April 29th, 2007 at 12:38 pm by David Farrar
Having to relocate snails has cost Solid Energy (the taxpayer) $25 million to date. Now as there are only 5,300 snails, this is a cost of $5,000 per snail.
Hell I hope they get some nice digs for that.
Tags:
New Zealand
This entry was posted on Sunday, April 29th, 2007 at 12:38 pm and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
April 29th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
And then somebody found a new colony of the supposedly endangered species miles away. Has anyone said sorry to the taxpayer for such a God awful incompetent waste of money? How many hop replacements can you buy for $25 mil?
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Oh bugger. ‘hop replacements?’ Not sure what they cost but ‘hip replacements?’ are easier to price.
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
This is the blueprint for returning NZ to the top half of the OECD ladder. This is the blueprint for NZ’s entry into the highly competive arena of global trade. This is the blueprint for raising living standards for all NZers, so they won’t have to shoot through to Oz to pay their mortgages. This is the socialist blueprint for success and prosperity.
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Hmm, I wonder how they’d be pan fried with butter and lots of garlic.
Vote:Maybe we could make a culinary treat out of them ?
April 29th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Hmm, I wonder how they’d be pan fried with butter and lots of garlic.
Vote:Maybe we could make a culinary treat out of them ?
April 29th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Read the story , it didnt cost $25M to find and relocate the snails.
This is mostly the cost of ‘lost production’ As its a coal mine, the money will be ‘found again’ at the end of the life of the mine.
Any fool can see from the ‘cost per snail’ that the actual cost per snail is very very low
That last E of the Nutcracker Party’s latest slogan , doesnt seem to mean Environment in the usual sense of the word
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
The amazing economic ignorance of socialists- a $25 million production loss is a matter of little consequence. The money will be “found again”.. Really.. well that of course makes it all OK.
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Selma Bouvier
I read the article and it said it cost $25 million.
The article said relocation, monitoring and protecting is $10 million, which is about $2000 per snail. Not very very low in my books.
The remaining cost is from delayed production. Delay is costly because there is a time value of money, which is among the least controversial concepts in business.
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Well I would have done it for only $1,500 per snail… I also remove gorse for a mere $7,000 per plant.
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
“Delay is costly because there is a time value of money, which is among the least controversial concepts in business.”
The price of non-renewable energy resources on the international market is set to sky rocket as demand continues to outstrip supply. So, maybe leaving the stuff in the ground for a bit longer will result in a net gain to solid energy. Time will tell.
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Excuse me for remaining in the real world, but what the fuck is anyone doing paying for snails to be moved?
I remember having the misfortune of readng an article on the great lengths that had to be achieved in NZ Geographic or a similar magazine. Apparently, each snail needs a specially sterile icecream container while being moved.
God Almighty. Anyone who thinks that is a good idea obviously has never had to earn their own money and is lost in an obscure enviro-ideology.
(I wait eagerly for the posts that label me uncaring, rabidly rightwing, snail-o-phobic, anti-green, a terrorist, insane. That bloke who can’t construct sentences will most likely be first.)
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
I wait eagerly for the posts that label me uncaring, rabidly rightwing, snail-o-phobic, anti-green, a terrorist, insane.
No, just a bit late on the outrage. This was news about a year ago.
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Production can be ‘delayed’ from a lot of things , weather, machinery breakdowns, collapse of the coalface, the there are delays since the railway line to Christchurch is overloaded, shipping delays and so on.
So you are saying protection of the environment is only OK when its free.
Do we save only a Kiwi ? , a tuatara?
They want to setup a brothel next to your house ?
Vote:lets see how much you squawk. And find reasons for delaying a legitimate business from its ‘production’
April 29th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Those dole bludgers & greenies who had been protesting against the removal of the snails & trespassing Solid Energy’s land could have been paid with some of that money to help in moving the snails to their new home. It saves WINZ alot of money.
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
“Production can be ‘delayed’ from a lot of things”
So what, there is still an economic cost. If the Ivory Tower idiots behind this farce were making all the major economic decisions for the country, NZ would be insolvent by now. Where would your precious environment be then??
The money could have been much better spent, on clean water, electricity, roads and shipping facilities. Economic prosperity will do so much more good for the environment than your sick out dated economically illiterate Marxist thinking patterns.
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Redbaiter, they are and we are.
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Originally there were only supposed to be 500 snails. Therefore the cost then was a mere $20K a snail. Good on them for finding more snails as this reduces the cost to only $2K a snail. Great big meritorious increase in productivity. Oh well what’s the next great idea to assist with the promised economic transformation
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Solid Energy has a funny way of looking at this. How much money have they made by moving the snails? It was a condition of them mining the area so moaning about the cost afterwards is a little rich.
In some peoples eyes it might only be a few snails but what right do we have to exterminate a species just to make a few bucks??
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Jesus wept! how fussy can a snail be? Train a few college kids,send them on a hunt;pay them $10 each for a healthy snail delivered and then send these creatures to the the thousands of people who would rear them in their back-yards,given the basic information.Could some “normal” people please tell me why this is not happening?What is this lunacy about snails costing thousands of dollars each?
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Rocket Boy you sure as hell didn’t study rocket science. The dickwits who declared the snail to be in danger of extiction failed to realise there was another colony of the same species elsewhere. The colony has in it numbers which would put the Labour Party membership people into paroxysms of envy.
Do you get it or is it just too obtuse for you?
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
10 bucks could’ve sorted it all out, that’s how much a couple of boxes of slug slam would’ve cost.
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Adolf, the decision to move the snails was made when it was believed they were the only colony. Easy with the benefit of hindsight…
Whaleoil et al, nice to know that you guys think that natures bio-diversity is something you would sacrifice for profits. Again I ask the question why do we have the right exterminate another species??
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Snails aside, exactly why is taking tonnes and tonnes of carbon out of the ground and putting it in the atmosphere a good idea? (given energy can be sourced elsewhere)
And why do some humans think they have the right to totally dominate the planet and to totally dominate everything on it or in it?
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
james cairney, because only the gormless dimwitted schmucks who slavishly follow the mantra of global warmenist fundies believe that carbon has anything to do with global warming.
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Maybe Rocket Boy will tell us what the global snail population is, and how many species of snails there are.
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Adolf Fiinkensein, we are lucky that people like you do not (and never will) run the country then.
It must be very lonely in the ‘carbon doesn’t contribute camp’ by now, how many of you are left? It’s looking a bit like the smoking doesn’t cause cancer camp and the world is definately flat camp. Pesky science ruining your stubborn world view again eh champ?
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
I have no idea what the global snail population is or how many species there are, but what difference does it make? These snails are unique and as far as we know they only occur in one place. Would it be OK to exterminate the Blue Whale just because there are a lot of Minke Whales??
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
James,if you want to save a snail,you do not achieve it by making the creature so expensive that “normal” people baulk at the cost of salvage.I like snails well enough;I gather and feed them to my parrots.On the other hand,if these “special” snails could bank me 2 grand each,I would most certainly not be chucking them into the aviary.Somebody PLEASE send me a truck-load of these snails.I will only charge you $1000 per snail on resale.At that price Mate,they will also wash your smalls and make your morning coffee.
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Well Rocket Boy there are 65,000 different species of snail. Yes 65,000. Not 10 or 100 or 1,000 but 65,000.
Now you may ask why so many? It’s simple. Snails don’t move around much. There are no great snail migrations. So you have the same set of snails inbreeding in the same valley for several hundred years and they over time differ slightly genetically from the other snails.
So comparing a species of snail to a species of whale (which has huge differences) is not the same thing. For snails a species is basically a family.
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
“James,if you want to save a snail,you do not achieve it by making the creature so expensive that “normal” people baulk at the cost of salvage”
Mara: Where did I say anything that warranted that?
I would further though, that they did not ‘want’ to save the snails, they ‘wanted’ to dig a big hole to put millions of tonnes of ground carbon into the atmosphere in the production of energy, the destruction of the habitat of (what at the time seemed to be endangered) snails being an inevitable by-product. In that situation and with that knowledge, that leaves one question only, being; ‘do we have the right to destroy a species in order to produce energy/ make a profit?’ If your answer is yes, then I ask ask why?
If your answer is no, then what on earth was your point?
And silly me for thinking that leaving millions of tonnes of carbon in solid form under the ground was a better idea than digging it up and putting in the sky.
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
So David, what amount of ‘uniqueness’ must a species have before we can no longer destroy it in the quest for energy?
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Well James if it is a choice between NZ having enough energy for our needs, and one colony of snails which has only minuscule differences to snails a valley away, I call it an easy choice.
Remember as power prices go up, it will be poor families who get hit hardest.
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Sorry David but you need to do a bit more research, this coal is all exported.
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
“Well James if it is a choice between NZ having enough energy for our needs, and one colony of snails which has only minuscule differences to snails a valley away”
But it is not such a choice. It isn’t even close to such a choice.
New Zealand needs to change its attitude to energy consumption full stop, and what it thinks are its ‘needs’ (as you call them).
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
You people need to pay more attention to Mara, It’s not a question of snails vs coal, but a question of how the hell it costs so much and takes so long to collect and relocate some snails.
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
The last thing our planet ‘needs’ is another bloody coal mine.
We have to stop thinking about short term ‘wants’, and start looking at the big picture.
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Andrew, yes quite right. If it could have been done a lot cheaper then of course that is a valid question. However, I do not have a clue what is involved in carrying out such a project, nor what it would cost, and I’m reasonably confident that you do not either. So who are you to criticise?
If it was the only option (with the facts as they appeared at the time), there can be no issue. Further, no person here has argued that there was another option (aside from those who would simple say ‘fuck them and their habitat, coal prevails’).
Coalmine v snails IS the question, (unless you know something about cost effective snail population relocation?).
And me, I make two points:
Vote:1. a coal mine is a stupid idea, snails or no snails.
2. Humans do not have the right to destroy a species in the quest for energy, especially in light of our wasteful energy habits.
April 29th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Production can be ‘delayed’ from a lot of things , weather, machinery breakdowns, collapse of the coalface, the there are delays since the railway line to Christchurch is overloaded, shipping delays and so on.
True, but if you start later you still expect these problems and you still finish later, so you still incur the cost of delay.
So you are saying protection of the environment is only OK when its free…
No I wasn’t saying that at all. Is this in response to anything I wrote?
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
We cannot have coal mines and coal fuelled power stations.
Vote:But wind power means turbines that look ugly and kill the birds.
Hydro electric means flooding precious valleys so we cannot go there.
I am sure tidal barrages will affect the fish and the molluscs somehow.
So it must be ‘clean green’ nuclear power than. That will save on carbon emissions, eh!
Or do we just retreat to a pre-industrial age when there were far fewer people living far shorter lives and in great discomfort.
No welfare state either to pay for bludgers and protesters.
Oh and I guess we don’t need cars either.
Horses dumping shit everywhere is so mich cleaner.
A century or so ago, London feared it was going to be smothered in horse excrement.
But technology saved the day, as it will again, if allowed.
April 29th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
“So who are you to criticise?”
You’re an arrogant prick sometimes James, why should I not question the efficiency of the operation? Is it somehow immune to public scrutany?
“Coalmine v snails IS the question, (unless you know something about cost effective snail population relocation?).”
Again you are saying that because I don’t know how efficiently it was done compared to how efficiently it could have been done, I have no right to question it, Bullshit!
“And me, I make two points:
1. a coal mine is a stupid idea, snails or no snails.
2. Humans do not have the right to destroy a species in the quest for energy, especially in light of our wasteful energy habits. ”
Provide reasoning please.
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
The price of non-renewable energy resources on the international market is set to sky rocket as demand continues to outstrip supply. So, maybe leaving the stuff in the ground for a bit longer will result in a net gain to solid energy. Time will tell.
Perhaps. Although if it takes snails to introduce a delay which turns out to be profit maximising then Solid Energy needs to check its spreadsheets.
I think what you’re suggesting will be true by luck only, and is generally untrue.
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
“Or do we just retreat to a pre-industrial age when there were far fewer people living far shorter lives and in great discomfort.”
No. We start by eliminating massive energy wastage, by strong measures and incentives for efficiency.
And every form of power generation does has its particular negatives, but you cannot use that fact as a justification for coal.
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
In some peoples eyes it might only be a few snails but what right do we have to exterminate a species just to make a few bucks??
When carried to its logical conclusion, an argument that says we have no right eliminates much human activity – certainly most farming, and construction of many modern amenities, since those activities destroy species.
You can’t live much above subsistence without accepting precisely the principle you reject here. So, yes, I firmly believe we should have the “right…to exterminate a species just to make a few bucks”
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
I’m wondering why James C, Rocket Boy etc are wasting precious energy powering their computers to argue inane points on a web site? Infact I’m amazed you even have computers – do you have any idea of the amount of energy it takes to make one?.
I’d also assume you two and your friends will be getting an early night to ensure that your morning walk to work is successful.Yes?
Don’t forget to turn out the lights.
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
ChickLittle, I agree.
Who are environmentalists to demand the constraints on consumption they themselves so obviously refuse?
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
“You’re an arrogant prick sometimes James”
*yawn* the inevitable mud slinging by someone lost in the fine points of the dicussion.
If you want to critically question the efficiancy of the relocation be my guest, but without specialist knowlegde you would merely be guessing, and as such wasting everyone’s time with pointless dribble (‘it sure sounds like too much’, *yawn*).
So champ, what should that project have cost? Or are you wasting our time?
At least others had the guts to admit they thought the project a waste of money at any cost (an argument with a point to it even without merit). Which is what brought the discussion to snails versus coal (you seem to have missed that).
Chickenlittle, no person here has a shown a problem with power use per se, grow up. In fact, I challenge you to show otherwise.
ben: “certainly most farming, …, since those activities destroy species”
Vote:What species are ‘destroyed’ by most farming?
April 29th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Hey James I was just saying. Theres no need to get you knickers (size 6 ?) in a twist.
‘grow up’ – well, to quote you James -
‘*yawn* the inevitable mud slinging by someone lost in the fine points of the dicussion(sic).’
Get over yourself big boy.
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Fuck ‘em, there 65000 species of snails, how many do we need? Species die out is nature at work. Be thankful it happened to dinosaurs.
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Ben, any environmentalist that is not efficient in the use of energy does not deserve the label, it is that simple.
Are you saying that a significant amount of energy is not being wasted, or are you saying that it is ok for people to so waste?
I have personally taken significant measures in reducing the amount of energy I consume.
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
So your post was irrelevant chickenlittle?
Kind of my point, no?
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
James Cairney
I admire sentiment and agree with you.
But what exactly do you mean by “efficient”? Can driving a car be an efficient use of energy, and if so under what circumstances? What about plane flghts? What about having hot showers?
Just seeking some clarification. I agree with your efficiency test but I wonder if we mean the same thing by ‘efficiency’.
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
James Cairney
I admire the sentiment and agree with you.
But what exactly do you mean by “efficient”? Can driving a car be an efficient use of energy, and if so under what circumstances? What about plane flghts? What about having hot showers?
Just seeking some clarification. I agree with your efficiency test but I wonder if we mean the same thing by ‘efficiency’.
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
James Cairney
What species are ‘destroyed’ by most farming?
This is a column about snails which appear in only a single localised area.
About 40% of the world’s land is used for agriculture.
I’m confident nobody knows how many species have been lost because of agriculture, but it would seem rather obvious it must be many.
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
I believe that there is somewhere around 3000 species of insect/marine/animal life, lost every day to the world, gratis of mankind.
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
…Whoops, forgot plant life included too.
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
James Cairney said…
And why do some humans think they have the right to totally dominate the planet and to totally dominate everything on it or in it?
James, you must be daft or something? I can’t believe that a human (you) could ever say something like that. Since we (early humans) came down from the trees from our monkey ancestors, it had differentiated us (humans) from the rest of the animal kingdom because of what’s in our head (ability to think), which is superior to any species. Man rules the planet and that is one reason that civilization had advanced from the time our ancestors were living upon trees (hanging upside down as monkeys), to the caves and now to modern homes. We dominate the planets because we can produce and that is why you’ve got a fuck’n computer at home which enables you to post your socialist opinions here at DPF.
If you don’t think that man has the right to totally dominate the planet, then I will not expect you to post here at DPF after this , since that using a computer (man used resources from the planet to built computers, cars, power generators and also including your underwear) would be against what you stand for and that is the snails are equal to man.
Get fuck’n real. Man’s needs first, then anything else come second, including snails. Coal is for man’s needs and it is vital for our survival. If you want to go back to the caves, then fine, you do that, but leave us who want to live in progressed civilization to carry on. You can go to Afganistan and find Osama in a cave to join him there. In that lifestyles they are treating themselves as equal to everything on the planet.
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
James Cairney said…
New Zealand needs to change its attitude to energy consumption full stop, and what it thinks are its ‘needs’ (as you call them).
What don’t you change your attitude first by not posting here at DPF? Every time you post your leftist and socialist view here, it does contribute to the country’s energy consumption. Stop being a socialist hypocrites, preaching to everyone to cut down power consumption and you keep posting messages here at DPF. Just shut down your computer or perhaps even give it away to children of poor families in your neighborhood. You can live without any computer can’t you? It just saves a few kWatts of power for the country.
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
DPF said: “So comparing a species of snail to a species of whale (which has huge differences) is not the same thing. For snails a species is basically a family.”
Just for you, David, here is an important lesson in the birds and the bees: One species of snail/whale cannot mate/produce fertile offspring with another species of snail/whale, that is the definition of ‘species’.
It’s quite arrogant to assume that because you can’t spot the difference between two snail species doesn’t mean it’s ok to wipe out P. augustus seeing there’s another ‘similar’ snail living in the next valley.
Your other comments also show a lack of understanding of genetics, unless you’re trying to be funny.
Anyway, attempting to save this snail is good news and shows that sustainability in one of the worst industries can be achieved (in a way). Hopefully, the snails survive, the mining industry certainly will.
Linda A
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 12:54 am
“I believe that there is somewhere around 3000 species of insect/marine/animal life, lost every day to the world, gratis of mankind.”
Wiki gives total species (excluding bacteria) as 287,655 plants, 74,000-120,000 fungi, 10,000 lichens and 1,250,000 animals or a total of 1.6 million species. 3000 a day would wipe the planet clean in about 15 months.
Facts may not help your point but they are not hard to find out now with the internet.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 3:10 am
$25 million is how much Labour said they couldn’t afford to spend on Herceptin.
Helen Clark to breast cancer sufferers: “My government would rather save endangered snails than endangered women.”
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 3:27 am
$25 million is how much Labour said they couldn’t afford to spend on Herceptin.
Helen Clark to breast cancer sufferers: “My government would rather save endangered snails than endangered women.”
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 6:13 am
Regarding Mans impact on the rate of extinctions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction_event
Clearly we will need to be more efficient at saving species or we won’t be able to afford to save very many.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 6:15 am
Regarding Mans impact on the rate of extinctions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction_event
Clearly we will need to be more efficient at saving species or we won’t be able to afford to save very many.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 6:26 am
By plonking the snails somewhere else we displace other animals occupying that niche at the new location.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 8:33 am
What is with the posting system on this site? It would be great if the post button could be pressed once and worked.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 9:11 am
Facts may not help your point but they are not hard to find out now with the internet.
Posted by pacman | April 30, 2007 12:54 AM
Just because Wiki states this and that, doesn’t imply fact. For example, my research material on fungi claims there is over a million spieces. (although I have other research figures claiming similar to Wiki).Who really knows???
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 9:24 am
ben, just think wastage. From every SUV you see on the motorway with one person in it, to every empty room with a light left on, to every perpetually empty beer fridge in one your of mates garages, to houses with the old incandescent lightbulbs. The amount of power used that does not need to be used for living the way we want to live is outstanding.
cheers.
jim said: “Man’s needs first, then anything else come second, including snails. Coal is for man’s needs and it is vital for our survival.”
My word, what a troglodytishly absurd comment. Are you OK? Did you forget your morning fix of coal?
Coal is not in any way necessary for our ‘survival’. Not only that, it isn’t even necessary for maintaining our current way of life. And your ‘man’s needs first’ attitude is exactly the sort of backwards thinking that has resulted in every ecological disaster in history.
Also, what you think are ‘man’s needs’ right now, will not be appreciated as man’s needs in the future, when viewed in hindsight amongst the mess created in order to get them, and the perpetual loss to the planet to quench current greed.
People can live how they live, but they can also consume less crap, create less waste, use less power, burn less fuel, and leave our grandhildren a planet in less of a mess than what it will be in if current attitudes like yours remain unchanged. What a gift to this world people like you are, that is, people with your ‘me and now’ mentality.
wicket, nothing you stated in any way proves the necessity of coal, it is about using less power, and buring less fuel, you are making uop facts that do not exist, why did you even bother?
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
James Cairney
It is fairly obvious you haven’t thought this through.
If empty seats in a SUV counts as wastage then presumably so do empty seats in a Honda Civic. Presumably empty bus and train seats do as well (if not, why not?)
You’re missing two things. One, seats which are empty at any given time may be full at another, and this flexibility has value for the user (e.g. the driver might be going to pick her kids up from school).
The other thing you’re missing is that when users are bearing the cost of what you see as waste, you can be confident it isn’t waste. Why? If it was waste, then the car buyer would simply be throwing money away. For a SUV owner with three empty seats, the combination of value from size, space, and flexibility must for them outweigh the additional cost of an SUV over, say, a Civic or a moped.
You might retort that the costs of an SUV to the environment are not being taken into account. That is a good argument, but in fact those costs are more than accounted for from current taxes on gasoline. Depending on who you quote, the cost of carbon per tonne is US$15 (Nordhaus) to US$85 (Stern). That translates to about NZ$0.02 – NZ$0.12 per litre, much less than current taxes. SUV owners already pay their way, and probably then some.
It seems to me you should feel no more right to criticise the SUV owner for driving alone than they have to criticise you for leaving your laptop idle for 16 hours a day. Both look like waste if one ignores the hidden virtues.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Yes ben you are correct, that was an off the cuff remark and not entirely accurate in the context of wastage, sorry.
Vote:That point was relevant to efficiency though, the increase in suburban SUV use is not a necessity for getting people from A to B, it is more efficient in a smaller car. I, like many others, have recently purchased more economical vehicles, and it would be nice to see more do so. Car pooling and public transport are also under used.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
James Cairney
Ok, I see what you’re saying. True, a SUV is more than the minimum required to move people. But, again, this test of efficiency is too limited because it ignores the value people place on having more than the minimum.
Cold showers achieve the same objective as hot showers, but hot showers carry heavier environmental costs. Is this not an example of inefficiency?
What distinguishes the needless luxury of hot showers from the needless luxury of a SUV? I say nothing does.
What are missing is that people put different values on different things, and attempt to impose your views on others here must bite you as well – SUV owners can criticise your use of hot showers for precisely the reason you criticise their choice of transport.
The way out of the conundrum is this. You ask each consumer of goods and services in all their forms to bear the full cost of their consumption including its environmental impact, and then let them make up their own mind as to what luxuries are worth having in view of these costs. That is the approximately the system that is currently in place.
I am not saying the environment can go to hell, far from it. I am simply pointing out how your own argument can be used against most of your own consumption, since most of us – certainly anyone reading this – live far above bare necessities.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
If a volcanic eruption (case in point Taupo 26,500 years ago pushing 300 km³ of ignimbrite, 500 km³ of pumice and ash fall into the atmosphere) can rapidly cause massive & widespread climate change & extinction, then annually burning billions of tonnes of fossil fuels into the atmosphere ultimately does the same thing.
I am infinitely puzzled that sceptics see any difference between pollution caused by humans and that produced by a natural disaster.
The balance on a small planet between what’s under the ground vs. what’s in the air is adjusted.
1. Dense, heavy carbon & fossil fuels formed & remaining in the ground.
2. Dense, heavy carbon & fossil fuels burned into the atmosphere.
3. Dense, heavy heads, remaining in the sand.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
“You ask each consumer of goods and services in all their forms to bear the full cost of their consumption including its environmental impact, and then let them make up their own mind as to what luxuries are worth having in view of these costs. That is the approximately the system that is currently in place”
Well said Ben, but I do not agree that that is what is in place now, if you arguing for polluter pays and let everyone choose, then I am in total agreement.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
James Cairney
Well said Ben, but I do not agree that that is what is in place now, if you arguing for polluter pays and let everyone choose, then I am in total agreement.
I guess that’s correct in general, e.g. factories are not paying the cost of smoke from their chimneys, polluting rivers, etc. But the figures quoted earlier suggest SUVs do pay their way for greenhouse emissions and probably then some with existing gasoline taxes. SUVs get a lot of heat from the environmental lobby but I think its misplaced.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Leah
That the earth can withstand and recover from such sudden and massive eruptions without major effects on life gives me great confidence that the slow burn humans are engaging in has about no chance of causing major or irreversible damage.
I also get great confidence that for the last three billion years, not once has the climate turned hostile enough to end all life.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
There have been several mass extinctions that have seen the demise of 90% of species that existed before each, including all larger land animals, I doubt AGW would be anywhere near as destructive as this, but even a comparitively tiny effect could be disasterous for us.
aint this the wrong thread for this subject?
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Correct Andrew – it takes a massive, massive impact to really do some damage. Raising carbon dioxide concentrations gradually over several hundred years is not comparable. So I’m relaxed.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Ben, I’m sitting on the fence when it comes to making guesses about how serious the effects of AGW will be for Man and for the planet.
However, I did not say or imply that “it takes a massive, massive impact to really do some damage” True it is widely believed that asteriodal or cometary impacts were responcible for at least two of these extinctions, the cause of the other extinctions and their rapidity is less certain.
The rate of CO2 rise, a probable doubling over one century, is Extemely rapid in geological terms.
If Earths human population was 2 billion, I would also be pretty relaxed, but as there are projected to be around 9 billion of us by the middle of this century, and this will in itself stretch the planets ability to support us, any uncertainty about impacts on food production should be considered seriously.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
That was me saying it takes a massive impact to do some damage, I wasn’t taking that from what you said (sorry if that wasn’t clear).
I’m particularly relaxed about food shortages. The long term price trend for food is down, which follows from reduced scarcity over time, and I don’t believe there is any reason to think that won’t continue.
Paul Ehrlich was completely wrong about food shortages in the 1970s when population was at its peak growth. That maximum has passed; now population growth is slowing. There is every reason to think humanity will be able to continue feeding itself.
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 6:35 am
The argument that someone claimed this or that in the past and it didn’t happen therefore anyone claiming the same in the future must be wrong is not a logical argument.
Is this logical? “I drove home drunk last Friday and didn’t crash therefore they are wrong about drunk drivers being unsafe.”
It maybe logical for a drunk but shouldn’t be a line of reasoning for sober people.
Past food production increases were built on:
1. the conversion of natural land to agriculture.
But there isn’t a lot of good arable land left to convert
2. increasing energy supplies in the form of fossel fuels (notably oil)
But every expert sees peak oil before 2050, I include Exxon-Mobil and USGS in this.
3. artificial fertilisers
But nitrogen fertilisers are produced using natual gas, this is also expected to peak around 2050
4. Science and technological progress; plant and animal breeding, understanding soil science, industrialisation of agriculture etc.
Maybe technology will produce the goods again, but the statement: “There is every reason to think humanity will be able to continue feeding itself.” Is not one I see as being based on the best information available.
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 11:11 am
Andrew, true past performance does not prove anything. But in this case history is consistent with other evidence that strongly indicates the world is in no danger of running out of food.
Since the 1970s the main source of increased production is not more land use but higher production per hectare. The developed world has much higher yields of rice and wheat yields per hectare than developing countries (roughly 2:1). Since most production is concentrated in developing countries, that tells you there are large potential increases in total production available should food start to become scarce. That is, developing countries demonstrably have much room for improvement in agricultural intensity.
If world population is projected to top out at about 50% above current levels, then the available increase in food from higher production per hectare will be more than enough to feed those additional people. And that’s assuming current technology only.
True, fertilizer is made using natural gas, but a range of alternative production methods that do not use natural gas are available. And natural gas is in no danger of running out soon. Available reserves are increasing (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/nat_gas.html) and reserves-to-production ratios have remained high, currently at 66 years world wide, up from 60 years in 2000.
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Well Rocket Boy there are 65,000 different species of snail. Yes 65,000. Not 10 or 100 or 1,000 but 65,000.
Now you may ask why so many? It’s simple. Snails don’t move around much. There are no great snail migrations. So you have the same set of snails inbreeding in the same valley for several hundred years and they over time differ slightly genetically from the other snails.
So comparing a species of snail to a species of whale (which has huge differences) is not the same thing. For snails a species is basically a family.
Really David, if you’re going to parrot people’s talking points choose someone a little less retarded than Owen McShane, qualified Town Planner and self appointed expert in Climate Science and now Evolutionary Biology.
There are, by some estimates, 65 000 in the class Gastropoda which includes land, sea and freshwater snails. Some of those 65 000 species have not shared a common ancestor for 450 million years. That means they are about as ‘genetically similar’ to each other as you are to a sea-squirt or a kina.
Nailing down what ‘species’ means is a real problem in biology and defining what units should be the subject of conservation efforts(usually called Evolutionary Significant Units, and something below the species level) is even harder. But, why should a snail species be worth less than a kiwi population (everything you said about snails is true of kiwis, except for the ‘like a family’ bit which isn’t true for snails)
Vote:May 19th, 2007 at 10:58 am
vjif ropxabj pvlfkecry iykjrcftd owihj xtgf sxvnmz
Vote:May 19th, 2007 at 11:00 am
mpfzd yjmi mxtlhr fxskjonyr fazdie medipz kgzxsjh http://www.jzakq.sybxodm.com
Vote:May 19th, 2007 at 11:04 am
ngysocb almwubzov rldu rzvgcq qthjywovs abxwrnpgk ewaiymrx [URL]http://www.jgziqxav.odqr.com[/URL] tpaby iboqtpjnr
Vote:May 19th, 2007 at 11:06 am
ngysocb almwubzov rldu rzvgcq qthjywovs abxwrnpgk ewaiymrx [URL]http://www.jgziqxav.odqr.com[/URL] tpaby iboqtpjnr
Vote:May 19th, 2007 at 11:06 am
ngysocb almwubzov rldu rzvgcq qthjywovs abxwrnpgk ewaiymrx [URL]http://www.jgziqxav.odqr.com[/URL] tpaby iboqtpjnr
Vote:May 20th, 2007 at 3:28 am
Very good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 20th, 2007 at 3:28 am
Very good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 20th, 2007 at 8:01 am
Nice site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 20th, 2007 at 8:02 am
Nice site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 20th, 2007 at 10:48 am
Nice site. Thanks!!!
Vote:May 31st, 2007 at 1:18 am
Nice site. Thank you.
Vote:May 31st, 2007 at 1:19 am
Nice site. Thank you.
Vote:May 31st, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Nice site. Thank you.
Vote:May 31st, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Nice site. Thank you.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 4:48 am
Nice site. Thanks!
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 4:49 am
Nice site. Thanks!
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 6:08 am
Good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:June 4th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Cool site. Thank you!
Vote:June 5th, 2007 at 2:27 am
Very good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:June 5th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Very good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:June 5th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Very good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:June 9th, 2007 at 1:21 am
Very good site. Thanks.
Vote:June 9th, 2007 at 1:21 am
Very good site. Thanks.
Vote:June 11th, 2007 at 9:43 am
Nice site. Thank you!!!
Vote:June 16th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Nice site. Thanks.
Vote:June 16th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Nice site. Thanks.
Vote:June 19th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Very good site. Thank you.
Vote:June 19th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Very good site. Thank you.
Vote:June 21st, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Good site. Thanks.
Vote:June 22nd, 2007 at 9:04 am
Cool site. Thank you.
Vote:June 23rd, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:June 23rd, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Good site. Thank you.
Vote:June 23rd, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Nice site. Thanks.
Vote:June 23rd, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Nice site. Thanks!
Vote:June 24th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Cool site. Thank you:-)
Vote:June 24th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Cool site. Thank you:-)
Vote:June 26th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Good site. Thanks.
Vote:June 26th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Good site. Thanks.
Vote:June 27th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:June 27th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Very good site. Thank you!
Vote:June 27th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:June 27th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Cool site. Thanks:-)
Vote:June 28th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Very good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:June 28th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Nice site. Thank you!!!
Vote:June 28th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Nice site. Thank you!!!
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Cool site. Thanks.
Vote:July 1st, 2007 at 9:54 pm
Nice site. Thanks!!!
Vote:July 2nd, 2007 at 1:42 am
Good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:July 2nd, 2007 at 1:42 am
Good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:July 2nd, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Cool site. Thank you!!!
Vote:July 2nd, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Cool site. Thank you!!!
Vote:July 3rd, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Cool site. Thanks!
Vote:July 4th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Good site. Thanks.
Vote:July 4th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Cool site. Thanks!!!
Vote:July 5th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Good site. Thank you.
Vote:July 8th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Very good site. Thank you.
Vote: