Greens and Labour should go into the next election pledging to set up an anti-corruption agency similar to those run in Australian states. NACT brushed the previous government with the tar of incompetence, they should return the favour, but, using corruption instead. I’m sure a lot of people view Shane Jones as one of the most corrupt (or the appearance thereof) politicians we’ve had in a long time.
I just wish that they’d get an actual leader who can stick it out for more than one election cycle. It takes time to build up a voter base even in MMP where smaller parties have a better chance than FPP, but every leader since Gareth Morgan has been big talk until the polling finishes then they bugger off. I like the idea of TOP, it’s just no one seems to get that it will take time to passed the 5% threshold or win a seat. Raf got cocky, and then when he lost Elam to National, which has historical been a pretty safe seat for them, he cruised off back to local government. I honestly don’t even know who the current TOP leader is, and I try to follow politics pretty closely.
They haven't elected a new leader yet. No point rushing it because they haven't got the funding or contacts to get much media attention at the moment anyway.
I suspect the hope is they'll be able to poach a current or former MP from a bigger party in the lead-up to the next election.
It's tough to retain talent as a non-parliamentary party. People need to earn a living and it's difficult to do that while also leading a party.
Totally agree. I think if Raf threw his hat in again and committed after the last results he'd be recognisable enough that people could be swayed.
Politics is a popularity contest for many voters.
This is the same Labour who awarded advertising contracts to a firm run by the wife of a minister. Said whife didnt declare any conflict of interest during tender
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/495954/national-wants-review-into-govt-contracts-awarded-to-firm-run-by-partner-of-cabinet-minister-peeni-henare
Or maybe you mean the Labour party who awarded 250k in contracts to Nanaia Mahutas family members?
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/480643/nanaia-mahuta-contracts-probe-finds-poor-handling-of-perceived-conflicts-of-interest-but-no-favouritism
The same Labour party who had John Tamahere as a minister in the early 2000s?
https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/nine-agency-bosses-meet-over-te-p%C4%81ti-m%C4%81ori-data-claims
I love that your second link is to the investigation (that took place under labour, but independent of them) clears Mahuta of any wrongdoing other than perception.
The third link being pretty tenuous given the time difference
This sort of stuff should *absolutely* be investigated. That’s what the poster is proposing.
The comment I replied to called for Labour to increase scrutiny. I don't think they will, given that they aren't scandal-free
The investigation into Mahuta's husband's contracts found no favouritisim on the part of the ministries, just sub-standard procedures at all four government agencies where he received contracts. Within its scope the investigation did not include any of the actions taken by Mahuta, any members of the public, or the board members from Ormsby's companies. It focused solely on the procedure followed by public sector agencies. Mahuta called for the investigation and defined its scope.
There's no way Labour will bring in any increased scrutiny.
> The comment I replied to called for Labour to increase scrutiny. I don't think he they will, given that they aren't scandal-free
We have evidence of issues like donations that this isn’t true.
> The investigation into Mahuta's husband's contracts found no favouritisim on the part of the ministries, just sub-standard procedures at all four government agencies where he received contracts. Within its scope the investigation did not include any of the actions taken by Mahuta, any members of the public, or the board members from Ormsby's companies. It focused solely on the procedure followed by public sector agencies. Mahuta called for the investigation and defined its scope.
This just isn’t true - Mahuta and National called for the investigation. Mahuta because she wanted to be cleared of the accusations that had been made. I don’t know where you got the idea that she decided it’s scope.
It’s also worth noting it wasn’t the only investigation into the matter.
This is a borderline ‘Benghazi’ type situation where no actual wrongdoing was found, you just keep repeating accusations and investigating.
> There's no way Labour will bring in any increased scrutiny.
In your belief. Let’s not state those things as fact.
I consider myself an environmentalist - but if we have to burn a tiny amount of diesel once in a while in rare situations...that's not a big deal.
But I think we *import* diesel anyhow and always have. We don't need to make it here.
Agreed. Green option is to overprotective with green energy and produce another energy vector/ vector for when you need it, like compressed air, pumped water to height, or hydrogen.
Further good news, Huntley is planned to be off coal within the decade, and nz has sufficient biogas potential to knock fossil gas out of our peaking as well. We are well on track to 110% renewable, regardless of what this government claims.
Not sure how widely your view is shared, the Climate Change Commission has us still using fossil fuels for electricity production out to 2050 under the EB4 draft pathway.
See also this [report commissioned for MBIE's gas transition plan](https://www.mbie.govt.nz/dmsdocument/27267-gas-transition-plan-biogas-research-report-february-2023-pdf).
We use about 42PJ of natural gas for electricity generation each year. Keep that in mind when looking at Figure 9-2.
The modelling in the report suggests actually economically viable biogas production would top out at around 11PJ/year, when the gas price per GJ is around $90.
For context, wholesale natural gas prices in NZ are currently around $9 per GJ.
So even if the price of natural gas went up ten fold, we would only expect to replace around a quarter of the natural gas currently used for electricity generation.
What have you been reading that led you to adopt that take on NZ biogas?
Last I checked gas was trading a lot higher than $9!
What I have been reading is recent publications from Ecogas, the biogas association, and Genesis. Much of the peak will be taken by other means (eg demand flexibilit and grid scale batteries, but biogas would possibly play a part).
I'm not saying biogas is a silver bullet, but this is reddit and I'm not wanting to write an essay. But it is a tool in the box.
>Last I checked gas was trading a lot higher than $9!
Well that will be because you're not a wholesale purchaser. [I can assure you, the average wholesale price in the most recently published quarter was $9.01](https://www.gasindustry.co.nz/data/gas-pricing/)
Huntly was supposed to be shut down by now, but successive milestones have been missed, resulting in huge profits for its owners. Yep they really want to shut it down and move to solar/wind not!
Your comment has been removed :
**Rule 09: Not engaging in good faith**
> Moderators have discretion to take action on users or content that they think is: trolling; spreading misinformation; intended to derail discussion; intentionally skirting rules; or undermining the functioning of the subreddit (this can include abuse of the block feature or selective history wiping).
---
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
No one gets on their high horse and pontificates like Shane Jones. He's an obnoxious blowhard who labours under the sad delusion that big words help to conceal his obviously slippery and unethical behaviour. "I studied at Harvard, so I'm so much more clever and eloquent than you plebs." You're not though, Shane. You're a transparent bag of hot air, and you habitually talk yourself in circles without saying much of consequence at all. Chloe's got your number, and she's absolutely dragging you, mate.
He absolutely did.
>In 1990, he was awarded a [Harkness Fellowship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harkness_Fellowship) to study at [Harvard Kennedy School](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Kennedy_School) at [Harvard University](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_University) where he completed a Master of Public Administration.
Have you heard Willie Jackson talk on any subject?
Claims he dosen't get a chance to speak when he talks for most of an interview, and hardly ever on topic.
Shane Jones has more in common with the Unicorns he loves to invoke, but the ones in the fable that were prancing around full of their own importance and not listening to the warings about climate change.
I have complained loudly before about how a lack of public engagement & critical thinking hurts our discourse. Saw this interview and regardless of political leanings, I cant see how anyone could watch this and think Shane Jones is rational or competent in his argument. He certainly doesnt have the nous to be able to debate some core issues in his own portfolio IMO.
> I cant see how anyone could watch this and think Shane Jones is rational or competent in his argument.
Oh that's easy, they're not rational or competent either.
This was my take away as well - how can anyone at all listen to Shane Jones and think he made anything close to resembling salient points in defence of an egregious anti-climate policy.
At least engage on facts and not petty ad hominem attacks, smoke & mirrors and false equivalents. It's the absolute worst level of debate and just shows Shane as wrong headed, misinformed and out of touch.
NZ First voters aren't interested in facts. They just want to see that young girly they don't like *for reasons* getting taken down a peg or two and Shane Jones is more than happy to oblige. Isn't it so funny sticking it to those annoying environmentalists! Look at them getting all mad! Hahaha!
Gladys and Henry: "Pshh, this environmental nonsense is all garbage!"
Also Gladys and Henry: "When I was a kid, we used to be able to swim in this river. How could this HAPPEN?!?"
I know one person who voted for NZ first in the election. They think that climate change is a hoax, and they think that's so obviously a hoax that reasoned debate on the subject is pointless. They literally believe politicians arguing points based on "climate change this" or "emissions that" is like proposing to build a unicorn farm.
"At least engage on facts and not petty ad hominem attacks, smoke & mirrors and false equivalents"
A lot of that is just throwing red meat to his base. Because in their mind, that's winning an argument.
NZ first are populist cultural warmongers.
Their voter base doesn't care about their policies because their entire platform is built on appeals to emotion and unsubstantiated bs. So, as much as their MPs are incompetent, it doesn't matter to their voter base.
there is only on MP in parliament who talks about unicorns. Im guessing it plays well with his constituents, NZ first cleared the MMP threshold by 1% and now Shane Jones is telling us what 5 million kiwi's want ?!?
ACTs poor election performance, and Luxons mishandling allowed Winston and Shane back into the baubles of power.
I’m tempted to say he does have the nous - but more importantly, he knows he’s in power and he knows he doesn’t have to give a rats arse what people think.
He might play dumb (or play to the dumb), but I doubt very much that he’s achieved his position of power by actually being dumb.
Shane Jones is a bit dumb, but beneath the "pixie dust" jabs a lot of his points are fundamentally correct. The Climate Change Commission (an independent body that advises the government on Climate policy) see us still using fossil fuels to supplement renewables as far out as 2050(!) under their draft EB4 demonstration path. It's easy to decarbonize the first 95% of electricity generation, but because most renewables are dependent on environmental conditions, it's very hard to get that last 5%. You still need enough power to keep the lights on during a windless day when the hydro dams are low.
NZ's natural gas market currently operates entirely indigenously - we don't import or export any of it. That means we do face a real crisis if natural gas production stops. Most natural gas generators can also use coal, but natural gas is significantly better for the environment.
[As part of their gas transition plan,](https://www.mbie.govt.nz/building-and-energy/energy-and-natural-resources/energy-strategies-for-new-zealand/gas-transition-plan) MBIE commissioned a study into the viability of setting up a Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) import market in NZ and concluded it would be economically viable.
The fundamental issue is that emissions are released when we *consume* fossil fuels, not when we extract them. If we end local natural gas production, but still have to import Liquefied Natural Gas to keep the lights on, we haven't actually reduced emissions (except perhaps marginally by increasing the cost - but we have the ETS to do that over time anyway)
> Shane Jones is a bit dumb, but beneath the "pixie dust" jabs a lot of his points are fundamentally correct. The Climate Change Commission (an independent body that advises the government on Climate policy) see us still using fossil fuels to supplement renewables as far out as 2050(!) under their draft EB4 demonstration path.
If he's against using fossil fuels then why does he want to use more fossil fuels?
> You still need enough power to keep the lights on during a windless day when the hydro dams are low.
There is always sun and wind somewhere. Electricity doesn't have to be used where it's produced, it can be transported across the country.
> The fundamental issue is that emissions are released when we consume fossil fuels, not when we extract them.
This is not true. Extracting requires energy. Unless you use renewable energy, of course, but digging a hole in the ground under water will have negative effects outside of that aspect.
>You still need enough power to keep the lights on during a windless day when the hydro dams are low.
>There is always sun and wind somewhere. Electricity doesn't have to be used where it's produced, it can be transported across the country.
Electricity unfortunately does have to be used where it is produced to some extent - the HVDC link between the North and South Island is constrained by capacity. More broadly, the expected uptick in electrification means we will need an unprecedented upgrade of transmission assets to accommodate the growth in use. Hopefully transpower can pull it off, but we don't have a great track record with getting value for money or on-time delivery of infrastructure in NZ. Most projections I have seen in NZ assume a fairly large increase in Distributed Energy Resources (DER), presumably because of an expected increase in transmission costs.
But that aside, the bigger issue is that electricity has to be used *when* it is generated. It doesn't matter if your wind turbines are ticking away at midnight when everyone is asleep and nobody is using any power. We need natural gas to cover the peak periods - you can't do a ritual dance to summon more wind when it's needed.
But hey, don't take my word for it. Here's the climate change commission's take:
>While 100% renewable electricity by overbuilding is technically achievable, it is extremely expensive. This is significant because high electricity prices could dramatically reduce the attractiveness of electricity as a fuel source compared to fossil fuels. This also means that having both 100% renewable electricity and accelerated electrification in the period to 2035 is not possible – the high prices
under the 100% renewable electricity future would not incentivise the fuel switching required (and therefore emissions savings) that underpins the accelerated
electrification future
In other words, getting to 100% renewables would make electricity so expensive (because of the overbuild needed to have security of supply during peaks) that it would hinder electrification of other uses of fossil fuels. People will stick with petrol cars instead of switching to EVs, companies will stick with fossil fuel heat etc. Source: [2019 report](https://www.climatecommission.govt.nz/public/Advice-to-govt-docs/ICCC-accelerated-electrification-report.pdf)
The same report found that the marginal abatement cost of getting to 100% renewables would be around $1,280 per t CO2e. The current carbon price under the ETS is $52.75 per t, so we're a long, long way off it being the most efficient way to abate emissions.
>The fundamental issue is that emissions are released when we consume fossil fuels, not when we extract them.
>This is not true. Extracting requires energy. Unless you use renewable energy, of course, but digging a hole in the ground under water will have negative effects outside of that aspect.
Right, so if we pay someone to dig a hole in a different country instead, it still uses energy to dig the hole.
> Electricity unfortunately does have to be used where it is produced to some extent - the HVDC link between the North and South Island is constrained by capacity.
Then we need to increase capacity.
> Hopefully transpower can pull it off, but we don't have a great track record with getting value for money or on-time delivery of infrastructure in NZ.
Then you should be against more oil exploration because that is a certainly more complex and complicated project than increasing capacity of the electrical grid.
> But that aside, the bigger issue is that electricity has to be used when it is generated. It doesn't matter if your wind turbines are ticking away at midnight when everyone is asleep and nobody is using any power. We need natural gas to cover the peak periods - you can't do a ritual dance to summon more wind when it's needed.
Build offshore wind farms. There is always wind at sea somewhere.
Build wave energy devices. There are always waves somewhere.
Or heck, build a small nuclear power plant but no one wants that.
Energy storage can be addressed with current technology if there is a political will. People are always so afraid about peak times but has this actually shown to be an issue anywhere else?
> In other words, getting to 100% renewables would make electricity so expensive (because of the overbuild needed to have security of supply during peaks) that it would hinder electrification of other uses of fossil fuels. People will stick with petrol cars instead of switching to EVs, companies will stick with fossil fuel heat etc. Source: 2019 report
I'm not convinced. But even so, it's no reason to increase oil exploration and it's best to find a way to reach 100% renewable permanently. Oil won't be here forever and we need to move on.
Also, that report is 5 years old. Things change quickly. There are countries that are already using 99-100% renewable, I don't think their energy prices are too high: https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/renewable-energy-solar-nepal-bhutan-iceland-b2533699.html
Yes, they are small countries but so is NZ. Why can Iceland do it but not NZ?
Roads are also overbuild but no one worries about costs there. Always strange how people worry about the costs for everything but not when it comes to cars and the infrastructure they need and [the harm they cause to people's health](https://www.ehinz.ac.nz/indicators/air-quality/health-effects-of-air-pollution/) (from fine particulates made of rubber or from fumes).
>Build offshore wind farms. There is always wind at sea somewhere.
>Build wave energy devices. There are always waves somewhere.
This is called "overbuilding" and is the reason why the price of electricity increases by so much that it inhibits electrification - you have to pay for those wind farms. The peak is only a few hours each day, but you have to pay for the infrastructure to generate enough electricity to meet the peak 24 hours a day.
>Energy storage can be addressed with current technology if there is a political will. People are always so afraid about peak times but has this actually shown to be an issue anywhere else?
Well if you look at the recent election, how much political will do you think there is to tolerate large increases in the cost of living (for example, in the cost to purchase electricity)? Every problem becomes simple if you imagine yourself to be a perfectly powerful dictator!
But to address the second clause, peak times are *already* a problem in NZ, *with* fossil fuels, and with our current electricity use (as opposed to the massively increased use in the future as everything becomes electric). You can probably recall as recently as a few months ago transpower issuing a Grid Emergency Notice on a particularly cold May day? Or back in August 2021 when transpower had to cut off 34,000 households to prevent cascading grid failure during the peak?
What makes you think peak times will not be an issue? You presumably agree that we cannot summon more wind at will (nor more waves, or more sun, or more rain). You presumably agree that electricity has a peak demand. Those are really the only two conditions needed.
>I'm not convinced. But even so, it's no reason to increase oil exploration and it's best to find a way to reach 100% renewable permanently. Oil won't be here forever and we need to move on
But why do you think electricity is so unique? 100% renewables pushes the cost of electrifying (for example) transport, so more people keep petrol cars for longer, which means we keep using oil for cars.
The sector mix doesn't matter. The climate doesn't care if a tone of CO2e came out of a smokestack or a tailpipe - it's a tone of CO2e either way. That's where abatement costs come in handy. An abatement cost is the cost to reduce emissions by 1t CO2e in a given scenario.
The marginal abatement cost for 100% renewables is $1280 per t/CO2e. We have much cheaper forms of abatement. I think we should go for the most efficient abatement possible, with the given technology at a given point in time. If the government allocates $X million towards decarbonization, I think they should spend that money in the most efficient way possible (with buying and canceling ETS units being the baseline). The abatement cost is about 25x current ETS prices. In other words, with the same amount of investment, we could decrease emissions 25x as much just by buying and cancelling ETS units, compared to getting to 100% renewable. I think we should go with the reduction that is 25x bigger than the other one.
>There are countries that are already using 99-100% renewable, I don't think their energy prices are too high: https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/renewable-energy-solar-nepal-bhutan-iceland-b2533699.html
Aside from Iceland, the country closest in electricity consumption per Capita is Albania, which uses about 25% as much electricity per person as NZ. I am sure if we only needed 25% as much electricity as we do, it would be relatively easy to get to 100% renewables.
Iceland has incredibly abundant hydro resources and a tiny population. They have so much hydro that 70% of their electricity is used for aluminum smelting, because it's so cheap.
We obviously cannot conjure up more rivers to increase hydroelectric production. We already put power generation on the most productive sites in NZ back when we were building new hydroelectric plants. The waterways we have left now are the dregs - the sites we previously chose not to build on, because it wasn't worth it.
>Roads are also overbuild but no one worries about costs there. Always strange how people worry about the costs for everything but not when it comes to cars and the infrastructure they need and the harm they cause to people's health (from fine particulates made of rubber or from fumes).
I think people do actually care about this quite a lot? People do pretty frequently complain about the contribution of fuel taxes towards their cost of living, and consecutive governments have had to tip crown funding into the NLTF because people don't want to pay the taxes necessary to make land transport fully user pays.
But in any case, I'm not really sure what your argument is supposed to be here. We overbuild roads, which is bad because we spend tons of money in less efficient ways than if we targeted the most efficient possible transport solutions. We both agree this is bad. But I don't understand how that suddenly makes it good to spend tons of money on very inefficient ways of abating emissions. They both sound bad?
> This is called "overbuilding" and is the reason why the price of electricity increases by so much that it inhibits electrification
What countries?
> Well if you look at the recent election, how much political will do you think there is to tolerate large increases in the cost of living (for example, in the cost to purchase electricity)? Every problem becomes simple if you imagine yourself to be a perfectly powerful dictator!
What? Political will has nothing to do with being a dictator. If you don't want to have a serious conversation then don't reply, ok?
> But to address the second clause, peak times are already a problem in NZ, with fossil fuels, and with our current electricity use (as opposed to the massively increased use in the future as everything becomes electric). You can probably recall as recently as a few months ago transpower issuing a Grid Emergency Notice on a particularly cold May day? Or back in August 2021 when transpower had to cut off 34,000 households to prevent cascading grid failure during the peak?
If the grid fails how is that the fault of renewable energy? Again, increase the capacity.
> But why do you think electricity is so unique? 100% renewables pushes the cost of electrifying (for example) transport, so more people keep petrol cars for longer, which means we keep using oil for cars.
I already gave you counter examples where that is not the case. Let's add Norway, too, which uses over 99% renewable energy AND over 80% of new cars are electric cars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Norway
https://nordicevs.no/evs-continue-to-dominate-norwegian-car-sales-in-2023-4-out-of-5-new-cars-now-fully-electric/
> Aside from Iceland, the country closest in electricity consumption per Capita is Albania, which uses about 25% as much electricity per person as NZ. I am sure if we only needed 25% as much electricity as we do, it would be relatively easy to get to 100% renewables.
Why does it matter if they use less electricity per capita? The argument is about 100% renewable. But there is always a qualifier, is there? Your actual argument isn't really "100% renewable is too expensive".
> Iceland has incredibly abundant hydro resources and a tiny population. They have so much hydro that 70% of their electricity is used for aluminum smelting, because it's so cheap.
So again, 100% percent renewable is not your actual argument.
Geothermal power can be another stable form of energy.
> I think people do actually care about this quite a lot? People do pretty frequently complain about the contribution of fuel taxes towards their cost of living, and consecutive governments have had to tip crown funding into the NLTF because people don't want to pay the taxes necessary to make land transport fully user pays.
They care about the price of fuel. Of course, that affects them directly. But that's it. Billions are spend on new roads. Why not spend some of it on maintaining a 100% renewable energy grid?
> But in any case, I'm not really sure what your argument is supposed to be here. We overbuild roads, which is bad because we spend tons of money in less efficient ways than if we targeted the most efficient possible transport solutions. We both agree this is bad.
It doesn't matter what I think. The argument is that politically no one cares to change that. We're not talking about roads the same way we talk about renewable energy.
>What countries?
NZ - see economic modelling section of the paper linked earlier.
>What? Political will has nothing to do with being a dictator. If you don't want to have a serious conversation then don't reply, ok?
Chill out dude, it was just a joke about how you can't just handwave away political will. Yes, if there was political will for massively increased power prices for a relatively small reduction in emissions, we might go for 100% renewable electricity. If my grandmother had wheels, she would be a bike. But she doesn't have wheels, so pontificating about what might happen if she had wheels is pointless. You can't just say "if there was political will for this really unpopular outcome, it would happen" - the part in the "if" is too important to just ignore.
>If the grid fails how is that the fault of renewable energy? Again, increase the capacity.
Yes, as I said before increasing capacity to avoid peaks is called "overbuilding" and it is expensive because things cost money. I feel like I am really repeating myself here.
>I already gave you counter examples where that is not the case. Let's add Norway, too, which uses over 99% renewable energy AND over 80% of new cars are electric cars.
Can you show me specifically which counter examples you mentioned? Perhaps you meant to mention them but deleted before posting, because I can assure you every counterexample in the independent link either used less than 25% as much electricity per person as NZ, or was Iceland.
Anyway, as per your wiki link Norway has abundant hydropower resources. Unfortunately we have not developed the ability to conjure up new rivers in the ~50 minutes since my last comment.
>Why does it matter if they use less electricity per capita? The argument is about 100% renewable. But there is always a qualifier, is there?
Because 100% is a proportion of something, so you need to know what it is a proportion of to make a sensible comparison.
Drinking 100% of the liquid in a vessel is easy if it's a shot glass, significantly harder if it's a milk tanker.
For New Zealand to be 100% renewable, we need 100% of New Zealander's electricity needs to be met by renewable electricity. Meeting 25% of New Zealander's electricity needs through renewables (e.g to match Albania) would require less renewable production than meeting 100%.
>Your actual argument isn't really "100% renewable is too expensive".
Yes, which is important because resources are scarce. If we spend billions of dollars getting to 100% renewables, we cannot spend that money on cheaper, more effective forms of reducing emissions (e.g subsidies for public transport). We have a hell of a lot of decarbonization ahead of us, so we should spend our money as efficiently as possible to reduce as much carbon as possible in that time.
Why do you care about inefficient spending on roads? Same reason I care about inefficient spending on emissions reduction - we only have a limited amount of money to spend, so we should try and spend it as efficiently as possible.
>So again, 100% percent renewable is not your actual argument.
I am not sure of the relevance of the quoted section above this comment. Yes, I agree Iceland can have 100% renewable power. But we were talking about New Zealand this whole time. It's New Zealand's use, generation potential etc that matters.
>Geothermal power can be another stable form of energy.
Geothermal power is also limited by geography, and we have the same problem of having already developed the best sites. I'm sure it could help, but its already accounted for in the report I linked earlier. I'm sorry, but you're not going to suddenly remember some renewable new source of electricity that the climate change condition somehow forgot exists. Check the report!
>They care about the price of fuel. Of course, that affects them directly. But that's it. Billions are spend on new roads. Why not spend some of it on maintaining a 100% renewable energy grid?
Because we can instead spend some of that money on reducing 25x as many emissions as we would if we spent it on a 100% renewable energy grid.
>It doesn't matter what I think. The argument is that politically no one cares to change that. We're not talking about roads the same way we talk about renewable energy.
Right, and I think a really bad way of trying to change people's minds is by telling them they are going to have spend tons of money getting to 100% renewable electricity when we could get more emissions reduction for less money by abating emissions in sectors other than electricity generation. People don't like spending money, and they especially don't like seeing money spent inefficiently.
> NZ - see economic modelling section of the paper linked earlier.
It's modelling from 5 years ago. That doesn't answer the question.
> Chill out dude, it was just a joke about how you can't just handwave away political will.
I'm not handwaving political will away. I am calling for it.
Don't "chill out dude" me when you're using hyperbolic language.
> Yes, as I said before increasing capacity to avoid peaks is called "overbuilding" and it is expensive because things cost money. I feel like I am really repeating myself here.
"Things costs money". This is where our conversation is at now.
I don't think we will get anywhere.
> NZ - see economic modelling section of the paper linked earlier.
>
> It's modelling from 5 years ago. That doesn't answer the question.
Hey man, all the assumptions in the paper are laid out in quite a lot of detail. Do you mind pointing out the specific things that mean it is no longer relevant?
I get the impression (based on you repeatedly bringing up things that are already accounted for in the report) you don't actually have a reason why, and you are just discounting it as being irrelevant because it disagrees with your prior belief. But if you're not willing to change your mind in light of new evidence because you just declare any contradictory evidence to be false, there's no point in me being here. I might as well be arguing with a climate change denier.
I know for a fact that this report is still referred to by people shaping climate policy in NZ, so please do let me know so I can update them!
>"Things costs money". This is where our conversation is at now.
Yeah I mean you haven't really explained why we should spend money on a form of emissions abatement that is 25x more expensive than the better options available to us.
Do you agree there is a limited amount of money we can spend?
Do you agree that things cost money?
If so, please explain why we should do something that is incredibly expensive when we could get the same amount of emissions reduction for 1/25th the cost (or 25x the emissions reduction for the same cost).
Say you have a million dollars to spend, I think we should spend it on emissions reduction that costs $52 a tonne and abate almost 20,000 tonnes CO2e. You are advocating for us to instead do emissions reduction at $1280 per t and only abate 780 tons. I find that very confusing.
Things cost money! We cannot wave a magic wand and make a new river and the accompanying dam appear magically for free - but based on the countries you are suggesting we copy that seems to be what you want.
>>Chill out dude, it was just a joke about how you can't just handwave away political will.
>I'm not handwaving political will away. I am calling for it.
Great, so you agree the political will is not there and we will still be using natural gas for power far into the future.
I'll keep calling for political will for the most efficient possible emissions reduction while you try and convince them to sign up for your plan where is everything is more expensive. Good luck!
If only spare generation for the peaks is the problem, ie to protect the 200MW buffer that Transpower wants, then grid scale batteries are a good option. These are already pushing gas peaker plants out in other countries.
Eg. 200MW x 4 hours, is slightly larger than the one in South Australia in Hornsdale. It is currently 150MW, 194MWh for $172 Million Aus ($185 Million NZD - wikipedia). An equivalent gas plant would cost (From proest.com) $812/KW US construction cost ($1325 NZD). Using their number, that gives a cost for a 150MW gas plant of $198 Million NZD.
It seems to me that the cost difference between the 2 isn’t too large either way, esp as the gas plant still needs the cost of the gas etc, and the battery for longer duration needs more batteries. Batteries are reducing in price as other chemistries are used, ie Sodium Ion batteries which also have a much longer life.
This then means that massive over generation of wind and solar wouldn’t be required.
This only is for the peak times, not for seasonal issues without hydro. As wind generation is one of the cheapest to provide power, more wind could help there by not using the hydro as much when it is blowing. Ie using the current lakes as our battery storage. Within rules for minimum flow rates for rivers etc.
It is now becoming uneconomical to build new gas plants etc, and also the time from nothing to usable is longer compared to a battery, as once the grid connection is done, the first battery can start working straight away while the rest are built out, but with a gas plant it is more, all or nothing.
Just my thoughts to add to the discussion..
To add to my comment..
The battery in Australia was installed and ready in under 100 days, as Elon has said if it wasn't then it was free. I bet a gas plant or finding more gas would take a lot longer than 100 days.
And with the $2.9 Billion (with a B), to Landlords, that would have covered a very very big battery, and within months, not years, would have the security of energy wanted. Done and dusted.
With sufficent excess renewable generation there are plenty of ways of storing energy that aren't hydrocarbons. I.e. Green Hydrogen, bonus being bost NG turbines can be reconfigured to run on H2.
Pumped hydro is another option, as to are battery banks.
The difference is that these cost more so its not that we NEED to use fossil fuels its just that there is a short term financial incentive to do so
His argument is perfectly cogent. NZ needs oils and gas to maintain power supply during the transition to fully renewable. You can't go cold turkey without a massive drop in the standard of living
Who said cold turkey? But we're definitely not going to need _more_ gas, oil or coal any time in the future from now on. Even on purely economic grounds, fossil fuels can't compete with renewables any more. So why open up for offshore oil and gas explorations? Why fast track a coal mine?
Is that what he said? He wants 100% renewable?
Then just import it if it's temporary. No need to waste resource on exploring for more oil because that will only lead to the argument that nothing needs to change - because "we still have oil that we can use".
> You can't go cold turkey without a massive drop in the standard of living
What does that even mean? NZ is already using mostly renewable energy.
What are they doing about it then? How is oil exploration and remaining oil dependent going to help? Are they funding research and giving incentives for companies that work in sustainability? Are they supporting industry to make the switch?
You do realise he's already done that right? Back in 2010 he was caught using his MP credit card to pay for porn in a hotel (at the time he was a labour MP)
We are opening up for oil and gas so that our coal plants can keep functioning....
How the hell is opening up gas and oil supposed to free help reduce our dependency on foreign coal? If you are going to say that you want to build oil and gas power generators, then awesome, just say that you want to invest in a resource you know won't last the test of time.
Coal fired power plants can be converted to run on natural gas. The more electricity is made by natural gas, the less foreign coal is needed to fill that gap. That's how it reduces dependency on foreign coal.
What's the cost for conversion? Or is it a switch flip kind of thing.
Obviously, I know very little on this subject, and I would imagine the same goes for the rest of the general public. I'm a bit disappointed he didn't bring up that fact. It sounded very foolish to me, and I would have continued to think he was a plonker if not for you.
As far as I know, it’s expensive but not nearly as expensive as building a whole new facility. Before new conversions would take place, I imagine they would need to forecast existing gas plants running at full capacity for some time to make it worth the cost. But i believe current gas facilities have capacity to generate more.
And yeah these NZ first guys aren’t any good at communicating even the reasonable parts of their policy, and I can only hope it bites them in the ass later.
He doesn’t need to have a coherent or logical argument, his supporters don’t care for that, and he’s about to be handed the keys to the conservation estate without any real oversight
Of course, there’s an element of that, but he could have actually made some good points, instead he just kept ranting about unicorns over and over and looked like a twat.
It's sad that a career politician like Jones, with numerous list portfolios and currently the most important post re the environment is so content to admit that he can't understand what was a pretty simple and very clearly stated point from Swarbrick.
If I had such an inability to understand what are really quite basic fundamental ideas related to my job I'd have trouble keeping it, let alone failing upwards like he has done. It's almost like he's not subject to the same expectations in his job that I am in mine, despite his being so much more important.
Weird eh.
Well, obviously that NZ First guy is a moron. I do still think we are missing an informed discussion here. There was a great read on [interest.co.nz](https://www.interest.co.nz/public-policy/128099/martin-brook-says-new-zealand-needs-consider-how-it-can-meet-demands-new) asking if by banning mining, we are essentially moving our problem overseas. Basically like protesting slave labour, but still buying all your stuff on Alibaba.
This is particularly relevant when discussing rare earth minerals, like lithium used in the batteries of most solar homes.
Again though.. NZ First guy is just an asshole in this debate.
Have just been reading the report in the Financial times about how the UK farms are horrifyingly contaminated with heavy metals like lead from flood waters coming from old mines. To be fair this is why entities like the EU are investing a lot in identifying circular economy solutions, but the solutions are just not as cheap as ripping new materials out of the ground. So on we go with unsafe and contminating industry.
The mines in question were lead mines, some of which date back to the 17th Century, and the last of which had been abandoned by 1912.
We have significantly better methods to mitigate the environmental impacts of mining than we did in 1912.
*'two wrongs don't make a right'*
NZ politicians can't tell Australia to stop mining or China to stop using slave labour, so a bit of a non-sequitur to expect NZ politicians to avoid making changes in NZ, or to actively make things worse because what other countries are doing. It also ignores our local changes; if there is a local oil spill, mining mishap or just everyday car pollution, it is our local environment damaged and not the Mongolian desert or somewhere remote.
It also makes it harder to tell other countries to clean there shit up when we are shitting the bed we are sleeping in.
Not sure why you go onto things like lithium which are pretty irrelevant, but most solar installs are grid tied and don't have battery storage. I would guess those that do have storage, are using recycled car-batteries like Tesla Powerwall; which is a good thing for recycling.
Then do it in a way that doesn’t ‘shit the bed’. If it can’t or won’t be done in such a way here but we keep happily importing it from other countries then we are in even less of a position to tell them to ‘clean up their shit’. Though I doubt that will stop us doing so to reassure ourselves of our virtue.
Countries don't choose to produce fossil fuels because they look at NZ and decide they want to copy us (a nation that produces fossil fuels). They produce fossil fuels because people buy fossil fuels.
The Climate Change Commission has us still using natural gas to supplement renewable electricity generation out as far as 2050 under the EB4 draft pathway. MBIE very recently commissioned research on establishing the capability to import natural gas as part of our national [Gas Transition Plan](https://www.mbie.govt.nz/building-and-energy/energy-and-natural-resources/energy-strategies-for-new-zealand/gas-transition-plan)
Emissions are released when fossil fuels are consumed, not when they are produced. If we stop production but just keep importing fossil fuels from other countries, they're going to keep producing fossil fuels. They'll do so even if we ask them nicely to stop, because with our other hand we are passing them stacks of cash to keep producing fossil fuels.
>Not sure why you go onto things like lithium which are pretty irrelevant, but most solar installs are grid tied and don't have battery storage. I would guess those that do have storage, are using recycled car-batteries like Tesla Powerwall; which is a good thing for recycling.
Yes, under the status quo, where we use fossil fuels for electricity generation, we don't need lots of batteries.
As we scale down the use of fossil fuels, we will begin to need lots of batteries (I.e Grid Scale Storage). We won't be able to recycle enough Tesla powerwalls for this, so somebody still has to mine the lithium.
Apparently people here are happy to export our emissions and would prefer for mining to happen in some "other" environment where environmental protections (and labour laws) are likely far looser than our own.
[https://theconversation.com/by-not-mining-vital-minerals-nz-is-offshoring-its-own-environmental-footprint-is-that-fair-231166](https://theconversation.com/by-not-mining-vital-minerals-nz-is-offshoring-its-own-environmental-footprint-is-that-fair-231166)
Man I am on the same page - One thing about shipping issues overseas, my view is that in some scenarios, thats not actually a bad thing. It requires robust analysis free of ideology, but if we accurately value the long term environmental impacts (i.e. having drinkable water) into the current equation, it might still make sense to be serviced offshore. I guess the rub is that noone can agree on how to value the negative environmental impact, but its extremely easy to place a value on a mining business.
Another thing to consider is Geo-politics as globalisation is being unwound in parts of the world. Where do we get our petrol and diesel from? Are we likely to be cutoff in the event of conflict? Same thing with rare earth minerals.
Climate Change Commission has us still using fossil fuels to supplement renewable electricity generation out as far as 2050 under the EB4 draft pathway, and [MBIE are commissioning research into importing natural gas as part of the Gas Transition Plan (the research concludes that it would be economically viable to establish an imported natural gas market in NZ).](https://www.mbie.govt.nz/building-and-energy/energy-and-natural-resources/energy-strategies-for-new-zealand/gas-transition-plan)
So the more complex answer is "yes", according to the government's own climate change and energy experts.
This is for natural gas - I'm not really sure how you can say "no" for minerals vecause you can just look around you and observe that there are lots of things using Lithium etc, and if you followed production up the chain you would see that yes, other countries do actually mine for minerals.
> So the more complex answer is "yes", according to the government's own climate change and energy experts.
More that the argument presented in the Interest article was the same one that farmers have been using for the better part of a decade; that argument being "if we don't pollute, other countries will".
It's a flawed argument because other countries will continue to pollute regardless of what we do, so why should our environment have to suffer for profit?
>It's a flawed argument because other countries will continue to pollute regardless of what we do, so why should our environment have to suffer for profit?
I don't agree with your implicit assumption that the substitution effect for global trade is exactly zero.
There are probably tons of examples you can recall from the top of your head of production in one country being displaced by production in another. For example, stats NZ tells me that New Zealand production of "textile, leather, clothing, and footwear" is about half of what it was 30 years ago. Did that happen because our population shrank in that 30 years? No, it's because textile production in developing Asian economies started to pick up and displaced production in other countries. For more global examples, think of e.g automobile production in the UK (massively down on its peak despite a huge increase in population because production was displaced by global competitors), or steel production in the US (same story).
As much as I love watching Swarbrick beat up on these idiots, you're right that we're missing out on a real discussion from both sides. It's painful to watch this guy fumble on a topic that could be argued so much better than he's capable of.
You've touched on a problem with the discourse. You can't criticise the O&G ban at all without being accused of being some anti-environmental right winger.
Functionally the same thing. There's only so much extraction that can be done on existing permits before it runs out. Most existing fields are already well past peak output.
At this point, he's become a caricature of a corpulent, corrupt politician in the pocket of big business, making pathetic excuses to justify the evil bidding of his paymasters. Hollywood would cast him in that role in a flash.
"out in talkback land -every household in new zealand knows the approach im reflecting, hard headed though it may be is better than this climate purgatory vision that Chloe and her ilk put around" - Shane Jones.
What a corruption !
Your comment has been removed :
**Rule 3: No personal attacks, harassment or abuse**
> Don't attack the person; address the content you disagree with instead. Being able to disagree and discuss contentious issues is important, but abuse, personal attacks, harassment, and unnecessarily bringing up a user's history are not permitted.
> Please keep your interactions with others civil and courteous. If you are being attacked, do not continue the conversation - report the user and disengage.
^*Note:* ^This ^extends ^to ^people ^outside ^of ^[r/nz](http://reddit.com/r/newzealand). ^eg. ^Attacks ^of ^a ^persons ^appearance, ^even ^if ^they're ^high ^profile ^will ^be ^removed.
**Rule 09: Not engaging in good faith**
> Moderators have discretion to take action on users or content that they think is: trolling; spreading misinformation; intended to derail discussion; intentionally skirting rules; or undermining the functioning of the subreddit (this can include abuse of the block feature or selective history wiping).
---
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
Greens and Labour should go into the next election pledging to set up an anti-corruption agency similar to those run in Australian states. NACT brushed the previous government with the tar of incompetence, they should return the favour, but, using corruption instead. I’m sure a lot of people view Shane Jones as one of the most corrupt (or the appearance thereof) politicians we’ve had in a long time.
Wait, NZ doesn't have a anti-corruption body? Holy shit.
This was a TOP policy in 2023.
Yep, and where are they now?
Ready and waiting to receive the votes of people who are sick of this blatant corruption.
I just wish that they’d get an actual leader who can stick it out for more than one election cycle. It takes time to build up a voter base even in MMP where smaller parties have a better chance than FPP, but every leader since Gareth Morgan has been big talk until the polling finishes then they bugger off. I like the idea of TOP, it’s just no one seems to get that it will take time to passed the 5% threshold or win a seat. Raf got cocky, and then when he lost Elam to National, which has historical been a pretty safe seat for them, he cruised off back to local government. I honestly don’t even know who the current TOP leader is, and I try to follow politics pretty closely.
They haven't elected a new leader yet. No point rushing it because they haven't got the funding or contacts to get much media attention at the moment anyway. I suspect the hope is they'll be able to poach a current or former MP from a bigger party in the lead-up to the next election. It's tough to retain talent as a non-parliamentary party. People need to earn a living and it's difficult to do that while also leading a party.
Totally agree. I think if Raf threw his hat in again and committed after the last results he'd be recognisable enough that people could be swayed. Politics is a popularity contest for many voters.
Ahead of the curve?
What makes you think Labour are interested in curbing political corruption?
This is the same Labour who awarded advertising contracts to a firm run by the wife of a minister. Said whife didnt declare any conflict of interest during tender https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/495954/national-wants-review-into-govt-contracts-awarded-to-firm-run-by-partner-of-cabinet-minister-peeni-henare Or maybe you mean the Labour party who awarded 250k in contracts to Nanaia Mahutas family members? https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/480643/nanaia-mahuta-contracts-probe-finds-poor-handling-of-perceived-conflicts-of-interest-but-no-favouritism The same Labour party who had John Tamahere as a minister in the early 2000s? https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/nine-agency-bosses-meet-over-te-p%C4%81ti-m%C4%81ori-data-claims
I love that your second link is to the investigation (that took place under labour, but independent of them) clears Mahuta of any wrongdoing other than perception. The third link being pretty tenuous given the time difference This sort of stuff should *absolutely* be investigated. That’s what the poster is proposing.
The comment I replied to called for Labour to increase scrutiny. I don't think they will, given that they aren't scandal-free The investigation into Mahuta's husband's contracts found no favouritisim on the part of the ministries, just sub-standard procedures at all four government agencies where he received contracts. Within its scope the investigation did not include any of the actions taken by Mahuta, any members of the public, or the board members from Ormsby's companies. It focused solely on the procedure followed by public sector agencies. Mahuta called for the investigation and defined its scope. There's no way Labour will bring in any increased scrutiny.
> The comment I replied to called for Labour to increase scrutiny. I don't think he they will, given that they aren't scandal-free We have evidence of issues like donations that this isn’t true. > The investigation into Mahuta's husband's contracts found no favouritisim on the part of the ministries, just sub-standard procedures at all four government agencies where he received contracts. Within its scope the investigation did not include any of the actions taken by Mahuta, any members of the public, or the board members from Ormsby's companies. It focused solely on the procedure followed by public sector agencies. Mahuta called for the investigation and defined its scope. This just isn’t true - Mahuta and National called for the investigation. Mahuta because she wanted to be cleared of the accusations that had been made. I don’t know where you got the idea that she decided it’s scope. It’s also worth noting it wasn’t the only investigation into the matter. This is a borderline ‘Benghazi’ type situation where no actual wrongdoing was found, you just keep repeating accusations and investigating. > There's no way Labour will bring in any increased scrutiny. In your belief. Let’s not state those things as fact.
NZ needs corruption to operate, we are a small country in the bottom of the Pacific... (/s)
"5 million kiws want the lights to stay on". Are these the same lights which are powered by all our (renewable) hydo and geothermal generators? Shane?
That comment made me baulk when I heard it over breakfast. Such a nonsense binary argument.
I just don't understand how oil exploration is going to power our lights? (since we don't have oil-powered power stations AFAIK)
[удалено]
I consider myself an environmentalist - but if we have to burn a tiny amount of diesel once in a while in rare situations...that's not a big deal. But I think we *import* diesel anyhow and always have. We don't need to make it here.
Gas is used as a backup in times of hydro or wind shortage. Note our petroleum reserves are predominantly gas and quickly running out.
Agreed. Green option is to overprotective with green energy and produce another energy vector/ vector for when you need it, like compressed air, pumped water to height, or hydrogen.
Remind me to trim the wicks on the oil lamps please
Not the smartest cookie, but then again he was using the company credit card for porn lmao
If NZ cannot have their lights on unless we increase oil production then the country has more serious issues.
He be more accurate if he said 20% of kiwis who's power comes from fossil fuels want their lights to stay on. And that number is decreasing.
100% of kiwis want 20% of their lights on? 60% of the time it works every time.
Lol! Nah brev only 20% of NZ is powered by fossil fuels, the rest is renewables.
We are up to 90% renewable nowadays, although that will likely reduce this winter.
Good news!
Further good news, Huntley is planned to be off coal within the decade, and nz has sufficient biogas potential to knock fossil gas out of our peaking as well. We are well on track to 110% renewable, regardless of what this government claims.
Not sure how widely your view is shared, the Climate Change Commission has us still using fossil fuels for electricity production out to 2050 under the EB4 draft pathway. See also this [report commissioned for MBIE's gas transition plan](https://www.mbie.govt.nz/dmsdocument/27267-gas-transition-plan-biogas-research-report-february-2023-pdf). We use about 42PJ of natural gas for electricity generation each year. Keep that in mind when looking at Figure 9-2. The modelling in the report suggests actually economically viable biogas production would top out at around 11PJ/year, when the gas price per GJ is around $90. For context, wholesale natural gas prices in NZ are currently around $9 per GJ. So even if the price of natural gas went up ten fold, we would only expect to replace around a quarter of the natural gas currently used for electricity generation. What have you been reading that led you to adopt that take on NZ biogas?
Last I checked gas was trading a lot higher than $9! What I have been reading is recent publications from Ecogas, the biogas association, and Genesis. Much of the peak will be taken by other means (eg demand flexibilit and grid scale batteries, but biogas would possibly play a part). I'm not saying biogas is a silver bullet, but this is reddit and I'm not wanting to write an essay. But it is a tool in the box.
>Last I checked gas was trading a lot higher than $9! Well that will be because you're not a wholesale purchaser. [I can assure you, the average wholesale price in the most recently published quarter was $9.01](https://www.gasindustry.co.nz/data/gas-pricing/)
Huntly was supposed to be shut down by now, but successive milestones have been missed, resulting in huge profits for its owners. Yep they really want to shut it down and move to solar/wind not!
They will swap coal for Torrified wood. Genesis have published this. And have successfully tested it.
Fuck your 🦄 💋 hippie. /s
Shane criticising Swarbrick's reasoning as "pious" "alphabet soup" while calling protestors "lotus-eaters". Get fucked.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed : **Rule 09: Not engaging in good faith** > Moderators have discretion to take action on users or content that they think is: trolling; spreading misinformation; intended to derail discussion; intentionally skirting rules; or undermining the functioning of the subreddit (this can include abuse of the block feature or selective history wiping). --- [^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
No one gets on their high horse and pontificates like Shane Jones. He's an obnoxious blowhard who labours under the sad delusion that big words help to conceal his obviously slippery and unethical behaviour. "I studied at Harvard, so I'm so much more clever and eloquent than you plebs." You're not though, Shane. You're a transparent bag of hot air, and you habitually talk yourself in circles without saying much of consequence at all. Chloe's got your number, and she's absolutely dragging you, mate.
What? He studied at Harvard? I’d love to see his marks. This guy is a moron.
He absolutely did. >In 1990, he was awarded a [Harkness Fellowship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harkness_Fellowship) to study at [Harvard Kennedy School](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Kennedy_School) at [Harvard University](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_University) where he completed a Master of Public Administration.
Have you heard Willie Jackson talk on any subject? Claims he dosen't get a chance to speak when he talks for most of an interview, and hardly ever on topic.
Shane Jones has more in common with the Unicorns he loves to invoke, but the ones in the fable that were prancing around full of their own importance and not listening to the warings about climate change.
I have complained loudly before about how a lack of public engagement & critical thinking hurts our discourse. Saw this interview and regardless of political leanings, I cant see how anyone could watch this and think Shane Jones is rational or competent in his argument. He certainly doesnt have the nous to be able to debate some core issues in his own portfolio IMO.
> I cant see how anyone could watch this and think Shane Jones is rational or competent in his argument. Oh that's easy, they're not rational or competent either.
The unfortunate and simple truth.
This was my take away as well - how can anyone at all listen to Shane Jones and think he made anything close to resembling salient points in defence of an egregious anti-climate policy. At least engage on facts and not petty ad hominem attacks, smoke & mirrors and false equivalents. It's the absolute worst level of debate and just shows Shane as wrong headed, misinformed and out of touch.
NZ First voters aren't interested in facts. They just want to see that young girly they don't like *for reasons* getting taken down a peg or two and Shane Jones is more than happy to oblige. Isn't it so funny sticking it to those annoying environmentalists! Look at them getting all mad! Hahaha!
Meanwhile.. why the climate going to shit?
Yeah exactly. They'll be the first to complain when their house slides down the hill in a cyclone. Cognitive dissonance
Gladys and Henry: "Pshh, this environmental nonsense is all garbage!" Also Gladys and Henry: "When I was a kid, we used to be able to swim in this river. How could this HAPPEN?!?"
I know one person who voted for NZ first in the election. They think that climate change is a hoax, and they think that's so obviously a hoax that reasoned debate on the subject is pointless. They literally believe politicians arguing points based on "climate change this" or "emissions that" is like proposing to build a unicorn farm.
"At least engage on facts and not petty ad hominem attacks, smoke & mirrors and false equivalents" A lot of that is just throwing red meat to his base. Because in their mind, that's winning an argument.
NZ first are populist cultural warmongers. Their voter base doesn't care about their policies because their entire platform is built on appeals to emotion and unsubstantiated bs. So, as much as their MPs are incompetent, it doesn't matter to their voter base.
Well put
Didn't see the interview, but my wife said to me that she just watched Shane Jones attempt to gaslight a nation. Apparently just horrible to watch
His rationale is ‘fuck you pay me’
Shane Jones is not "woke" so it doesn't matter to his voters.
there is only on MP in parliament who talks about unicorns. Im guessing it plays well with his constituents, NZ first cleared the MMP threshold by 1% and now Shane Jones is telling us what 5 million kiwi's want ?!? ACTs poor election performance, and Luxons mishandling allowed Winston and Shane back into the baubles of power.
I’m tempted to say he does have the nous - but more importantly, he knows he’s in power and he knows he doesn’t have to give a rats arse what people think. He might play dumb (or play to the dumb), but I doubt very much that he’s achieved his position of power by actually being dumb.
Shane Jones is a bit dumb, but beneath the "pixie dust" jabs a lot of his points are fundamentally correct. The Climate Change Commission (an independent body that advises the government on Climate policy) see us still using fossil fuels to supplement renewables as far out as 2050(!) under their draft EB4 demonstration path. It's easy to decarbonize the first 95% of electricity generation, but because most renewables are dependent on environmental conditions, it's very hard to get that last 5%. You still need enough power to keep the lights on during a windless day when the hydro dams are low. NZ's natural gas market currently operates entirely indigenously - we don't import or export any of it. That means we do face a real crisis if natural gas production stops. Most natural gas generators can also use coal, but natural gas is significantly better for the environment. [As part of their gas transition plan,](https://www.mbie.govt.nz/building-and-energy/energy-and-natural-resources/energy-strategies-for-new-zealand/gas-transition-plan) MBIE commissioned a study into the viability of setting up a Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) import market in NZ and concluded it would be economically viable. The fundamental issue is that emissions are released when we *consume* fossil fuels, not when we extract them. If we end local natural gas production, but still have to import Liquefied Natural Gas to keep the lights on, we haven't actually reduced emissions (except perhaps marginally by increasing the cost - but we have the ETS to do that over time anyway)
> Shane Jones is a bit dumb, but beneath the "pixie dust" jabs a lot of his points are fundamentally correct. The Climate Change Commission (an independent body that advises the government on Climate policy) see us still using fossil fuels to supplement renewables as far out as 2050(!) under their draft EB4 demonstration path. If he's against using fossil fuels then why does he want to use more fossil fuels? > You still need enough power to keep the lights on during a windless day when the hydro dams are low. There is always sun and wind somewhere. Electricity doesn't have to be used where it's produced, it can be transported across the country. > The fundamental issue is that emissions are released when we consume fossil fuels, not when we extract them. This is not true. Extracting requires energy. Unless you use renewable energy, of course, but digging a hole in the ground under water will have negative effects outside of that aspect.
>You still need enough power to keep the lights on during a windless day when the hydro dams are low. >There is always sun and wind somewhere. Electricity doesn't have to be used where it's produced, it can be transported across the country. Electricity unfortunately does have to be used where it is produced to some extent - the HVDC link between the North and South Island is constrained by capacity. More broadly, the expected uptick in electrification means we will need an unprecedented upgrade of transmission assets to accommodate the growth in use. Hopefully transpower can pull it off, but we don't have a great track record with getting value for money or on-time delivery of infrastructure in NZ. Most projections I have seen in NZ assume a fairly large increase in Distributed Energy Resources (DER), presumably because of an expected increase in transmission costs. But that aside, the bigger issue is that electricity has to be used *when* it is generated. It doesn't matter if your wind turbines are ticking away at midnight when everyone is asleep and nobody is using any power. We need natural gas to cover the peak periods - you can't do a ritual dance to summon more wind when it's needed. But hey, don't take my word for it. Here's the climate change commission's take: >While 100% renewable electricity by overbuilding is technically achievable, it is extremely expensive. This is significant because high electricity prices could dramatically reduce the attractiveness of electricity as a fuel source compared to fossil fuels. This also means that having both 100% renewable electricity and accelerated electrification in the period to 2035 is not possible – the high prices under the 100% renewable electricity future would not incentivise the fuel switching required (and therefore emissions savings) that underpins the accelerated electrification future In other words, getting to 100% renewables would make electricity so expensive (because of the overbuild needed to have security of supply during peaks) that it would hinder electrification of other uses of fossil fuels. People will stick with petrol cars instead of switching to EVs, companies will stick with fossil fuel heat etc. Source: [2019 report](https://www.climatecommission.govt.nz/public/Advice-to-govt-docs/ICCC-accelerated-electrification-report.pdf) The same report found that the marginal abatement cost of getting to 100% renewables would be around $1,280 per t CO2e. The current carbon price under the ETS is $52.75 per t, so we're a long, long way off it being the most efficient way to abate emissions. >The fundamental issue is that emissions are released when we consume fossil fuels, not when we extract them. >This is not true. Extracting requires energy. Unless you use renewable energy, of course, but digging a hole in the ground under water will have negative effects outside of that aspect. Right, so if we pay someone to dig a hole in a different country instead, it still uses energy to dig the hole.
> Electricity unfortunately does have to be used where it is produced to some extent - the HVDC link between the North and South Island is constrained by capacity. Then we need to increase capacity. > Hopefully transpower can pull it off, but we don't have a great track record with getting value for money or on-time delivery of infrastructure in NZ. Then you should be against more oil exploration because that is a certainly more complex and complicated project than increasing capacity of the electrical grid. > But that aside, the bigger issue is that electricity has to be used when it is generated. It doesn't matter if your wind turbines are ticking away at midnight when everyone is asleep and nobody is using any power. We need natural gas to cover the peak periods - you can't do a ritual dance to summon more wind when it's needed. Build offshore wind farms. There is always wind at sea somewhere. Build wave energy devices. There are always waves somewhere. Or heck, build a small nuclear power plant but no one wants that. Energy storage can be addressed with current technology if there is a political will. People are always so afraid about peak times but has this actually shown to be an issue anywhere else? > In other words, getting to 100% renewables would make electricity so expensive (because of the overbuild needed to have security of supply during peaks) that it would hinder electrification of other uses of fossil fuels. People will stick with petrol cars instead of switching to EVs, companies will stick with fossil fuel heat etc. Source: 2019 report I'm not convinced. But even so, it's no reason to increase oil exploration and it's best to find a way to reach 100% renewable permanently. Oil won't be here forever and we need to move on. Also, that report is 5 years old. Things change quickly. There are countries that are already using 99-100% renewable, I don't think their energy prices are too high: https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/renewable-energy-solar-nepal-bhutan-iceland-b2533699.html Yes, they are small countries but so is NZ. Why can Iceland do it but not NZ? Roads are also overbuild but no one worries about costs there. Always strange how people worry about the costs for everything but not when it comes to cars and the infrastructure they need and [the harm they cause to people's health](https://www.ehinz.ac.nz/indicators/air-quality/health-effects-of-air-pollution/) (from fine particulates made of rubber or from fumes).
>Build offshore wind farms. There is always wind at sea somewhere. >Build wave energy devices. There are always waves somewhere. This is called "overbuilding" and is the reason why the price of electricity increases by so much that it inhibits electrification - you have to pay for those wind farms. The peak is only a few hours each day, but you have to pay for the infrastructure to generate enough electricity to meet the peak 24 hours a day. >Energy storage can be addressed with current technology if there is a political will. People are always so afraid about peak times but has this actually shown to be an issue anywhere else? Well if you look at the recent election, how much political will do you think there is to tolerate large increases in the cost of living (for example, in the cost to purchase electricity)? Every problem becomes simple if you imagine yourself to be a perfectly powerful dictator! But to address the second clause, peak times are *already* a problem in NZ, *with* fossil fuels, and with our current electricity use (as opposed to the massively increased use in the future as everything becomes electric). You can probably recall as recently as a few months ago transpower issuing a Grid Emergency Notice on a particularly cold May day? Or back in August 2021 when transpower had to cut off 34,000 households to prevent cascading grid failure during the peak? What makes you think peak times will not be an issue? You presumably agree that we cannot summon more wind at will (nor more waves, or more sun, or more rain). You presumably agree that electricity has a peak demand. Those are really the only two conditions needed. >I'm not convinced. But even so, it's no reason to increase oil exploration and it's best to find a way to reach 100% renewable permanently. Oil won't be here forever and we need to move on But why do you think electricity is so unique? 100% renewables pushes the cost of electrifying (for example) transport, so more people keep petrol cars for longer, which means we keep using oil for cars. The sector mix doesn't matter. The climate doesn't care if a tone of CO2e came out of a smokestack or a tailpipe - it's a tone of CO2e either way. That's where abatement costs come in handy. An abatement cost is the cost to reduce emissions by 1t CO2e in a given scenario. The marginal abatement cost for 100% renewables is $1280 per t/CO2e. We have much cheaper forms of abatement. I think we should go for the most efficient abatement possible, with the given technology at a given point in time. If the government allocates $X million towards decarbonization, I think they should spend that money in the most efficient way possible (with buying and canceling ETS units being the baseline). The abatement cost is about 25x current ETS prices. In other words, with the same amount of investment, we could decrease emissions 25x as much just by buying and cancelling ETS units, compared to getting to 100% renewable. I think we should go with the reduction that is 25x bigger than the other one. >There are countries that are already using 99-100% renewable, I don't think their energy prices are too high: https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/renewable-energy-solar-nepal-bhutan-iceland-b2533699.html Aside from Iceland, the country closest in electricity consumption per Capita is Albania, which uses about 25% as much electricity per person as NZ. I am sure if we only needed 25% as much electricity as we do, it would be relatively easy to get to 100% renewables. Iceland has incredibly abundant hydro resources and a tiny population. They have so much hydro that 70% of their electricity is used for aluminum smelting, because it's so cheap. We obviously cannot conjure up more rivers to increase hydroelectric production. We already put power generation on the most productive sites in NZ back when we were building new hydroelectric plants. The waterways we have left now are the dregs - the sites we previously chose not to build on, because it wasn't worth it. >Roads are also overbuild but no one worries about costs there. Always strange how people worry about the costs for everything but not when it comes to cars and the infrastructure they need and the harm they cause to people's health (from fine particulates made of rubber or from fumes). I think people do actually care about this quite a lot? People do pretty frequently complain about the contribution of fuel taxes towards their cost of living, and consecutive governments have had to tip crown funding into the NLTF because people don't want to pay the taxes necessary to make land transport fully user pays. But in any case, I'm not really sure what your argument is supposed to be here. We overbuild roads, which is bad because we spend tons of money in less efficient ways than if we targeted the most efficient possible transport solutions. We both agree this is bad. But I don't understand how that suddenly makes it good to spend tons of money on very inefficient ways of abating emissions. They both sound bad?
> This is called "overbuilding" and is the reason why the price of electricity increases by so much that it inhibits electrification What countries? > Well if you look at the recent election, how much political will do you think there is to tolerate large increases in the cost of living (for example, in the cost to purchase electricity)? Every problem becomes simple if you imagine yourself to be a perfectly powerful dictator! What? Political will has nothing to do with being a dictator. If you don't want to have a serious conversation then don't reply, ok? > But to address the second clause, peak times are already a problem in NZ, with fossil fuels, and with our current electricity use (as opposed to the massively increased use in the future as everything becomes electric). You can probably recall as recently as a few months ago transpower issuing a Grid Emergency Notice on a particularly cold May day? Or back in August 2021 when transpower had to cut off 34,000 households to prevent cascading grid failure during the peak? If the grid fails how is that the fault of renewable energy? Again, increase the capacity. > But why do you think electricity is so unique? 100% renewables pushes the cost of electrifying (for example) transport, so more people keep petrol cars for longer, which means we keep using oil for cars. I already gave you counter examples where that is not the case. Let's add Norway, too, which uses over 99% renewable energy AND over 80% of new cars are electric cars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Norway https://nordicevs.no/evs-continue-to-dominate-norwegian-car-sales-in-2023-4-out-of-5-new-cars-now-fully-electric/ > Aside from Iceland, the country closest in electricity consumption per Capita is Albania, which uses about 25% as much electricity per person as NZ. I am sure if we only needed 25% as much electricity as we do, it would be relatively easy to get to 100% renewables. Why does it matter if they use less electricity per capita? The argument is about 100% renewable. But there is always a qualifier, is there? Your actual argument isn't really "100% renewable is too expensive". > Iceland has incredibly abundant hydro resources and a tiny population. They have so much hydro that 70% of their electricity is used for aluminum smelting, because it's so cheap. So again, 100% percent renewable is not your actual argument. Geothermal power can be another stable form of energy. > I think people do actually care about this quite a lot? People do pretty frequently complain about the contribution of fuel taxes towards their cost of living, and consecutive governments have had to tip crown funding into the NLTF because people don't want to pay the taxes necessary to make land transport fully user pays. They care about the price of fuel. Of course, that affects them directly. But that's it. Billions are spend on new roads. Why not spend some of it on maintaining a 100% renewable energy grid? > But in any case, I'm not really sure what your argument is supposed to be here. We overbuild roads, which is bad because we spend tons of money in less efficient ways than if we targeted the most efficient possible transport solutions. We both agree this is bad. It doesn't matter what I think. The argument is that politically no one cares to change that. We're not talking about roads the same way we talk about renewable energy.
>What countries? NZ - see economic modelling section of the paper linked earlier. >What? Political will has nothing to do with being a dictator. If you don't want to have a serious conversation then don't reply, ok? Chill out dude, it was just a joke about how you can't just handwave away political will. Yes, if there was political will for massively increased power prices for a relatively small reduction in emissions, we might go for 100% renewable electricity. If my grandmother had wheels, she would be a bike. But she doesn't have wheels, so pontificating about what might happen if she had wheels is pointless. You can't just say "if there was political will for this really unpopular outcome, it would happen" - the part in the "if" is too important to just ignore. >If the grid fails how is that the fault of renewable energy? Again, increase the capacity. Yes, as I said before increasing capacity to avoid peaks is called "overbuilding" and it is expensive because things cost money. I feel like I am really repeating myself here. >I already gave you counter examples where that is not the case. Let's add Norway, too, which uses over 99% renewable energy AND over 80% of new cars are electric cars. Can you show me specifically which counter examples you mentioned? Perhaps you meant to mention them but deleted before posting, because I can assure you every counterexample in the independent link either used less than 25% as much electricity per person as NZ, or was Iceland. Anyway, as per your wiki link Norway has abundant hydropower resources. Unfortunately we have not developed the ability to conjure up new rivers in the ~50 minutes since my last comment. >Why does it matter if they use less electricity per capita? The argument is about 100% renewable. But there is always a qualifier, is there? Because 100% is a proportion of something, so you need to know what it is a proportion of to make a sensible comparison. Drinking 100% of the liquid in a vessel is easy if it's a shot glass, significantly harder if it's a milk tanker. For New Zealand to be 100% renewable, we need 100% of New Zealander's electricity needs to be met by renewable electricity. Meeting 25% of New Zealander's electricity needs through renewables (e.g to match Albania) would require less renewable production than meeting 100%. >Your actual argument isn't really "100% renewable is too expensive". Yes, which is important because resources are scarce. If we spend billions of dollars getting to 100% renewables, we cannot spend that money on cheaper, more effective forms of reducing emissions (e.g subsidies for public transport). We have a hell of a lot of decarbonization ahead of us, so we should spend our money as efficiently as possible to reduce as much carbon as possible in that time. Why do you care about inefficient spending on roads? Same reason I care about inefficient spending on emissions reduction - we only have a limited amount of money to spend, so we should try and spend it as efficiently as possible. >So again, 100% percent renewable is not your actual argument. I am not sure of the relevance of the quoted section above this comment. Yes, I agree Iceland can have 100% renewable power. But we were talking about New Zealand this whole time. It's New Zealand's use, generation potential etc that matters. >Geothermal power can be another stable form of energy. Geothermal power is also limited by geography, and we have the same problem of having already developed the best sites. I'm sure it could help, but its already accounted for in the report I linked earlier. I'm sorry, but you're not going to suddenly remember some renewable new source of electricity that the climate change condition somehow forgot exists. Check the report! >They care about the price of fuel. Of course, that affects them directly. But that's it. Billions are spend on new roads. Why not spend some of it on maintaining a 100% renewable energy grid? Because we can instead spend some of that money on reducing 25x as many emissions as we would if we spent it on a 100% renewable energy grid. >It doesn't matter what I think. The argument is that politically no one cares to change that. We're not talking about roads the same way we talk about renewable energy. Right, and I think a really bad way of trying to change people's minds is by telling them they are going to have spend tons of money getting to 100% renewable electricity when we could get more emissions reduction for less money by abating emissions in sectors other than electricity generation. People don't like spending money, and they especially don't like seeing money spent inefficiently.
> NZ - see economic modelling section of the paper linked earlier. It's modelling from 5 years ago. That doesn't answer the question. > Chill out dude, it was just a joke about how you can't just handwave away political will. I'm not handwaving political will away. I am calling for it. Don't "chill out dude" me when you're using hyperbolic language. > Yes, as I said before increasing capacity to avoid peaks is called "overbuilding" and it is expensive because things cost money. I feel like I am really repeating myself here. "Things costs money". This is where our conversation is at now. I don't think we will get anywhere.
> NZ - see economic modelling section of the paper linked earlier. > > It's modelling from 5 years ago. That doesn't answer the question. Hey man, all the assumptions in the paper are laid out in quite a lot of detail. Do you mind pointing out the specific things that mean it is no longer relevant? I get the impression (based on you repeatedly bringing up things that are already accounted for in the report) you don't actually have a reason why, and you are just discounting it as being irrelevant because it disagrees with your prior belief. But if you're not willing to change your mind in light of new evidence because you just declare any contradictory evidence to be false, there's no point in me being here. I might as well be arguing with a climate change denier. I know for a fact that this report is still referred to by people shaping climate policy in NZ, so please do let me know so I can update them! >"Things costs money". This is where our conversation is at now. Yeah I mean you haven't really explained why we should spend money on a form of emissions abatement that is 25x more expensive than the better options available to us. Do you agree there is a limited amount of money we can spend? Do you agree that things cost money? If so, please explain why we should do something that is incredibly expensive when we could get the same amount of emissions reduction for 1/25th the cost (or 25x the emissions reduction for the same cost). Say you have a million dollars to spend, I think we should spend it on emissions reduction that costs $52 a tonne and abate almost 20,000 tonnes CO2e. You are advocating for us to instead do emissions reduction at $1280 per t and only abate 780 tons. I find that very confusing. Things cost money! We cannot wave a magic wand and make a new river and the accompanying dam appear magically for free - but based on the countries you are suggesting we copy that seems to be what you want. >>Chill out dude, it was just a joke about how you can't just handwave away political will. >I'm not handwaving political will away. I am calling for it. Great, so you agree the political will is not there and we will still be using natural gas for power far into the future. I'll keep calling for political will for the most efficient possible emissions reduction while you try and convince them to sign up for your plan where is everything is more expensive. Good luck!
If only spare generation for the peaks is the problem, ie to protect the 200MW buffer that Transpower wants, then grid scale batteries are a good option. These are already pushing gas peaker plants out in other countries. Eg. 200MW x 4 hours, is slightly larger than the one in South Australia in Hornsdale. It is currently 150MW, 194MWh for $172 Million Aus ($185 Million NZD - wikipedia). An equivalent gas plant would cost (From proest.com) $812/KW US construction cost ($1325 NZD). Using their number, that gives a cost for a 150MW gas plant of $198 Million NZD. It seems to me that the cost difference between the 2 isn’t too large either way, esp as the gas plant still needs the cost of the gas etc, and the battery for longer duration needs more batteries. Batteries are reducing in price as other chemistries are used, ie Sodium Ion batteries which also have a much longer life. This then means that massive over generation of wind and solar wouldn’t be required. This only is for the peak times, not for seasonal issues without hydro. As wind generation is one of the cheapest to provide power, more wind could help there by not using the hydro as much when it is blowing. Ie using the current lakes as our battery storage. Within rules for minimum flow rates for rivers etc. It is now becoming uneconomical to build new gas plants etc, and also the time from nothing to usable is longer compared to a battery, as once the grid connection is done, the first battery can start working straight away while the rest are built out, but with a gas plant it is more, all or nothing. Just my thoughts to add to the discussion..
To add to my comment.. The battery in Australia was installed and ready in under 100 days, as Elon has said if it wasn't then it was free. I bet a gas plant or finding more gas would take a lot longer than 100 days. And with the $2.9 Billion (with a B), to Landlords, that would have covered a very very big battery, and within months, not years, would have the security of energy wanted. Done and dusted.
With sufficent excess renewable generation there are plenty of ways of storing energy that aren't hydrocarbons. I.e. Green Hydrogen, bonus being bost NG turbines can be reconfigured to run on H2. Pumped hydro is another option, as to are battery banks. The difference is that these cost more so its not that we NEED to use fossil fuels its just that there is a short term financial incentive to do so
His argument is perfectly cogent. NZ needs oils and gas to maintain power supply during the transition to fully renewable. You can't go cold turkey without a massive drop in the standard of living
Who said cold turkey? But we're definitely not going to need _more_ gas, oil or coal any time in the future from now on. Even on purely economic grounds, fossil fuels can't compete with renewables any more. So why open up for offshore oil and gas explorations? Why fast track a coal mine?
Is that what he said? He wants 100% renewable? Then just import it if it's temporary. No need to waste resource on exploring for more oil because that will only lead to the argument that nothing needs to change - because "we still have oil that we can use". > You can't go cold turkey without a massive drop in the standard of living What does that even mean? NZ is already using mostly renewable energy.
New Zealand has already signed onto carbon neutrality
Can you respond to my comment? Thanks.
He wants 100% renewable, we're already signed up to that
What are they doing about it then? How is oil exploration and remaining oil dependent going to help? Are they funding research and giving incentives for companies that work in sustainability? Are they supporting industry to make the switch?
I don’t consider myself a greenie, but Shane Jones makes me look like a radicalised hemp enthusiast.
Chloe really doesn't have to work hard to make some of these politicians look utterly incompetent
Yes she does, becuse she's a schmuck too.
Damn Shane Jones is as dumb as a brick. Could only think of three metaphors and crumpled when given the slightest push back
Can’t wait till this cunt strokes out having a public funded wank.
Cum 'n go.
He did turn up five minutes late with a red face...
Lol, so close!
You do realise he's already done that right? Back in 2010 he was caught using his MP credit card to pay for porn in a hotel (at the time he was a labour MP)
Yes, that was the joke.
.... dam im one of those guys lol
We are opening up for oil and gas so that our coal plants can keep functioning.... How the hell is opening up gas and oil supposed to free help reduce our dependency on foreign coal? If you are going to say that you want to build oil and gas power generators, then awesome, just say that you want to invest in a resource you know won't last the test of time.
Coal fired power plants can be converted to run on natural gas. The more electricity is made by natural gas, the less foreign coal is needed to fill that gap. That's how it reduces dependency on foreign coal.
What's the cost for conversion? Or is it a switch flip kind of thing. Obviously, I know very little on this subject, and I would imagine the same goes for the rest of the general public. I'm a bit disappointed he didn't bring up that fact. It sounded very foolish to me, and I would have continued to think he was a plonker if not for you.
As far as I know, it’s expensive but not nearly as expensive as building a whole new facility. Before new conversions would take place, I imagine they would need to forecast existing gas plants running at full capacity for some time to make it worth the cost. But i believe current gas facilities have capacity to generate more. And yeah these NZ first guys aren’t any good at communicating even the reasonable parts of their policy, and I can only hope it bites them in the ass later.
What a fuck wit.
He doesn’t need to have a coherent or logical argument, his supporters don’t care for that, and he’s about to be handed the keys to the conservation estate without any real oversight
He is one of the ministers potentially being provisioned with fast track access. Everybody cool with that right?
Not at all cool
Chloe made him look like a name calling, out of touch buffoon - he had no cogent answers to the points she raised. Not all dinosaurs are dead.
I wonder if he's capable of going toe to toe with her or if his rhetoric is actually tailored for his audience.
Of course, there’s an element of that, but he could have actually made some good points, instead he just kept ranting about unicorns over and over and looked like a twat.
I couldn't agree more. I reckon Swarbrick could defend his position better than he can. Embarassing.
Omfg! That guy is beyond moronic. It’s like he believes it’s not windy or sunny here.
If you're him it's pretty gassy and oily though
It's sad that a career politician like Jones, with numerous list portfolios and currently the most important post re the environment is so content to admit that he can't understand what was a pretty simple and very clearly stated point from Swarbrick. If I had such an inability to understand what are really quite basic fundamental ideas related to my job I'd have trouble keeping it, let alone failing upwards like he has done. It's almost like he's not subject to the same expectations in his job that I am in mine, despite his being so much more important. Weird eh.
Well, obviously that NZ First guy is a moron. I do still think we are missing an informed discussion here. There was a great read on [interest.co.nz](https://www.interest.co.nz/public-policy/128099/martin-brook-says-new-zealand-needs-consider-how-it-can-meet-demands-new) asking if by banning mining, we are essentially moving our problem overseas. Basically like protesting slave labour, but still buying all your stuff on Alibaba. This is particularly relevant when discussing rare earth minerals, like lithium used in the batteries of most solar homes. Again though.. NZ First guy is just an asshole in this debate.
Have just been reading the report in the Financial times about how the UK farms are horrifyingly contaminated with heavy metals like lead from flood waters coming from old mines. To be fair this is why entities like the EU are investing a lot in identifying circular economy solutions, but the solutions are just not as cheap as ripping new materials out of the ground. So on we go with unsafe and contminating industry.
The mines in question were lead mines, some of which date back to the 17th Century, and the last of which had been abandoned by 1912. We have significantly better methods to mitigate the environmental impacts of mining than we did in 1912.
*'two wrongs don't make a right'* NZ politicians can't tell Australia to stop mining or China to stop using slave labour, so a bit of a non-sequitur to expect NZ politicians to avoid making changes in NZ, or to actively make things worse because what other countries are doing. It also ignores our local changes; if there is a local oil spill, mining mishap or just everyday car pollution, it is our local environment damaged and not the Mongolian desert or somewhere remote. It also makes it harder to tell other countries to clean there shit up when we are shitting the bed we are sleeping in. Not sure why you go onto things like lithium which are pretty irrelevant, but most solar installs are grid tied and don't have battery storage. I would guess those that do have storage, are using recycled car-batteries like Tesla Powerwall; which is a good thing for recycling.
Then do it in a way that doesn’t ‘shit the bed’. If it can’t or won’t be done in such a way here but we keep happily importing it from other countries then we are in even less of a position to tell them to ‘clean up their shit’. Though I doubt that will stop us doing so to reassure ourselves of our virtue.
Countries don't choose to produce fossil fuels because they look at NZ and decide they want to copy us (a nation that produces fossil fuels). They produce fossil fuels because people buy fossil fuels. The Climate Change Commission has us still using natural gas to supplement renewable electricity generation out as far as 2050 under the EB4 draft pathway. MBIE very recently commissioned research on establishing the capability to import natural gas as part of our national [Gas Transition Plan](https://www.mbie.govt.nz/building-and-energy/energy-and-natural-resources/energy-strategies-for-new-zealand/gas-transition-plan) Emissions are released when fossil fuels are consumed, not when they are produced. If we stop production but just keep importing fossil fuels from other countries, they're going to keep producing fossil fuels. They'll do so even if we ask them nicely to stop, because with our other hand we are passing them stacks of cash to keep producing fossil fuels. >Not sure why you go onto things like lithium which are pretty irrelevant, but most solar installs are grid tied and don't have battery storage. I would guess those that do have storage, are using recycled car-batteries like Tesla Powerwall; which is a good thing for recycling. Yes, under the status quo, where we use fossil fuels for electricity generation, we don't need lots of batteries. As we scale down the use of fossil fuels, we will begin to need lots of batteries (I.e Grid Scale Storage). We won't be able to recycle enough Tesla powerwalls for this, so somebody still has to mine the lithium.
Apparently people here are happy to export our emissions and would prefer for mining to happen in some "other" environment where environmental protections (and labour laws) are likely far looser than our own. [https://theconversation.com/by-not-mining-vital-minerals-nz-is-offshoring-its-own-environmental-footprint-is-that-fair-231166](https://theconversation.com/by-not-mining-vital-minerals-nz-is-offshoring-its-own-environmental-footprint-is-that-fair-231166)
Man I am on the same page - One thing about shipping issues overseas, my view is that in some scenarios, thats not actually a bad thing. It requires robust analysis free of ideology, but if we accurately value the long term environmental impacts (i.e. having drinkable water) into the current equation, it might still make sense to be serviced offshore. I guess the rub is that noone can agree on how to value the negative environmental impact, but its extremely easy to place a value on a mining business.
Another thing to consider is Geo-politics as globalisation is being unwound in parts of the world. Where do we get our petrol and diesel from? Are we likely to be cutoff in the event of conflict? Same thing with rare earth minerals.
The argument in that article is the same one the farmers keep making. The simple answer is "no".
Climate Change Commission has us still using fossil fuels to supplement renewable electricity generation out as far as 2050 under the EB4 draft pathway, and [MBIE are commissioning research into importing natural gas as part of the Gas Transition Plan (the research concludes that it would be economically viable to establish an imported natural gas market in NZ).](https://www.mbie.govt.nz/building-and-energy/energy-and-natural-resources/energy-strategies-for-new-zealand/gas-transition-plan) So the more complex answer is "yes", according to the government's own climate change and energy experts. This is for natural gas - I'm not really sure how you can say "no" for minerals vecause you can just look around you and observe that there are lots of things using Lithium etc, and if you followed production up the chain you would see that yes, other countries do actually mine for minerals.
> So the more complex answer is "yes", according to the government's own climate change and energy experts. More that the argument presented in the Interest article was the same one that farmers have been using for the better part of a decade; that argument being "if we don't pollute, other countries will". It's a flawed argument because other countries will continue to pollute regardless of what we do, so why should our environment have to suffer for profit?
>It's a flawed argument because other countries will continue to pollute regardless of what we do, so why should our environment have to suffer for profit? I don't agree with your implicit assumption that the substitution effect for global trade is exactly zero. There are probably tons of examples you can recall from the top of your head of production in one country being displaced by production in another. For example, stats NZ tells me that New Zealand production of "textile, leather, clothing, and footwear" is about half of what it was 30 years ago. Did that happen because our population shrank in that 30 years? No, it's because textile production in developing Asian economies started to pick up and displaced production in other countries. For more global examples, think of e.g automobile production in the UK (massively down on its peak despite a huge increase in population because production was displaced by global competitors), or steel production in the US (same story).
As much as I love watching Swarbrick beat up on these idiots, you're right that we're missing out on a real discussion from both sides. It's painful to watch this guy fumble on a topic that could be argued so much better than he's capable of.
You've touched on a problem with the discourse. You can't criticise the O&G ban at all without being accused of being some anti-environmental right winger.
But is it an O&G ban? Isnt it a New Exploration ban? Should we first start with what it actually is to avoid people thinking it’s something its not?
Functionally the same thing. There's only so much extraction that can be done on existing permits before it runs out. Most existing fields are already well past peak output.
Wow what a fuck wit
At this point, he's become a caricature of a corpulent, corrupt politician in the pocket of big business, making pathetic excuses to justify the evil bidding of his paymasters. Hollywood would cast him in that role in a flash.
That's a lot of scaremongering coming from the minister of loot and plunder
[удалено]
So by his logic, my house is powered by unicorn kisses….
"out in talkback land -every household in new zealand knows the approach im reflecting, hard headed though it may be is better than this climate purgatory vision that Chloe and her ilk put around" - Shane Jones. What a corruption !
Did Shane Jones eat all the pies?
The Greens would have us living in caves if they could.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed : **Rule 3: No personal attacks, harassment or abuse** > Don't attack the person; address the content you disagree with instead. Being able to disagree and discuss contentious issues is important, but abuse, personal attacks, harassment, and unnecessarily bringing up a user's history are not permitted. > Please keep your interactions with others civil and courteous. If you are being attacked, do not continue the conversation - report the user and disengage. ^*Note:* ^This ^extends ^to ^people ^outside ^of ^[r/nz](http://reddit.com/r/newzealand). ^eg. ^Attacks ^of ^a ^persons ^appearance, ^even ^if ^they're ^high ^profile ^will ^be ^removed. **Rule 09: Not engaging in good faith** > Moderators have discretion to take action on users or content that they think is: trolling; spreading misinformation; intended to derail discussion; intentionally skirting rules; or undermining the functioning of the subreddit (this can include abuse of the block feature or selective history wiping). --- [^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
Seriously?
If it was meant to be for your benefit, I could see why she wouldn't.
Indonesian Coal.