Coal and oil

Letters to Dominion Post re petrol prices

Letter to Trevor Mallard re renewable energy

Letter to Pete Hodgson re 4WD imports and fuel efficiency

Pete Hodgson's reply to my letter

My reply to Pete Hodgson's letter

Letter to Paul Krugman, author of The Great Unravelling

Letter to Dominion Post re Wellington Trolley Buses

Letter to Jeanette Fitzsimons re energy policy

Part of letter to Trevor Mallard, a proposal for Parliament

Letter to Don Brash re his proposal for increased road funding

John and Jackie Knill

---

Here is a picture of one of the most beautiful and most advanced steam locomotives ever built. The Sir Nigel Gresley is a streamlined steam locomotive built in Britain not long before the Second World War. It was one of a number of similar locomotives, called the A4 Pacific Class, built at that time, and designed by Sir Nigel Gresley, the pre-eminent locomotive designer of that age. Other such locomotives included the Flying Scotsman, the Coronation Scot, the Silver Link, the Silver Fox and the Mallard. (It has always been a quaint British custom to name their locomotives, and they would always be called "she"). This latter train holds the (disputed) world steam locomotive speed record at 125 mph. You can see the Mallard in its full glory in the York Railway Museum, and my photograph of the Sir Nigel Gresley was taken on the North Yorkshire Moors Railway recently, it too has been restored to its full running glory by a team of truly dedicated volunteers. Here are some of its vital statistics:

Cylinders (x3): 18.5x26in. Motion: Outside: Walschaerts Inside: Gresley

Piston Valves: 9in. diameter

Boiler: Max. Diameter: 6ft 5in Pressure: 250psi Heating Surface: Total: 3325.2 sq.ft. Firebox: 231.2 sq.ft. Superheater: 748.9 sq.ft.

Tubes: 1281.4 sq.ft. (121x 2.25in) Flues:1063.7 sq.ft. (43x 5.25in) Grate Area: 41.25 sq.ft.

Wheels: Leading:3ft 2in Coupled:6ft 8in Trailing:3ft 8in

Tender:4ft 2in Tractive Effort:35,455lb (@ 85% boiler pressure)

Total Wheelbase:60ft 10.625in Engine Weight:102 tons 19cwt(full) Max. Axle Load:22 tons

The wedge-shaped streamlining on the A4 was inspired by a Bugatti rail-car. The design was refined with the help of Prof. Dalby and the wind tunnel facilities at the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) at Teddington. Experimental data showed that a 40% reduction in horsepower was required when powering from 60mph to 150mph. All of the steam passages were streamlined. The boiler pressure was increased from 220psi to 250psi. Other refinements included Kylchap double-blastpipe exhaust, and Westinghouse QSA Brake Valves. Its triple expansion three-cylinder design made the maximum possible use of the power of the boiler. A demonstration run from Kings Cross to Grantham on 27th September 1935 touched 112.5mph, and the first service was on the 1st October 1935, hauled by No. 2509 Silver Link, cutting the travel time between Kings Cross and Newcastle down to an amazing 4 hours.





Here is a picture of the latest S55 AMG Mercedes saloon. This beautiful car reflects the pinnacle of automotive engineering of the early 21st century. Here are some details of this desirable machine.

The AMG supercharged 5.5 litre V8 engine generates 500 hp of sporty torque, as befits the athletic, dynamic car that surrounds it. AMG bodystyling set off by exclusive 18-inch twin-spoke alloy wheels bring athleticism and poise as standard. The sports exhaust system with two twin chrome-plated tailpipes are a statement on their own, as is the interior: appointed in Nappa leather with driving dynamic seats and an ergonomic sports steering wheel (from which you can change gear, Formula One style). The alternative S 55 AMG Limousine pampers rear seat passengers with an extra 12cm rear leg room, electrically adjustable heated seats and electric roller blinds. Simply scintillating.

Its peak power output is 500 bhp and its torque 530 nm at 4,500 rpm. Its top speed is 155 mph and its 0-60 mph accleration is less than 4.8 seconds. Its overall fuel consumption is 21 mpg.

What is the connection between these wonderful feats of engineering skill? It's simple - both these machines represent the pinnacle of their respective classes. The Sir Nigel Gresly, and its kind, were never to be bettered in steam engine design. Futher locomotive advances were made of course, but not with steam traction; it was diesel, or diesel-electric or electric power that were take the torch of locomotive advancement. I think it is very likely that this Mercedes car, and its kind, will come to be seen similarly - the pinnacle of the internal combustion engine, but now reaching the end of its illustrious career, and it will be other forms of motive power that will now take the stage. This will be a good thing, because the climate cannot stand any more cars, however beautiful and however well engineered, and the oil to power them will no longer be affordable or available. Mercedes owners though will be able to keep their cars if they have room and enough money, preserved, like those old steam engines; to be taken out on special occasions, to celebrate their power and beauty, and with nostalgia for the old, good times, that will never be again.

---

2/3/05 Letter to the editor of The Dominion following on from the recent increase in price of petrol and the 5c extra tax. The letter is self-explanatory.
It was published about ten days later, and I was gratified to see it sandwiched between several other letters all bemoaning the tax increase.




Dear Sir / Madam

I was amused by the reactions of the six people you interviewed in your paper today in connection with petrol price increases due to tax and oil price hikes. They all seemed to say the same thing - "petrol is dear enough". Sorry folks, in fact petrol is far too cheap and consequently we have abused this resource by driving inefficient vehicles, not using public transport, and by living in sprawling suburbs and ill-planned urban areas. Petrol is getting pricier because we are running out of it. If you think it is dear now, wait until 2010. What governments should have been doing is increasing the tax on petrol by 50c per litre, not a measly 5c. Many wealthy countries in Europe already pay this much. This will discourage wastage, decrease our imports, and the money raised used to improve public transport. Like it or lump it, we are at the start of an energy revolution, we either act on this now or suffer the very damaging consequences of not doing so in just a few year's time.

Yours faithfully,

Dr John K Monro

Update 25/3/05 My letter above produced a response in the Dominion - here it is:

They'll forgo something else

I take issue with Dr J K Monro (March 10 letter) who tried to make us believe high petrol prices will lead to lower consumption. This is not the case.
Some countries in Western Europe charge as much as $2.60 per litre. The simple fact is that people choose a government to govern the country instead of people who elect them. They will, therefore, not be forced off the roads and onto public transport.
People choose to be independent and are prepared to pay more to preserve that independence. They will simply go without something else. (JKM, this is not economically sensible, we are basically burning our economy)
Public transport in Western Europe is of a high standard. Nevertheless, roads are still choked between 6-9am and 4-7pm. There is also ample evidence to suggest that the extra revenue generated by high petrol prices isn't all directed into road construction or public transport.
There are some similarities - New Zealand and Western Europe both run unsustainable social welfare systems. Rising petrol prices is one way to prop up these systems.

Sjoerd Gorter, Epuni.


I don't agree with this letter and I wrote again (22/3/05) to the Dominion, though I don't expect it to be published:

Dear Sir / Madam,

I thank Sjoerd Gorter who's letter was published in today's Dominion for reading and replying to my letter advising much increased taxation on petrol. Some observations:
1. I can't agree that higher prices won't affect consumption, I thought that was how the "market" was supposed to work. We'll have to rewrite the textbooks.
2. Europe has high populations in dense concentrations. It is not surprising that rush hour is congested, but how much worse would that congestion be without high petrol prices and good public transport?
3. European countries also have differential taxation on vehicles depending on their fuel consumption.
4. New Zealand uses 40% of its total energy consumption on transport, this is unsustainable.
5. New Zealand's oil import bill is rising from 1 billion to 3 billion dollars, this is unsustainable.
6. The world is running out of oil. Europe stands to cope with this better with a good transport infrastructure, New Zealand is unprepared and vulnerable.
7. Maybe a 50c/litre rise is not going to be enough, how about a dollar?
8. When we run out of petrol, we'll certainly be needing our social welfare.

Yours sincerely,

Dr John K Monro

---

28/2/05 This next letter was sent to our new energy minister, Trevor Mallard, who, I am given to understand, has no scientific training of any sort. Again this letter is self-explanatory. I haven't yet received a reply. I thought after I sent it that perhaps I was being a bit rude about Pete Hodgson's performance as energy minister. But this is not the case, in fact I wasn't rude enough, basically Pete was not competent, not through action, but by wilful lack of action, which came about because of a lack of understanding of the really big issues. I really don't expect much better from Trevor Mallard, unfortunately. As I say, no-one with so many diverse portfolios can be competent in energy matters. The fact that the government still consider energy matters as requiring only one fifth of a poorly qualified minister's attention shows how little the government and its advisors have learnt or care. It's appalling.



Dear Mr Mallard,

I write about the government's supposed commitment to the Kyoto Protocol, and contrast this with continuing decline of renewable energy sources in our electricity generation.

For instance:

1. The installation of a combined cycle gas generation plant in Huntly. Whilst acknowledging the increased efficiency of such a plant as compared with the outdated plant, it still contributes significantly to global warming, and still wastes about 40% of the calorific value of the gas. In addition as you know, there are only about ten years proven gas reserves in this country, which means that, if no further gas is discovered, we are committed to importing gas from overseas. Not only will this put up the cost of the generation, for we will by then be competing with many other more wealthy countries for the same resource, but will also be making a major dent in our already precarious balance of payments.

2. The proposed resurrection of the mothballed Marsden B generation capacity to be powered with coal. This will be a major impediment in trying to increase our use of renewables. Coal is not only locally polluting, but also one of the major causes of global carbon dioxide accumulation and global warming. I find it very difficult to understand how a government that says it is concerned about climate change, and having signed the Kyoto convention, is not now making it quite clear, by legislation if needed, that coal burning will be no part of our future electrical generation capacity.

I have written many times to your predecessor, Peter Hodgson, about energy matters, and it is really disappointing how little action is being taken to improve our proportion of renewables in electricity generation. I am aware of the recent and proposed wind installation capacity, but even when all this comes on stream, of the proposed increase in capacity of 843 MW in the next few years only 245 MW will be in renewables (from your own government statistics). This means that renewables will only represent about 30% of new generation capacity. As we currently generate about 65% or maybe a bit more in renewables, this means that New Zealand's performance is actually going backwards, whereas most countries are trying to improve the proportion of renewables in their electricity supply. Wouldn't you agree this is perverse?

On a slightly different but connected issue, you will be aware of the impending peak of world oil production. All fossil fuel costs are going to substantially increase because of this, and in fact for us, a small nation a long way from anywhere else, we may even have major difficulty in accessing oil and gas for our future needs. It is imperative that we take measures now to decrease our over-dependence on fossil fuels, for the climate's sake and the economy's sake. I cannot see how burning coal and gas can help us here. We need a firm commitment from you for a fully renewable energy generation capacity by the year 2020, which would be by hydro, wind, biomass and increased energy efficiency, and local energy production such as solar hot water and passive solar heating. It might also include an examination of the need to mothball the Tiwai Point aluminium smelter. Already Denmark has installed, in a country about one sixth the size of ours, sufficient wind power that here would provide about 20% of our electrical generation capacity. It is disappointing that this country is lagging so far behind. In particular as you are the Labour Party MP for Wellington South, with direct experience of the wonderful wind resource in our part of the country, you should be supporting wind power generation more directly. A firm commitment to such a policy would be a wonderfully positive message to your constituents, the country, the world, and our future generations. It would succeed in bringing hope to us all, for confronted by such immense problems as global warming and oil depletion, they can seem insuperable. It is the time to do this - I think you would earn more respect and kudos, and votes if they are important to you, than any other single policy you could think of, apart from the fact it is eminently feasible.

Also might I respectfully suggest that with impending problems of global warming and the oil peak, the continued issues around the shortages of electrical power, the poor energy efficiency in our transport sector, and with the fundamental importance that energy issues have to our society and economy, that an energy portfolio shared with education, state services, sport and recreation, and associate portfolios in race relations and finance, is too diluted to have enough care and attention from anyone, however competent. I would propose that your cabinet should relieve you of some of your portfolios so that you can concentrate on energy issues more, or should appoint someone with the necessary expertise to be minister of energy on its own. It this is considered too much of a luxury, then certainly a combined energy / transport portfolio would be very sensible. I think Peter Hodgson had the same problems with his diverse and demanding portfolios and this is why he was not as effective as energy minister as he could have been. I think you run the same risk.

Thank you for your attention,

Yours sincerely,


Dr John K Monro.

---

7/2/05 This letter , to Pete Hodgson in his new role as transport minister, is really connected with another page on my internet site (here) but as I didn't publish it on that page, I do so here. I haven't received any reply yet. Update 16/3/05 I received a letter today, I copy this following my original letter.



Dear Mr Hodgson,

I imagine you must have read the article in last week's Dominion about the import of 36,000 old, used and gas-guzzling 4WDs to New Zealand each year with the same dismay as I did. I find it quite beyond belief that this country, dependent ever more on increasingly expensive imported oil and trying to meet the Kyoto protocol should be importing so many inefficient old vehicles. I write this letter to you in your new role as minister of transport because you must surely agree that the free-for-all in used imports is just not sustainable. These old vehicles, with poor safety features are not only unsafe to the driver and passengers, but also to any unfortunate motorist who happens to collide with one, and they are universally known as good pedestrian killers.

Additionally, because these vehicles are approaching the end of their useful economic life they are likely to be needing to be wrecked after only a few years use on the roads, with the consequent environmental problems associated with such activity. New Zealand is basically becoming a dumping ground for Japan to get rid of their old vehicles, without having to take the responsibility or cost of disposing of them.

I would value you firm assurance that you are committed to legislating very soon to ban these old vehicles from our shores. (Comments in the article such Harry Duynhoven is "looking at" frontal impact legislation and Judith Tizzard is "looking at" emission screening is pathetically indadequate). In addition this country, and your government, just do not seem to have any serious commitment to vehicular fuel efficiency. You have increased the speed that large lorries can travel at. You have no mandatory fuel efficiency goals for different manufacturers. Taxes on petrol and diesel remain far too low. Car manufacturers do not have to quote fuel consumption figures in their advertising. You have no differential taxation or fuels standards for different vehicles. You do not use carbon emissions to calculate the true environmental cost of motoring. Your are still planning to build wasteful motorways in Auckland and elsewhere. Public transport in New Zealand is still very poor. The overnight rail link Auckland - Wellington has gone.

I am extremely frustrated by your government's lack of understanding and urgency in regard to oil depletion and global warming. Our transport sector uses 40% of our energy consumption - there is an urgent need to utilise this energy more efficiently.

(If you wish to visualise what just one month's used 4WD imports look like, you are welcome to check out my internet site < http://homepage.mac.com/j.monro > and click on Updates 3. Just seeing this, brings home just how many vehicles are involved.)

Yours faithfully,

Dr John K Monro

This is Pete Hodgson's reply. 14/3/05

Office of Pete Hodgson,
MP Dunedin North,
Minister of Transport, Minister of Commerce, Minister of land Information, Minister of Statistics, Associate minister of Health, Associate Minister for Industry and Regional Development, Convenor Group on Climate Change

Dear John.

I agree with your assessment that the average age of the vehicle fleet is increasing, and that use imports, including 4WD vehicles, have probably contributed to this increase. Officials are currrently considering whether an investigation of measures to lower the average age of the entire fleet should be undertaken. Careful analysis is required as it is conceivable that regulatory moves of this sort to increase the age of the fleet rather than reduce it.

The New Zealand government is committed to improving the fuel efficiency of the New Zealand fleet and reducing emissions of from the transport sector. This commitment is reinforced in the National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy, the New Zealand Transport Strategy and the Sustainable Development Plan,

In particular, the Ministry of Transport is leading a Vehicle Fuel Consumption Information initiative. This aims both to influence consumers to purchase more fuel efficient cars and to measure progress in improving the fuel consumption of the vehicle fleet, by:

Recording fuel consumption for all newly imported light vehicle, and monitoring improvements in the fuel consumption of the vehicle fleet.

Providing information on the fuel consumption of new vehicles and a range of used vehicles on a public website. The website will also contain information where available, on vehicle emissions and vehicle safety.

Promoting the purchase of fuel efficient vehicles

Investigating methods of providing fuel consumption information at the point of sale for new and used vehicles.

Yours sincerely,

Rt Hon Pete Hodgson.
Minister of Transport.


This is my reply to Pete Hodgson's letter


Rt Hon Pete Hodgson,
Minister of Transport
Parliament Buildings
Wellington.

Dear Mr Hodgson,

Thank you for your letter of the 14th March 2005, replying to my concerns about the importation of 4WD vehicles, and other matters connected with the efficiency of fuel usage in the transport sector.

I do appreciate the time you give in answering letters.

I don't expect any further replies, but I wish to comment further. I would say that the policies you mention, welcome as they are, are not going to be adequate to deal with the main issues regarding fuel efficiency in our transport sector. They are too little, too late. As you are aware, the government have been using American (IEA) figures in regard to the cost of oil over the next 20 years. I would say that the present pricing of over US$50 per barrel proves that the projections used in your department and the ministry of energy are hopelessly optimistic; they were when they were first published three years ago, and time has proven this. Your comment recently in Parliament that you wish you could predict the price of oil was flippant in regard to the seriousness of the problem, and the fact that we know that oil is going to be much more expensive. The only thing that might alter this is a world-wide economic recession, which is hardly the most sensible way for humanity to deal with this issue, but certainly is part of the "market solution".

We are looking not just at very high costs for oil, perhaps $100 per barrel, but the likely inability of this country to even access this resource in competition with much bigger and more powerful nations overseas, and in just a few years' time. In this case our ability to run this country at all is going to come under the most intense pressure. I am quite certain that the measures you have suggested are going to be entirely inadequate. We will be looking at things like petrol rationing, carless days, car pooling, reduced speed limits, etc. , all the sorts of things that were done in the oil shocks of the seventies, but this time these will be permanent.

Certainly information for purchasers is important, and it was one of the points I mentioned in my first letter to you. But mostly you are not going to alter behaviour with this. Many of the points I raised will require legislative action. For instance, reducing the speed limits for heavy vehicles and cars, differential taxation on vehicles depending on fuel consumption, congestion charging, use of carbon emissions rather than crude fuel consumption (which is fairer when comparing diesel and petrol), increasing tax rates on fuel by significant amounts, eg. 50c per litre, and using this revenue to increase expenditure on public transport, reviewing significant new roading expenditure, etc. You don't mention any of this in your letter. Such remarks as "officials are currently considering whether an investigation of measures to lower the average age of the entire fleet should be undertaken" are, I am sorry to say, meaningless waffle.

Whilst the age of the vehicle fleet is important, from a safety and depreciation viewpoint, and I am grateful for your promised action here, this wasn't my main concern in my letter, which concentrated in particular on 4WD vehicles. This was for the obvious reason that these vehicles are the most fuel inefficient of all the vehicles used on our roads. I was hoping to hear you say that these vehicles will incur a penalty import duty or some such similar action. It wouldn't require a huge premium to make such imports unsustainable. As you know the number of such imports has rocketed, from less than 12,000 to over 36,000 per annum. This fact alone proves that our import controls are inadequate. You do say you will promote fuel efficient vehicles, but you give absolutely no detail as to how this will be done. The imminent oil peak means that all these vehicles will almost be useless to the owners. No-one will be able to afford to run them, they will be as much use to their owners and to our economy as a two ton pedal car. Doesn't it make sense to anticipate this problem now, and deal with it adequately, than allow tens of thousands of individuals and their families, and our transport sector, to be saddled with such outmoded and unusable hardware?

I cannot understand the continued reluctance of this government, and previous governments, to deal with such issues firmly and directly. You will know that many such policies already exist in European countries, these are policies that will make our total economy richer, just as these countries are already. Every litre of petrol wastefully burned in our transport sector is the equivalent of a dollar note being burned, so that's hundreds of millions of dollars in our economy wasted in heating an already overheating atmosphere. Every litre of petrol wastefully burned brings us one litre closer to the imminent demise of our oil based economy. It makes no sense, no sense at all.

Yours sincerely,

Dr John K Monro

---

24/1/05 This might be the place to mention the book The Great Unravelling which I read over Christmas. Written by Paul Krugman, it is basically a reprint of articles appearing in the New York Times over the last few years. Paul Krugman has become something of a spokesman for more liberal thinking in America. He is an academic economist, who sort of accidentally become a columnist. He writes penetratingly about international economics, and more particularly now to excoriate George Bush and his croneys, and their destructive policies. If you haven't heard of him previously you can find reprints of his articles here http://www.pkarchive.org/. This is his "unofficial page" but contains more information than his own home page, which he runs himself. His book, now in paperback form, is well worth reading. I have my own copy. If you wish to learn a bit more about the book visit this page http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393058506/102-1749434-0552951, which also contains a review of this book from yours truly.



Dear Paul,

I have just read the paperback edition of your book, The Great Unravelling. Thank you for the clarity and insight that you bring to these matters. It is very helpful to have such insights when I engage in arguments at the local pub! (But more seriously, this information is just so valuable to us all) Your opinions and explanations would strike a chord with most New Zealanders, who have little time for Bush. It is a pity that the Bush administration has given opponents of America increased verbal armaments with which to attack your country.

But can I ask you this? I know your expertise is mainly in international economic affairs, but you have broadened your interests to include a good deal of domestic issues related to Social Security, the Iraq war, the Bush administration etc. In this case, can I ask you to broaden the scope of your articles in another direction, to include the major concern for all of us in the immediate future, and perhaps more so for America than many other countries, and that is the economics of oil, depletion, energy and the environment. It seems to me that the increasingly urgent, in fact I would say desperate, need to deal decisively with this issues is of overwhelmingly greater importance than the likely results of another four years of the Bush administration. Of course, I understand that the Bush administration bears a lot of responsibility for neglecting this issue, but so did Kerry in his campaign, and so did Clinton, and his predecessors and most other world leaders also. Perhaps you could explain just how it is that whilst the problems facing us are severe, in fact revolutionary, and as plain as the proverbial pikestaff, yet politicians, economists, business and the populace don't seem even to have begun to get to grips with this urgent issue.

Thank you for your time.

Yours sincerely,

Dr John K Monro MBChB

---

1/1/05 And just to prove I was still capable of some intellectual activity even on New Year's day, there is this letter to The Dominion Post, in regard to the threat to our Wellington trolley buses. This letter was published. For those who don't know about these, we have about sixty, rather long in the tooth, trolley buses still plying the streets. These are a charming addition to our transport scene, apart from the fact that they make sound ecological sense. It seems pretty typical that this efficient, quiet and non-polluting form of transport should be under threat (and which, as our electricity generation is about 65% renewables, saves a good deal of carbon emissions). Here are a couple of links:

http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Track/2172/history.htm

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_national_story_skin/465435%3fformat=html

Dear Sir / Madam

 Two years ago I was in Helsinki; they were installing, at great expense, underground winter heating for the tram rails. Can you imagine that here? Spending money on public transport? What a fuss!! How absurd!! But I would say that to consider getting rid of trolley buses, with our increasing knowledge of pollution and global warming, now that is absurd. People who are so keen to rid us of trolley buses are being very selfish and are not considering our future generations.

Diesel buses are dirty, their exhaust particulates are proven to be poisonous and carcinogenic.  Diesel buses rely on an imported, depleting resource.  Trolley buses, however, are non-polluting, efficient, quiet, and overall use 70% renewable energy resources in N.Z.  We should investing in new buses and indeed should be expanding our trolley bus system, or installing trams or light rail. A congestion charge for cars or local tax on petrol would be an excellent way to pay for this. This fuss also shows up the stupidity of legislation that forced local councils to sell their public transport assets.

Yours sincerely,

Dr John K Monro.  

---

23/11/04 Letter to Jeanette Fitzsimons (co-leader of New Zealand Green Party) and her reply.



This letter was written late last year. I know Jeanette personally, and I admire her as a politician and a person. Her qualities are of calmness, common sense and consistency, and an ability to formulate policies that are based on her own knowledge, which is considerable, and her own morality and beliefs, rather than a populist approach based on a close study of opinion polls. The problem is of course, that this means that Green party policies, whilst articulated well by the party, do not filter down to the general public through the populist television, radio and newspapers. These issues are soooo... BORING - who wants to talk about such silly things as saving the world for our children, ensuring that we have enough oil or electricity to run the country, sustainable agriculture, or trying to protect our fishing stocks, when you could be talking about Michael Jackson's love of children, or the latest episode of Shortland St, or the fantastic shopping bargains you got over the weekend? I have been critical of the Green Party's stance on genetic engineering, which was so uncompromising, because this has ensured that the Green Party was, partly, a bystander in Parliament since the last election. I was really pleased to see how Jeanette and the party are bringing energy concerns much more to the fore. Jeanette's speech to he party on Waiheke Island was just what was needed. The description of the oil peak coming with the force of a tsunami was brilliant - topical, urgent and terrible. This is what energybulletin.net said about Jeanette's speech:



(In the following, my letter is in green, and Jeanette's replies to the different points raised in black type)
Hi John

  Thanks for your letter. We will be pushing energy, including peak oil, climate change and electricity security as a major campaign in the next election, as in fact we have been for the last year. You won't have seen a lot of it as most of it never gets picked up. But I have spoken a lot about it in the House and done press statements.

  A priority is to stop the new transmission lines from Waikato to Auckland. They are only needed to carry huge amounts of coal fired power north - they are useless in a sustainable scenario but will use up a billion dollars that could go on other things and subject people to EM fields over their houses and aesthetic atrocities. The alternatives are all the things we need to do for sustainable energy anyway.
 
Further replies after your points:

1) The energy minister should be someone committed to fighting climate change, committed to conservation, renewable energy and imaginative solutions in energy and transport, and willing to invest the time, and money, to achieve this end, and willing to use a big legislative stick on our energy companies, everything in fact that Peter is not. . He, or she, should only have energy matters in his portfolio. Energy issues are too important to have a minister diverted in other duties. I think this is partly the problem for Peter Hodgson, although I am still highly critical of his lack of intellectual vigour and commitment to energy conservation etc.
[Jeanette Fitzsimons] 
I agree Pete has far too much on his plate. in his defence he has done thousands of percent more for climate change than any previous minister but it is still far too little and too late.  

2) A strategic and unwavering commitment to all our electricity production by renewables by 2020. It is my opinion this is a perfectly realisable and relatively inexpensive option for NZ. We should be leading the world, but we are dragging our feet.
[Jeanette Fitzsimons] 
Feasible for electricity.  Probably not for transport fuel, but we can still massively reduce our use of oil for transport.

This may include:
* massive investment in windpower, with legislative changes to make planning easier for wind power sites
[Jeanette Fitzsimons] 
the Act has been changed to make it easier. Only one wind farm has had difficulties - others were easy. Meridian is building a wind farm a year at present which is pretty good - you can't do coal that fast! There is a limit to how much wind you can have in the system  because of the need for instant backup when the wind drops. Electricity can't be stored and if you have to use thermal for backup you have to have it running ready to take the load, which is very inefficient. Hydro is the perfect backup but we have limited storage. However we could probably get up to 20% wind without too much problem.

  * closure of Tiwai point aluminium smelter
[Jeanette Fitzsimons] 
May happen in 2012 anyway when their electricity contract runs out.  Must ensure they don't get another cheap one. In the meantime 1200 jobs in a place like In'gill without many others is a consideration.

  * much stricter insulation requirements on all new buildings, commercial and residential. (Thinking of the Landcare research building in Tamaki - has Peter Hodgson visitied this building? If he has why has he not had his eyes opened by the potential of such innovation?) eg double glazing; higher specification insulation in roof, walls and floors; where site permits, thermal mass; passive solar design of a minimum standard; solar hot water heaters; energy efficient lighting; heat pumps etc. Anyway, you know the rest. These measures to meet a compulsory minimum standard. It should be possible within a reasonable cost to reduce the energy demands in an ordinary household by over 50%, hopefully 60% or more. (If builders or others protest that the costs are too high, this is nonsense. 1) there is a guaranteed net return to the country in perpetuity 2) people have, with the current boom in house prices, been prepared to pay hundreds of thousands of extra dollars for their property. The cost say, of $10-20 thousand per property for these measures is just a small fraction of these increased costs. )
[Jeanette Fitzsimons] 
Yes, but retrofitting difficult - huge savings in new buildings, slow to work through the whole housing stock. so need to start right away! 

* an urgent investigation into biomass for electricity generation, I am coming round to your thinking here, Jeanette, that there is a substantial resource for NZ here. However, I don't think that anything much is being invested in basic research on this issue. If it takes 10-20 years to do this research, and it will, we are running out of time to get something up and running by 2020. We need to spending tens of millions of dollars on this.
[Jeanette Fitzsimons] 
Biomass for co-generation in industry doesn't need research - just do it. For straight power generation there are technical problems. why generate electricity? Why not use for heat and by-pass electricity? Likewise with solar?

  *investment of about $1-2 billion in the upgrading in insulation of the total housing stock of NZ. (Peter Hodgson's promise of up to $20 million in his energy conservation strategy is just totally inadequate.)

* On this issue I might even vote for Winston Peters - I'll give you a minute to recover from gagging - the compulsory repurchase of Contact Energy and the re-integration of the electricity generation and distribution system. If any one can prove to me, incontrovertibly, that there has been any efficiency or economic gains in Max Bradford's disastrous reforms, then I'll eat my hat (my straw one, anyway.) I am convinced that the returning of such a strategic asset to the public sector is the only way that you will get the necessary co-operation to pursue the energy conservation and generation goals that you will be setting, and the long term savings in reduplication of so many disparate companies, costs associated with regulation, legal fees etc, will within about 10 to 15 years more than pay for the cost of Contact. . I know you have written to me that this is not a feasible option, but I beg to differ, it is perfectly feasible, and quite affordable, and in fact not doing so will cost us and our children dearly.
[Jeanette Fitzsimons] 
Winston has no intention of repurchasing Contact. He campaigned in 1996 on the sale of the state forsts and said the day after the election if he was in govt he would "give the Chinese back their cheque". He never even raised it in coalition discussions with National let alone actually did anything.

  I object to giving the private shareholders of Contact $5 billion. That is its stock market price, last time i looked. Think what else we could do with that - massive investment in rail, new trains, more freight off roads, more passenger services, for example. Of course Contact should never have been sold and I opposed it strongly at the time but now it has been, I prefer to regulate them rather than buy them. 

* There will be other things that I have forgotten to mention, but you can fill in the gaps
[Jeanette Fitzsimons] 
sure, we have heaps of other stuff. 

3) Reducing immigration to sustainable levels, and consistently so. So much of the argument in regard to electricity generation seems to be focussed on the demand side, which is what power companies love. But high immigration has put a lot of stress on all our infrastructure, including electricity. Our projections of demand are horrific, we can't preserve our desirable NZ life style with such high levels of immigration.
[Jeanette Fitzsimons] 
That's right. the govt is totally dependant on immigration for economic growth and jobs. without it the economy would stall.  We have some hard facts to face up to. I still favour some immigration of young people to take the edge off our rapidly aging demographics and the economic implications of this - but at a much lower level.

4) Transport policy. This is a big one too. I think I will leave this blank for the moment. But you will know pretty well what needs to be done. I have made a number of suggestions about this on my internet site.
[Jeanette Fitzsimons] 
We have done the Strategy and the legislation. the Greens wrote half of it. Sustainabiity is now at the core of transport strategy. funds are now able to, and are starting to, go into rail instead of roads. cycle planning is happening. It takes a while to work through on the ground and we won't manage to stop all silly big roads but the ship has turned since we formed our partnership with Labour on transport because they couldn't get the money through parliament without us.  

5) We need realistic projections of likely energy costs for the future. The energy discussion document of 2002 suggested a price of oil at US$25 pb at 2025!! It still hasn't percolated through to Peter Hodgson that this figure might be wrong, despite his already paying so much more for his petrol (though perhaps as a minister he never has to bother with such a plebeian activity) and he has waffled on about there being a lot of unpredictability about such long term projections. In fact as you know, it is likely that we are now reaching the cusp of world production. The best estimates, as from the Hubbert Peak internet site, suggest declining supplies by 2010. The cost of oil, and therefore other energy sources which will be competing with oil, such as gas, will increase very substantially, perhaps up to US$100 pb by 2010. We, as a small nation at the bottom of the world, are possibly very vulnerable to lack of continuity of supply. The public need to be given proper information, well sourced and reliable energy statistics and energy outlook. Our society can't make sensible decisions on the basis of such shonky information as we have now. In addition we have the suggestion that thermal generation will provide twice as much power as it does now, I am pretty sure this is hopelessly optimistic.
[Jeanette Fitzsimons] 
Yes, see on our site what I've been saying about peak oil for quite a while. Pete acknowledges privately that the peak may be earlier than he is predicting but he isn't allowd to scare the markets! My job is to tell the truth and it's starting to get through. 

6) Our gas is too valuable to be wasted producing electricity. Our proven reserves will be run out within ten years, just as we are facing a major oil crisis. Whilst combined cycle generator are certainly more efficient than the older generation technology, they are still pretty wasteful, as compared with using gas at point of need, by reticulation,. Our gas reserves should be reserved for reticulation, without further discoveries we would then have thirty years supply of gas at present usage. Of course, I am teaching my granny to suck eggs here. In addition for Peter Hodgson to be insisting on the so called "level playing fields" in regard to wind power investment, but he has gone and given financial guarantees to the gas generation plant in Huntly, ie he is happy to subsidise gas generation, yet insists that wind pays its way. I think this is humbug. These sorts of hidden subsidies are so common with oil and gas, eg tax breaks for exploration, transport subsidies, it makes me very cross!!
[Jeanette Fitzsimons] 
I've called for any new gas (ie not covered already by contracts) to be used as pipeline gas not for electricity generation. I've opposed subsidies for Genesis gas plant and for exploration. to be fair though, the carbon credits he has given wind farms have got them built when they wouldn't have been, and amount in tradeable value to around $100 million - not to be sneezed at as a subsidy for wind. 

7) Coal - this is very easy to deal with. It should be plain from the outset that coal has no place in a modern generation capacity, and then any lobbying by vested interests in the coal industry, and industry at large, will be resisted.
[Jeanette Fitzsimons] 
Agreed. But there is huge momentum behind the coal lobby and i fear we may not win them all. 

8) It should also be made plain that, apart for oil, there should be no need to import energy from overseas. So the present thought that we might start importing LPG for electricity generation via ship is a non-starter. (What is it about energy matters that seems to cause brain failure in otherwise intelligent NZers?)
[Jeanette Fitzsimons] 
Because it's the engine of economic growth and despite everything you can do to redirect growth, it stalls if we reduce energy use substantially. That puts the fear of god and losing elections into all politicians (except the foolhardy Greens). 

I don't know what your plans for the Green Party are, but I would strongly urge you to put energy matters to the top of the list. I think that the public are crying out for leadership here, only the ignoramus or the blinkered cannot see the way of the world. We don't need rhetoric, like Blair; we don't need inaction, like Bush; we don't need conservatism, like Hodgson. But equally we don't need defeatism or alarmist predictions. This just frightens people and makes it seem like the problem is just too big, and can be open to reasonable scepticism and ridicule. What we need is leadership and conviction, a simply stated but achievable goal that will excite the population, that will make global warming be seen not as an insoluble problem to be overcome, but as an exciting opportunity to be seized. The Green Party above all others should be equipped to do this, but it does require you getting your own priorities right too.
[Jeanette Fitzsimons] 
Have you checked out my speeches and questions in the House and press releases on our website? we have actually done quite a lot. I have asked Cullen questions in the House about peak oil and he acknowledged he didn't know what I meant. He does now. That rebounded around the world and came back to me in international emails. 

Regards,
[Jeanette Fitsimons]
And likewise to you,


John Monro.

http://www.greens.org.nz/ The Green Party of New Zealand internet site. Please check out this site, and please consider joining and working for this party. I am not a member myself, I think I am too cussedly independant, and as I say, I was not happy about the Green Party stand on genetic engineering. BUT, this party is the only one taking any serious note about the matters I have written about on this site. They need your support, and our country, and the world, needs their input.

---

Letter to Trevor Mallard, again

This is part of a letter I sent to Trevor Mallard last week. I shan't copy it all down, it basically repeats a lot of points that I have made in the past. However I did come up with a new idea, so I will copy this down here:

3. I would suggest you have a succession of weekend education sessions or informed debates for Parliament. All MPs (and the rest of the population) are in dire need of education and all MPs should be required to attend. You should get Dr Colin Campbell, oil expert, to talk to you about imminent oil depletion. You should get Sir David King, science advisor to Tony Blair, to talk to you about global warming. You should get Prof. Jan Gehl from Denmark to talk about sustainable and human scale urban planning. You should get Jaime Lerner, former Mayor of Curitiba in Brazil, and world renowned architect and urban planner to talk to you about sustainable transport policies and and urban planning. You should get Prof. Bjarne Jensen, Director of the Danish Wind Energy Association and member of the European Wind Energy Association to talk to you about wind power generation. Get John Norquist, president and CEO of the Council for New Urbanism in Chicago to talk about new urbanism. Get our own Prof. Brenda Vale from Auckland University Sustainable Design Research Centre to talk to you about sustainable and energy efficient architecture (thinking of the Tamaki Campus Landcare research building). Get Carl Blumstein, Chairperson California Institute for Energy Efficiency and board member of the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy to talk to you about the economic and social benefits of a sustainable and energy efficient economy. Get Michelle Robinson, Washington Director, Clean Vehicles Program, and member of the Union of Concerned Scientist in the US, to talk about latest advances in electric and low polluting, high efficiency vehicles to talk to you. Julian Darley is a British commentator on environmental matters and oil depletion. He is an environmental researcher, he would give a very entertaining talk and stimulate lively debate. He lives now in Vancouver. (Added 16/4/05 -Having just read his book, Collapse, you must definitely invite Prof Jared Diamond to talk on how societies choose to survive or fail). Get local experts to attend along with these international experts, and provide the local input. (I would suggest Dr J Morgan Campbell, Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. His recent report, Future Currents, is the first New Zealand official document to point the way to a sustainable energy future. Added 1/8/07). Get some expert dissenting voices, let's see who really has the gold in their arguments. I suspect that many dissenters will be reluctant to attend when they see the likely quality of their adversaries and the quality of the arguments that they will have to counter. The cost of these meetings will be minuscule as compared with the costs of not dealing with these issues appropriately. I would like to attend too, if you can find the room. We can all learn and I am quite happy to gain information that might alter the way I think about things. I am a medical practitioner and learning is part of our job. But as room for me, and four million others, in the House is unlikely, get these debates televised. The people of this country might be able to watch something of value rather than the pap we are served up now. At any rate, there would be no excuse for ignorance.

(In fact such education sessions would be a great way of informing MPs about every sort of issues, not just energy and the environment. They will be a great opportunity for debate with people who actually know what they are talking about, rather than other politicians who merely think they know what they are talking about. Such informed debate will improve the standard of debate in the House and the standard of the decisions taken and legislation enacted. I think such sessions would then become a part of the normal processes of parliament, and democracy.)

The more I think about this the more attractive such an idea becomes. Why should Parliament, as an organisation, not organise itself in a more professional and business-like way? They are basically running a very large, though sovereign, business. Our adversarial way of doing things can be entertaining, and many parliamentarians thrive on it (are you reading this, Winston?) but sometimes one can't help thinking that this is a bloody funny way of running a country. Because everything is so adversarial, one can't change one's mind without appearing to have backed down or lost face, you can't express any independence of thought without appearing disloyal to one's party, and one gains points and kudos by scoring points off opposition members, rather than actually expressing anything of true value or interest. An adversarial system immediately predicates that only half the members at any one time have any real input to effective and sensible government - they are the ones who are clever and farsighted, whilst the other half have no input at all - they are ignorant and stupid. Yet get a general election, and those that monopolised the ignorant side become the clever side, and the clever side become the stupid. This cannot be an efficient or effective way of running any organisation, so why do we persist with it? But I am not proposing anything revolutionary. My proposed system of regular compulsory, expert talks and debates, will at least bring Parliament together in a more collegiate way for a short while. I would even suggest that all the MPs should vacate their usual seats, and we mix up all the members and their parties. Parliament will then have direct, personal access to the very best and most up to date information from this country and the world. Democracy functions best when those exercising it have the very best information. Good information, and real knowledge will moderate excess language, increase flexibility of attitudes and ultimately lead to better decision making.

---

Letter to Don Brash, National Party and Opposition leader

I haven't previously written to Don. But I do so because he is proposing to use all petrol and road taxes and charges in a large-scale investment in new and improved roads. First, this is what Jeanette Fitzsimons has to say about this matter:

The National Party's transport policy, released today, promises to build more roads by pouring all petrol tax into roading and removing the public's rights under the Resource Management Act (RMA). The policy announcement follows yesterday's release of a Transport Ministry report showing that while our transport system costs society $3.7 billion, road users only pay $2.6 billion for it.

"Tackling congestion by building new roads is like tackling obesity by letting your belt out."

"We've always known that road users don't pay their way, and yesterday's report proves it. By pouring more and more money into roading, National wants to provide an even greater state subsidy to people who use transport options that cost society dearly."

"Yesterday's report put paid once and for all to National's argument that the Government uses petrol tax as a money-making scheme for other projects. The cost to society of our car culture is actually much, much higher than the money road users are paying for it.New Zealand has one of the highest levels of car dependence in the world. This contributes to climate change, and threatens our economy as the end of cheap oil nears. However, Don's head is firmly in the sand in the face of these grave challenges."

To read the full text of her statement, click here.

My letter contains many points I have raised previously, but not of course to this particular politician. I don't consider it essential reading! But if you are a sucker for punishment, this is my letter to Don:

From: j.monro@mac.com
Subject: To Dr Don Brash. Re roads, but other environmental issues examined.
Date: 1 April 2005 6:52:22 PM
To: anne.small@parliament.govt.nz

Dear Dr. Brash.

I write in regard to you reported comments in today's Dominion Post, in regard to your party's plans to divert all petrol excise duty into roading. This, it is reported, will be linked to an overhaul of the Resource Management Act, aimed at ending delay to road construction.

Interestingly, this Dominion report also mentioned the results of a study (Surface Transport Costs and Charges Study) which showed that road users do not pay the full costs to society of road transport, which completely undermines the so often heard claims that road and petrol taxes and charges are just a revenue collection exercise.

I find it incredibly disappointing that the National Party is going down this particular road. (Pun unintentional) . You must by now be fully aware of the problems associated with the so-called "oil peak". People like Robert Atack and others have been writing to various ministers and MPs for several years. I am sure you must have had one communication, at least. I have the feeling that such people have been considered little better than cranks by many, and I can see that Robert Atack's very vociferous, and frankly rather pointed comments might rile some people. On the other hand I can understand the sheer frustration that Robert and other such people develop when their rational and well researched warnings are not being heeded.

Today, share markets have been checked in their recent rallies by another rise in the price of oil. You are a very wealthy man, but even you must have noticed how much more your petrol is costing. Very little of this rise is caused by recent government action. The simple fact is, if you were to check this out fully (there is plenty of reliable information on the internet and reported in reliable sources, e.g. BBC, CNN), that oil supply and demand are on a knife edge. If we are lucky, and there is no further major disruption to supplies, we may have up to five years of wildly swinging prices of oil, while production plateaus, before there is an inexorable rise in oil prices to over US$100 per barrel, or higher, and actual shortages of oil. Not only that, it is possible that this little country, a long way from anywhere, might have real difficulty in securing the supplies it needs. So it won't just be a matter of cost, there literally won't be enough to go round, at present rates of consumption. There is no spare world capacity. Saudi Arabia is pumping oil as fast as it can, it can't get it out of the ground any faster. These are geological, not economic, constraints that cannot be altered by any government or corporation or by any technology.

New Zealand's record in energy policy is appalling. In fact, New Zealand has not had any sort of energy policy as such for at least thirty years. We have a short-term, ad-hoc decision making process, which moves about in response to immediate market forces. We wasted much of the resources of the Maui Gas field (e.g. in inefficient gas generation of electricity in Huntly). We use over 40% of our total energy needs on transport, I think this is the highest figure in the world. This is what the New Zealand government's own statistician (John Cornish) had to say about New Zealand's energy efficiency record in 2003.

Overall New Zealand's energy use is rising quite rapidly, in part driven by population and economic growth. The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA) have stated that we rate as one of the poorer performing developed countries in terms of energy efficiency. From their perspective we could be getting far more energy services (i.e. heat, light, motive power) for the same amount of money spent on energy inputs (e.g. coal, gas, oil, hydro, geothermal, wind).

Although New Zealand's use of fossil fuels is relatively small compared with total global consumption, New Zealand faces some future economic challenges from its reliance on imports of fossil fuels. This fact is reinforced by EECA when it notes that our proportion of consumer energy supplied by renewable sources has been falling. It now stands around 29 percent, and EECA suggests that without further action, this proportion is likely to continue falling over the next decade.

New Zealand has natural advantage in the availability of renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar and biomass, but has been comparatively slow to adopt these alternative sources. In fact there has been no effective increase in renewable energy supply in New Zealand in the last several years.

(You can visit this site http://www.stats.govt.nz/about-us/events/nz-2021-the-growth-dilemma.htm to read a transcript of his address to the Electrical Engineers Meeting - it contains some very interesting statistics and graphs. One graph for instance shows the inexorable rise in our oil consumption. We seemed to have learned little from the oil shocks of the seventies.)

I have not previously written to you, Dr Brash, about these matters, but over the last few years I have been writing regularly to government energy and transport ministers about New Zealand's scandalously poor record. The cost to this country of our lack of a sensible energy policy, and particularly in regard to renewables, must be tens of billions of dollars over these years. I have for instance been very concerned about global warming, and a keen proponent of wind power. I am opposed to using gas, oil or coal for our future electrical energy needs. I have stated that I can see no technical or economic reason as to why New Zealand could not be operating a fully renewable electricity generation capacity by 2025 (by 2015 if really pushed).

However more recently I have come to note the real and urgent issue with the peak of global oil production. The arguments are not difficult to follow. Sites, such as http://www.peakoil.org, contain much valuable, believable and truly alarming information. This is what Dr Colin Campbell says:

"We now find one barrel of oil for every four we consume. The general situation seems so obvious. ...How can governments be oblivious of the realities of discovery and their implications...given the critical importance of oil to our entire economy."
Dr. Colin Campbell, ASPO president, in his testimony to the British house of Commons

  If you have not visited this site, may I urge you do so. I suspect you cannot have visited this site, because you would not now be arguing, as was reported in today's Dominion, for vastly increased roading expenditure. Dr Campbell is one of the world's foremost experts on oil. What he has to say is urgent. It is imperative that people like you, in positions of trust and responsibility, should take on board, now, what he, and other's like him, have been saying for years. It is not Dr Campbell's fault if no-one takes any notice. To not take notice is a failure of your responsibility for the economic and social welfare for the citizens of this country, but perhaps even more than this, a failure to our future generations.

You must accept that the way of life we have now, enjoying a standard of living enabled by a profligate and unsustainable pillaging of the earth's resources, cannot continue. If through sheer inertia, cussedness or ignorance we continue in this manner, and we do not take note of this, now, we, species home sapiens, will suffer some unimaginable consequences of failing to look after the planet that sustains us. This is not a prediction though, we do have time to turn things around. We have the brains and capacity to do this. But at the moment, humanity seems to lack the imagination even to see the problem. I think that your policy of spending more on road transport means that, as of this moment, you too are guilty of a lack of imagination.

If you read a newspaper, listen to the National Radio, you cannot but be aware of the problems. For instance, just yesterday are two news items that should be shouting out to us.
1. NEW YORK (MarketWatch) - Oil prices have entered the early stages of a multi-year period of trading in which economic growth and rising demand could push oil to $105 per barrel, enough to meaningfully reduce energy consumption, Goldman Sachs analysts said Thursday. (This is a well respected international financial organisation talking here. I think your party made use of them in advising you in the nineties).
2. The publication of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment report. "Any progress achieved in addressing the goals of poverty and hunger eradication, improved health, and environmental protection is unlikely to be sustained if most of the ecosystem services on which humanity relies continue to be degraded," said the study.

Such warnings are there for all to see every single day.

We just can't ignore these warnings any longer. You may dismiss Robert Atack as a crank (he isn't) but you cannot dismiss these continued warnings from all these highly qualified people. Governments around the world, including our New Zealand one, spend billions of dollars yearly on scientific, geophysical, meteorological, climatological, oceanographic and other research. What is the point of spending all this money if we, or you, aren't going to take a blind bit of notice of the results?

So, back to my original remarks. I cannot possibly see how there can be any justification at all for any major spending on roading. We just won't be able to run the cars or trucks we have if we don't take urgent action to limit our wasteful use of oil because we won't have enough. By the time these roads are built, no-one will be able to afford to use them, and in fact, our economy can't afford this even now. The cost of oil imports to this economy have rocketed, if it weren't for the high value of our dollar, the cost would be even greater. Our balance of payments deficit is horrendous and oil features largely in this. We need to increase tax on petrol substantially now (say 50c to $1 per litre) and all the money raised should immediately used for a crash programme of public transport infrastructure investment. Public transport in many parts of New Zealand is little more than a joke. The railways are run down and decrepit and the bus services poor, especially in Auckland. We are luckier in Wellington, but still, as compared with many European cities, do very poorly. We have little time to do this. Within the next year or two, maybe even later this year, we will be having to take measures reminiscent of those we took during the seventies. Car pooling, reduced speed limits, carless days etc. Except this time these measures will be permanent. I have written to ministers many times about the need for differential taxation on gas guzzling vehicles, restricted importation of such vehicles, encouragement of cycling, or electric bikes and cars. The lack of attention to energy efficiency has been an ongoing problem for years, and includes many years under a National administration.

In the same page of the Dominion as your policy appears, are interviews with six ordinary New Zealanders. It is obvious from reading their comments, that they don't have a clue what is about to hit us. When leaders like you, and almost everyone else in Parliament, with the honourable exception of Jeanette Fitzsimons and some other Green Party members, are not spelling out to the people the real urgency of these issues, then how can they have a clue? You, and your colleagues have a moral duty to be honest and open with the people of this country. To pretend to them, knowing what you must know, that you can fix their private transport woes with an injection of cash from petrol taxation to build more roads is actually dishonest.

If you are interested, I have my own internet site. The subjects are varied, but many relate to energy issues, global warming and oil peak. http://homepage.mac.com/j.monro. I expand there themes I have written about in this letter.

There is a revolution about to come to New Zealand, and every other country on the face of the planet. It is vital that everyone is informed of the urgency of this issues we face. The longer we leave things, and we have already left things to the eleventh hour, the worse will be the problems we face. We are like the home owner who fails to keep the fabric of the building sound, or the farmer that doesn't husband his land. You know, we all know, such carelessness is unsustainable and will eventually deprive such people of the shelter of their home or the food from their farm. But we are the owners and the farmers of this planet. We must care for the fabric of the planet, and husband its resources in exactly the same way, or we will all suffer exactly the same consequences.

If you have read this far, I thank you for the effort and integrity that you have displayed, because I have been very critical of you and your policies. But you will note I am equally so of others in the present Labour administration. I am not naturally a rude or divisive sort of person, but these issues are staring us in the face; they are just so obvious, so immediate, so easy to understand and so alarming, frightening even, in their consequence for all of humanity, that the continued inaction of our political masters (and those in industry and commerce) in dealing with them effectively is actually beyond my comprehension. I truly do not understand it.

Yours faithfully,

Dr John K Monro.


 

---

John and Jackie Knill




This picture shows John and Jackie Knill of Canada on their holiday in Thailand. Both John and Jackie tragically died along with all the hundreds of thousands of other people in the dreadful Boxing Day tsunami. Their camera took pictures of the tsunami as it gathered its forces. We will never know why John and Jackie were unable to run and save themselves, but it would seem that the mortal danger they were in just didn't register until it was too late. I don't wish to make a cheap political point out of someone else's tragedy, and I hope that others don't find it such, but it does occur to me that the world is treating global warming and oil depletion in the same way. Jeanette is right, these issues are our tsunami. The population has been well warned. We are being warned, watch out, watch out, but we stand uncomprehending - there is wall of change fast bearing down on us which will sweep us all away if we don't face up to our responsibilities. I mention John and Jackie again in my page Risk and Responsibility..