I can't find a definite picture of Mark Dunphy, but if you click here, I think the taller man in the white shirt may be he. And as for John Blakeley, he is going to have to remain unpictured here, not a trace of his mug can I find on the internet.
John Blakely kicks off by reminding us how near we were to a black out earlier this year, we will be sailing close to the wind in energy supply for the foreseable future, especially around 2015 when we may well be running out of domestic gas supply. Cath gives then gives us a reasonable warning in regard to global warming and how we must move away from reliance on fossil fuels. Bryan said we have an energy crisis due to a lack of planning and a lack of commonsense. I at least agree with him here, as I have stated many times on this internet site. But it's about the only thing that I do agree with him on. Hydro is an underused resource he goes on, and then suggests using our coal, and then he regurgitates all the usual nonsense of climate change deniers, all provably wrong. Then Mark says we can't deny that sometime in our lifetime, or in the lifetime of our children (i.e. 2075?) we may see a peaking of oil production. No, we can't deny this, but what about peak oil in the lifetime or our ninety year old grandparents? To go on, we have fantastic resources, not enough use of the drill bit, of course, and we need more efficiency. We need to look to national planning, a different form of economic planning, may be the key to the issue. Surely not, Mark? What a revolutionary idea, long term planning, I would never have thought of it. We are then told that about 2015 or 2016 we are going to have a major gas supply issue, unless we import gas from overseas. "I think there is a problem here", and provisional planning proceeds for facilities in New Plymouth. That's not a crisis situation, far from it. There are good prospects for New Zealand energy supplies. The gas picture is complicated by our exporting it as methanol, or maybe mixing it with petrol - one of the reasons we are having gas problems is that we exported so much as methanol. But did no-one notice this at the time?. We should be building another gas-fired station at Otahu (Auckland), but then there may be no gas to fire it. In the old days, this wouldn't have been a problem because the government would have managed this, but now we have the market!!!
Apparently the Ministry of Economic Development (the right arm of the government) is exploring the liquification of coal or lignite to supply liquid fuels, whilst the Minister for Climate Change Issues (the left arm of the goverment)is supposedly doing his bit for the climate. 
Somewhere between the right arm and the left arm is a brain, and in a real person the two halves mostly communicate quite well, and generally it is difficult to believe in two logically exclusive things at the same time; in a political brain, however, it is normal to do so. Cath recalls how in the mid-nineties at an energy meeting the then minister of energy, not named, when many delegates had bemoaned the lack of forward planning in energy, folded his arms and leant back in his chair, and remarked "Oh, that would be Stalinist planning"! Cath mentions the use of biofuels, which she sees as a major opportunity in New Zealand. She sees advantages to the New Zealand landscape with a more sustainable agriculture. Then Brian Leyland goes off his rocker and forgets our ethical and personal reponsibility to our climate and our future by saying that New Zealand's contribution to global warming is insignificant, so why worry about it?
Cath continues along the biofuels road, considering overall fuel efficiency, we need to look at the fuel efficiency of our vehicle fleet, we need economic instruments to encourage use of efficient vehicle, such as mandatory labels. Sorry Cath, whilst I admire your commitment to global warming, I don't think such measures as you advance are going to be adequate. But she does politely counter Bryan's position, rather more so than I would have done, by pointing out that whilst America at the federal level may not be doing much, at the state and city level, much is being done, whilst New Zealand is doing nothing. John says we must break the link between energy use and economic growth. Then more about biofuels. Sorry, panel members, biofuels are mostly an energy and economic red herring. Cath mentions that NZ could have a fossil-fuel free transport system by 2025, perhaps using electric cars. Of course much depends on price, but then fossil fuels are not being priced to incorporate their global warming damaging potential. We need to see carbon pricing, she mentions the European position, but she doesn't mention that the carbon caps in Europe have been set so high as to be worthless. Bad energy decisions are really costly in regards to the lost opportunity costs.
Chris rightly chides the government in regard to new energy conservation measure, haven't we seen this film a few times before?! Yes, Chris, you have seen this film many times before, our record is pathetic, and I have said so many times on this site. Indeed my last posting mentions my problems writing to this site, because I just keep repeating myself. Cath is enthusiastic in regard to solar hot water heating, if one can overcome the high initial cost. But we don't have enough competent plumbers, again, a lack of planning. In South Australia, you are not allowed to install electric water heating in new homes, you can only use gas or solar. Brian, there is a fundamental problem with carbon trading, there is a lot of ways for companies to fudge their figures. John mentions the crisis in electrical transmission (and gas). We need to encourage distributed power generation, this would help with transmission problems, and co-generation. But it is pointed out we need a robust national grid for our renewable energy resources, especially wind. And again, Brian mentions the lack of coordinated planning, though he can't resist a dig at wind power, obviously a bete noir of his. Cath replies by pointing out that our hydro is the battery for our wind power. I have pointed this out several times on this site. A major issue is the problem that small energy producers have in gaining access to the grid. Cath is very critical of the electricity market, and the goverment not re-appointing Roy Hemmingway, chairman of the Electricity Commission, who, she says, was trying to stand up to the vested interests of the big market players.
After I listened to this broadcast, I composed a letter, which I sent to the "Ideas" programme, with a copy to Cath Wallace.
Dear Chris,
It's so disappointing that the thoughts around energy is still predicated on an outmoded way of thinking. In particular, apart from Cath Wallace, the inability of any of your contributors to fully acknowledge the overwhelming importance of global warming in regard to energy issues, is basically a case of criminal negligence. In your earlier examination today of what New Zealand would be like in 2025, one of your contributors suggested that the only thing that those in the 2025 would be thinking is how wise were we in our decisions in 2006? It seems to me, listening to this debate, that those in 2025 will be shaking their heads in wonder at the terminally short sighted and selfish thought processes of our times, even among the so-called experts. We are marching to disaster, there are a few people, like Cath, like Gore, like many other concerned environmentalists, who are sounding the warnings, but self-interest and ignorance still seem to have the upper hand. We are talking about energy policy in New Zealand, but the simple fact that there is no energy policy in New Zealand and there hasn't been for many years.
I am very doubtful that our energy strategy to be announced will provide any other than fairly anodyne and inadequate response to the severity of the issue. Talk of biodiesel, gas importation, carbon sequestration etc, is absolutely to miss the point. We actually haven't begun to recognise the revolutionary changes that oil depletion and climate change are going to bring us. To avoid possible catastrophic climate change, we are actually going to have to reduce our fossil fuel use by 70-80% or even 90%. So this will mean, for instance, that this country should actually consider NOT exploring for any more oil or gas. Just LEAVE IT IN THE GROUND. Why not? It's safer there, and our descendants will need it for their chemical and pharmaceutical industries. Burning such a valuable resource is not only polluting but it is wasteful, it will be more valuable left where it is. But Chris, is there even the remotest possibility that this suggestion, which is a perfectly sane and logical response to the problem of global warming, will be considered anything other than the rantings of a madman? But I am convinced it is the world that is mad, not me. We need to consider a simple legislative approach by insisting that all new electricity generation should be by renewables. WE NEED TO CONSIDER REDUCING IMMIGRATION, and much tighter energy conservation standards, much higher than is likely to be proposed in the energy strategy, are an urgent necessity. Biofuels for cars are a red-herring. The basic premise of all this is that by a little bit of tinkering here and there, we can can continue to use our internal combustion engine cars, build new roads and otherwise continue our merry way. But this is not the case, will New Zealand for instance consider increasing petrol taxation up to European levels? You must be joking, yet these are the sort of measures WE HAVE TO DO, but I am quite sure, listening to this debate, that we won't.
One of your contributors, was it Bryan Leyland, suggested that because our own CO2 emissions were, on a world level, so tiny, that we shouldn't really have to bother about it, especially when China is installing a new coal fired power generation capacity every week. Sorry, THIS WON'T WASH. A child has on his bedroom door "Why should I keep my room tidy when the world is such a mess?". But the answer to this is actually very simple, as any parent would be able to work out very quickly. It is that we all have responsibility for our own actions and if our actions cause a mess, it is our responsibility to deal with this mess. Leaving our mess for others to clean up is just carelessness and laziness, and to suggest otherwise is an intellectual and ethical cop-out. You should take note of how people on the right, such as your contributor, are pretty fond of quoting individual responsibility to all and sundry in regard to crime, or work or health, but when it comes to waste and pollution, this principle is conveniently forgotten. In addition, what are all these power stations in China but surrogates for New Zealand's and the rest of the world's burgeoning demand for Chinese manufactured goods? Every product we import from China bears its share of pollution in its manufacture, it is as much our pollution as China's - along with our industry, we are outsourcing our pollution. Again, it is an intellectual and moral cop-out to suggest anything different. The simple fact is that most global warming deniers (sceptic is too measly a word) are more bothered with health of their pockets then they are for the health of our future.
There IS major scope for energy efficiency, New Zealand's record is about the worst in the OECD, we are the only nation in the OECD to actually be needing more energy per unit GDP production over the last few years, an appalling record. Our new energy efficiency standards are likely to be about the same as those in Scandinavia of about fifty years ago. Yet I heard a builder on Jim Mora's programme recently moaning about likely new energy conservation requirements - that he couldn't see any way in which our present building standards could be improved, he was doing all that was feasible! Obviously he had never visited Scandinavia. We need to be introducing standards that mean that all new homes are just about self sustaining in energy needs, with compulsory design for passive solar heating, compulsory solar hot water heaters in new homes, double glazing, better insulation, heat exchangers, high efficiency lighting etc. We should be aiming, now, to have all new buildings use about one third only of their present energy requirements. Many buildings, both commercial and domestic, have been constructed around the world, that achieve at least these savings, the extra expense is repaid within just a few years. But here, I doubt that the new standards will go anything near these needed standards. These standards require no new technology, nor are they even very expensive, but the sheer inertia of the building sector and of industry in New Zealand, means that this won't happen. This may be pessimistic, but I see no evidence in our political masters or in business that the urgency or seriousness of the situation has even begun to register.
What is required is simple, our energy policies should be predicated on one overriding principle, that all our electricity generation should be by renewable energy by 2020, including that all new power generation facilities are by renewables from today, and that all our energy requirements for transport etc should be by renewables by 2030 i.e we should be substantially free of all fossil fuels requirements by 2030. I have outlined how it could be done on my internet site. It is very frustrating that one of the few nations in the world that actually has it in its power to deal substantially and relatively easily with sustainability and renewable energy resources is so lacking in the resolve and the vision to achieve this. The discussion I heard in your programme today is all the proof one needs that attaining that vision is as far away as it ever was.
Thank you for your attention,
Yours sincerely.
Cath kindly wrote back:
Thanks John, for copying me into the email below.
You may both be interested in the idea of Steve Hatfield-Dodds of CSIRO who spoke in Wellington in several university and other settings, including the VUW Climate Change symposium.
His suggestion was that instead of accounting for greenhouse gases in production, we should do it in consumption. That way, imports of polluting products from China or anywhere else into the West would be counted in our GHG liability and it would eliminate the problem of GHG leakage to developing countries. The problem lies in the Kyoto accounting system which was laboriously negotiated and would be hard to change, but it is probably the solution to the leakage problem. Levying consumption would immediately give all who supplied the high consuming West the incentive to cut back GHGs or be penalised in the Western markets.
Cheers,
Cath
