Our new coalition government.

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Our new coalition government.

1 | ... | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | ... | 182

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2096134 25-Sep-2018 13:21

networkn:

MikeB4:

You will never convince the environmentally resigned. They are mesmerised by corporate PR and the profit motive. They have generally retired their thought processes and live in a state of it's all about me and screw the rest.

If that was in ANY way directed at me, you can knock it off right now.

I have no corporate mentaility, I don't care about corporate profits more than the environment (as a routine attitude) nor do I know anything about the corporate view as it relates to the environment specifically around the oil and gas issue. I am cautious by nature, but also give considered thought to my views/decisions. Just because I don't want to undertake every radical action regardless of the consequences just because the word environment is in the sentence, and would prefer to take a consultative approach to an $8B decision that affects potentially 11,000 jobs, doesn't make me a neophyte or a planet hater.

My issue is that there is no proven environmental (as a planet) benefit to this oil and gas decision since there is no plan attached to this decision which reduces our requirement for it in the first place, just changes where it comes from.

Just because you take action in the name of the environment, doesn't make it the right decision. Like everything else, it should be properly investigated. I am ok if we *lean* toward being progressive, just not charging ahead without a thought to the consequences to everything else.

And for the record, I am not a "it's all about me and screw everyone else" person, I have little doubt that anyone knows me would attest to that.

no it was not, it is directed at those who don't see the need to bring change to save the only viable home we have up to and including the likes of the POTUS.

The decision in itself will not cure climate change but every peice of change may. The Government is also looking at ways to stimulate the uptake of EVs etc. It is like the issue of addressing congestion on our roads, I don't believe that providing greater vehicle capacity solves this issue, case in point Transmission Gully will do nothing to help south bound congestion into the capital it will probably make it worse. The way to ease congestion is to provide vialble sustainable alternatives to private cars for travel into our cities. Therefore by locating and providing more resources to continue the dependence on ICE vehicles we will continue down the same track we are going now and our home will continue to be destroyed.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2096138 25-Sep-2018 13:26

rjt123:

Ahh but u still miss the point. U seem to have come to some conclusion (I don't know how) that this decision has a positive impact on climate change. It had been stated untold times on this thread that there is no decrease in the CONSUMPTION of oil as a result of this policy. Her nuclear-free moment is yet to come, because this decision is ineffective in term of positive action.

Are you being intentionally obtuse? Production will continue for 30 years while consumption is reduced in a gradual, controlled fashion that doesn't shock the economy. No exploration just means no new oil fields. It does not mean no existing oil or gas production during the transitional period. This is not about immediately eliminating oil consumption. It is about changing to a better alternative.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2096139 25-Sep-2018 13:34

Rikkitic:

rjt123:

Ahh but u still miss the point. U seem to have come to some conclusion (I don't know how) that this decision has a positive impact on climate change. It had been stated untold times on this thread that there is no decrease in the CONSUMPTION of oil as a result of this policy. Her nuclear-free moment is yet to come, because this decision is ineffective in term of positive action.

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

No, but i could ask the same question to yourself?

Production will continue for 30 years while consumption is reduced in a gradual, controlled fashion...

Assumption or fact? Were initiatives put into place first to stimulate this? No, which is why all these great suggestions have been made by other more stable minded individuals who realize that there would have been far better was to drive reduction in consumption. As for shocking the economy, there certainly wasn't consultation with the industry, so presumable the aim was to shock the economy.

No exploration just means no new oil fields. It does not mean no existing oil or gas production during the transitional period. This is not about immediately eliminating oil consumption. It is about changing to a better alternative.

Once again, what are the alternatives? is this government taking a wait and see what happens approach? If the rest of the world fails to follow our shining example, then where are the alternative sources of energy going to come from?

Edit: This decision (to ban exploration) in itself, does absolutely nothing for climate change. Surely you can grasp that? The only thing that will help in the fight against climate change is to actually, implement policies that drive down consumption of oil - in itself this policy does not do that, and never will unless there are more policies to complement it.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2096142 25-Sep-2018 13:42

rjt123:

Once again, what are the alternatives? is this government taking a wait and see what happens approach? If the rest of the world fails to follow our shining example, then where are the alternative sources of energy going to come from?

Look under your desk there is one there it has your computer plugged into it. Now go outside and look up that orange thing is another. Take a drive and find some of those big spinning things on hills there is another. Not for getting the alternatives to using ICE vehicles, Public transport is an alternative to private ICE vehicles as are bicycles.

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2096143 25-Sep-2018 13:44

MikeB4:

no it was not, it is directed at those who don't see the need to bring change to save the only viable home we have up to and including the likes of the POTUS.

I don't see anyone that fits that bill in this discussion.

I have yet to see a view expoused here that indicates taking action to protect the planet is a bad thing. What I do see, is resistance to taking action without there being informed consultation based on factual data that it will indeed help. I have yet to see an argument provided FOR the decision which shows there will be any. There seems to be an attitude of "well it's for the environment, anything goes, no research required". I do not support this view or approach to anything.

The decision in itself will not cure climate change but every peice of change may. The Government is also looking at ways to stimulate the uptake of EVs etc. It is like the issue of addressing congestion on our roads, I don't believe that providing greater vehicle capacity solves this issue, case in point Transmission Gully will do nothing to help south bound congestion into the capital it will probably make it worse. The way to ease congestion is to provide vialble sustainable alternatives to private cars for travel into our cities. Therefore by locating and providing more resources to continue the dependence on ICE vehicles we will continue down the same track we are going now and our home will continue to be destroyed.

Well, I can't speak to transmission gully, but the ring road in Auckland has hugely impacted traffic flows for the better. It's one of the best things done in Auckland in the time I have lived here. It did help with congestion. Having said that, at the SAME time, we should be looking to take any action that will get people who have no genuine reason to drive a car, to use public transport.

This is going back a few years now, but when I moved from Auckland from Christchurch, it was a complete shock to find that coming from Christchurch where for $1.80 I could go anywhere in Christchurch (almost) and get back again without 4 hours for free. I NEVER drove in Christchurch because the Public transport was both cheap and pretty effective. To this day in Auckland I don't consider PT to be in the same league. To be fair however, I haven't taken PT for a long time. My last attempt 7 weeks ago was an unmitigated disaster.

My first bus trip in Auckland where I went from Blockhouse Bay to the CBD cost me $4 in each direction. As someone on a very small income that was huge.

I have long supported the view that the Government should go into a special lock down which prevents people objecting to changes required to improve public transport, and regardless of cost escalate and speed up the build of public transport systems. Will never happen.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2096145 25-Sep-2018 13:46

rjt123:

Talking to you is like talking to my cat, except my cat makes more sense and I can pet her.

There is 30 years of production left from existing sources. That is why Ardern wanted to stop exploration now. 30 years is her deadline. That is fact. As for the rest, if we don't have a solution in 30 years, it probably won't make any difference anyway.

I am going to go do something real now. Maybe I will look in here again later if I feel like banging my head on a wall.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

GV27

5896 posts

Uber Geek

#2096146 25-Sep-2018 13:47

MikeB4:

Look under your desk there is one there it has your computer plugged into it. Now go outside and look up that orange thing is another. Take a drive and find some of those big spinning things on hills there is another. Not for getting the alternatives to using ICE vehicles, Public transport is an alternative to private ICE vehicles as are bicycles.

Saying public transport is a perfect substitute for private vehicle use is absurd. You might as well try to tell us that everyone can telecommute.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2096151 25-Sep-2018 13:49

rjt123:

Rikkitic:

Production will continue for 30 years while consumption is reduced in a gradual, controlled fashion...

Assumption or fact?

Perhaps we could check to see what the Energy Minister thinks?

Energy Minister Megan Woods yesterday confirmed that the country may run out of gas in seven years.

She made the comment on TVOne’s “Q+A” and later confirmed it to POLITIK.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2096158 25-Sep-2018 13:56

GV27:

MikeB4:

Look under your desk there is one there it has your computer plugged into it. Now go outside and look up that orange thing is another. Take a drive and find some of those big spinning things on hills there is another. Not for getting the alternatives to using ICE vehicles, Public transport is an alternative to private ICE vehicles as are bicycles.

Saying public transport is a perfect substitute for private vehicle use is absurd. You might as well try to tell us that everyone can telecommute.

where did I say it was a perfect alternative?

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2096161 25-Sep-2018 14:00

Rikkitic:

I don't know enough about what was in JA's mind to make an informed comment on it, but I have been doing some more reading and the issue does not seem to be quite as it has been painted by some here and in the media.

First, it was not exactly a bolt from the blue. JA made her intentions pretty clear when she said during the campaign that climate change was our nuclear-free moment. The oil industry may have dismissed this as just more political rhetoric and assumed things would carry on as always, in which case they have only themselves to blame for their blinkered wishful thinking. They should have been paying closer attention, also to JA's later meetings with the Greens. The decision did come come out of nowhere, Trump-style.

One point made in defense of the ban is that something like this takes about 30 years to actually have any effect. We can't afford to wait another 30 years on this decision. For it to do any good at all, it had to be taken now.

Not everyone in the business world thinks it is an unmitigated disaster. According to the Westpac Climate Change Report, acting early with measures like this could ultimately save the country up to $30 billion in GDP growth by 2050. And that, or course, is almost exactly 30 years away.

I think the decision could have been communicated and implemented in a more elegant fashion, but that seems to be the style of this well-meaning but clumsy government. It does not mean the decision was wrong.

I disagree with your assertion.

Labour "indicated" it would take a focus on environmental issues. Normal people would read into this, that the Government would prioritise investigations into "effective" methods to lessen our impact on the environment, and inact them as a priority after doing it's best to mitigate those impacted. It did not give them carte blanch to inact absoloutely anything it wanted, regardless of the consequences, in the name of the environment.

In my view they have no right to make an $8B decision without indicating so to the public first so it could have formed part of their decision to vote for a specific party. Just as National did with public assets. They made it an election matter, and were elected, giving them a mandate to act on that promise, even though it wasn't popular in many peoples books. Interestly the sky didn't fall, despite the many claims it would.

If the Government decided today, that it was to ban cigarettes, I would applaud, because the impact on the environment (not to mention health) is significantly higher than that of plastic bags, but had they have told people they were banning cigarettes in the election lead up, who do you think would be in power now? Even though I would support a ban on cigarettes, I would expect because of the number of people significantly impacted (I am in no way negatively impacted and would happily mitigate my share of the loss of tax revenue personally), they would have annouced it to allow people the chance to say "nope we won't stand for this, we won't vote for you".

This Government has been extremely dishonest in it's representation on what it will do vs what it will deliver. I consider this an extension to that.

Again for the 100th time, I am not a planet hater, I just want the action taken to be effective and considered.

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2096179 25-Sep-2018 14:22

MikeB4:

rjt123:

Once again, what are the alternatives? is this government taking a wait and see what happens approach? If the rest of the world fails to follow our shining example, then where are the alternative sources of energy going to come from?

Look under your desk there is one there it has your computer plugged into it. Now go outside and look up that orange thing is another. Take a drive and find some of those big spinning things on hills there is another. Not for getting the alternatives to using ICE vehicles, Public transport is an alternative to private ICE vehicles as are bicycles.

Trying to kid yourself buddy?

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2096180 25-Sep-2018 14:24

6FIEND:

Energy Minister Megan Woods yesterday confirmed that the country may run out of gas in seven years.

She made the comment on TVOne’s “Q+A” and later confirmed it to POLITIK.

Misleading quote. I expect better from you.

The truth is that there are 7 (or 11) years of known reserves left. Exploration will continue for 30 or more years on existing permits so new gas will either be found or not but this is not affected by the ban, unless you are thinking ahead more than 30+ years, by which time change has either come or it is too late. Maybe this quote from The Herald will appease you:

New Zealand households which rely on natural gas won't have to switch to another energy source despite the latest advice showing there may be as little as seven years' reserves left, the Government says.

Energy Minister Megan Woods said today she expected New Zealand's shift away from fossil fuels to take 30 or 40 years because existing exploration permits would allow further drilling for gas.

Speaking to TVNZ's Q+A about households moving away from gas, Woods said: "We're still talking drilling for oil and gas in New Zealand in the 2030s and 2040s. So no one has to rush out and do it tomorrow".

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2096182 25-Sep-2018 14:25

My kids are not permitted to ride their bikes in Auckland on the roads. Way way way too dangerous. Auckland drivers are some of the worst I've experienced anywhere and generally their attitudes to cyclists terrifies me.

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2096183 25-Sep-2018 14:26

6FIEND:

rjt123:

Rikkitic:

Production will continue for 30 years while consumption is reduced in a gradual, controlled fashion...

Assumption or fact?

Perhaps we could check to see what the Energy Minister thinks?

Energy Minister Megan Woods yesterday confirmed that the country may run out of gas in seven years.

She made the comment on TVOne’s “Q+A” and later confirmed it to POLITIK.

She also says: Wood told “Q+A” that she was optimistic that people would still be drilling for oil and gas in possibly 20250, possibly even 2070.

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2096185 25-Sep-2018 14:31

Rikkitic:

6FIEND:

Energy Minister Megan Woods yesterday confirmed that the country may run out of gas in seven years.

She made the comment on TVOne’s “Q+A” and later confirmed it to POLITIK.

Misleading quote. I expect better from you.

The truth is that there are 7 (or 11) years of known reserves left. Exploration will continue for 30 or more years on existing permits so new gas will either be found or not but this is not affected by the ban, unless you are thinking ahead more than 30+ years, by which time change has either come or it is too late. Maybe this quote from The Herald will appease you:

New Zealand households which rely on natural gas won't have to switch to another energy source despite the latest advice showing there may be as little as seven years' reserves left, the Government says.

Energy Minister Megan Woods said today she expected New Zealand's shift away from fossil fuels to take 30 or 40 years because existing exploration permits would allow further drilling for gas.

Speaking to TVNZ's Q+A about households moving away from gas, Woods said: "We're still talking drilling for oil and gas in New Zealand in the 2030s and 2040s. So no one has to rush out and do it tomorrow".

YOu fail to take into account the fact that oil companies will require stability and certainty to invest in exploration. Exploration and exploitation is a huge business, requires massive investment, and they will want a degree of certainty that they'll be able to get return on investment. With a government that makes random sporadic bans like this they will find there are better fish to fry. You can't pull the rug out from under their feet and then expect them to turn round and invest in exploration again.

1 | ... | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | ... | 182