Introduction.
What follows is a submission made to the Ministry of Economic Development in New Zealand, in regard to a Draft Energy Strategy released late last year. The document is available on the internet in pdf format, it is about 80 pages, so is quite a large file on a dial-up connection. This page is a brief introduction and contains relevant links, you can download from here. The Draft Energy Strategy is the present government’s response to some urgent energy issues, especially global warming. But it is also a response to New Zealand’s absence of any energy strategy over the last thirty years, and is a belated recognition that no country can hope to run as an efficient society without much more attention being paid to our energy usage and planning for our energy future. It is my contention that New Zealand is likely to be some $30 billion less well off than it should be because of the lack of an energy strategy over the last thirty years, since the oil shocks of the 70s and 80s. We have truly squandered our resources on a massive scale.
Welcome then as this strategy should be, it reads unfortunately as I predicted it would, a weak and inadequate document, that advances New Zealand from its present position, certainly, but only about as far as Denmark in 1979. There are two glaring omissions which render the document almost irrelevant. The first is that there is no recognition yet of peak oil and the dire urgency with which we have to face major economic dislocation related to this. Second, and utterly ludicrous, is the lack of any reference to a CO2 reduction target!! What craven nonsense, here is the single most important issue facing humanity, and here is New Zealand’s response to this problem, and it can’t even bring itself to name CO2 reduction targets. It’s the environmental problem that can’t speak its name.
Submission in regard to the Draft New Zealand Energy Strategy.
Preamble . In 2002 I wrote to the then Minister of Energy, Pete Hodgson, in regard to wind-power, and New Zealand’s very poor record at that time in investing in this renewable energy future. This is part of what I wrote:
“ Wind power, along with solar power and energy efficiency, could provide incredible economic benefits. Imagine this country transformed into an efficient unit. No petrol or diesel needed for transport, high energy efficiency homes which are warm and comfortable in winter, with less asthma and diseases in the population, the provision of abundant electrical energy resources which derive from the sun, either directly as in solar energy, or indirectly through wind and hydro power. Planning legislation that ensures that no further sprawling or so-called “rural residential” developments take place, high standards of planning in urban areas with a partnership between government, councils and developers to ensure a healthy and enjoyable and attractive and energy efficient urban environment, with good public transport (electric of course) and much less reliance on the polluting and inefficient motor car.
This I know is a long way from writing about wind power, but these matters are all connected. We can now build houses so energy efficient that the mere heat of the occupants can keep the place warm, even in the coldest winter, so why don’t we? We can fit light bulbs that use one fifth of the energy of a filament lamp, so why don’t we,? We can make electrical energy as cost effectively as coal, oil or gas, and avoiding all the environmental degradation and import costs of these, so why don’t we? Investing in this sort of society will repay itself many times over ”.
A year later in 2003 I wrote to Peter Hodgson, requesting that we should legislate that all new power generation should be only by renewable resources. He wrote back “ I note your suggestion that the installation of any electricity generation other than renewables should be forbidden, but I have to say that is not a realistic option ”.
So this submission comes with its own history and much further correspondence, not detailed here. I have been concerned that in New Zealand there has for at least thirty years been no energy strategy, nor any overall consideration as how we will deal with burgeoning energy costs, increasing oil imports, oil and gas depletion and global warming. I would contend that the electricity sector in particular has been hijacked by simplistic and naive monetarist and neo-liberal economic policies, setting up a pointless and an entirely artificial “market”, to the detriment of long term, integrated planning and efficiency. So much time and intellectual effort has been squandered by the electricity reforms, that this has been a distraction from examining the bigger, longer-term picture. My internet site ( 21 ) contains much material related to all these concerns. In particular in early 2005 I wrote an article as to how we could develop an entirely renewable electricity generation strategy, ultimately to include most transport also. ( 20 )
In addition over the years I have had to question many of the basic assumptions contained in publications and documents produced by various ministries in the government. Obviously, this is rather odd, I am a complete amateur, yet I there have been many instances of opinions expressed and figures used that are obviously misleading or plainly absurd. For instance, Peter Hodgson’s statement that a fully renewable electricity generation strategy is not a realistic option - just not true, indeed our Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment agrees with me in his document Future Currents , and it is promoted (but not quite fully) in this document we are discussing, five years later. Here is another example, contained in the Energy Outlook to 2025 , where it is stated that a key reference scenario assumption, is “oil prices rising to US$20/bbl in 2004, to US$25/bbl by 2020 and remaining stable thereafter”. Now, the Energy Outlook to 2025 was still being referred to by Peter Hodgson in 2005/06, when the price of oil had risen to well over US$60, so the question is, just where did Peter Hodgson and his ministry minions fill their cars? And why had the ministry got its projections so drastically wrong? And now we have a new document, Energy Outlook to 2030. Yet the projections of oil prices here are equally absurd, the prediction being that oil will cost US$60/bbl until 2030. The likelihood of oil being less than three times that amount is remote in the extreme, indeed the availability of any significant amount of oil at all in New Zealand in 2030 is questionable. Yet the Energy Outlook 2030 suggests oil use will increase 35%, this is truly bizarre. There are many well qualified oil experts who state that peak oil will arrive within the next few years, indeed Matt Simmonds is pretty sure we have already passed this momentous event. ( 1 ) It is the government’s continued economic and energy naivety that is so frustrating. We have to plan for an economy with much less oil, and certainly very little for private transport. The government’s, and the opposition's, continued refusal to understand the geophysics of oil depletion will cost this country dearly. I will have more to say about oil later.
Fast forward to March 2007, and I am now making this submission in regard to the Draft Energy Strategy . The New Zealand government is at long last recognising that this country can’t progress without an effort being made to look to long-term planning and goal setting. I can’t tell you how welcome this sign of common sense in government is. So it is rather painful to me to have to state that this document is entirely inadequate in guiding New Zealand’s energy policy in the first half of this 21st Century.
The Science of Global Warming . The most glaring omission which makes this Draft Energy Strategy of very doubtful value, is its failure to discuss anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in any meaningful way and thereby demonstrate that the writers and contributors to this document have any real understanding of this issue, or the revolutionary changes this will bring to our society. Now, I accept other documents referred to on pages 5 and 7, such as the above mentioned Energy Outlook , or Greenhouse Gas Emissions 1990-2005 , the Discussion paper on measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in New Zealand post 2012, do fill in some background. But this is not what is needed. What is distinctly and horrifyingly lacking is, yet again, some overarching policy framework as to what global warming means to our energy issues, and what CO2 emission goals we should be aiming for, as best as can be predicted by our knowledge of the science of AGW.
Because of this omission, I am going to have to provide some background myself. And this is relatively simple. According to many experienced science advisors and bodies, (these include the scientific meeting in Exeter, England in 2003, by the name "Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change", ( 2 ) climate experts in Princeton University, and scientists that contribute to the well-respected internet site “Realclimate”, and many others) that if we wish to avoid “dangerous” climate change the world should definitely avoid an increase of higher than 2°C. James Hansen, the doyen of global warming scientists, goes further, and suggests any temperature higher than 1°C (from now) could be “dangerous”. ( 3 ) This gives an allowable carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere of approximately 450 ppm. (We are already at 380 ppm). To avoid levels higher than 450 ppm will mean a reduction in CO2 emissions in comparison to 1990 levels of about 70-80% by the end of this century, and the sooner these reductions are achieved, the better the chance of avoiding dangerous climate change is (remember that a level of 450 ppm gives only a 50% chance of achieving a lower than 2°C rise, there is an equal chance of it being higher than this). The Exeter meeting suggested that the world needs to reduce its CO2 emissions by around 50% from 1990 levels by 2050 as an interim in reaching the more strict goal by the end of the century. The Tyndall Centre in the UK have suggested a 60% reduction of CO2 emisions by 2050 to meet a target of 450 ppm. ( 15 ) The Union of Concerned Scientists also state a 50% world wide reduction in CO2 will be required by 2050, and have helped draft a bill introduced into the US Senate recently to see an 80% reduction in the US by 2050. (This much more strict requirement because the US’s emissions are so huge and their use of fossil fuels so profligate) ( 4 )
Carbon Ration . According to George Monbiot, a well regarded environmental writer in the UK, advances the argument in his book, Heat, ( 5 ) that the advanced, richer nations are actually going to have to look to reductions in CO2 emissions of 90%, because only in this way will developing nations be able to utilise enough fossil fuel to advance their own societies, in other words, the advanced societies, that have been the cause of all this trouble, must in all fairness allow other poorer nations to improve themselves. If the ethics of this are accepted, and I don’t see how they can be argued, then our goals will be even more onerous. Monbiot considers a carbon ration is the only way that we will deal with this issue. There is no mention in the Draft Energy Strategy of a carbon ration, or even a suggestion that this should be debated. We should seriously consider a carbon ration and how it might work. The idea has a simplicity and fairness which is quite beguiling, the devil will be in the detail.
I think it would be true that the Draft Energy Strategy has been born, at least in part, by the realisation that AGW is a serious issue, indeed likely the most serious issue ever to face humanity, and that we really need to get on and do something urgent about it. Indeed Helen Clark has just given a speech in the USA in which she is reported to have indicated " she wanted climate change to become one of the defining issues for the country's national identity ".( 16 ) In which case, it is extraordinarily disappointing how little of this document deals with the facts about AGW, and even less does it acknowledge the supreme effort that meeting the challenge of AGW will require of us. It is perplexing that having at long last accepted the veracity of what climate scientists are telling us about AGW, we are then refusing to accept what those same scientists are telling us what we will need to do to deal with it. This Draft Energy Strategy is yet another example of government and industry suggesting that we can deal with AGW by tinkering at the edges of our profligate use of fossil fuels, and that our unsustainable way of life can continue unabated or with minor inconvenience only. Nowhere in the Draft Energy Strategy is there any acknowledgment of these serious goals, nor any preparation of the public for the profound changes required. It is, frankly, a deeply dishonest document.
I will not deal with the Draft Energy Strategy point by point, but I will discuss what I consider are some important matters, some of which are not even included in this strategy.
Carbon Neutrality and Global Warming. David Parker's forward suggests that this strategy can advance New Zealand towards carbon neutrality and set New Zealand on a path which will enable us to sustainably reduce our total CO2 emissions from energy. But as explained above there is described no logical or detailed route by which New Zealand might attain this goal. It would help for instance for this document to explain to the reader precisely what is meant by carbon neutrality in this context. This is such an important matter, it is very disappointing that this has not been done. If we don't know what carbon neutrality means or when it will be achieved, how can the Draft Energy Strategy examine it? The answer to this rhetorical question is of course, it can't. The consequence of this failure of intellectual rigour is discussed above.
Section 2.3.3 More efficient means of transport . The government’s new found commitment to public transport is welcome. But there are problems. Auckland is still waiting for financing of the electrification of the suburban railway - to even be considering diesel power with global warming and oil depletion is bizarre. This is a good example of a government with good intentions failing to meet these intentions with action. We are told that the government is to spend $1176 million on rail over the next ten years. Yet much larger sums of money are being spent on new roads. The amounts are not detailed in this document, but as a proportion of the transport budget, roading gets over 80%. This continued investment in roads is reasonable proof that the government does not understand the priorities that AGW should bring. According the NZ Herald in 2005 ( 6 ) nearly 80% of Aucklanders in 2005 commuted by car, in European cities it is likely these figures are reversed. The Regional Land Transport Strategy 2005 ( 7 ) projects expenditure on roads of 62% of $11 billion and only 34% on public transport. Auckland is at major risk of seizing up and failing as a viable entity as oil depletion and increasing oil prices become more established. The aim of doubling public transport usage is too timid, the base is so low. The need for public transport investment in Auckland is dire, the only expenditure on roads should be for safety reasons, all the other money earmarked for roads should be invested in public transport. This principle should also apply in the rest of the country - this is not suggested in the Draft Energy Strategy , a major failure of understanding and vision. There is in New Zealand and many other wealthy countries a motoring culture of a pathological degree, this culture is strangling our cities and our economy. We have to be ruthless in dealing with it. And we now hear how the government have committed $1.5 billion to funding new road construction, bypassing normal treasury processes, revealing starkly how deeply this pathological culture is entrenched both in the public at large, who could at least be forgiven for their ignorance, and in the highest echelons of power, who can’t. ( 8 ) Prof. Jan Gehl would likely contend that Auckland is what he has called an "abandoned city" ( 25 ), it will unfortunately soon become a "failed city" if the car-centric culture continues and public transport, whilst improved, continues to play second fiddle.
Section 4.4.2 Transport fuel costs. (also section 2.3.1.1) It is claimed that biofuels technology has arrived. It is my contention that biofuels, at least as commonly regarded as an alternative for petrol and diesel in motor vehicles, are an appallingly dangerous distraction. The supposition that underlies the promotion of biofuels is that we can continue our profligate use of energy in the transport sector, using machines (cars and lorries) that mostly achieve an overall efficiency of about 15%, saving the planet and avoiding oil depletion. It can't work on this basis - it is an absurd use of a such a valuable material, diverting the world's most valuable food resources so we can drive cars. It is actually immoral. There are over 6 billion people on this planet, who rely on the staples produced in some of the world's breadbaskets, much of which will be given over to the production of biofuels - the promise of biofuels is the starvation of a millions of people. Also part of this promise are tropical rainforests razed for palm oil, sugar cane plantations invading the Amazon, and this year rapidly rising prices for grain and corn. Biofuels are the promise of those who really haven't thought things through, intellectually, scientifically and ethically; who's promise to drivers of a continued car ownership utopia is also a promise to the poor around the world of even more misery and destitution than is their lot already. ( 18 ) Nothing represents the poverty of intellect and morals in regard to society's attitude to our planet and the people and animals that live in it better than this push for biofuels. For the planet's sake, stop it now.
Electric Vehicles and vehicle to grid (V2G) I strongly support however the push to using battery powered vehicles, deriving their power from renewable electricity generation. In addition, as mentioned again below, a large number of electrically powered vehicles represents a valuable storage of immediately available electrical power. One million electric vehicles each able to give a 2 kW output when parked or garaged represents a 2 GW instantaneous power source or about one quarter of New Zealand's total generation capacity. Cars could be charged through the day whilst the driver is working with solar or wind power, and at night, when they get home, some of the residual power in the batteries would be used to supply the peak power needs of the early evening, and this would work if the car is used for commuting or just left at home. At night, low cost power could be used to recharge the vehicles. ( 19 ) In one stroke the parasitic relationship between the car and society becomes a symbiotic one.
Section 4.3 A low emissions future . This section illustrates perfectly the sort of problems one gets into if one fails to understand what AGW will mean to our energy sector. The Figure 4.3 shows how increasing energy efficiency to 2030 will allow for CO2 emissions reductions on the “business as usual” scenario, down to 1990 CO2 levels, “if strong energy efficiency gains can be secured”. But I have already pointed out that we will be needing around a 50% reduction in 1990 emissions by 205o, we are not going to get anywhere near that if the best we can manage is a 0% reduction by 2030. By failing to admit the science of global warming, this document suggests that achieving a 0% reduction by 2030 is in itself sufficient, it is certainly better than a 25% increase, but in regard to global warming is utterly inadequate, and it is actually fraudulent to suggest otherwise.
Domestic energy use reduction . Obviously improved insulation standards are very welcome, and we are told in the Draft Energy Strategy that 22,000 houses have been insulated in the last seven years. The problem is that it is estimated that at least 350,000 homes in New Zealand have no, or very inadequate insulation.( 9 ) At the present rate it will take over 100 years to insulate all these homes. There needs to be a crash programme of retrofitting insulation into all such homes, estimated cost, including wall foam insulation, and some double glazing, of about $5000 per home, or a total investment of $1.75 billion. The building code is being revised to target significant energy reductions. The improved standards for new homes are not specified, which is an unfortunate omission. But it should be very simple. All new homes must be built to so-called “ Passive House ” standards. ( 10 ) A technical description of this ultra energy efficient home can be found in the reference - but the basic premise is that a passive house requires no heating, even in the coldest winter, it makes use of passive solar heating, solar hot water heating, and high efficiency lighting and appliances and an air-tight structure with a heat-exchanger. It is possible to build such homes without them costing significantly more than traditionally built homes, but today the only thing stopping us demanding this standard is the deep conservatism of the building industry and government. It is difficult to believe that the prospect of us frying the very planet that sustains us won’t be sufficient impetus for us to act in this matter, but it is a major omission that the Draft Energy Strategy has not considered passive house technology, available in Europe for nearly twenty years.
Section 6 Sustainable energy innovation. Among areas suggested for investigation is research in solid to liquid fuel and sustainable use of coal. The likelihood of either of these technologies being able to help New Zealand in our situation is remote in the extreme. Most of our coal resources are lignite, and of very poor quality. Whilst it may be technically feasible to sequestrate some CO2 from higher quality coals in some places in the world, the technology is very unlikely to apply to our much poorer quality coals. New Zealand has no need to burn coal at all - a fully renewable energy strategy is the only possible solution to AGW in New Zealand. Similar criticisms of solid to liquid fuel technology apply. Spending money on researching these technologies is to pursue an energy dead-end. The money would be better spent on other renewable technologies. Some ideas for research would be these:
-
One area that very much needs researching is to how we might incorporate a high proportion of wind-power into our generating capacity, beyond the 20% or so that is widely, and mistakenly, seen as an upper limit. I would like to see how a pump-storage scheme or schemes, or possibly other forms of electricity storage, could be constructed so as wind-power could be increased to 50% or more of our total electricity generating capacity. ( 20 )
-
Another promising area of research would be to investigate how a widespread use of battery powered cars could be incorporated in to our electricity infrastructure, both as users of power, and as suppliers of power at peak times.
-
I would encourage New Zealand to establish its first solar power farm, costing say $50 million, as an experimental facility to gain experience in installing such a facility, in how to best utilise and integrate the power produced and to assess its overall performance.
-
We should also be looking into enforcing a pricing structure similar to Germany's "feed-in" law, where solar power can be installed by private owners and the power companies obliged to accept the power at a realistic, gradually reducing price. This could, for a start, be done in one locality, for instance the Bay of Plenty or Marlborough. ( 24 )
Section 7 Affordability and well-being - "de-privatisation". In the summary it is stated " The government does not set prices for energy. Competitive markets are used to keep prices as competitively low as is sustainable " Obviously this is working splendidly - domestic power prices have risen nearly 50% in the last five years, Government owned electricity producers' profits are soaring and the Contact Energy share price is about four times what it was in 2001. ( 17 ) As stated above, it is my personal belief, shared by many commentators, that the electricity reforms have been little short of a disaster for New Zealand. The government's lightly applied regulatory environment is proving a fertile environment for profiteering where the electricity consumer is being taken for a ride, and it has become an environment where long-term planning is fragmented, uncoordinated and ultimately acts directly against the interests of this country. I would like to see a much stronger regulatory structure, including pricing, in the electricity sector, with the ultimate aim of de-privatising Contact Energy and any other privatised utilities, re-incorporating the company into the public sector, and re-integrating the whole energy network under government control. Only this way are we going to be able to achieve the long term renewable and sustainable energy strategy required in dealing with AGW and oil depletion.
Population and immigration . There is a further issue which concerns me greatly, which is entirely neglected by the media, industry and the government, and certainly in this the Draft Energy Strategy . And this is our rapidly burgeoning population, fuelled in part by historically high levels of immigration. In 2004 our population increase was 1.3% ( 11 ) representing a doubling of our population by 2060 to 8 million people. Now, of course, this is simplistic demographics, and the 1.3% can’t be simply extrapolated like this, but I use these figures to point out the difficulties that we are having in providing our energy infrastructure for such a rapidly growing population. It would be true however that demographers have, over the last twenty years, consistently under-predicted New Zealand’s actual population growth. Auckland’s growth rate is even greater, around 3.1%, and the population is expected to reach 2 million by 2040 ( 12 ). All these people are a direct cause of the massive infrastructural investment that this city requires to avoid social breakdown, in energy and transport in particular, infrastructural investment having been neglected for nearly two generations. New transmission lines in South Auckland, wind farms popping up all around the landscape, more dammed rivers or geothermal areas blighted with huge industrial installations, and calls for nuclear power, are all part and parcel of what this burgeoning demand for power means in practical terms, not to mention the cost. Whilst demand side policies are described, but not detailed, in this Energy Strategy , there is not a single mention of the biggest driver of increased power demands, our increasing population. When will the penny drop that a rapidly increasing population isn't always a positive for the economy, but comes with many longer term problems? In what way will any of our individual lives, or our children’s lives, be made any richer by another 1,2, 3 or 4 million people? It might be worth quoting Prof Albert Bartlett who is well known for his speech in which he argues that the greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function ( 13 ); more recently this is what he said about global warming “ If any fraction of the observed global warming can be attributed to the activities of humans, then this constitutes positive proof that the human population, living as we do, has exceeded the carrying capacity of the Earth. This situation is not sustainable. As a consequence, it is an inconvenient truth that all proposals or efforts to slow global warming or to move toward sustainability are serious intellectual frauds if they do not advocate reducing populations to sustainable levels at the local, national and global scales ”.
This failure to examine populations issues is another glaring omission from this document. It is again a wonderful illustration of the compartmentalisation of political and economic thought processes in New Zealand, and indeed throughout the world. The overwhelming environmental problems of AGW, oil and gas depletion, water scarcity, overcrowded cities and shoddy housing developments, pollution, erosion of soils, the acidification of the oceans and the unsustainable plunder of its resources require a much more complete understanding of our human condition and can't be confined, as they mostly are, to blinkered examination, of which this Draft Energy Strategy is an example. Energy issues do in fact touch on so many other facets of mankind's relationship to the planet which sustains us. I would like to see a strategy to reduce our high immigration rates and stabilise our New Zealand population around its present level. I examine issues related to immigration on my internet site ( 22 ), and my submission to the Makara wind-power project also examines this matter in regard to electricity generation. ( 23 )
Oil Exploration. In the last year or two we have been hearing much more about the Great South Basin and the need for further oil and gas exploration in and around New Zealand. Oil import costs of over $4 billion p.a. are really beginning to affect our economy, importing gas could well increase this another billion or two, discounting further rises in oil prices. We are now seeing more urgent efforts to gain access to gas and oil reserves yet to be discovered. No doubt the government will provide generous tax incentives for exploration to oil companies, such as Exxon Mobil, who are really strapped for cash, having made just US$9.2 billion profit in just one quarter year. May I make a suggestion? Would it not be entirely logical in dealing with AGW that we should legislate a ban or moratorium on any further oil and gas exploration? After all, we've managed without these resources up to now, if we find any more we'll undoubtedly burn it, and make our CO2 emissions even worse. Would it not also save a great deal of money not to have to spend hundreds of million of dollars on drilling rigs in the deep ocean which may or may not find anything worthwhile? The only problem with this otherwise eminently practical suggestion is that there will be almost no-one in this, or any other country, that would agree with it, indeed it is likely that 99% of the population would consider me mad. The logic however is unassailable, which only goes to prove that 99% of the population's critical faculties are indeed subverted to the cause of our increasingly feverish and destructive economic activity. I would strongly urge a ban on all future oil and gas exploration, if the oil or gas is to be burned for energy. If the oil or gas is to be used as an industrial or agricultural raw material in New Zealand, this is a different matter. We should be husbanding this valuable and irreplaceable product for such use, so our descendants will still be able to make use of it. This is a revolutionary idea, but we are not going to solve our energy and environmental problems without such ideas.
Cross Party Consensus . A final point. The Draft Energy Strategy is the product of a single government’s input - and the product of a single political party. I attended a meeting in Wellington on the 4th November 2006, commemorating “Climate Change Day”. As part of the programme, representatives of various political parties gave a talk and took part in a discussion afterwards. Nick Smith, on behalf of the National Party gave a very polished speech, Marion Hobbs, standing in for Peter Parker, seemed quite out of her depth. During the discussion, Nick Smith handed out an olive branch to other parties, especially Labour, indicating that the National Party would be willing to discuss energy and global warming and environmental policies across the political divide. This offer was curtly dismissed by Marion Hobbs, to the audible disapproval of the audience.
One thing that I am absolutely certain of is that party politics will have very little place in meeting the challenges lying ahead of us. Marion Hobbs’s inability to understand these difficulties is mirrored in the Draft Energy Strategy . There is indeed an urgent need to consider these issues as transcending traditional party and economic differences. I have on many occasions likened overcoming the problem of global warming as needing the same sort of cooperative effort as the Allies needed in fighting the Second World War. Most governments during the time of the war gave up their simplistic political rivalry and worked in coalitions. Something similar will be needed in energy matters. For instance, by far the simplest single measure to making a start in reducing New Zealand’s CO2 emissions will be to increase petrol and diesel taxation to European levels, that’s by about $1.00 a litre (see figure 1.1) and invest the extra income in public transport and urban renewal. (This is not even suggested in the Draft Energy Strategy , a major failure of political nerve.) If this sort of measure were to be introduced by one party, only to have another party renege on it later, we’ll never get anywhere. Dealing with AGW will require many such difficult policy decisions, which will be unpopular with the electorate, especially the car-driving public, but will nevertheless be vital. Our society will be fatally hamstrung if urgently needed policies cannot be introduced because of outmoded political rivalries.
Of course, I am not naive enough to believe this will solve all such problems, but without this cooperative effort I am convinced that our children are going to inherit a very different, and very difficult, world. If the audience attending the Climate Change Day are any guide, then there are many others who would agree with me. The Draft Energy Strategy needs to acknowledge this, I would strongly urge the setting up of a permanent multiparty committee to review this document, and agree on an agenda that the parties can follow. They would likely come up with some other excellent policies that are not in this document, or reinforce action where this document falls short by reason of timidity, e.g. higher petrol taxes, differential car license pricing depending on CO2 emissions, encouragement of battery powered vehicles, increasing research on tidal or wave power, etc. This committee will continue its work throughout the first half of this century, but I would expect that a few years only will earn it a great deal of mana and moral clout to guide governments in dealing with this overwhelmingly important issue. This doesn’t mean that governments won’t be free to pursue more aggressive policies, which may be sustained by future administrations, but at least there will be a basic minimum that can be accomplished, and cannot be reversed by a fickle electorate.
Summary. In summary then, whilst no-one concerned about New Zealand’s energy issues and global warming will not welcome this Draft Energy Strategy , it does unfortunately fall far short of what the seriousness and the urgency of our present situation demands, it is too little, too late. As I read this submission, I wonder if it appears that I am churlish about this Draft Energy Strategy, and the efforts that have gone into it. Is Dr Monro never satisfied? Haven't the politicians and policy makers at last got round to accepting many of Dr Monro's suggestions and pleas over the last five years? I accept that progress is being made in public transport and in other energy areas, that there is now a belated start to dealing with our Kyoto commitments and that there is a push to renewable energy in the electricity sector, but what one has to understand is how dire the deterioration in the public infrastructure has been in the last 30 years, how late we are in committing to a long-term energy policy, how increasingly urgent the warnings in regard to AGW are and how imminent is the arrival of peak oil. Time moves on, policies that might have been adequate 20 years ago, even ten years ago, are no longer so. This Draft Energy Strategy reads very much as a Danish energy strategy that I came across on the internet recently, ( 14 ) and Denmark has been at the forefront of progressive energy policies. The only problem is that the document I read concerns policies developed in the late 1970s. New Zealand will not advance by introducing near thirty year old policies and promoting them as adequate for the beginning of this new century. We must leapfrog these timid ideas to a much bolder vision for our, and our children’s, future. If this submission on its own is not sufficient to spur this and future administrations to urgent and effective action, I think it very likely that “peak oil” will cause sufficient economic dislocation in the next year or two, if it doesn’t cause a complete economic collapse, to make the point rather more forcibly.
The crucial failure of this Draft Energy Strategy is its failure to target figures for reductions in CO2 emissions to meet the levels predicted by scientists that will have a 50% chance of avoiding dangerous climate change. Meeting these required reductions will be extremely difficult and has the potential to markedly change our society, though ultimately for the better. In addition the dire consequences of peak oil and oil depletion are still not understood, nor taken anything like seriously or urgently enough. Nowhere in this document are the true nature of these difficulties spelt out. Because of this failure, we will not succeed in dealing with the twin problems of AGW and oil and gas depletion, and both are going to press very heavily on the very viability of our society, which will be massively under-prepared for the changes that they will bring; this is a recipe for economic penury and major social dislocation and unhappiness. This is, unfortunately, what the Draft Energy Strategy , as it is presently drafted, promises us.
To return to Helen Clark's speech, her concern for global warming is admirable, but unfortunately the rhetoric is nowhere near matched by the reality, if this Draft Energy Strategy is an example. New Zealanders need and deserve a much more forthright document that, whilst it may obviously shock and even alarm the public, at least prepares them for the real difficulties that we are going to face, but also promises something at the end of this process that is truly revolutionary, a wealthy, happy and infinitely sustainable society. There is no goal our society could ever think of that could be worth more than this. Winston Churchill did not promise an easy ride through the Second World War, he promised “Blood, sweat and tears”, yet that is what the people needed to hear, this honest challenge galvanised the British people and the Allies and saw them win the war. The politicians and policy advisors who have drafted this Draft Energy Strategy are being less than honest with the people, this is patronising and is seriously underestimating the willingness and ability of the public to take on board and deal with these issues, policy makers and politicians cannot do it on their own. The Draft Energy Strategy is guilty of selling New Zealanders short.
References:
1 http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2239
2 http://www.stabilisation2005.com
3 http://www.energybulletin.net/22996.html
4 http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/scientists-praise-bill-that-0006.html
5 http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/11/07/heat/
6 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10331616
7 http://www.arc.govt.nz/arc/index.cfm?1C77093C-BCD4-1A24-9A1E-F1262101EEC3
8 http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0703/S00387.htm
9 http://www.eeca.govt.nz/eeca-library/eeca-reports/neecs/report/draft-nzeecs-06.pdf
10 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house
12 http://www.arc.govt.nz/library/q87645_2.pdf
13 http://globalpublicmedia.com//lectures/461
14 http://w ww.inforse.dk/europe/word_docs/s_gbo_dk.doc
15 http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/stern_review.pdf
16 http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/latest/200703251010/pm_ends_visit_to_us_with_environment_speech
17 http://203.99.65.121/section/3/story.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10430340
18 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2043724,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1
20 http://homepage.mac.com/j.monro/SustainableElectGenNZ/APlanForElectricityNZ.html
21 http://homepage.mac.com/j.monro/
22 http://homepage.mac.com/j.monro/Immigration/Immigration.html
23 http://homepage.mac.com/j.monro/MakaraSubmission/MakaraSubmission.html
24 http://www.solarbuzz.com/FastFactsGermany.htm
25 http://www.metropolismag.com/html/content_0802/ped/index_b.html
Addendum
Below is a summary list of suggested actions, policies and legislation that should be introduced. They include matters mentioned above and others not so mentioned. There is no time line for these suggestions, but most of them should be part of the next five to ten years progress.
* Modify this Draft Energy Strategy to state a goal of CO2 emissions reductions by 2030 and 2050 below 1990 levels - I would suggest a 40% reduction by 2030 and a 60% reduction by 2050 - we then know what we are aiming for and whether we are on track to reach the targets. This strategy is utterly useless without this commitment.
* a change in political philosophy - take back our sovereign powers and use them to plan, direct and manage - the market to be our servant, not our master. Less pandering to international finance and corporate power. Reliance on voluntary codes of practice is too slow and unreliable, if you need something to happen, just legislate for it. That's why we have politicians!!
* increase in petrol and diesel taxation by incremental amounts, say 20 c per litre for five years, to reach an extra $1.00 per litre. This money to be directed to public transport
* congestion or rush hour charge on cars.
* reverse legislation that prevents local councils running public transport services
* a crash programme of public transport measures in our big cities, including refurbishment of rail transport in cities, investigation of new tramways, electrification of new and existing units etc. Bus lanes, and removing cars from streets.
* councils required to work with their planners and private developers for all new developments along public transport corridors, with denser housing options (ie mostly terrace and apartment style living arrangements) Think of Curitibo, Brazil.
* all new developments must have access to a dairy, pub and cafe, superette, amenity buildings within walking distance of all properties.
* all new developments to have mixed wealth housing.
* Makes all new electricity generation by renewables
* planning law changes that make renewable energy projects easier and less expensive to build.
* a more integrated electricity generation renewable project planning process, with a long term wind power project planning over the next twenty years. Identifying areas for growth, eg, Taranaki, Ninety Miles Beach, etc. only can be achieved by reintegrating our electricity generation and distribution companies. See below.
* we really need to get cracking with our windpower farms. Construction costs are going to continue to rise as oil and raw material costs do. We are seeing a world-wide shortage of windpower turbines and costs are rising for these also. If peak oil is as severe as some are predicting, we are facing a unavoidable massive infrastructural investment without having the means to accomplish it. In other words, we are driving up an energy cul-de-sac, if we leave things too long, we will no longer have the affordable energy resources to back ourselves out of it and take the better road.
* all new private dwellings to meet passive house standards. No exceptions!!
* all new commercial buildings to meet similar standards
* tough new standards for private transport, with larger cars and SUVs and 4WDs to pay a much higher license fee and import duties - this could be most fairly done by CO2 emissions per km, as in Europe.
* encouraging car pooling and other measures to reduce car use.
* councils to encourage biking and walking and provide facilities, cycle ways, covered cycle racks etc. Buses to have facilities for people to put cycles on a rack at the back or similar such measures, encouraging use of electrical bicycles.
* a new much enlarged house insulation programme of 20,000 - 25,000 homes per annum, aiming to complete a programme of insulation of all existing properties by 2020, estimated cost $1.5 billion.
* legislation to control power companies profits and pricing directly, ultimately to de-privatise companies and re-integrate our electricity generation and distribution sector under government ownership.
* force power companies to reduced fixed charges as a proportion of the total bill.
* force power companies to take energy efficiency and conservation measures seriously and provide effective incentives for their customers to change to low energy appliances.
* stricter energy requirements for home appliances
* subsidies for solar hot water heating
* phase out incandescent lamps over the next five years. New house light fittings to be suitable for high-efficiency lamps.
* introduce a feed-in law as in Germany so we can make a start in distributed electricity generation.
* a moratorium on all new road building, other than for safety reasons. Allow completion of presently started projects.
* help for households installing energy efficiency appliances and heat pumps.
* discounts for battery powered cars in license fees and road user charges and encouragement of early adoption of battery powered vehicles as they become available on the market.
* a moratorium on all new gas and oil exploration.
* a population and immigration policy, aiming at substantially reduced population growth.
Further in the future
* construction of a pump storage scheme(s) for windpower
* an increasing proportion of battery powered vehicles and their incorporation into our electricity network both as consumers and providers of power (V2G)
* biomass for power generation - wood lots, copices etc. Reforestation, Research needed, trials needed - the prospect for such a power resource are good in New Zealand, as long as our population remains small.
* wave power and tidal power, research particularly for tidal power in the Cook Strait and Marlborough Sounds
* floating offshore wind power generation- support for research and trials etc.
* solar power - increasing use of feed-in law and larger scale solar power units. There is a great prospect for solar power in New Zealand, in sunnier areas of the country. Increasing construction of large scale power units, and distributed generation. We can't presently see exactly how this would pan out, so we need to look to both types of resources until this comes clearer, there is likely to be a place for both. It is likely that solar power will, within 20 years, become available at a sufficiently low cost to start providing a significant part of our power needs. We need to be a leader in this technology.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this submission on the Draft Energy Strategy . I would be keen to appear in person before any enquiry or committee stage that is part of the discussion and furtherance of this energy strategy.
Signed
Dr John K Monro