Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | ... | 28
480 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 219


  Reply # 2096049 25-Sep-2018 11:20
Send private message quote this post

Rikkitic:

 

My rebuttal is that you are using a ploy for the purpose of obfuscation, a familiar debating tactic. Leaders are supposed to lead. The question is not what Labour's policy statements at the time didn't say or what the energy minister didn't think or any other blah blah. The question is if this is a good idea or not. Oil dependency must cease. Stopping exploration is a step in that direction. Nothing wrong with that idea. And it didn't come out of the blue. The Greens, who are also part of government, have been pushing for this for a long time.

 

The official advice they received indicated it would have a high economic cost and would not achieve its aims. I note the Energy Minister is now publicly criticising the advice because it doesn't fit in with how they've tried to frame this. 

 

Making sweeping political statements that cripple a whole sector of the economy that don't even achieve the thing you're grandstanding about is poor leadership, no matter which way you try to spin it. It was arbitrary, it was pointless and it will have a massive cost. 


Glurp
8233 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3789

Subscriber

  Reply # 2096053 25-Sep-2018 11:26
Send private message quote this post

networkn:

 

The problem is, no experts were actually consulted (by the Governments own admission).

 

 

Everything just becomes another excuse for doing nothing. Stopping exploration ourselves gives us more moral authority to try to persuade others. How can you convince people to look for alternatives to oil if you are doing everything possible to increase your own supplies?

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


18314 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5245

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2096054 25-Sep-2018 11:27
Send private message quote this post

MikeB4:

 

Someone has to be first or we are heading for a massive "bugger" situation. If no one had gone first 1893 we would still not have Universal Suffrage.

 

 

First to what? First to oursource our oil and gas needs? That achieves nothing. We need to get away from oil and gas if we want to "save the planet". This "initiative" does nothing to acheive this.

 

 


18314 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5245

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2096056 25-Sep-2018 11:29
Send private message quote this post

Rikkitic:

 

Oil dependency must cease. Stopping exploration is a step in that direction.

 

 

How? We aren't reducing our requirement, just outsourcing it's supply. 

 

 


480 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 219


  Reply # 2096060 25-Sep-2018 11:32
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

Rikkitic:

 

networkn:

 

The problem is, no experts were actually consulted (by the Governments own admission).

 

 

Everything just becomes another excuse for doing nothing. Stopping exploration ourselves gives us more moral authority to try to persuade others. How can you convince people to look for alternatives to oil if you are doing everything possible to increase your own supplies?

 

 

Fine then. Ban all cars. If you only care about the outcome, no matter how unjust or eye-boggling the cost is, why not just skip to Khmer Rouge-style Day 0 agrarianism? It's bold leadership, right? 


18314 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5245

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2096064 25-Sep-2018 11:34
Send private message quote this post

Rikkitic:

 

networkn:

 

The problem is, no experts were actually consulted (by the Governments own admission).

 

 

Everything just becomes another excuse for doing nothing. Stopping exploration ourselves gives us more moral authority to try to persuade others. How can you convince people to look for alternatives to oil if you are doing everything possible to increase your own supplies?

 

 

 

 

How much moral authority do you think we gain by saying to countries who continue to drill for oil and gas (which we *NEED*) "hey we have stopped exploration, shame on you for not doing the same, BTW could you please supply us with gas and oil"

 

If the Government had taken measured, planned steps toward reducing our need for oil and gas, then there would be something to "celebrate" assuming it was done sensibly rather than for appearances.

 

I am not suggesting NO action. I am suggesting a more measured and planned approach.

 

 


480 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 219


  Reply # 2096066 25-Sep-2018 11:36
Send private message quote this post

networkn:

 

I am not suggesting NO action. I am suggesting a more measured and planned approach.

 

 

No doubt you want to do other unconscionable things like consult affected parties or taking official advice on the impact of such a change too.

 

Why do you hate the environment, networkn? 


13139 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6164

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 2096067 25-Sep-2018 11:38
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

Stopping exploration and exploitation of oil  has many ticks...

 

An accident would have gave consequences for our marine industries.

 

The oil we produce here is of low grade and exported so we would still be importing at our current levels and the oil we export would cost considerably more to recover with current technology so fiscal returns would not be great.

 

We have reached a point on this planet where time is running out for us to treat our oil based addiction, taking a lead in this is a positive.

 

Any oil and gas that is sitting there now undiscovered will still be there in 50 years, 100 years and could be recovered when clean safe means to retrieve and use it have been found. There is no use by date on those reserves it they in fact exist.

 

The resources used to fund oil exploration would be better utilised in ways that may just save this planet.

 

Taking the lead like we have in the past and make a stand is a good thing not a bad thing.

 

 

 

This is just a few I have thought of smarter folks will find many more. Change is not brought about by doing the same it is brought about by thinking outside the square.

 

 





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


18314 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5245

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2096069 25-Sep-2018 11:39
Send private message quote this post

GV27:

 

networkn:

 

I am not suggesting NO action. I am suggesting a more measured and planned approach.

 

 

No doubt you want to do other unconscionable things like consult affected parties or taking official advice on the impact of such a change too.

 

Why do you hate the environment, networkn? 

 

 

hahah Yeah, I would support all those actions. I am a terrible human being :) 

 

 


Glurp
8233 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3789

Subscriber

  Reply # 2096071 25-Sep-2018 11:40
Send private message quote this post

GV27:

 

Fine then. Ban all cars. If you only care about the outcome, no matter how unjust or eye-boggling the cost is, why not just skip to Khmer Rouge-style Day 0 agrarianism? It's bold leadership, right? 

 

 

This is not debate. It is trolling.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


480 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 219


  Reply # 2096074 25-Sep-2018 11:42
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

MikeB4:

 

Taking the lead like we have in the past and make a stand is a good thing not a bad thing.

 

 

If you want to start writing $8bn cheques for warm fuzzies then be my guest. As a country that we are told is struggling with poverty and housing issues, I would have thought that was a luxury we could not afford.

 

Rikkitic:

 

GV27:

 

Fine then. Ban all cars. If you only care about the outcome, no matter how unjust or eye-boggling the cost is, why not just skip to Khmer Rouge-style Day 0 agrarianism? It's bold leadership, right? 

 

 

This is not debate. It is trolling.

 

 

You have refused to engage with all of the issues and costs point out to you. You keep blathering on about being bold and visionary and other things I could probably quote off the back off a Greenpeace begging letter. I am merely treating your argument with the credibility it deserves. 


517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user


  Reply # 2096076 25-Sep-2018 11:43
Send private message quote this post

Rikkitic:

 

networkn:

 

The problem is, no experts were actually consulted (by the Governments own admission).

 

 

Everything just becomes another excuse for doing nothing. Stopping exploration ourselves gives us more moral authority to try to persuade others. How can you convince people to look for alternatives to oil if you are doing everything possible to increase your own supplies?

 

 

 

 

Reducing (and eventually ceasing) oil dependency can happen two ways - economic viability of alternative sources of energy, or by the government legislating against consumption. The first way is the only real option, and presumable one you acknowledge given your own admission in previous posts.

 

What if the government had actually researched this proposal prior to announcing the ban. Lets assume a negative economic impact of $500million, what if they had kept their source of oil & gas royalties and invested this in solar R & D schemes, or battery technology, or bio-fuels, or anything else that might have had some positive result. Can you not see that taking that course of action could've had a far greater positive impact for the economy and for the environment. Furthermore, how much better would it be for NZ to be the first to have wholly sustainable electricity generation than to be the first country to give up their natural resources in favour of importing at the expense of the environment.


13139 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6164

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 2096077 25-Sep-2018 11:44
Send private message quote this post

networkn:

 

MikeB4:

 

Someone has to be first or we are heading for a massive "bugger" situation. If no one had gone first 1893 we would still not have Universal Suffrage.

 

 

First to what? First to oursource our oil and gas needs? That achieves nothing. We need to get away from oil and gas if we want to "save the planet". This "initiative" does nothing to acheive this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good grief.

 

You know squares can be stepped out of it just needs a little vision and courage.





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


Glurp
8233 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3789

Subscriber

  Reply # 2096078 25-Sep-2018 11:44
Send private message quote this post

GV27:

 

If you want to start writing $8bn cheques for warm fuzzies then be my guest. As a country that we are told is struggling with poverty and housing issues, I would have thought that was a luxury we could not afford.

 

 

Since you are so passionate about this, what would you do? Assuming of course that you accept something should be done? 

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


18314 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5245

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2096079 25-Sep-2018 11:47
Send private message quote this post

MikeB4:

 

An accident would have grave consequences for our marine industries.

 

 

If we worried about what "might" happen then you'd never leave the house.

 

 

The oil we produce here is of low grade and exported so we would still be importing at our current levels and the oil we export would cost considerably more to recover with current technology so fiscal returns would not be great.

 

 

Well, at a cost of $8B for not doing it, so there is "some" return". That $8b whilst a mind boggling sum, doesn't speak to the personal impact on those who won't have jobs, etc and regional development.

 

 

We have reached a point on this planet where time is running out for us to treat our oil based addiction, taking a lead in this is a positive.

 

 

But this doesn't do anything to address it, just moves the problem to another part of the world.

 

 


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | ... | 28
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.