Saturday, April 14, 2018

WHERE IS WINNIE?


A government that has hopes well beyond what many see as affordable, this week with no consultation or conversations, collapsed the multimillion dollar off shore exploration for hydrocarbons in NZ, a vibrant industry that might have helped fund the extraordinary aspirations of the intellectual midgets masquerading as the current executive.

Estimated, to be worth half a billion a year and employing thousands, exploration has been gutted by a virtue signalling outfit whose total business acumen is measured in micrograms, now threatens to tank the booming economy Simon English delivered from  the spectre of treasury predicted decades of deficits just ten years ago.

NZ will still need and consume growing quantities of hydrocarbons and as current sources become exhausted from production  that now minimises or offsets from the considerable oil and gas  flowing within our dominion,  greater imports will ensue.

As the PM jets off with an entourage of blinded supporters to meet with  other intellectual giants, all babbling about how they will save the planet from variables of temperatures previously endured, attributed to natural patterns set almost entirely by a fragile relationship with the nuclear powered heart of our solar system. A physical setup that includes orbital and axial facets relating to earths positioning plus significant activity within the Suns natural variations still largely unfathomed by science. Since those variables are as yet nontaxable to waste on the billion plus we send off shore to where, no-one admits to, the morons are relying on perpetrating the current AGW fraud.

  NZ is very well placed in sustainable energy creation and transmission from our limited harnessing the gravity powered  energy potential of water travelling from uplands to the sea from where evaporation sends it back into the sky to fall on the mountains again, and all for free.
Any CO2 created by burning hydrocarbons as backup to Hydro adds to food production for the over seven billion souls inhabiting planet earth. 
NZ electric energy sustainability is by world standards up there with Iceland (a north Atlantic island nation population equivalent to greater Christchurch) and Norway with even greater untapped hydro capacity that accompanies oil reserves and production that when measured against their population almost of unimaginable value,  all  for a nation similar in size to NZ
In a sop to the Luddite Melons, Ardern and Ample  Woods stood yesterday with a beaming Jimmie 'two mums' Shaw and Mr Billion for bribes and obfuscation Jones (acting like a guilty thug trying to obscure his mug from the cameras at the district court door) announced to a fawning media an ending of all offshore oil and gas exploration along with all onshore activity outside of Taranaki, the energy boomtown.
Poor old Angry Andy was given time out from his feeble Pike River Mine fiasco ( that as a union official he was at the very center of, as a pawn in the lead up to that tragedy) that is set to consume twenty three million dollars of money the rest of the Coast  would dearly love to be able to access to repair the damage from the two rogue storms two weeks apart in February that created massive erosion damage to roads and infrastructure.. As  yet Westland is  apparently totally ignored by the virtue signalling kindy kids living their dream  north of cook straight.
Maybe some crusading journo, if there is one remaining,  might like to contact Bruce Smith the Mayor of Westland District or list MP Maureen Pugh his predecessor, instead of the luvvie's favs Bernie Monk and Tony Kockshorn from Grey District Council neither of whom can see beyond the Paparoas, for a true perspective of just what the twin storms wrought to greater Westland and Tasman.
Mayor Smiths jurisdiction is three hundy Kms long between the summit of the Alps and  the Tasman Sea of  and is traversed by the SI "Holiday Highway 6 from Kumara to Haast with a population only a little larger than Thames and charged with administering an area five times that of Thames Corromandel. Vast areas of Westland is non rateable so budget pressures apply
Just imagine the outcry if Aukland's playground was ignored to the degree Bruce's bunch of Ferals have been since Mother nature visited twice in quick succession.

No matter, Cinders and her entourage will burn a mess of the finite hydrocarbons to get her pregnant self to the other side of the world then return to labour in situ while poor old Andy tries to rationalise to the voters who thrice delivered him  the arse card in his hometown New Plymouth, how destroying thousands of their jobs will save us all from Armageddon.

14 comments:

Psycho Milt said...

...with no consultation or conversations...

Well, other than those policies they released before they were elected, which said they aimed for zero net carbon emissions by 2050 and talked about transitioning workers out of carbon-intensive industries into other sectors. If anyone in the oil and gas industries read those statements and thought "OK, nothing in there that affects us," they should have been replaced with people who can read.

...collapsed the multimillion dollar off shore exploration for hydrocarbons in NZ...

The only question of interest here is: why didn't the last government stop licence renewals for oil and gas exploration?

If releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is causing climate change, governments that encourage the growth of the industries responsible would be terrible, awful, completely shit governments.

National encouraged the growth of the oil and gas industries and says it will reinstate oil and gas exploration when it next becomes the government. So, either National is a terrible, awful, completely shit candidate for government, or it believes that releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere isn't causing climate change. Which is it?

There are few interesting questions for journalists to ask Jacinda Ardern about this - she's implementing policy that was flagged before the election and that are a no-brainer for any government that takes climate change seriously. The only questions really are about what transition plans they're going to put in place for the people in the industry.

However, there's a great big interesting question for journalists to ask Simon Bridges: does National accept that AGW exists?

Anonymous said...

Saw the words "climate change" used as a religious statement and stopped reading. I'm not sure what is worse - morons that do stupid things like this or the morons that support the moron's actions.

3:16

The Veteran said...

Milt ... usually you reason well even though on many occasions we will have to agree to disagree. But this time your intellect seems to have deserted you in favour of parroting the Party line.

Fact ... the governments announcement that they are abandoning our oil and gas industry will have zip, zero, nil effect on our greenhouse carbon emissions. Our reliance on fossil fuels will be what it is encompassing electricity generation, gas water heating, powering back-up generation for industry and essential services, fuel for the transport industry ... the list goes on.

Fact ... we either access it here (with the government receiving royalties from the process) or we import it from o'seas at an additional cost. But whatever which way our greenhouse gas emissions will remain what they are.

Fact ... and in the process you gut the Taranaki economy putting 4,000 high paying jobs at risk.

And to add insult to injury Labour dispatches it's thrice rejected New Plymouth candidate to try and mollify the populace 48 hours after the announcement ... sheesh, and 'they' thought they could buy off the province with a $25m grant from the PGF which is to be used (among other things) to restore a Church. Well at least people will have somewhere to go and pray for deliverance from a bunch of losers committed to trashing the provinces economy in the name of saving the planet when the reality is it will have no effect at all.

One thing for sure ... Labour will never again regain New Plymouth in the foreseeable future.

Psycho Milt said...

Fact ... the governments announcement that they are abandoning our oil and gas industry will have zip, zero, nil effect on our greenhouse carbon emissions.

True but irrelevant. If you plan to phase out your reliance on X over the next few decades, the first item on the agenda is ceasing to invest in ensuring a plentiful supply of X beyond the next few decades. As you say, that doesn't reduce your current reliance on X in the slightest, but it's an obvious and necessary first step. And if you do continue to invest in ensuring a plentiful supply of X beyond the next few decades, what does that say about your claims to be phasing it out?

Fact ... we either access it here (with the government receiving royalties from the process) or we import it from o'seas at an additional cost.

Also true but irrelevant. If climate change is real, we have to phase out the use of fossil fuels. If climate change is real and we're still using the same amount of fossil fuels as we are now by the time this ban on exploration becomes relevant, our civilisation will be coming to an end shortly anyway. That's my whole point: "if climate change is real" is the very basis of this issue. Trying to argue the merits of Labour's decision without taking a position on whether climate change is real just makes your arguments irrelevant - journalists should be hammering Bridges and Collins for an answer to that whenever they open their mouths on this subject.

Fact ... and in the process you gut the Taranaki economy putting 4,000 high paying jobs at risk.

Since when have right-wingers started demanding halts to progress on the basis that jobs are at risk? If climate change is real, everyone's job is at risk. If climate change is real, those high-paying jobs are in the same position as high-paying jobs in the horse tack industry were a hundred years ago, ie yes there's still a need for thousands of them right now, but in a few decades time most of them had better have found another line of work.

The only genuinely relevant fact is the conditional one I mentioned in my comment above: if climate change is real, a government that continues to promote oil and gas extraction is a disastrously, maybe even fatally incompetent one. If climate change is not real, a government that eviscerated the oil and gas industry would be a bad government.

Governments can't have it both ways but National is trying to - journalists shouldn't let them. National's politicians pay lip service to accepting climate change, but their policies say they're climate change deniers - which is it?

The Veteran said...

PM ... so you agree with most everything I said. Thank you. I did not argue against reducing our reliance on fossil fuels ... we should ... and increased investment in wind power generation buttressed by solar power will help accelerate that reduction.

But it won't make fossil fuels redundant. There is still a place for fossil fuels in our economy and we either mine it here or import it from o'seas.

Go for the latter and the jobs lost here are jobs created o'seas. It's all smoke and mirrors so that the gullible can congratulate themselves that they are saving the planet when in fact our carbon emissions will remain what they are.

Never mind the quality (of the decision making) feel the width ... choke.

Psycho Milt said...

There is still a place for fossil fuels in our economy...

Only if climate change isn't real. If it is real, we need to wean ourselves off fossil fuels ASAP and should have started on it ten years ago or more. So you're effectively saying climate change isn't real, which I believe is the same position as National's MPs.

...when in fact our carbon emissions will remain what they are.

If climate change is real, to accept that is to accept the imminent demise of civilisation and possibly Homo Sapiens along with it. So, the only people who can say that without having their sanity called into question are climate change deniers. Would the deniers please start being honest about their position? Above everyone else, the National Party's politicians have a professional and ethical obligation to come clean about it.

Anonymous said...

PM, the heart of the matter is in your question, "If climate change is real..." but that only goes part way as assuming its a bad thing but its not us causing it a material degree reducing much of the world (except the lefty leadership of course) to poverty will be pointless. I recently watched a summary of the climate doomsday predictions over the last 30 years or so and was amazed that none, nil, nowt, not one had come to pass. We were all going to be cannibals because of a food shortage by 2012 according to one supposed expert. Venezuela hadn't happened at that point so he wasn't talking about socialism being a possible cause of starvation. If CO2 in the atmosphere is the problem please tell us how much, in PPM, is the right amount.

3:16

Psycho Milt said...

It doesn't matter whether you or I believe it's real or not - what matters is whether governments believe it or not. Labour and the Greens clearly believe it's real and needs something doing about it. What does National believe?

The Veteran said...

PM ... sorry, your attempt to run interference is just that. I accept climate change is for real but it's not a catastrophe just around the corner. You don't solve it by trying to emulate the Mennonites. The 'cut off your nose to spite your face' solution is just dumb but, then again for this government, dumb goes with the territory.

Anonymous said...

"It doesn't matter whether you or I believe it's real or not -"

Well, actually it does because facts eventually trump ideology and I wouldn't want to support nonsense and look a plonker down the track or have blood on my hands because I followed idiots off a cliff.

If National were honest they'd be looking at science beyond the dubious propaganda emanating from the IPCC's lackeys but I suspect the political class are birds of a feather which is why Trump, buffoon or not, has thrown a spanner in the works.

3:16

Psycho Milt said...

I accept climate change is for real but it's not a catastrophe just around the corner.

It doesn't matter what you accept or don't accept. What's Simon Bridges' and Judith Collins' position on it? People who aspire to govern need to make it clear where they stand on this because the wrong stance will turn out to be very damaging either way. The fact they won't make it clear says they're not fit to govern.

Psycho Milt said...

Well, actually it does because facts eventually trump ideology and I wouldn't want to support nonsense and look a plonker down the track or have blood on my hands because I followed idiots off a cliff.

That's my point. If you support National, what exactly are you supporting when it comes to this issue? Do they believe it, or do they reject it? Backing the wrong side involves following idiots off a cliff, so shouldn't the sides tell you what it is you're backing?

The Veteran said...

PM ... I said ... you said. We agree to disagree. You can agree with climate change but, in doing so, one doesn't need to sign up to 'your' government's proposal to take a wrecking ball to the economy. You guys hold the view that it's our way or the highway. Crap. My last word.

Anonymous said...

PM ... National look like they are less zealous about wrecking the economy in the name of climate change but still rabbit on about it as though its a fact and its all our fault so are tarnished with the same UN obedience drug as the lefties. I have no time for National as it turns out - alas, there is no party that I can endorse.

3:16