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 | 22 | ... | 28
Glurp
8204 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3780

Subscriber

  Reply # 2096081 25-Sep-2018 11:48
Send private message quote this post

rjt123:

 

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.

 

 

Do you honestly think that could happen while the teat of easy oil money is just hanging there to be sucked on? 

 

 





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


13091 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6153

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 2096083 25-Sep-2018 11:50
Send private message quote this post

I will repeat a previous comment I made......

 

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.





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
8204 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3780

Subscriber

  Reply # 2096084 25-Sep-2018 11:50
Send private message quote this post

networkn:

 

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

 

 

Okay, seriously, do you have any specific ideas for how this could be done?

 

 





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


517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user


  Reply # 2096085 25-Sep-2018 11:52
Send private message quote this post

 MikeB4:

 

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.

 

 

Actually the oil we produce in NZ is a high-grade, that's why it's exported because we can get a better price for it than refining in in NZ for local consumption.

 

Also,for the record: 

 

New Zealand’s oil and gas industry plays an important role in New Zealand. Every year, the industry contributes over $2.5 billion to the New Zealand economy, provides the Government with approximately $500 million in royalties and income tax, and employs 11,000 people. 

 

https://www.pepanz.com/dmsdocument/16

 


18234 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5238

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2096087 25-Sep-2018 11:53
Send private message quote this post

MikeB4:

 

Good grief.

 

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

 

 

Can you explain to me exactly how this is stepping outside the square? I am for innovation and steps to do something about the planet, but moving sideways isn't achieving anything.

 

The Govenment has done nothing to explain how the net affect of this will be positive for the environment (well, potentially our LOCAL but not for the world as a whole).

 

Just putting your fingers in your ears and repeating "it will be better for the environment" over and over, won't make it so.

 

Taking measured, considered steps to reducing our NEED for oil and gas would be a positive step forward. One that balances our need and it's impact of not having those needs met, with planet saving progress.

 

 

 

 

 

 


477 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 218


  Reply # 2096088 25-Sep-2018 11:53
Send private message quote this post

Rikkitic:

 

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 would have levied future permits at escalating rates over time and put it into a contestable funds for universities to set up advanced materials labs. I would have then had annual contestable grants in the same the DOE does, and to underwrite research partnerships with the leading universities in this areas. I'd start with Purdue, Michigan and some of the Chinese research institutions who seem to making good inroads into Li-Ion alternatives and anode issues. At the same time, I'd be paying for feasibility studies to see where in the North Island additional renewable electricity could be generated from to help ensure security of supply. 

 

I would also remember that oil is used for many things that do not result in emissions, such as for plastics and other lightweight materials that are essential for improving vehicles and other forms of transport. 


517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user


  Reply # 2096092 25-Sep-2018 11:55
Send private message quote this post

Rikkitic:

 

rjt123:

 

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.

 

 

Do you honestly think that could happen while the teat of easy oil money is just hanging there to be sucked on? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What a dopy reply! no offence, but reallly...???! The government earns royalties, it is then their money to spend. Do they consult you personally what they are allowed to spend you contribution of income tax on? Of course not. So they are entiltles to spend the $500million in royalties how they like. That would test their true commitment to the environment, or whether they actually just done this out of spite for the oil companies.


131 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 88


  Reply # 2096094 25-Sep-2018 11:59
Send private message quote this post

Rikkitic:

6FIEND:


Is there any rebuttal for this?



My rebuttal is that you are using a ploy for the purpose of obfuscation, a familiar debating tactic.



That’s not a rebuttal. That’s just you making an assertion about another commenters personal motivations. (As if that somehow debunks any of the independently sourced evidence that they offered)

I guess the notion of “You discuss the matters, not the person. only applies to our politicians, not our fellow geekzone commenters eh?

Rikkitic:

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.


Likewise plastic bags. They have become a major problem because people don't think about their use. There is plenty of data to support that. Another government study (which the right disparages anyway) is not needed for a decision of that nature. The PM is doing what the right keeps complaining that she doesn't do. She is governing. The two decisions cited here are well within her purview. 


 


 



Now you’re arguing both ways... if we accept that the PM governing in this manner is a good outcome, then people will naturally start assessing her leadership and decision-making on a personal level rather than the government as a whole.

18234 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5238

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2096096 25-Sep-2018 12:01
Send private message quote this post

Rikkitic:

 

networkn:

 

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

 

 

Okay, seriously, do you have any specific ideas for how this could be done?

 

 

 

 

Sure. Crazy as it sounds, set up a properly qualified comittee (it's not like there isn't precedent) to investigate the impacts both positive and negative. Consult those impacted. Look for ways to mitigate the negative impacts, potentially by retraing those impacted into roles to accentuate the positives of such a plan, then execute that plan in a timeframe that gives everyone a chance to adapt, whilst ensuring there is positive actual impact on the planets well being. 

 

We could set an example to the rest of the world in pioneering moving those in jobs that are related to oil and gas exploration, into roles where they are finding ways to reduce our actual REQUIREMENT for it in the first place.

 

These things are not 5 minute projects.

 

 

 

 


13091 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6153

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 2096100 25-Sep-2018 12:09
Send private message quote this post

Thats interesting I could probably drag out 100 posts from naysayers decying  the Governments consultations and committees. I honestly believe that the objection to this innitiatve is who actually made it. If it were a National Party Government that made this decision it would be praised for its bold move.





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.

 

 


18234 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5238

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2096101 25-Sep-2018 12:11
Send private message quote this post

MikeB4:

 

Thats interesting I could probably drag out 100 posts from naysayers decying  the Governments consultations and committees. I honestly believe that the objection to this innitiatve is who actually made it. If it were a National Party Government that made this decision it would be praised for its bold move.

 

 

Not by me. But then I can't imagine them taking such a movement without proper consulation and consideration.

 

I knew someone would make the point of the nay sayers critising the committee thing. This is a massive issue, $8B is on the line, and a commitee would be pretty normal for a decision this size. 

 

The lack of due diligence on this matter is eye watering. Seems like some hear the word environment and go a little off the reservation. It, like everything else deserves proper consideration. How many actions have been done in the past which have actually been HARMFUL when they were thought to not be?

 

 


477 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 218


  Reply # 2096113 25-Sep-2018 12:30
Send private message quote this post

I'm really struggling to see how this is any better than Muldoon's Government by Press Release. I guess it's about THE ENVIRONMENT so that makes it OK. 


18234 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5238

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2096120 25-Sep-2018 12:46
Send private message quote this post

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.

 

 

 

 


Glurp
8204 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3780

Subscriber

  Reply # 2096122 25-Sep-2018 12:54
Send private message quote this post

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 reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user


  Reply # 2096133 25-Sep-2018 13:10
Send private message quote this post

Rikkitic:

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.




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.

Unless of course the plastic bag ban was her nuclear-free moment.

1 | ... | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | ... | 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.