While National confirms that it will be introducing its own anti-industrial emissions trading scam within "the first hundred days of taking office" -- gee, like that's a reason to get excited about the Blue Team taking office -- Labour has reconfirmed its ban on the construction of new thermal power stations (you know, like those thermal stations on which we've relied this winter to keep the lights on) insisting that "we must rely on renewables."
Yet at the same time as insisting we "rely on renewables," they're proposing a new ban on new power stations whose construction would not be "reversible." This would, incidentally, ban the construction of any new hydro station the only reliable renewable energy source there is.
They're either stupid, or frigging stupid. What "renewables" do these bozos reckons we're going to use to keep us warm in coming winters? Wind? How on earth is that going to provide the 150MW per year of new generation this enfeebled nation needs to keep us in power? Like the corrupt "Pickens Plan" for energy in America, this answer would leave us all just blowing in the wind.
21 comments:
Islamic fundamentalists ban women from buying cucumbers--the Energy Taliban ban power stations.
Same mindset.Effing idiocy.
Yeah, but what would the women do with the cucumbers anyway? Remember they'd already be sliced and diced...
Why not read the actual paper and make informed commentary?
From page 58:
On the other hand, the policy does not suggest that, because the effects of hydro schemes are less reversible than some other forms of renewable energy, such schemes should not proceed. The policy provides an additional point of argument for wind and marine projects (in particular)
but takes nothing away from the arguments that may be marshalled to support a hydro development. It is noted that hydro schemes provide the benefits identified in Policy 1 and that
reality is unaffected by Policy 3.
We're still dependent on thermal power, yes - but the answer is not more thermal power. We have to honour the Kyoto obligations. Climate change is simply not a vast conspiracy, and it exposes a lack of investigative ability to keep claiming it is.
"We have to honour the Kyoto obligations."
Why?
"We have to honour the Kyoto obligations."
Who is the "We"?
Julian
"Climate change is simply not a vast conspiracy..."
No, of course it's not--simply a case of rank opportunism meeting...well...rank opportunism and lack of ethics.
"From p58" .. of 75 pages, entitled:
'PROPOSED NATIONAL POLICY STATEMENT FOR RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY GENERATION.
Evaluation under Section 32 of the RMA 1991.'
All on the Ministry of Environment letterhead with its cutesy logo depicting, well .. something. Safe to bet it didn't come cheap, though!
As opposed to:
LIBERTARIANZ POLICY ON ENERGY
Get out of it altogether & let people who know what to do, do it.
Not on Ministry of Environment letterhead. No Ministry, no letterhead!
Enjoy those 75 pages, Sam! :)
"Stupid"?
Peter, why are you so gentle with them? Call them what they are. Immoral. It is simply no longer possible for anyone past the age of 21 to be innocently in favor of hobbling industrial civilization for the sake of chimera.
The flaws in AGW have been so thoroughly worked over that anyone who doesn't harbor at least serious skepticism, enough to pause any plans to curtail electricity generation, isn't intellectually honest.
Don't amend the RMA, obliterate it! Then allow private enterprise to create/market viable energy supplies.
Why?
Don't you have a more thoughtful retort than that?
Carbon emissions must come down. Climatologists and other scientists have spent over a hundred years to bring the science to the table that shows action is required.
Sure, an emissions trading scheme is not the only tool for this. But it's the plan in action, and NZ is a signatory to it.
But perhaps you've got a better idea about how to enact lower CO₂ emissions globally?
Who is the "We"?
This is like arguing with a 2 year old! What a silly question. I might not agree fully with the principle of governance (I do read this site after all), but on the other hand this almost vindicates its necessity - how else would you stop complete annihilation of the biosphere?
The reality is that CO2 is a ubiquitous byproduct of human activity.
all the proposals to control carbon emissions — the Kyoto Protocol, cap and trade, carbon tax — would restrict energy supplies and that has been a consistent pattern of environmental concerns.
I don't believe the various proposed CO2 regulatory policies would have significant impact on the climate.
For example, some climate modeling calculates that even more aggressive measures than Kyoto would be needed to stay below the IPCC CO2 target threshold of 550 parts per million.
The other issue to consider is the huge potential costs of CO2 policies that can be difficult to deal with.
Most of the cost of meeting a cap on CO2 emissions would be borne by customers, who would face persistently higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline.
The Kyoto Treaty which was rejected under the Clinton administration cost as much as 4% of GDP
there is no magic energy bullet to deal with climate change and that certainly applies to wind, solar, ethanol and conservation of energy sources.
diversifying rather than restricting energy resources is the key
"Climatologists and other scientists have spent over a hundred years to bring the science to the table that shows action is required."
An awful lot of science has been 'brought to the table' to show that action is not only not required, but would be pointless in any case.
"Sure, an emissions trading scheme is not the only tool for this. But it's the plan in action, and NZ is a signatory to it."
Because it's a plan doesn't mean it's a good plan. And NZ is a signatory to it for political reason which have damn-all to do with this country having any effect at all on the level of Co2 emissions globally.
To suggest that we worry about our .002% contribution in order to "act as an example" is fatuous and dishonest. Especially while China and India are building a couple of coal-fired power stations per week.
"how else would you stop complete annihilation of the biosphere?"
Oh, bollocks! You talk about arguing with a two year-old and then talk like one. There's plenty of evidence that some global warming would be enormously beneficial.
And why don'y you get yourself a nick while you're about it? Blogs are littered with anonymous idiots--it'd be nice to be able to differentiate among them.
SamV: To add to what G amd Mo both said: You appear to be begging the very questions at issue here, while being entirely unaware that's what you're doing.
Jeff P. Yes, you're right. I'm being far too kind to the scum. I do that when I think they're reading. ;^)
An awful lot of science has been 'brought to the table' to show that action is not only not required, but would be pointless in any case.
Yes, but that science is all shonky. Find me one study that is not either shonky or yet to be discredited.
To suggest that we worry about our .002% contribution in order to "act as an example" is fatuous and dishonest.
To suggest that we don't worry about keeping our output neutral is more insincere IMHO.
There's plenty of evidence that some global warming would be enormously beneficial.
And that evidence is all shonky.
So is that what you're all going to do - stand behind shonky and discredited science while the world burns?
btw by "yet to be discredited" I actually meant "emerging".
And PC - just to confirm, you're saying that using consensus science is considered a bad premise for an argument? Interesting.
"While the world *burns*", Sam? Where? When?
"Yes, but that science is all shonky.
jesus H. Christ! A genuine born-again climate zealot!
Read all the opposing views, have you Sam? Carefully analysed them or read analyses of them by competent climatologists etc?
Climatologists whose views were touted by the IPCC but who later say they were misrepesented were "got at" by Halliburton, I suppose?
And as Sus says--"where? When?"
You're not worth arguing with, it sounds as though you're just recycling the looney views of some lefty teacher.
Read all the opposing views, have you Sam? Carefully analysed them or read analyses of them by competent climatologists etc?
The short answer is, "yes".
I have listened to every major argument, including for instance the list on Skeptical Science, and while it took some time, I slowly dug to the bottom of each argument. I even used to argue in favour of the skeptical side.
You can try to attack me on those grounds if you like - but you will lose because I have done my homework.
Just try to find a new argument that isn't on that list, or isn't in the scientific literature of the last 100 years. There aren't any. Smarter minds than any of us have all gone over this before. And contrary to popular belief, the verified study that would declare it all a false alarm would be welcomed by the scientific community.
"While the world *burns*", Sam? Where? When?
Impact skepticism has no rational basis. The IPCC 2007 AR dedicates an entire section to the impacts.
Sure, colourful statements such as "annihilation of the biosphere" and "while the world burns" are exaggerations. But you simply cannot rationally declare that the impact may be positive, when all you have to back that up is a few essays by some climate change inactivists and some discredited studies.
"hydro...the only reliable renewable energy source there is."
"What "renewables" do these bozos reckons we're going to use to keep us warm in coming winters? Wind?"
One word: Geothermal.
Seriously, if you're going to bash renewables, at least bash the right one. If you'd done your research, you'd know that it provides stable baseload capacity, is cheap and is the third largest source of electricity in NZ right now. Or, at least, you'd know that it exists!
You're not only anonymous, you're deceiving.
Geothermal currently provides around 5% of total generation capacity.
5%.
"The installed capacity of geothermal electricity generation in New Zealand is currently 450 MW," says the EECA's report on Renewable Energy says, "or about
5% of total capacity. Not all of the existing geothermal plant is fully utilised: actual production is limited to the equivalent of about 375 MW."
Seriously, if you're going to talk up renewables, at least don't take us for idiots.
"Sure, colourful statements such as "annihilation of the biosphere" and "while the world burns" are exaggerations..."
Indeed.
But the legislative overreactions to the litany of such exaggerations are all too real.
Post a Comment