to take
that space up - and use the oil you saved.
Rationing does not work. But if you catch a bus to save YOURSELF money....
then OK, do it. Someone else will take up your car space and use your
oil-saving, but you personally will be better off (higher income and
healthier). Now, that does NOT make you "Greener" - just a responsive normal
person... like me...
"Endless growth" is a misnomer. I don't think we are seeking "endless
growth" - but what we are (as a country) seeking is an increasing standard
of living. That is, we continue life much as it is at present, without being
ravaged by rickets, TB, Herpes - whatever.... and that we continue to have
reasonable cars (or buses or bicycles) that provide us with transport.
However, the "endless growth" takes on its own life because with the
business of building cars and things the means of producing them - and the
costs seem to go down. So, instead of driving a perfectly adequate Morris
Minor with occidental headlamps we end up driving a squashed-up looking blob
with distinctly oriental lamp clusters and a multitude of airbags and stuff
that can take us up to 100 KPH and back down to stationary again in the time
it takes to pull out from an side road in the old Morrie. And at similar or
lower (and cleaner) fuel consumption!
Personally, I think I'd prefer the Morrie.... but if we had stuck with the
Morrie we would not have developed in-car electronics, and the basics for -
ultimately - some sort of alternative fuel. In fact, about all we would have
gained would be a lockable lid on the glovebox! (Later Morries had a
glovebox lid....)
But, in the atmosphere of economics we get the high cost of primary products
as demand for them increases - which means things get dear... so then a few
people stop buying those things and suddenly the primary products drop in
price... and once people get their jobs back they drive up the demand again.
Heck, it doesn't take much - which is why I argued our so-called fuel crisis
was NOT a crisis of oil shortage - but one of supply.
I seem to remember stating on this forum that the oil price is bound to
drop - not to the super low price of a couple of years ago - but it would
drop and inflation would increase so that any effects of the original price
rise would be almost redundant. You see, there is not (yet) a shortage of
oil as a raw material. While we have it it cannot be "rationed' - only a
similar-priced alternative will ration oil - and when the real price of oil
increases - reflected by a genuine increase in cost - then the price
actually rations it.
That is, pretty much, what brought about the decline in whaling. Rock oil
beat the price of whale oil. Whaling did not cease because of Green
protests! It ceased because it was uneconomic - due to a shortage of whales
and the cheapness of alternative products. (Which is not to say that the
Greens are not helping save the current whale population.)
But I seem to have digressed..... as the self-bonus-paying financiers
bundled up high risk mortgages into securities to on-lend to their
international banking mates and the financial market collapsed there came
about a sudden lack of business development cash. Unable to borrow or
service their working overdrafts companies started going a bit broke. Guess
what? The first sign of this has been the drop in price of raw materials -
primary products... and, sadly, a category of these so-called primary
products, is re-cycled raw materials. So, unless we regain a bit of "honest"
growth in world economies we will end up with more waste. (There will be
less actual waste as people consume less, but more of it will be left to go
to waste as it becomes uneconomic to recycle it.)
But how this relates to Canterbury and this forum is a moot point - except
to state that Canterbury produces a wide range of fine primary products.
Dairying is leading the charge to convert - but hopefully, the high prices
commanded by dairy products will attract other national players in the
market, ultimately driving down the high growth of new farms. In fact, it is
likely many new conversions will fail because the banks may not be able to
support the massive loans. Not that I am against dairying - just that it is
inevitable that NZ milk payouts will decline in real terms in the future as
other countries increase their output. And this means, hopefully when it is
not too late, that our prime crop and seed producing farms will remain....I
just hope the entire Plains aren't covered in vine yards instead!
Ah well....
Tim Kerr
Tim Kerr wrote:
> Tom, I get a bit annoyed when people cite exponential concepts regarding
> damage to the environment, climate change, economic growth.... my income...
> etc.
>
> The worst recent case was the exponential example of bacteria in a
> controlled environment cited on this forum. It was silly, because
> exponential expansion always has some form of limiting factor. For example
> we have been subjected to the "threat" of exponential population expansion.
> In fact, the population is declining - in wealthy countries.
Isn't it when someone gets busy and spreads the message that people
start to respond? Just leaving it to the market or 'natural' restraint
is a rather wasteful way to do it.
> We have to
> import young people to keep our vine yards, dairy farms and old peoples'
> homes in business!
The natural restraint process will be too slow to avoid a lot of pain as
these younsters become old in their turn, if we are still getting in
more to support the next round and so on.
> (Exponential growth of bacteria in a test tube would stop
> once the bacteria ran out of food - which is one reason why we cannot, for
> example get 95% alcohol in beer, despite a potential demand for the stuff!)
>
But in poor countries a lack on food often increases the population as
people have more children to help them earn and look after them as they
get older, and to replace the ones who die through effects of
malnutrition. Things get pretty bad before reproduction ceases. The last
people to still be able to reproduce are the ones who have the 'thrifty'
gene - they store fat a whole lot better. Then if food becomes more
available the resultant population gets very obese and morbid.
> To say the "Greens" are not left of centre in politics is a bit trite - for
> most Green members seem to have an anti-war, pacifist non-violent element in
> their beliefs.
Interesting that you associate the right with violence and war, I
suppose they do sell.
The new Green MP, Kennedy Graham is the brother of former high-ranking
National MP Doug Graham. Some light was showing through with Doug in
Treaty of Waitangi issues.
> Then in NZ they were saddled with the strident, left of
> centre Sue Bradford and her anti-smacking bill.
>
It was the media coined the term which you are perpetuating,
'anti-smacking bill.'
Adults may also respond to being assaulted, should it be legal for a
person to smack them to control them?
> Now, I don't think most people are keen on physically punishing their kids
> (except the strange so-called religious right...) but Sue Bradford's Bill
> put the fear into us that we'd get arrested for smacking a kid on the bum
> for willful disobedience - and really, when it does happen it is not usually
> hurtful. So, we have a "Green" bill that scares most self-respecting
> parents, but no let-up in actual family violence.
>
Indeed the way the media said it must have put lots of people off voting
green.
> And then we had the concept of regulations to limit light bulbs
That would reduce the likelihood of blackouts.
> and hot
> shower pressure.
Same, and it only applies to the design of cheap housing whose marketers
do not bother with any energy efficiency in their equation.
> Come on!!! As I argue, if we have to "ban" incandescent
> light bulbs, then candles should be banned. They use up more energy - and
> are more polluting! Or do you agree with this argument?
>
>
I don't get your equation. Do you mean very few people are using the
incandescents now?
> The trouble with many Green enthusiasts is their lack of appreciation of
> economics. I won't say "market forces" because they are a SYMPTOM of
> economics. Imagine economics as something like the air we breathe - a mix of
> gases. The gases vary - but the air is still there. As with economics - it
> just won't go away.
So why are we using the tax from the poor to prop up the financial
market economic system of the rich at the moment?
> So, we have people reacting to price-rises in oil by
> saying we should all ride bicycles or (heaven help us!) catch a bus. But no,
> you see, sacrificing YOUR space on the road only allows someone else to take
> that space up - and use the oil you saved.
>
>
I think it more works like giving up smoking. There is a bigger message
than the immediate price of the cigarettes.
> Rationing does not work. But if you catch a bus to save YOURSELF money....
> then OK, do it. Someone else will take up your car space and use your
> oil-saving, but you personally will be better off (higher income and
> healthier). Now, that does NOT make you "Greener" - just a responsive normal
> person... like me...
>
Though being 'green' is a good team concept or label for a lot of
people. For every six who voted National already about one voted Green.
It would be interesting to do a study on IQ and who people vote for. In
the whole population IQ distribution the top one-sixth of people have
an IQ of 116 or above. ??