Category: Climate Change
Deception has always been at the heart of the Emissions Trading Scheme legislation. When it was enacted in great haste by a Labour Government in 2008, the public were told it was intended to stave off global warming. In fact, its purpose was to settle a major law suit brought against the Government by the forestry industry.
While the coalition negotiations between National, ACT, United and the Maori Party continue on in their indeterminable way, the sovereign debt crisis in Europe deepens. Amid fears of loan defaults by Italy and Greece,...
Which would you rather have in the view from your house? A thing about the size of a domestic garage, or eight towers twice the height of Nelson’s column with blades noisily thrumming the air. The energy they can produce over ten years is similar: eight wind turbines of 2.5-megawatts (working at roughly 25% capacity) roughly equal the output of an average Pennsylvania shale gas well (converted to electricity at 50% efficiency) in its first ten years.
For those New Zealanders concerned about the relentless rise in the price of power, the New Zealand Energy Strategy, released last month by the National-led government, offers little hope of relief.[1] The strategy is a complex mix of common sense and green ideology. On the one hand there is a strong emphasis on utilising New Zealand’s natural minerals and fuel resources to drive energy security and economic growth. That can only be good for the country. But on the other hand, much of the report could have been the work of a Labour-Green government with its green mantra of sustainability and its overarching focus on extreme environmentalism.
The latest New Zealand Energy Strategy is a strange mixture of pragmatism, ignorance, unachievable aspirations and disregards our biggest energy resource. The policy on oil and gas is sensible and admirable. Anything that encourages exploration and development of these resources can only be applauded. But maintaining a strategy for 90% renewable energy–which, technically, is virtually unachievable–really demonstrates an ignorance of the fundamentals of so-called “climate change".
To those of you who have experienced difficulties with our New Zealand Centre for Political Research website at www.nzcpr.com over the last few weeks, our apologies for any inconvenience caused. The technical problems with the server that hosts our NZCPR website have now been resolved by our ISP, and the full functionality of the website has been restored. However, the difficulties we experienced have highlighted the fact that the NZCPR website has outgrown our current technology platform - and the server.
In a Rasmussen national telephone survey of American adults conducted last month, 69% say it’s likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs. Only 6% say it is not at all likely.
Lord Christopher Monckton, a former policy adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and one of the world’s leading climate change realists, has been visiting New Zealand reminding audiences that the world’s climate is not in the grip of catastrophic man-made global warming - as alarmists would like us to believe – but is instead continuing to change within the bounds of natural variability as it has always done. He warned that attempts by politicians and bureaucrats to control the climate through complex and expensive emissions trading schemes are a futile waste of time and money. He reiterated that because climate science is not settled - with new discoveries on the impact of oceans, volcanoes, sunspots and other natural phenomena on the climate emerging almost daily - the public should strongly reject all attempts by politicians and bureaucrats to impose controls aimed at saving us from ourselves.
The fact that Phil Goff intends funding Labour’s $800 million policy of paying R D tax credits by bringing agriculture’s biological emissions into the ETS two year early in 2013 raises some very interesting questions about the mechanisms of the ETS and its purpose.
In terms of theatre, last Thursday’s election year budget was certainly a polished performance - a nice public relations exercise aimed at pacifying the concerns of voters, while giving little to opposition parties to really get their teeth into. But in terms of a government’s responsibility to improve the country’s economic outlook by boosting jobs, growth and living standards, it delivered little.
Loading ...
