Post RSS Feed 
Podcast Feed
Have your say: Guardian blows the whistle on NZ’s clean, green 100% pure image
November 13th, 2009The Guardian’s ‘Greenwash’ columnist Fred Pearce has essentially blown the whistle globally on New Zealand’s ‘clean green and 100% pure’ image in an article titled: “New Zealand was a friend to Middle Earth, but it’s no friend of the earth.“ He focused on the 22% increase in New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions since the Kyoto protocol was signed 12 years ago.
The article is scathing about New Zealand’s “shameless two fingers to the world” and its ‘green mirage’ to promote dairy exports and tourism. Pearce calls it ‘commercial greenwash’.
A surprising number of countries have succeeded in raising their emissions from 1990 levels despite signing up to reduce them. They include a bundle of countries in the European Union, which collectively agreed to let some nations increase their emissions while others (mainly Britain and Germany) cut theirs. Step forward Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Greece — all with emissions up by more than a quarter.
Then there are the US and Australia, which both reneged on the protocol after signing it. And Canada, which never reneged but still has emissions up by a quarter (worse than the US) and shows no sign of contrition or of being called to account by the other signatories.
But my prize for the most shameless two fingers to the global community goes to New Zealand, a country that sells itself round the world as “clean and green”.
New Zealand secured a generous Kyoto target, which simply required it not to increase its emissions between 1990 and 2010. But the latest UN statistics show its emissions of greenhouse gases up by 22%, or a whopping 39% if you look at emissions from fuel burning alone.
Some countries with big emissions growth started from a low figure in 1990. Arguably, they were playing catchup. There is no such excuse for New Zealand. Its emissions started high and went higher.
Pearce is equally scathing about our dairy industry’s emissions. If only he knew about the problems caused to our waterways.
Where do all these emissions come from? New Zealand turns out to be mining ever more filthy brown coal to burn in its power stations. It has the world’s third highest rate of car ownership. And, with more cows than people, the country’s increasingly intensive agricultural sector is responsible for approaching half the greenhouse gas emissions.
Pearce then highlights the risks to the New Zealand economy of our cover being blown.
Check the UNEP website and you will find an excruciating hagiography about a “climate neutral journey to Middle Earth”, in which everything from the local wines to air conditioning and Air New Zealand get the greenwash treatment. After extolling the country’s green credentials, it asks: “Have you landed in a dreamland?” Well, UNEP’s reporter certainly has.
He cheers New Zealand’s “global leadership in tackling climate change”, when the country’s minister in charge of climate negotiations, Tim Groser, has been busy reassuring his compatriots that “we would not try to be ‘leaders’ in climate change.” This is not just political spin. It is also commercial greenwash.
New Zealand trades on its greenness to promote its two big industries: tourism and dairy exports. Groser says his country’s access to American markets for its produce is based on its positive environmental image. The government’s national marketing strategy is underpinned by a survey showing that tourism would be reduced by 68% if the country lost its prized “clean, green image”, and even international purchases of its dairy products could halve.
The trouble is, on the climate change front at least, that green image increasingly defies reality.
My View
Finally someone has blown our cover. Our increasingly intensive use of coal and gas, along with the intensification of large herd dairying, was always going to put our 100% pure reputation in danger. Finally it has happened.
Yet dairying in particular, and many large industries generally are still not paying for their pollution. The Emissions Trading Scheme has let them off virtually scot free and is piling the costs on to future generations.
Your view? We welcome your comments below.
Tags: 100% Pure, ETS, Fred Pearce, Greenhouse emissions, Greenwash, Guardian, Have your say
You may also like to read:
Loading ...
November 13th, 2009 at 8:30 am
Its a good job (or maybe not) he didnt get hold of the Crafer story Mr B.
November 13th, 2009 at 8:34 am
Andy
I’m about to put the link into this story. I know too from our stats on the Crafar video that it is being watched heavily out of Europe.
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/09/28/exclusive-nzs-biggest-dairy-farmer-allows-calves-to-starve-to-death/
cheers
Bernard
November 13th, 2009 at 8:41 am
Good on him for outing us as phoneys.
November 13th, 2009 at 8:42 am
Like people everywhere, Kiwi society is dominated by an economic system and dependent political culture and climate that denies the true cost of resource use in both business and private contexts. We may be too stupid to act rationally. History says w are that dumb.
November 13th, 2009 at 8:45 am
And we refuse to pay for plastic bags
November 13th, 2009 at 8:47 am
We are a two-horse race : Dairying and Tourism . If both get clobbered by the loss of our ” 100 % pure ” image , then we are screwed , big time . And therein is the risk of underdiversifying our economy . Both Labour and National are culpable , over decades of neglect to our productive sector . They have milked individuals and companys dry , by taxes / levies / consents / imposts . Production has been used to fund government consumption . …….As a consequence many of the bright and entrepreneural have sought geener pastures elsewhere .
November 13th, 2009 at 8:52 am
I have come to the conclusion that NZ’s green image has largely come about because we are relatively ‘underpopulated’. When you have swathes of green countryside in contrast to miles of concrete it helps an awful lot. Once governments succeed in getting population up towards 10 million (using their salve all – immigration) this illusion will rapidly disappear.
On a per capita basis I don’t think your average kiwi is particularly more green than any other equivelent citizen of an OECD nation.
November 13th, 2009 at 8:53 am
‘Bout time. The hypocrisy deserves this kind of ridicule and exposure. And I agree, the degradation of our waterways deserves even more attention than climate change. It would also be useful to get some further publicity on this Government’s borrowing/debt commitment to building more roads – whilst putting the screws on public education and health.
And you gotta love the irony of the initiative to get rid of the Takapna Devenport cycleway where the Nats local MP is all for demolishing it to make way for car traffic;
Local MP Wayne Mapp has attended public / council meetings. He is critical of the lack of common sense shown and slammed the NSCC on the quality of its reports on the cycle network debacle.
November 13th, 2009 at 8:54 am
Well of course, much of the emissions-speak in this article is pure media driven BS in the first instance, but to play along as Devil’s advocate, I think the interesting point is this:
The huge amount of regulation NZ has, the RMA, bureaucrats on dairy farm properties (breaching trespass laws whollus bollus) looking into this and that, flying over farms in helicopters, a tremendously costly consents process, the real threat of the coming ETS, all of this, yet none of these ‘perceived’ problems are supposedly fixed.
However, this one public relations disaster, that is, the consumer who buys the milk, may have potentially a far more wide ranging effect at changing behaviour.
Again, regulation has failed in everything but enslaving us (driving up the cost of building a house by what, a third, for all us non-dairy farmers), however, the open market will carry the true, and the lethal, impetus to change behaviour.
But watch everyone on this site reach for the big regulatory gun, our Bernard leading the charge.
November 13th, 2009 at 8:56 am
Roger Thompson: To be fair, business in NZ is far too often of the “get a monopoly and clip the ticket” variety. Until the mid-80s large buinesses were awarded import licences by political cronies, providing them with a license to tax the rest of us for their profit. Such businesses stifled competition and real, productive investment. We can’t blame just government. The ticket-clipping mentality of many Kiwi faux-entrepreneurs is also to blame. Our laws regarding foreign ownership are also at fault. Over and over we build successful businesses only to see them sold off to “overseas investors”…..who within a few short years shut down the local manufacturing and walk off with the product and related intellectual property. By comparison, China STILL doesn’t allow that kind of investment….requiring almost all businesses to be majority Chinese owned. They also still have high tarrifs. They clearly know things we preferred to ignore.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:00 am
Mark – just a quickie – what has happened to every single fishery in the world which has not been regulated or subject to some form of quota protection?
What do you think would have happened to every single NZ fishery if it were left up to the fisherman?
There are some aspects of your anti-regulation tirades which are sensible but others which are just nonsense.
Edit – I suppose you’ll claim that if the fisherman destroy stocks its just the market in action and it will force them on to something else. As the Grand Banks story tells us once you destroy stocks they dont tend to come back.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:03 am
Mark Hubbard: Having lived overseas for many years, I get very annoyed by people who trot out the lie that we are over-regulated here in NZ. Far from it. We have one level of government and one law for all practical purposes where business creation and operation are concerned. Australia has federal law, six states and one territory. Canada has a federal government, 10 provinces, two territories and (soon) two autonomous Unuit territories. The United States has a federal government, 50 states, several commonwealth territories, a myriad of county laws…and even city income taxes in places like New York City.
People who say we are over-regulated either don’t know what they’re talking about or don’t care what the truth is.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:09 am
Steve – I concur. Despite the incessant wailings NZ to my mind is much less tightly regulated. Go live in Euroland if you want to see regulation gone mad.
Long may it continue mind.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:11 am
The market will solve many of the issues regarding Agriculture. As to the main reason behind emissions 1 in 4 of us were not born here and we have had a bloody great bubble.
Fonterra is increasing payout until the vote is over,then its going to get interesting again. Sheep and beef are in trouble and our access to the UK is worthless as the country slides into the abyss. Nothing stays the same forever.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:18 am
Steve Withers : Tait Electronics / Hamilton Jet / Jade Software : Three firms of long standing , and iconic brands within our local community . Point out to us which of them has sought monopolistic powers , or which merely clips the ticket , or which has lobbied politicians for governmental favours !
November 13th, 2009 at 9:22 am
Andy Hamilton said: “I have come to the conclusion that NZ’s green image has largely come about because we are relatively ‘underpopulated’. When you have swathes of green countryside in contrast to miles of concrete it helps an awful lot. Once governments succeed in getting population up towards 10 million (using their salve all – immigration) this illusion will rapidly disappear”.
Spot on Andy, and remember – once the establishment’s population replacement policies reach ‘critical mass’ they become self-feeding as per Britain because the balance of political power shifts in favour of the new population. Thus voting patterns become skewed in favour of ‘re-distributive’ parties – that simply allow still more mass immigration because it provides still more votes. I think it has been recently estimated that, in Britain, the historic population will have lost effective political control of the country within two decades – and we have been there since before Alfred the Great!
Already you can see the British mandated ‘de-humanizing’ tactics being used on Kiwis – increasingly force them to live in some ‘Jerry built’ box that looks the same as hundreds of others in the development. Make sure they have paid a ridiculous multiple of income for same. Make sure their kids have no where to play etc.
Immigration needs urgent debate in New Zealand but, just as happened in ‘Mother England’, all discussion on this subject has been shut down by effective cross-party (establishment) agreement. Cleverly, the establishment always proscribes discussion by crying “racist, racist”, when any attempt at rational discourse is made. What’s really needed is a new party – open to anyone regardless of ethnicity – that is prepared to dissect so much of the nonsense talked about immigration. Britain is the absolute example of what not to do (even many established New Commonwealth Immigrants have had enough) but New Zealand is following suit because – as always – where Britain goes New Zealand goes.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:23 am
If you look at what else the author has written (click his name on the http://www.guardian.co.uk site ) nearly every story is anti something , i.e. no solutions, just ‘read me’ headlines that help pay his salary. My thougts are.. people need to eat, cows feed people, they burp and fart methane so get over it people, better to eat than not.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:25 am
Excelent article; we aren’t green, NZ isn’t green.. everything has to start with the right attitude. How many time do we see people tossing their rubbish out of car window? Farmers are dumping tons and tons of fertiliser on their lands to create run off onto our rivers. Govt is still allowing crap old used diesel 4×4s to be imported into NZ. c’mon get real…
November 13th, 2009 at 9:28 am
Malcolm said What’s really needed is a new party – open to anyone regardless of ethnicity – that is prepared to dissect so much of the nonsense talked about immigration.
Isn’t that NZ First? And they got labelled as xenophobic by popular media.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:29 am
Emissions are a world wide issue…
Lets take a hypothetical situation…
A small country ‘contracts’ to the would to refine all the iron or…Monarco for example.
Now Monaco has the highest green house out put per sq km and per head.. while china improves..yet the ‘world wide’ out put remains the same. Should the consumers..rest of the world pay for the green house gas or Monaco?
Now apply to the dairy industry…
Just because NZ produces milk on behalf of the rest of the world we take the flack???
This leaves basically only a couple alternatives
1/ We send all our animals to Monaco to produce on our behalf, and side step the issue
2/ Copenhagen decides milk and beef will become illegal substances…
Then there is the issue of coal…yep coal fired generators are not good, but to keep our clean Green image and resource consent BS hydro /wind have been knocked back because of damage to the enviroment….like Manapuriri was huge mistake???
The soln is dump coal fire generators the simply export even more coal to China for them to burn…sounds like an excellent soln to green house emissions/clean green image. Logical soln to world green house emissions….yeah right.
Take the dairy/agriculture/food out of our green house equation…
It doesnt mean we cant improve in this area with grass types…
but bottom line our real addition to world wide green house is our transport and many industries that need to be revamped.
The main base cause of green house is humans…their consumption….
WE want to tax cows for flatulence, and research how to decrease this.
On the other hand we dont count human flatulence, we do not research how to decrease this….which is simple…
Ban all junk food…which will also takeaway (no pun intended) the green house emissions that produced by making edible products with little or no nutritional value.
The whole base logic of approaching the green house issues is twisted all wrong.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:41 am
Build a nuclear power generator… cleanest form of enery generation. It will solve the problem of buring coal, gas and stop the destruction of the land for dams. But in this country we aren’t even allow to discuss this option in public! And before everyone else jumping in Yes we can recycle and dispose the waste safely…
November 13th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Kiwis seem to love self flagellation and mea culpas,stuff the pommie comments ,we should not move an inch or buckle to negative comments,we know what is right and not right why are we still doffing our hats to losers,and people who want to denigrate us.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:46 am
Roger Thopmpson: Black and white aren’t useful debating colours in a techni-colour world. Please read my comment again. It included conditional terms that were intended to allow for the many businesses who are not ticket-clipping would-be monopolists….like Navman or Software of Excellence and many others…though those are examples of Kiwi busiensses now foreign-owned. The point was: too many are faux-entrepreneurs.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:46 am
Kate – the problem with NZ First (in my view) is that they were poorly researched and, when they had the opportunity to deliver some influence, they chose not to. In many respects they stuck me as being a bit like the UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party) – an ‘establishment safety valve’.
Right now I see Britain circa 1970s in New Zealand – with fringe groups like The National Front. Ultimately this could give way to something like the BNP (British National Party) that is terrifying the establishment. Interestingly, the BNP may soon be forced to admit non-white members which may destroy them, on the other hand it may turn them into a real threat to the established order. If only some they could recognise that many a patriotic Indian or Afro-Caribbean Pom is worth 10 of the sneering white establishment – that has just sold our sovereignty to the illumanists of the EU. My own family bridges Britain’s ethnic ‘divide’ in complex ways – so the BNP is a worry but what they are saying resonates with large numbers of Poms. The truth, of course, is that Britain should never have got into this predicament because the Conservative Party should have responded to reasonable concerns over immigration in the 1960s. However, they are now just another ‘establishment’ party – just like National.
The critical thing for New Zealand is to avoid the mistakes of Britain and the sort of unpleasantness that is being – in my view – deliberately fermented by the establishment in order to create a pretext for a much more authoritarian future.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:57 am
I agree, Malcolm, globalisation as an ideology is indeed a pretext to a much more authoritarian future. But, the free flow of capital across boarders has been more pernicious than the (less than) free flow of people.
That is not a pro-immigration stance. We need to measure our societal progress based on a much different formula than GDP. And the question of immigration should be framed based on the carrying capacity of the environment of any particular nation.
This includes our built environment – for example, adequate sewerage and stormwater runoff systems should precede development.
November 13th, 2009 at 10:03 am
@Jill, so you are saying NZ has no need to develop a little reflexivity. The article has a point or three IMO. The world has moved on and I do not think NZ can honestly trade on its clean green image. It was always a load of spin premised upon America as a benchmark.
November 13th, 2009 at 10:03 am
Hmmmm – much as we all love to bash NZ to death on this site i think in this case we need to stand up for ourselves. There is quite a lot of disingenous spin in this article and a number of outright wrong figures. For starters NZ generates ~ 75% of its electricity form renewable sources (Hydro, Geothermal and a smidgeon of wind). As for “filthy, brown, coal”, We don’t burn brown coal (lignite) in any of our power stations – there’s buckets under the ground but so far we have responsibly left it there. And Huntly, our only significant coal power station has been used so little recently that Contact are thinking of mothballing it. A renewables content of 75% is ~twice the best European nations (Germany and Spain both have ~30% wind) and unlike the wind based systems we do not need thermal rolling reserves in a neighbouring country to back-up our system up. Unfortunately, because we were dojng all this before 1991 Kyoto doesn’t give us any credit for it (This is clearly nuts but the NZ negotiators in 1999 clearly weren’t the sharpest tools in the box).
The author states, “missions of greenhouse gases up by 22%, or a whopping 39% if you look at emissions from fuel burning alone.”. This is plain wrong. The 2 primary causes of NZ’s increased emissions since 1991 are deforestation and dairy farm conversions. Agriculture is currently credited with ~40% of total CO2 equivalent emissions (mainly cow related) whilst the kyoto protocol also penalises you for every tree you cut down – this is a double-whammy when global economics encourages the clear felling of large chunks of plantation forestry so they can put cows on it.
To be honest Steptoe has a point, the world needs to decide whether it wants milk and beef or not. If not then fine, ban them both, sink old aotearoa and be done with it. If actually we would quite like to keep our dairy and beef thank you very much, then we need to accept that cows burp and fart like everything else and it is TOTALLY unavoidable. Why on earth these biogenic sourecs of methane are included in GG accounting I still don’t understand….
Incidentally the guardian today also notes that the UK hasn’t got a snowballs chance of meeting its own GG targets; http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/12/britain-renewable-energy-targets-impossible
November 13th, 2009 at 10:10 am
To be honest Steptoe has a point, the world needs to decide whether it wants milk and beef or not. If not then fine, ban them both, sink old aotearoa and be done with it. If actually we would quite like to keep our dairy and beef thank you very much, then we need to accept that cows burp and fart like everything else and it is TOTALLY unavoidable. Why on earth these biogenic sourecs of methane are included in GG accounting I still don’t understand….
Damn good points both Steps and ChrisB.
November 13th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Do you know this? Watch it please!
http://media.causes.com/510213?p_id=23784393
November 13th, 2009 at 10:28 am
One of the problems of Kyoto is that it take no account of population growth.
NZ 1990 3.4m 2008 4.3m growth 26%
Emission growth 22% ie decline per person
UK 1990 57.4m 2009 61.1m growth 6%
The fuel use for electricity production is very variable.
CO2 emission for gas use in 1990 was 2979 units, 1991 3638, 2007 4330, 2008 3690.
2007 is 45% up on 1990 but 2008 is flat against 1991.
You can pick your year to make your argument!
November 13th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Does the journalist of this article propose a resonable solution for New Zealand and the world in relation to NZs “environmentally degrading” dairy farming practices and climate change? Agriculture is evolving , environmental solutions are being sought, however we live in a country with an economic model that supports productivity.
I’m a dairy farmer, on a family farm, and support much of Bernard Hickeys illumination of the negative impacts of “corporate” farming. Corporate dairy farming in conjunction with NZs fiscal monetary policies has not only inflated land prices beyound productive value, it is having a massive impact on rural communities in the sense that communnities are more transitory nowdays, which has eroded community spirit, which in my mind is significant although I suspect wouldn’t concern the average hot shot Aucklander!
As to their impact on environmental and hydro degredation, how well validated is this? Has the monitoring being thourgh enough, and too an acceptable scientific standard, to say that dairy farming in general is degrading all our waterways. If so can someone provide the audited publications that prove this, as I don’t think our regional authority has channelled much of our rates contribution into research. I definetly accept mobile nutrients not utilised by grass would make their way into ground water, but suspect the intensity and process would vary between catchments depending on soil and geological sub surface properties.
As a farmer I’m acutley aware that I’m considered to be polluting waterways because I read the papers, watch the news and read this blog.However this has only gained tractionin the last 10 years. So I’m catching up and fencing off and planting wetlands in the hope that the biological subsurface curtain may act to filter out some excess subsurface nutrient derived from my farming activities before it reaches surface waterways (because this is where all subsurface water must eveventually end up right?).
So what is the solution, adopt more Northern Hemisphere practices. Give up farming (what i know), plant trees, and look for somethig else to support the family. It does weigh heavy, however at the end of the day I suspect the average overweight greedy European (Fonterra mainly suppliers ingrediants to other manufacturers, the average american or european or asian wouldn’t have a clue where the milk comes from,in the dairy product they are consuming) or Aucklander, is going to continue consuming milk products as long as they can so what’s the point worrying.
Climate Change is much bigger than NZ dairy farming practices.
November 13th, 2009 at 10:31 am
This is all a big media beat up leading up to Copenhagen. The pro Gore types are now on the back foot because the lead up talks have not been going very well for them so guys like this journalist have turn up the heat. The Guardian has been very pro on the Climate Change debate so this sort of article is no surprise.
Declaration : I’m all for looking after the enviroment and NZ has some things to do BUT I’m totally against the ETS and all the carbon trading / offset cr…p. Its only going to make Wall St richer and the rest of us more like serfs than we already are.
November 13th, 2009 at 10:31 am
Or this one?
http://thegrafboys.org/movies/preview.html
November 13th, 2009 at 10:33 am
I’ve not really got time to get involved in this interesting debate, but given the topic, if anyone can help with the global temperature change questions I was asking here I’d be good, thanks.
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/07/31/opinion-nz-needs-to-watch-australian-carbon-tax-moves/#comment-31352
November 13th, 2009 at 10:40 am
Good points BUT (imho) if we count the emmissions from agriculture against those who ultimately consume the output, then we should count against NZ all the manufactured crap that we import. I don’t think we are hit with the emmissions from the coal fired power stations in China and elsewhere (for example) that produce all of our plastic electronic goodies. Nor are we hit with the emmissions from the coal fired power stations in Japan that power the factories which make our cars.
The fact is that Kiwis live lives which are carbon intensive. We live in poorly insulated houses, drive cheap cars long distances, eat food not grown locally and import most of our manufactured goods.
And our farmers pollute our waterways.
November 13th, 2009 at 10:44 am
I think the figure of 22% is wrong. The Dept of Economic Dev report for 2008 put the increase for 1990 – 2007 as 18.3%.
http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/MultipageDocumentTOC____41212.aspx page 5 of the PDF download
November 13th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Jeanette flew the coop just in time. (flatting with Helen, while she stumps around the UN gripping a clutch of CV’s) Of course the Clean-Green thing was a marketing exercise built on a foundation of recyclable pamphlets and biodegradable condoms. The EU and US are both under fire from their farming lobbyists. So until we find a way to turn milk into petroleum we will always be the tail of the dog in a global puppy-mill. ETS is NZ’s tribute to the elites. Any increased costs, as a result of ETS, will find its way into our pockets. If hyperinflation is in our future, it will be driven by energy and food price increases.
November 13th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Hi Sam, I’m afraid i’m going to quibble with your pints here. You said:
“I don’t think we are hit with the emmissions from the coal fired power stations in China”
True – unfortunately one of the big failings of Kyoto is that neither is anyone else given that China is not a signatory to Kyoto.
“We live in poorly insulated houses,”
True and a major failing of the country – but as noted above these houses are primarily heated by electricity generated by primarily by renewable sources. So your house may be cold but it isn’t actually doing any more harm GG-wise than the nice warm european house with oil-fired central heating boiler.
“drive cheap cars long distances”
Very true and if you can figure out how to get christchurch and auckland closer together than that would certainly be a GG-mitigation tactic worth investigating. NZ is a long and skinny country and like the rest of the entire world we are stuck with oil-powered automobiles. Again – what precisely are we supposed to do about it?
“eat food not grown locally”
OK now you’re getting desperate. NZ’ers have one of the most locally sourced diets of any developed world. Go to a Tesco’s in the UK and you will find Israeli herbs and vegetables, NZ butter and lamb, Argentinian beef, spanish tomatoes, Danish bacon, Chilean wine, Iceland cod, mediterranean tuna etc. etc. Globalisation met the developed world’s supermarkets years ago – NZ is incredibly lucky with its home-sourced (and controlled) food supply. Don’t knock it.
My beef with Kyoto is 2-fold. (1) Its a badly written piece of non-legislation that fails to recognise fundamental limitations or reward behaviour occurring before the arbitrary 1991 cut-off and (2) it is not a true global treaty. It discriminates against the signatories in favour of large emitters outside the treaty and it has no teeth anyway. The only penalty for not paying for your CO2 credits is that you as a nation will be blocked from Kyoto II the planned post 2012 system which has now been canned so that the US and china can be brought on board – and don’t hold your breath for copenhagen to sort that out either….
November 13th, 2009 at 11:01 am
@Mark H: “Again, regulation has failed”, no, in-adequate, neutered regulation has failed us. The Pollies have failed us…the farming lobby etc have successfully hog tied the National Govn. In fact this clearly shows why Libertarian pollicies of no regulation and freedom to do with property as they want are such nonsense…Crafar farms is a classic example of just how badly a Libertarian system would fail. About all I can say is I hope the wrath of the voters comes to bite Key in the bum….he and his half wit MPs deserve every nibble. Key should be leading, but instead of doing what is most important of a Govn, protect NZ’s future he’s protecting his and his party’s…
regards
November 13th, 2009 at 11:06 am
@gingerbreadman
Nuclear is already looking dodgy in terms of its expansion capability.
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5631
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5677
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5744
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5929
November 13th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Per capita NZ is one of the dirtiest places on the planet. It is only our small population that prevents us looking like a cross between a septic tank and a rubbish dump. Fortunately there are enlightened people like the profitable family owned biodynamic Rippon vineyard near Wanaka. Lower volume, better quality and prices will save us if we all open our eyes, eat less, consume less and genuinely care for our environment. After all its in our long term self interest. We’ve been borrowing from the environment to subsidise our corpulent lifestyles for too long. Time to pay some of it back.
November 13th, 2009 at 11:16 am
The real funny thing is how these productive businesses, you know, the ones that we hear many people saying that we must support at the cost of other sectors are the ones that are doing us the most damage in the long term.
Business has the money to crush regulations. Money and mates talk, regulation does not.
People have left forestry off the list, sustainable forestry, you know the ones that destroy the soils and wash them into the streams, killing the biota etc etc. Walking around the vicinity of a looging site last night while shooting possums. Total laugh. Yet the rules are written [or not altered by industry lobbiest] so to tackle only those that can not fight for themselves, i.e. small scale developers moving a couple of hundred cubes of material around a site.
We are not over regulated in NZ, we are certainly not smartly regulated in NZ. Money talks and those “smart and successful” business people working in the productive sector should not be something that strive for more of at all costs. I am sad the RMA lost it’s way, I think it is a great concept and could have been implemented/interpreted in a entirely seperate way, however it’s weakness is that is susceptable to people complaining. The lawyers know this and have been milking
the system since 1991 and unfortunately the courts have allowed this to happen.
I would love to see an article written about the real cost of the RMA, i.e. how much public money has to be spent defending decisions just because someone does not like it, or it prevents them making lots of money. The appeals and legal budgets of Councils throughout NZ would scare the living crap out of people. I am sure the sentiment of public would change if they new the real story.
Growth is not sustainable.
November 13th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Paul, it was the courts interpretation of the RMA – the “overall broad judgement” approach – which set the precedent that has seen the legislation fail. That judgement effectively knee-capped the purpose of the Act – allowing for the ‘best paid, best lawyered’ legal money-go-round.
Under this interpretation, it has become legally permissible to buy consent.
November 13th, 2009 at 11:23 am
It’s useful to remember where the concept of emissions trading systems came from. The “market is king” ideology is firmly at the root of it. The idea was that attaching a cost to emissions would cause people to act rationally to reduce the cost of emissions by reducing the emissions themselves. The market was supposed to auto-magically fix the problem.
When the possibility of such a market actually operating became real, the same broad groups who previously advocated a market then began to sound the alarm about how such a market would fail and impose costs. Any version proposed was / is never the right one. The difference is usually naked self-interest….and no small amount of hypocrisy is in evidence.
We recently saw FedFarmers’ Frank Brenmuhl simultaneously deriding townies for expecting farmers to offer them milk at least than the fair market price while at the same time moaning that farmer exposure to a carbon market could see farmers bearing the added cost of a fair market price for emissions. A perfect example of how a market that you win in is good…and market you lose in is bad….never mind the purpose of the market itself. It highlights why the market approach was always doomed to fail: People attempt to distort and pervert markets and aren’t shy about getting their political agents / clients to do it for them.
Markets: Another ideology that has shot itself in the head in the real world.
November 13th, 2009 at 11:31 am
Fair enough Chris B, I only threw the food comment in on the basis of all the San Pelligrino bottled water I see walking out of my local supermarket. You are right, almost all of the fruit and vegies I ate when living in London seemed to be imported.
Re the poor insulation, it is damaging as the marginal unit of generation in NZ is almost always thermal (coal or gas). If we had better insulation on our housing stock, we would burn less thermal (man, we could probably retire Huntly).
Re fixing the distances, it comes back to lifestyles. The fact is that we live lifestyles (including the amount we travel) beyond the carrying capacity of the world in which we live. It will catch up with us one-day.
November 13th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Somewhere in the great scheme of things, there is a reason animals expell the gas they do, possible the same reason human beings and trees engage in the oxygen v carbon dioxide exchange.
Picking on the cows (animals) for something they do naturally and using them as a reason / excuse for a tax just does not stack up in the great scheme of things.
November 13th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Kate – I agree. You can buy a consent.
I have seen someone argue and win the right “permitted use” to land a helicopter in a residential section, even though the tail rotor is 2m from the boundary fence. Money talked and the Judge could not, or did not choose to say that it was just a dumb idea and not allow it. Legal technicalities and expensive lawyers are a dangerous mix. I fear the “law” fails us to as you do not get justice.
As for the “confusion and complication” amendment bill, I asked the panel of the MfE roadshow recently whether they actually thought that the bill would simplify or streamline anything? Answers were a hoot. So far they just play more into the hands of businessmen.
I still hope, as nieve as it is, that the second round the amendments will really front up and help fix NZ’s problems.
Another point, look who Fonterra appointed as their Director of Sustainable Production a few years ago. John Hutchings is a very smart man moving from gamekeeper to poacher, however you know who is paying his salary. He knows the “game” well and knows how to play it, certainly since he last appointment was as Aunty Helen’s advisor. Smart move Fonterra, great appointment from your shareholders point of view.
November 13th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Markets: Another ideology that has shot itself in the head in the real world.
No Steve, it’s all the collectivist forms of government that have wielded the guns. The body count of these forms of government over the 20th century was something over 160 million.
And remember this economy we have now is not a laissez faire free market, anything but: it’s a planned economy founded on (inflationary) counterfeit capital (refer Rothbard, von Mises). If we’d had sound money, not the central banking/fractional banking system, the dairy bubble ‘could not’ have occurred, thus any supposed growth beyond resources.
November 13th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Yeah, Paul, I attended one of those seminars as well. Unbelievably hiliarious chosen title for that Amendment Bill.
More Steamrolling than Streamlining.
And as for Simplifying – why oh why do successive governments place all their amendment eggs in the ‘tighten regulatory timeframes’ basket.
Although I think the RMA was full of good intention – it has been ruined by case law.
November 13th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
One of the problems is that we, humans are getting healthier, so we live longer. Live longer means we have more time to ruin the earth. So we should really promote eating more McD, KFC and save the earth.
November 13th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
There is a good reason why people speak of “The Market” as an entity. The Market likes this or doesn’t want to do something else. The Market demands such and such. WE MUST OBEY THE MARKET! The Market is just a modern name for The Beast, Satan or the Dark Side. If we leave it to the Market to decide, the World will get run like an efficient farm. We will be the produce/stock and the Market will be the farmer.
Smart sheep will be heading for the fence at the back of the farm and looking for a way out.
November 13th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Mark – I am not seeing a response from you re: regulation and the fishing industry.
When you have a minute……….
November 13th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Andy, sorry I missed the post (I do work too
)
Regarding the fisheries, yes, freedom has a price, I’ve never said it didn’t. That price may well be if irrationality presides, because it is not rational to over-fish, then we may lose some of our fisheries.
I would hope soon after we would learn the lesson, but what do I think is the most important issue regarding ‘mans’ pursuit of happiness, freedom, or the potential a fishery could be lost? I choose freedom.
November 13th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Oh dear, Mark, let the tragedy of the commons play out in the name of freedom? Sounds like another ideological burp. You’d have been better to suggest privatisation of EEZs.
November 13th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
I have to say Mark – thats very, very lame.
It seems the price of freedom is a devasted ecosystem – you can’t eat freedom, I can’t recall its absolute calorific value, but its pretty low.
On an unrelated note (and to make Mark happy) here are some astounding figures out of the UK in terms of benefit culture:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6555759/1.2-million-households-get-15000-in-benefits.html
1,200,000 people in the UK recieve benefits amounting to 15,000 pounds each a year ($35,000 a year) and of those 300,000 are recieving 20,000 pounds ($45,000).
I have often wondered how in opinion polls the Labour party in the UK still seems to have the support of 25% of the electorate (given the disaster it has inflicted). I guess there are 1.2million voters right there they can count on.
November 13th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Well, I dont think that Mr Fred Pearce from the Guardian really needs to worry too much about NZ and what we are doing, because after watching the Muslim march in London on TV recently I dont think Freddy boy will be around to see much because according to the marchers unless you are a Muslim all filthy infidels need beheading and soon they will have control of Europe and then the World. Makes a bit of smoke in the air pale into insignificance. My advice to Fred is look after your own backyard and we will look after ours.
November 13th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
@Kate: Globalisation isn’t a Govt thing, its a business/capitalist thing…generally I dont think Govns like globalisation, it removes their sovereignty and hands it to corporations…
regards
November 13th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
No, I don’t believe the price of freedom is a devastated eco-system.
The countries that have truly devastated their eco-systems have been the communist countries, because the rulers of don’t have to worry about the ‘consumer’/market.
Capitalist countries result in affluent middle classes (a phenomenon we’re losing as our economies become moribund by regulation and taxation), and middle classes choose to restrict family size, thus smaller populations, and less stress on the worlds resources. That combined with technology (such as fish farming), that save eco-systems. Lady Issac here in Christchurch is a shining example of how capitalism actually improves our environment.
Speaking of fish farming, my favourite seafood (one of them) are mussels. I wouldn’t eat the ones I see growing here in Banks Peninsula, but I love the big juicy and fleshy farmed green-lipped mussels from the Marlborough Sounds, and due to farming I believe they must be the cheapest source of good protein in the supermarkets. Neither here nor there, this last point, but a point nonetheless.
November 13th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
I wish that were the case, steven, but governments are in collusion with big business … look at Mike Moore and his appointment to the WTO – business/capitalists put him there because he was a firm ‘believer’ – and then promptly refused to cooperate, exposing his absolute and utter naivity/stupidity – call it what you like.
But, dear old Mike will never admit he was sold a pup.
A true politician – someday his ‘mates’ who betrayed him might find him another ‘big’ job.
November 13th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
@Mark H: “Regarding the fisheries, yes, freedom has a price, I’ve never said it didn’t. That price may well be if irrationality presides, because it is not rational to over-fish, then we may lose some of our fisheries.”
Unbelievable….fortunately this is a choice, instead we can regulate to protect…the other alternative, yours is by the hand of freedom we are reduced back to the stone age via starvation….
Excellent post, thanks for making the Libertarian position clear to every sane voter.
regards
November 13th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
No Steven, indeed, free markets have been proven to be the only form of economy that can feed populations. It was always the Soviet economies, and the tribal ones, where the supermarket shelves were bare.
But don’t lets facts get in the way of you advocating tyranny.
Grumblers may blame Western civilization for its materialism and may assert that it gratified nobody but a small class of rugged exploiters. But their laments cannot wipe out the facts. Millions of mothers have been made happier by the drop in infant mortality. Famines have disappeared and epidemics have been curbed.
Ludwig von Mises.
All the talk about the so-called unspeakable horror of early capitalism can be refuted by a single statistic: precisely in these years in which British capitalism developed, precisely in the age called the Industrial Revolution in England, in the years from 1760 to 1830, precisely in those years the population of England doubled.
Ludwig von Mises
November 13th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
The MED has a document of NZ energy data summaries at http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/68617/1_Energy%20Data%20File%202009LR.pdf
According to it in 2008 NZ used 147.5 Petajoules of New Zealand produced coal. Of that we exported 78.5 PJ and used 69 PJ for domestic purposes. We also imported 14.1 PJ for domestic use.
I.e. we exported an equal amount of coal to what we used.
Therefore, in dirt factor (although it is other countries doing the burning) we have two Huntlys, two NZ Steels and twice as much dairying and other commericial-related use (and non-commercial e.g. heating schools).
And with Pike river mostly being for export we will soon be getting even dirtier.
November 13th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Mark – if you think fish farming is inevitably environmentally sound I think you need to do a tad more research. One small example – salmon farming. The salmon are typically fed on high energy pellets typically made from – you guessed it – fishmeal. That would be from fish caught elsewhere from some unsustainable fishery (in the UK for example sand eel populations have been devasted to feed the demands of the Scottish and Scandinavian salmon farms. As sandeels are a principle food for a range of other commercial pelagic species, I think even you can see what knock-on effects that has). You might then also peruse some studies on the impacts of pesticides used to treat the salmon (to rid them of nasties such as sea lice) and the local impacts of fouling caused by having huge numbers of penned fish in a small area.
Granted mussel farming is probably much more environmentally neutral (but thats because bivalves are further down the food chain and filter feed).
November 13th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
One example does not a total make, Andy. Speak to my important assertion: free markets are the only markets that have been able to feed populations, provably.
November 13th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Am chugging my way slowly through Chris Martenson’s ” Crash Course “. Any opinions on the guy and his ideas ? He seems to believe that the USA has a debt problem , weirdo ???
November 13th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Mark – your thesis should be: free markets in resource unconstrained situations have thusfar outperformed command economies.
Unfortunately that is backward (historical based) analysis. It tells us nothing about what happens when resource unconstrained becomes resource constrained, which is the nub of the problem.
Oh I forgot – as yet undefined science and technology then magically jumps in and mysteriously there is no longer a problem.
November 13th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Just a little side thought
When was the last time any of you in NZ, drank milk that has not been reconstituted from powder?
Surprised?
How much energy has been used to dry the milk out, then re mixed before we get it to our fridge?
How does the green house gases used to produce this energy compare with our cow flatulence?
How is the couple of small independent milk produces in NZ manage to sell un reconstituted milk quite a bit more cheaper than the crap stuff?
If a farmer dug a big hole . filled it with water and let the alga make it go green…real green…would he get a credit instead of planting a tree? yet he has recovered more greenhouse gases than planting a tree…and get bolled by some idiot desk jockey for pollution.
Some above there is a comment alone the lines “cant look at things black and white in a Technicolour world…that BS, an cop out.
Be it a bank robber or a kid stealing a stick of gum…its still theft.
Everything is still as simple as it was in the stone age, we just kid ourselves we have evolved and are better than then…egotist BS.
When things are going wrong, cant fix…theres only 1 soln , go back to basics, ignore the Technicolour (red herrings)..works every time.
November 13th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
as yet undefined science and technology then magically jumps in and mysteriously there is no longer a problem.
Just as mans ingenuity has solved the West’s major problems up until now, and our level of knowledge continues to increase apace. And nothing ‘mysterious’ about it, it’s science and technology, Andy, albeit such science does seem magical, I know, to stone age thinking that can’t get past, oh, only finite about of oil, must ration, but then has no bridge for how to advance increasing populations after that.
Which brings me nicely to, what is your solution Andy? We have rising populations: so, how do you propose to feed, cloth and shelter them by rationing?
Laissez faire, and the innovation and entrepreneurship that rises from laissez faire can, as open markets have always done, not only provides the essentials, but increase standards of living as well.
free markets in resource unconstrained situations have thusfar outperformed command economies
Cop out. Listen to the doomsayers in here: resources have always been constrained. How come Western mans standard of living increased after oil from whale blubber ran out (up until then, such oil was the sole provider of light for Victorian man. Think of all the claims of peak whale oil there must have been then when the last whaling ships were being built, yet, here we are with plasma TV’s and home cinemas. And I’m going whale watching in a couple of weeks ….
November 13th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
I could mention something about the Industrial Revolution, England and the irony of air quality in London circa 1830 given that this debate is about pollution…..
November 13th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Yes, my immediate thought was thinking back to 1990 and how much smaller we were then. As NevilleWC has posted:
NZ 1990 3.4m 2008 4.3m growth 26%
Emission growth 22% ie decline per person.
We also must own almost twice as many cars per capita since 1990 when protectionism was removed and second hand imports started to flood the land.
Not that I’m under any illusions about the clean & green logo, we all know it’s down to lack of population density. But then I don’t think coke is “it” either.
I’m also doubtful as to whether CO2 is in fact unlean, however I am concerned about the waterways, litter thrown out of car windows, and I’d like a few more small native forest reserves close to civilisation and not up mountains.
November 13th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Mark – yet you freely confess to be clueless about science and technology?
So you are relying on something that you are accept you are clueless about to save you?
That’s not an intellectual viewpoint, that’s a religion.
November 13th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
… and where do you think, Ray, you would be if the industrial revolution has not occurred? Were you a fan of indentured feudalism?
November 13th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Andy, I’ve never said I’m clueless about science and technology, I don’t consider myself a dumb man at all. I just said that I’m not a scientist. But your argument seems to be getting bit lean now, I have to say. Would you have no belief in the benefits of science, just because you were not a scientist?
And you’ve now sidestepped, completely, my question. I’ll repeat: ‘We have rising populations: so, how do you propose to feed, cloth and shelter them by rationing?’
And really, as a Lib/Objectivist I am an atheist – thus the last person in here you can accuse of religion.
But my question please.
November 13th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
And with that, I’ve quite ably made my point. Switching a line across my timesheet and going back to work now.
November 13th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
I taken back by the self depreciating point of view expressed by many on this blog, don’t be so negative and naive, yes we can work on our environmental policies like all countries.
The English element of this countries culture unfortunately and ironically showing.
In relative terms we are not half as bad as this guy suggests compared to other countries. There are more aspects to an environmental score card than mentioned.
It is a balance, we as a country have pursued our comparative advantages as a country to economically survive in a world which does not play fair.
New Zealand is often knocked in the U.K media however their own situation is far from enviable.
Often the motive is to knock our competitiveness i.e lamb access, competitor PR etc etc. Its a fact environmental arguments are used in marketing, work in the industry and know the key players pushing the agenda, wise up New Zealand!!
You guys need to travel more and form a more holistic and balance opinion to this crap.
November 13th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Rather spending billions of dollars for carbon credits, I wonder if we shouldn’t spend the money on planting all of our fencelines with trees- and trees on the southern side of all of our roads etc. Then put solar water heaters on every home and business in NZ. Then hire an army of high school, Uni and Politech kids to visit every home and business in NZ to do all of the simple energy saving stuff- fix leaky taps, wrap hot water cylinders and hot water pipes- energy efficient bulbs- turn down thermostat on HW cylinder, put in draft stops etc. If there is any money left over, spend it on solar energy and wind farms. If we dropped the price of public transport to say 50 cents on any city bus and a few dollars for trips between cities, we would save a fortune on imported fuel- have uncongested roads and we wouldn’t have to spend so much on new roads.
November 13th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
@ alex 2.37pm
Total vehicle kilometres travelled (VKT) on New Zealand roads has increased by 12 per cent since 2001 and approximately 55 per cent since 1990. Figure 1 shows a steady year-on-year increase since 1992, with the exception of 2006. This continues a long-term trend of increasing VKT on New Zealand roads – between 1980 and 2000 it more than doubled (Ministry for the Environment, 2007).
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/environmental-reporting/report-cards/transport/2009/index.html
November 13th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Didn’t have to look far…
Actually when you take into account afforestation (allowed for in Kyoto) NZ is met its target for 2008.
Over 50% of NZ’s emissions are agricultural. These are tradeable goods that New Zealand is one of the most efficient (low emissions) producer of in the world (certainly lower than Europe). If NZ were to cut these, the dairy, lamb etc would be produced elsewhere at higher emissions rates…
New Zealand does not subsidise its agricultural emmiters, unlike Europe and the US. They produce the amount they produce because of comparative advantage.
This article has been written by a very poorly informed person or is it PR spin for another purpose??
November 13th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
More lefty liberal self flaggelation by Bernard, as steps points out you have to look at the global context, We have 1 coal powered power station, 1 gas powered and most of our dairy is exported
Neven
November 13th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
I reckon the greatest cause of our carbon footprint is the bloody aussie possums we have to deal with and so Rudd should be sent the bill for most of the damage.
November 13th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Mark – I have a long list of potential solutions, both on a NZ and a global scale.
And I know without a shadow of a doubt you would see every single one as being coercive and impinging on your freedom. Ergo its not really worth running them by you is it?
With extremist doctrine and the practitioneers thereof, one very rapidly established what is and what isn’t worth putting effort into
.
Re; the clueless science comment – yes possibly a bit harsh but a kee jerk reaction of mine to those prepared to espouse (even for a minute) engineering solutions consisting of vertical pipes kilometers long spewing sulphuric acid down on to us as a potential solution to AGW.
November 13th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Since both National and Labour are dead keen on having a property ponzi economy and knowing they both plan to pork immigration to the hilt, it’s no surprise the carbon E output will rise. I’m off to get some wood to get the fire going.
November 13th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
We already know, Andy, that particular report I was relying on was debunked. Probably devised over that beer you’re buying me. (Although I’ve still not read the actual debunking).
… and you’ve still side-stepped my question.
November 14th, 2009 at 8:32 am
Something to consider is that the English have some glaring hypocrisies when it comes to their earnest concern for all things green and fluffy. I lived there from 87-94. I think it stems from the guilt resulting from the utter destruction of any gathering of trees over 5 feet tall in groups of three or more. There are some old forests left but they’re very small. Then there’s the concern for animals. Anything larger than a badger is long gone and the badgers are only popular with Blue Peter watchers and people that don’t farm. They make up for this by lavishing attention on their pets, which they lock in small terraced houses for 23 hours a day. Their farmers are subsidised to allow them to leave the majority of their lands lie fallow instead of being productive.
November 14th, 2009 at 9:12 am
Fred Pearce would do better to measure the plutonium in the beach sands along the eastern shore of the Irish Sea and research the cancer deaths in the populations along the same coast. He is just pissed at having to live in a country in terminal decline. How he manages to swallow his cup of tea each morning, knowing the water has passed through several others before getting to him, is a mystery.
November 14th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Dave Smyth – Remember, we Poms never asked to have our ‘green and pleasant’ land destroyed. The ruin of our country has been a deliberate and calculated act and, not wishing to alarm you, every folly cynically pursued by Britain’s establishment is being replicated here. The simple fact is that we led – and you are following. Study Britain well dear bloggers, because unless you are willing to do something to avoid that country’s fate, she is a vision of your future.
November 14th, 2009 at 10:16 am
Alex Says:
“We also must own almost twice as many cars per capita since 1990 when protectionism was removed and second hand imports started to flood the land.”
I wounder about if the stats of cars per person really means anything or relates at all.
It is my understanding..commonsence really, a person Can only drive 1 car at a time…
It is also my understanding Kiwi s own more ‘collector’ cars, Hot Rods/vintage/classic than most other countries …many in large public and private collections.
How the use and nature of company cars is distrubuted….
ie overseas the practice of a car pool rather than individual employees having the use is greater….
And the use of company cars for private use…where the employee used their private car on the weekends.
It still boils down a person can only drive 1 car at a time.
As a Stat cars per capita is a useless stat to relate to pollution.
A far better stat would be mileage per person per yr.
People should think about how a stat is derived…think it thru with a bit of commonsense, before applying to an application….
And as a side note…ACC levies on car registration…car collectors pay a far greater proportion than they should…thu to put in balance do get a lower base regist free.
November 14th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Here here Malcolm.
I love living here in NZ; and I’ve lived-worked-been to 40-50 places around the world. So I feel I have a fair idea of what I like and the ‘good and bad’ of a country.
So lets be honest, NZ creates enormous pollution per capita; probably in the top 5 in the world. But thankfully what saves her (so far) is the incredibly LOW density of population.
Although the people here are genuinely keen for a clean country, the politicians are all to happy to let industry have a free rein. And the UK (and many other countries) will show you exactly what happens in the end, via that route.
Intensive farming will ruin the soil and create more damage to the world via ‘green house gasses’ (methane is many many times worse than CO2). In fact NZ farming creates more green house gasses than the whole of the UK !!!!!!. If that doesn’t worry people I fail to see what will ever get the average Kiwi to sit up and take notice.
The Government even subsidizes farming. So we pay higher taxes, to help farmers ruin our country (yes I’m a citizen) and destroy our ‘clean green image’ and slowly but surely ruin our world reputation as a clean country.
Sadly (as the saying goes) we all get the Government we deserve. Thankfully it’ll take a long while to ruin NZ.
What a real pity !!!!!
November 14th, 2009 at 10:35 am
Dave Smyth – while I can understand some of your sentiment the ‘anything larger than a badger’ is a tad misleading. Various deer species (including the rather large red deer) are flourishing – so much so that even in the south of England farmers are asking for culls to protect crops. Boar populations have re-established themselves in some woodlands and beaver are being re-introduced in the north of the country.
Interestingly the percentage of woodland cover in England has increased from 5% or so in the 1920’s to something over 8% in 2001 (I believe its now over 10%)
https://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/evaluation/forestry/4.pdf
So the Poms are not quite as bad as all that with their environment – although the crazy immigration policies of the last 12 years are likely to put extreme pressure on the countryside there.
November 14th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Step – my link at 3.09 yesterday gives you all the answers (and then sum)
“New Zealand had the second highest VKT per person within the OECD, ranking us 29th out of 30 (figure 4). Each New Zealander averaged 11,200 kilometres of travel over the year”"
November 14th, 2009 at 10:59 am
That’s why we need to be the first country to go to all electric vehicles NWC.
November 14th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Wally – Agreed
I’m just waiting for some regulation that says they are too dangerous for NZ roads!
November 14th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Electric vehicles = Fantastic technology. And they are coming (probably 2-3 years to hit NZ though). BUT they have a few drawbacks when applied to NZ driving habits. Like the fact that they can only do max 150kms on a charge and then you have to wait 1-2hours for them to recharge before you can go any further. That’s quite a long smoko on your way from Tauranga to Auckland…
And before anyone suggests that the market will drive technology fixes for the charging problem, let me just say that this is going to take time. Its a really tricky problem.
November 14th, 2009 at 11:43 am
Kevin said,
“In fact NZ farming creates more green house gasses than the whole of the UK !!!!!!.”
Oh for goodness sake, if you’re going to use 6 exclamation marks you could at least look up the data first.
CO2equivalent emissions (2007)
UK – 564.02 million tonnes (1.89% total global emissions)
NZ – 39.2 million tonnes (0.13% total global emissions)
Data from
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/datablog/2009/oct/22/carbon-emissions-data-country-world
From the original Guardian source <a href="
November 14th, 2009 at 11:46 am
The interim answer will be plug in hybrids. Most trips are under 30-40km so a charge that covers that would be a good start. My guess is that batteries will develop like cell phone batteries. The replacement battery for my first cell phone was twice as good as the original.
NZ is good for EPVs because most of us live in houses with garages (for charging). One of the problems overseas is many people park on the street, thus making recharging a problem.
November 14th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Once EV production gets up and going hybrids are going to be a lot more expensive than a pure EV as they require 2 entire separate-but-linked drive systems. But for regular long distance drivers you are right – they are the obvious solution and they will just ahve to wear the petrol costs.
The 30-40km average trip distance is often quoted for Europe and US. I don’t know about NZ’ers – as I said i suspect it is quite a bit longer although I admit your numbers suggest it might not be a million miles out (11,200/365 = 30kms if NZers travel every day of the year).
Incidentally if the NZ car fleet goes completely electric the country is going to require between 4-8GW extra power capacity to power the cars. That’s an extra 50-100% generation over current total grid capacity. For the utility companies to have achance of doing that quick smart the RMA process is going to have to get junked pronto. Oh and Transpower will need their finger out too – the lines won’t take that much power currently either….
Interesting times are ahead….
November 14th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
I was living in South Australia during the period in which the British government was dragged , kicking and screaming , to pay for the clean-up of Maralinga , in the state’s far north . They had hoped the 1950’s atomic bomb tests were either forgotten , or just not their problem . Luckily the Aussie’s showed enormous tenacity over the issue . 40 years later , the radioactive material was processed , or just buried deeper . Very clean & green , our English cousies .
November 14th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/3062180/Pure-conflict/
Bugger!
November 14th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
What about the 1080 poison? This issue alone has blown N.Z’s clean and green image. We are a disgrace and an embarrassment.
November 14th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Without 1080 , the survival rate of Kiwi chicks in the wild , is 3 % . Ban 1080 , and you sign the Kiwi to extinction . Is that what you want ?
November 14th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Chris_B
As I understand the current economics, the cost of the extra batteries to get the extra 100km, are far more costly than the extra engine.
There is also the cost (in $ and energy terms) of lugging all those extra batteries around on those 10 – 20km trips so they are available for that occasional longer trip.
Toyota is testing Plugin Prius that have a battery range of 15-20km. Their reasoning for such a low range is that almost all trips will fully use the battery charge, so the car purchaser gets the full benefit of the extra cost.
I think there are also problem on actually producing large volumes of batteries. The Prius production is limited by the number of batteries Toyota can produce and that a lot less than a electic car needs.
Of course, as batteries develop, the balance of the economics will change in favour of more batteries.
November 14th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Roger – Interesting to reflect, that from the very early days of ‘nuclear’ the potential to use Thorium instead of Uranium was understood in terms of potential power generation. The problem, as I understand it, is that a Thorium cycle lacks the potential to produce weapons grade plutonium. Moreover, perhaps someone can correct me. Wasn’t one of the reasons we expelled the resident population of Diego Garcia (a British territory) so that Uncle Sam could have his B52 bomber base – with Britain getting a discount on the Polaris ballistic missile system in exchange? As with most things concerning post war Britain, Enoch Powell was right:-
“We are under no necessity to participate in the American nightmare of a Soviet monster barely held at bay in all quarters of the globe by an inconceivable nuclear armament and by political intervention everywhere from Poland to Cambodia. It is the Americans who need us in order to act out their crazy scenario’…’We simply do not need to go chasing up and down after the vagaries of the next ignoramus to become President of the United States”.
November 14th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
I wonder how much green house gases are use to produce the hybrids/electric cars, and to maintain them?
And relate this to their length of life, total milage before ‘recycling’
And how they compair to recycling std cars….keeping in mind most cars now are near fully recyclable.?
Is it a matter of spending a pound to save a penny?
November 14th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Steps : Funny you should ask that . A chap at Goldmoney Sacks told me that a comparison was made between the Hummer ( gas guzzling monster ) and the Toyota Prius ( lovelly , clean & green ) . Over an equal life-span of the two vehicles , the construction plus ongoing running , the environmental impact ( carbon ” footprint ” , etc ) , the Prius is worse than the Hummer . Don’t bother telling the ” Greens ” , they won’t believe you , even if it has been proven .
November 14th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
If one looks carefuly at the PR for 100%pure with regards to Tourism the images are always of places like Fiordland, which probably are close to 100% Pure. Any kiwi or intending tourist with a smidgen of intelligence knows that there is no such thing as an entire country that is 100% Pure. Any stat based on per head will invariably see us near the bottom of the table due to our small population size. Any time any country uses a slogan such as 100% Pure it should expect to take some flak from time to time.
A couple of years ago we had a bunch of late 20s/early 30s UK friends come over. The lasting impression of the negative kind, they left with, was of being on a North Island east coast beach and seeing sewerage going straight in to the sea. This formed a more lasting negative impression of the country than any cow farting.
Somehow any council breach of consents are always hushed up or considered less worthy of reporting than farming breaches. So long as the council are ‘in the process of rectifying the breach/process that caused it’ it is ok. Maybe Bernard could start an in depth piece of just which councils have received a let off for breaches of consents from Environment Councils.
I have recently returned from a lengthy visit to the UK and my 30something friends while aware of the Crafar incident, did not take it as an indictment of the dairy industry as a whole. Their attitude was that where ever you have humans in charge of animals there will always be some who do not treat them right. Some of my friends have worked in NZ and are aware of how the majority of farmers farm, so do not think any worse of NZ, or NZ farming. Of much greater concern to them is living in a country where the economic reality is looking bleaker every week.
November 14th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Why I question is, if it was lower surely there would be far more propaganda, sry mean marketing along those lines…instead it just seems to buried away…
I also wonder if making a car like my 3385Lb 350ci , today, no electric windows , cup holders, computers or led lights ( a headlight cost $15) ….made to last decades, compared to making 4 eco cars that last 10yrs.
And simply changing fuel type, I get better economy, more power, and less emissions than the modern computer controlled , multi cam ed, multi valved, turbo ed, miles more of copper wire, tube sensors, fuel injected 25% smaller engine equivalent.
And Maintenance and parts cost way less
Things just do not add up…
Take the radiator, solid brass and way over built..lifetime 25/30 yrs, and to recycle just throw into the vat to melt down…and it costs far less to air freight a new on in from the ‘States
A modern radiator, costs more to replace, lasts 7 to 10 yrs if lucky, and to recycle made of Aluminium, steel, rubber and plastic…not 100% recyclable.
“Don’t bother telling the ” Greens ” , they won’t believe you , even if it has been proven .”
Yeah they are like economists…only use the stats and facts that fit their arguement…
Make the facts fit the augment rather than look at the facts and then produce the point of view.
November 14th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Great post Casual observer, as a dairy farmer it’s relieving to know we are not considered villians who disregard the environment, world over. There is some harsh criticism of dairy farming on this blog, and although I don’t want to shirk reasonable envronmental expectations or responibilities, I suspect most of the damning critcism of the dairy industry is being driven by poorly informed sources with a good dose of emotive manipulation.
I understand Bernard Hickey grew up on a farm, but I wonder if he considers the media pollution emited by journalists as being a serious issue along with air and water pollution from dairy farming. I acknowledge dairy farming must be having a negative impact on the environment, and there is pressure for farmers to meet non-farming expectations. What are your sources to claim that dairy farming in general is having a massive negative impact on our waterways Bernard. Are they scientifically peer reviewed, free of cloudy emotion and agenda? Do you think more work needs to be done to understand the processes behind water degradation attributed to dairy farming? Are there any other industries having a significant impact on our water ways?
I look foward to ever evoloving rational solutions in protecting and enhancing our water and atmosphere. I also realise where there are humans, there is impact on the environment, how can NZ be 100% clean and green. However what countries have better environmental stweardship (and agricultural practices), and what can we learn off them?
November 14th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
I think Splash’s post contains many questions that require answers, Bernard. Given how important the dairy industry is to us all, it will be great to get some balance.
(I hope you stay around Splash).
November 14th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Oh heavens – the local research/evidence regarding the effects of argicultural intensification of dairying is overwhelming and yes, there are volumes of peer reviewed studies, countless Council investigations, Ministry for the Environment State of the Environment reporting, Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment research and reports, and a massive amount of academic consideration of the topic.
But perhps the best evidence for such an unbeliever like you, Mark – would be to take a dive into the Waikato River and see what happens.
By no means are dairy farmers the only polluters of our waterways – and I concur with the above, that many, many Council’s around NZ have spillage and overflow that breaches their consent conditions regarding waste water/sewerage discharge.
But to say “we need proof” that dairy farming is a major contributor to our freshwater water quality problems is just plain stupid.
November 14th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Kate, forgive me for being stupid, but as you seem to know could you please list a sample of the ‘volumes’ of peer reviewed work. I don’t deny dairying has an impact, I was just wondering if anyone has the courage or conviction to try and quantify it a little more clearly. Cheers in anticipation.
November 14th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
What area/region are you interested in, Splash?
Try this for example, Slide 10 Ecological Health of the Waikato;
http://www.pce.parliament.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/284/briefing_07_10_11.pdf
November 14th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Steps, here in NZ we drink fresh unreconstituted milk. Fonterra isnt dumb enough to dry it, then readd water. sorry dude.
Splash, get real please, you guys chuck on masses of urea just as it rains for godsake. Its standard policy.
As for our future as farmers, if the world cant find a whole heap more phosphate its all over rover for a lot of us. Phosphate drives NZ farming systems, it is presently too expensive for your typical sheep and beef farmer to buy. Take a look and see the yellowing grass around the country. Lets see add in oil at a $150 per barrel like it was and we are dead ducks. So mebbe we will have to plant trees and become vegetarians. Coz feeding all these sheep and cows could become very difficult soon. At a guess stocking rates are already down markedly in the hinterlands.
November 14th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Farmer Will my friend what am I trying to achieve by chucking masses of urea on just as it rains, what are the results and is it effective. Educate me please? By the way urea is going to go the way of the dinosaur if phosphate and oil are skyrocketing to unsustainable levels for NZ agriculture. Should be a win for the environment.
November 14th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Roger Thompson
Re the comparison between Hummer and Prius, the paper has been well discredited. For a start the comparison wasn’t over an equal lifetime. The average life of a Prius was estimated as around 100,000 miles while an average Hummer was 300,000 miles. This naturally makes the emissions per mile favour the Hummer even if it was 2.5 times higher.
For article and discussion:
http://priuschat.com/forums/prius-hybrid-news/30974-prius-vs-hummer-exploding-myth.html
Don’t believe everything Goldmoney Sacks tells you!!
November 14th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
This is pretty gross……
…..trailer hidden under trees that contained 17 bobby calves, most of them dead, with others in varying degrees of deterioration.
Water had been flowing swiftly under the trailer next to the Waipawa River, which is used for drinking water for the Waipawa township.
http://www.hawkesbaytoday.co.nz/local/news/farmer-fined-for-cruelty-to-calves/3906452/
November 14th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Hmmmm : Seems that Goldmoney Sacks aren’t always truthful……….Bit of a surprise that ( ha de ha ha ha ! ) .
November 14th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Only a limited intellect would think the NZ dairy industry was more important than the lives and wellbeing of our children.
The truth of the matter is that there is a global chemical imbalance, which we have created. We did so to get ‘wealthy’, and therefore have not paid the materials bill in full.
That bill is ‘per-head’, and in the countries which have had most benefit (like ours) it can be argued that there is a greater obligation. Every head makes a difference, to argue otherwise is to indulge in the immature response known as blameshifting. (The kid’s book on the subject is called: Not I, said the Little Red Hen)
I note that selfishness, greed and denial are pretty much 100% bedfellows of said blameshifting, and regard those folk with inversely commensurate respect.
Then there is the current Government proposal – and history will massacre that. This regime will go down in NZ history as out of time, moral fortitude, gumption and vision.
Muldoon would be dimpled on both sides – this is the biggest rort, the biggest taxpayer subsidy of big offshore-owned businesses, since ever.
Left or right, we should be objecting to that. Whether you are a denier or not, it simply transfers wealth without addressing the problem.
My personal opinion is that there isn’t much difference between the ETS as proposed, and the definition of fraud – a point I made to the Select Committee.
Interesting to note that when the going gets tough, the hithertofore tough are suddenly missing in action. Surely we’re a collectively better bunch than that?
November 14th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
“Steps, here in NZ we drink fresh unreconstituted milk. Fonterra isnt dumb enough to dry it, then readd water. sorry dude.”
Hmmm…I think you need to do a bit more digging there….
Or maybe find a supermarket that sells Green Valley.
Its not a matter of the big companies been stupid, its more a matter of Kiwis dont care, so long as their milk has been stripped.
And if you want dumb..those bright kiwis who think drinking stripped milk low fat in their coffee, is going to make a difference…the % difference on a splash in a cup is insignificant….
Splash Says:
“Kate, forgive me for being stupid, but as you seem to know could you please list a sample of the ‘volumes’ of peer reviewed work.”
I just love the term “peer reviewed”
Too often it is bunch of old uni m8s rubbing each other on the back…..”yeah guys thats sound about right release it” Then the desk jockeys get hold of it…and the world remains flat ….and I yr after yr ,I take endangered kakariki parrots down the back yard dig a hole and snip their heads off….
We live in a social mentality that if a person has a PhD they are treated as God and must be right…or more important, If someone has yrs of hands on experience and commonsense they have to be ignored.
Yes there are a few farmers who misuse the land for sort term gain, then move on leaving a mess behind….the cowboys. Then it is the true farmer who has to take the undeserved flak.
At this point in time farmers just happen to be fashionable to put the blinkers on and blame for everything.
November 14th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Kate
Pleased to see someone on this blog actually admit that others, other than dairy farmers have a responsibility for polluting our waterways. The problem I have is that councils are allowed to breach consents with impunity and without prosecution so long as they say they are ‘trying to rectify’ the problem. From what I see as reported in the media, farmers are not being treated on a level playing field in that regards.
I have family members that use the Waikato river on a regular basis from Spring till early winter and have done so for years without any ill effects. That is not to say that in areas other than where they use the river there may not be issues. So depending on where Mark lives he may be able to dive in to the river with no ill effects what so ever.
I was heartened to read in the link Kate that Dr Jan Wright, Parlimentary Commissioner for the Environment stated ‘I also do not want to leave you with the impression that dairying is the only land use that has impacts on the environment. Market gardening, for instance, can cause serious water quality problems.’ So there goes the incentive to go vegetarian!
November 15th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Mr twoSteps, “Peer reviewed” in the sense that a recognised watertight process is used in analysing the information. Auditing the books, wether by old uni mates or not.
November 15th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Don’t trust a group of old uni m8s . Bernie Madoff has time on his hands . Get him to audit your books .
November 15th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
They are only telling it like we have all known for many years.
Of course our “100% pure” brand is a lie.
That is not to say we have a massively degraded environment. We are better than many in the world. Yet the majority of our waterways are heavily polluted, on a per capita basis we churn out massive carbon emissions, and air quality in some of our bigger cities isn’t great.
The only reason our environment isn’t quite as bad as some other countries is our small population. Its certainly not our mentality. I would say that NZers would be one of the least environmentally conscious people in the western world.
BUT HEY WE QUALIFIED FOR THE WORLD CUP – GO YOU GOOD ALL WHITES!
November 16th, 2009 at 6:56 am
Looks like New Zealand isn’t the only one ‘trading’ on a false image.
Carbon trading ‘the next sub-prime’ – new research
Plans to expand carbon markets at UN climate talks this December could trigger a second ‘sub-prime’ style financial collapse and fail to protect the world from global warming catastrophe, a new report from Friends of the Earth warns.
The trade in carbon permits and credits, mainly based in Europe, was worth $126 billion in 2008 and is predicted to balloon to $3.1 trillion by 2020 if a global carbon market takes off.
But the majority of the trade is carried out not between polluting industries and factories covered by carbon trading schemes, but by banks and investors who profit from speculation on the carbon markets – packaging carbon credits into increasingly complex financial products similar to the ‘shadow finance’ around sub-prime mortgages which triggered the recent economic crash.
More here: http://tinyurl.com/ydvf42z
November 16th, 2009 at 7:15 am
Anyone for some carbon credit default derivative spreads with hedging!
November 16th, 2009 at 7:54 am
“Carbon trading ‘the next sub-prime’ – new research ”
I cant figure the logic behind the carbon credits in the long term…
Unless a carbon credit has a physical ‘filter’ that each time it is exchanged it pulls a few molecules out of the air..its useless
All that is going to happen is carbon credits will end up being built into the financial system and prices….
like a ACC levy on car registration or a petrol tax to pay for roads in Auckland or toll bridges as they used to be on the harbour bridge.
The simplistic original concept of carbon credits as an incentive to introduce new systems of prevention and/or reduction of green house gas had merit….in theory …
The big difference between the CCredits and other rip offs like leaded petrol and the y2k bug, is these we can look back in retrospect and say they where ripoffs
With the CC, there maybe no one to actually look back in retrospect.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:31 am
Quite right.
At the end of the day, they are a blind attempt to continue BAU, which is a denial of reality. There ain’t the real physical sink available, so it would have to be a fudge.
Same on this morning’s Morning Report – Free Trade deals rank over Copenhagen – even our best media fail to link the two with any relativity.
Don’t worry about the water creeping up the deck, folks, we’ve just reduced the price of deckchairs……
November 16th, 2009 at 8:59 am
Hi Neville,
Most of the major car manufacturers will be bringng out all EV vehicles in the next 2 years using Lithium ion technology (the current prius uses metal hydride batteries). Most have a projected range of ~100miles per charge (suspiciously round number). As i said – not enough for the long distance business driver but plenty for the school run and a trip to the supermarket.
Mitsubishi imiev – range 160km
Nissan leaf – range 160km (100miles)
Ford focus EV – range ~ 100miles
And then there’s the chinese – BYD Auto have recently recieved a massive cash injection from that well known pie-in-the-sky chaser Warren Buffett…. they claim an all battery range of 300km using Lithium iron phosphate technology (probably a rip-off of US company A123’s technology – theres a patent dispute underway….)
So the hybrid has its place, but it is by no means the pinnacle of EV technology. Which is just as well, because the oil and petrol price is only going one way, and that’s not good for a net oil importer like NZ.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:02 am
Sorry, I’m not a total luddite, should read Lithium ION technology – can’t get edit function to work…..
November 16th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Macdoctors view-”100% per Drivel” Seriously, who would believe anything The Guardian writes…..
http://www.macdoctor.co.nz/2009/11/13/100-pure-drivel/
November 20th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Nice job!! Thanks!!
Regards,
image clipping
November 20th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Chris B
We shall see. None of the cars you refer to can be bought yet.
Nissan talks about selling the ‘Leaf’ without batteries which you lease from Nissan.
The Tesla which is in production and has a range of 300 miles costs USD100,000, and is powered by 6800 lithium laptop batteries which weigh 450 Lbs.
I still think the incremental approach (start with a small range and increase the battery pack as costs decrease and batteries & infrastructure improve) Toyota is taking with plug in hybrids is more likely of market success. Building on what is already available has less risk and shorter implementation times.
Hydrogen cars have been ‘only’ ten years away since the 1980’s!