Officials look at reducing the speed limit
May 7th, 2008 at 9:19 am by David FarrarGovernment officials are looking at reducing the speed limit to reduce carbon emissions. They have estimated a reduction in the speed limit from 100 km/h to 90 km/h will reduce oil demand by 1.4%.
Hell, why stop there. A maximum 20 km/hr limit will do wonders for reducing oil demand.
Related posts:
- 110 km/hr speed limit?
- Tizard rules out dropping the speed limit
- The open road speed limit
- Speed Limiters for cars
May 7th, 2008 at 9:23 am
my god!!!!!!
this climate change CRAP is like a gift from the gods for socialists. they now have a licence to change anything they want!!
a 1.4% reduction in oil demand??
what fucking idiots!!!
the sooner the brainwashed public educate themselves about this socialist tool, the better!
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 9:23 am
It’s like the 1970s are replaying themselves.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 9:23 am
I blogged on this same topic today but made a somewhat broader sweep and ask why the climate change issue is being addressed with sticks in stead of carrots.
It seems that Helen believes we should never use a stick on our kids (only carrots) yet whenever you and I are required to change our behaviour, they do it by way of taxation or other penalty (reduced open-road speed limits) rather than using carrots such as concessionary relicensing fees for fuel-efficient vehicles or (gasp!) even the subsidy of such vehicles as is the case in some US states.
My blog offers some other insights to the mindset of governments (particularly left-leaning ones) when it comes to behavioural modification.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 9:28 am
I guess they will also have to reduce the speed limits on the trains and ferries as well…..
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 9:32 am
I despair of the Ministry of Transport … they seem to be the most inept set of bureaucrats in the Govt, and it really takes a lot of careful planning and hard work to win that prize.
For example, why haven’t they had in place for at least 10 years:
(1) A sensible set of emissions standards and emissions testing regimes for motor vehicles,
(2) A set of licensing charges that create strong incentives towards more fuel-efficient cars,
(3) A required “fleet average” fuel economy target that all importers have to hit or else must pay a penalty that raises the cost of their vehicles
(4) compulsory third-party insurance – you should have to prove you have TPI before you can register your car.
This is not rocket science stuff, it’s so long overdue it’s embarrassing. But instead they’re off looking at things like dropping the speed limit to reduce oil use by 1.4% of petrol. WTF!!!! If you want to reduce oil use then act directly along the lines of item (3) in my list above. If you want to reduce greenhouse gases then act directly along the lines of item (1) above.
These guys are idiots. And it’s certainly not helped by having dolts like Maurice Williamson and Henry Duynhoven running the portfolio.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Or how about a tax on 2nd and 3rd holidays …. those soon mount up if you are going to ….. Hawaii.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 9:37 am
And let’s face it, most people could save far more than 1.4% of their petrol bill simply by driving in a more fuel-efficient manner — but where’s the public education campaign to tell (the stupid) people how to do this?
Want to hear something just as daft?
If you get an attack of enviro-conscience and buy yourself an all-electric vehicle (assuming such a thing can be found in NZ for love or money) you will be *penalised* for doing so by having to pay road-tax at the same rate as a 2-tonne diesel truck.
Yeah, that’s a great move in our push towards carbon neutrality isn’t it?
When it comes to the environment, Helen is talking the talk (to a medal-winning level) but she’s just not walking the walk (at all).
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 9:39 am
aardvark – it’s 11% on the petrol bill. 1.4% on the overall oil usage.
But otherwise you make good points.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 9:41 am
How about an increase in speed limit to 130 kph for cars with under 2.0 L engines, to get V8s off the roads?
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 9:46 am
I would have thought that the motivation for this is obvious, Cullen has budgeted for income to flow in from the now delayed fuel surcharge, because he is a greedy little fuck he needs to find a way of replacing at least some of that income.
Reducing speed limits will undoubtedly have the effect of raising revenue thorough speeding fines, expect to see more police resources wasted on revenue gathering and expect to see Annette King stand up in the house and tell more bare faced lies about ticket quotas.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 9:47 am
The parties are lining themselves up for the election…
National: Fibre. Broadband. Internet. Web 2.0. Social networking. Video on demand. 21st century.
Labour: Clapped out old diesel trains running on 19th century tracks. A return to the speed limits that NZ had 30 years ago.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Make everyone walk. Then we’ll be SAFE.
Cars- the socialists hate em, they allow you to go where you want when you want, and that drives them crazy.
“Government Officials..!! pfffftt.. spit.. When are we going to get some politicians who will free us from these complete and utter fuckwits. I’ll bet not one of them has even thought about a cost benefit analysis of the impact of slower transport times on productivity.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Kaftans and sandals, maybe the odd bike (although only if you plant trees to offset the carbon in making it) only would sort it out. Of course the economy would fall over immediately but at least we would be doing our bit to stop climate change. Remind me how long it would take China to emit the same emissions as NZ does over and above what it is at the moment? A week? A month? A day?
I would have to say that if the doom-mongers are correct and the world is going to end because I drive to work there will be one bright side – not having to listen to moronic suggestions on how to be carbon neutral.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 9:54 am
unaha-closp: How about an increase in speed limit to 130 kph for cars with under 2.0 L engines, to get V8s off the roads?
The funny thing is the difference in costs. I used the public transport system in Auckland for a long while and found it to be a good thing. Yes, those trains belch smoke like old Van Hunks and his pipe, but it got you from (a) to (b) and was relatively cheap.
I live in Mt Albert, about a 15 minute walk from the trainstation and work in Parnell, about 25 minutes from the trainstation if you walk easily. I’d worked out that my biggest time savings would be to take the bus in the mornings and the train in the afternoons. That way I’d be home in-time to pickup my daughter from daycare, etc.
Now, ignoring the days the trains did not run or were late when I was forced to take a taxi, it cost me an average of $3.20 (Bus) + $2.40 (Train). It would take an average of 40 minutes in the morning, including the walking time to get to the office. And in the afternoon approximately an hour. So let’s be generous – call it an hour and a half for getting to and from work lost everyday.
1.5 hours @ $5.60 per day, or 7.5 hours @ $28 per week.
When I drive, I drive my toy, a 1967 Mustang. It’s only a 289, but counts as one of those gas guzzling V8′s. I keep her in good trim, tuned, etc. so the car runs as efficiently as possible but it is hardly what you’d call an efficient vehicle. In traveling time it takes me about 10 minutes to reach work in the morning and around 15 minutes in the afternoon, except Thursdays which for some strange reason is always particularly busy. Call it half an hour a day. A full tank of gas lasts me a week and costs me approximately $35.
0.5 hours @ $7 per day, or 2.5 hours @ $35 per week.
Yes, I do not factor maintenance into that, which the railroads and busses need to. But most maintenance on those cars you can do yourself, they’re that simple to work on and they’re built to last. It’s had one gearbox change in 41 years on the road.
So, public transport costs me 5 hours a week. Those 5 hours are worth a lot more to me than $7 per week on average. If I’m actively working for a client those 5 hours could mean anything from $300 to $600 billable. If not more.
So why would I use public transport? And why would a change in the speed limit affect me at all? It won’t. Labour just does not understand the economics of the matter, how opportunity costs work and what you lose by taking public transport.
This reduction in the speed limit? It’s a nonsensical grasping at straws. They’re fighting a losing battle to try and keep Mickey C’s trainset viable. And it’s not going to work, it’s just going to be a drain on the public purse.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 9:54 am
This takes me right back to last century and the ads about ” We must save 10%”. Obviously DavidP remembers them too, and I’ll bet the shade of old Piggy is enjoying this mightily as well.
And your thoughts on the topic are GWW?
Vote:G
May 7th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Grant: And your thoughts on the topic are GWW?
You can win Bevan’s coconut if you guess correctly. I’ll give you a hint though … it starts with a J and ends with a Y. And has something to do with him having the temerity to take a holiday in Hawaii.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 10:00 am
socialists really hate cars. its like kids in the US learning that mans most evil invention is the freakin car!!!
Dime <—looking at ways to increase his global footprint
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 10:01 am
There was some guy on the radio the other day, possibly from transit, possibly – I was only half listening so I’m light on facts & references (not that that ever stops me), but the interviewer asked if a drop in speed limit to 80kph, say, would reduce petrol consumption.
Whoever this guy was, he said that few modern cars wouldn’t run as efficiently at 80kph, as they would at 100kph.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Pascal, the question was definitely rhetorical. Particularly for someone who’s probably on a permamnent holiday.
Coconut eh? Does it come with a pina colada attached? The wife likes those.
Vote:G
May 7th, 2008 at 10:04 am
GWW … trying to return your John Key fetish back to the original point … strikes me that Helen burns a lot more fuel jetting off to holidays in Norway than John Key does getting to Hawaii.
But I guess you don’t have to be a rich prick to go to Norway every year though huh? Why, last I heard every beneficiary made it at least as far as Norway every year right?
Heck, Helen can even overnight in her house in England on the way there and back. I don’t know if the beneficiaries stop over in England, but I’m sure they could have a house in England too if they wanted right?
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Here I was this morning paying my tax and asking on the other thread – “whatever will they think of next?”
And here we are – in just one hour!
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Or how about a tax on 2nd and 3rd holidays …. those soon mount up if you are going to ….. Hawaii.
The politics of envy will get you no where but lower poll results…. So carry on then I guess.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Reducing CO2 emissions will have no effect on the climate anyway. There is zero correlation between CO2 and temperature but very strong correlation between solar activity and temperature. Anyone with a statistical analysis bent (DPF) should look at that!
The pollies have been warped into this emissions reduction mania by the hoax of AGW. It’s a myth. http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2925
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 10:10 am
“… it starts with a J and ends with a Y. ”
Took me a while but I got it Pascal JEALOUSY
Please send the coconut to the beehive. The monkeys deserve it.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 10:15 am
National have held policy back so Labour won’t copy them. So Labour are rehashing the policies of the Mcgillicuddies, “great leap backwards”
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Wait wait wait wait wait! Since when have my coconuts been playthings to pass around?
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 10:16 am
National have held policy back so Labour won’t copy them. So Labour are rehashing the policies of the Mcgillicuddies, “great leap backwards”
That is why they have been so fanatic in demanding National release some policy, they are so bereft of ideas they are hoping to steal some good ones from the Nats.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Pascal, I get what you’re saying, but either you only fill the tank half full each week or you’ve modified the capacity of it. It still makes sense though. Time can’t be replaced by money.
(If I owned a ’67 mustang on Auckland roads, I’d take public transport as default. My life is worth more than $35,000. To paraphrase Lee Iaocca… we thought differently back then, safety doesn’t sell cars. But good on you. Nothing like frequently risking firey death to focus a man on things that matter.)
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 10:17 am
A far more sensible solution would be to prohibit the import of cars which did not meet Euro IV standards for emissions. But of course they dont think of that because, well, its far too sensible.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 10:18 am
>Whoever this guy was, he said that few modern cars wouldn’t run as efficiently at 80kph, as they would at 100kph.
My experience in Europe is that they get very thirsty up above about 180km/hr. Above 200km/hr you’re eating up the kilometers, but losing the time filling the thing up every hour or so.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Guys, guys, you just don’t understand. Climate change is an impending apocalypse! Just like the Y2k bug, bird flu and the killer bees, its going to devastate the earth! Any and all measures must be taken!!
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 10:19 am
I am 60+ and I have to say that I feel pity for the people growing up and entering their lives now, in the beginning of the 21st century. They will never know the joy and pride of being part of a developing growing and progressing society, a culture of optimism that looks forward with enthusiasm and wonder at what the future might hold. I had that, and I am thankful; but all that is over now.
Instead, society now has become hidebound and mentally hog tied by a depressed and introverted mindset of imaginary fears and guilt. People worry about a seemingly dark and uncertain future where literally the earth will wither and evil humankind will stagnate and retreat to caves to live on a limited range of organic produce grown in their own shit in penance for the sin of having developed and grown.
There is something deeply sick about the ‘worry’ mentality of our society now. It seems that every part of human life has a hige dark worry-cloud hovering over it and its so unnecessary and totally imaginary. But depression is very real in its effects on life, even if there is actually nothing to be depressed about. Its no use anymore raising arguments or asking questions about whether climate change is real. The ‘need to reduce our carbon footprint’ is now being taught in our primary schools. We live in one of the cleanest countries on earth and yet we worry ourselves to a state of depression over ‘pollution’ and we label our wonderfully efficient and vital food producers as our ‘greatest polluters’.
The world has gone mad.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 10:21 am
The next thing they will be doing is suggesting a return to car-less days.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 10:25 am
LabourMustBeLiquidated is absolutely correct. We must do anything and everything to halt the imminent catastrophe; it is only by urgent action now that we can avert the inevitable disaster. We don’t have time to wait for the facts- we must act now!
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 10:26 am
goodgod: Pascal, I get what you’re saying, but either you only fill the tank half full each week or you’ve modified the capacity of it.
*shrugs* I’ve not done anything to the tank, it is the size I bought it as. Takes ~22l to fill up, but I stop at the pumps when it hits the quarter mark. And it ain’t a Pinto!
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Here’s something you might remember…
Back in August 2000, I published a column titled “Government Invests Taxpayer Resources In Promoting Proven Useless Invention” (archived at: http://aardvark.co.nz/daily/2000/0822.shtml )
Unfortunately the story linked to in that column is no longer online but it refers to Jim Anderton’s support for a miracle magnetic fuel saver that was going to save the nation a fortune in its fuel costs.
After reading my column, Rodney Hide contacted me and issued the press release that prompted this follow-up story from the NZ Herald http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=148736
So what’s happened?
Why hasn’t this idea (with the full support of the Rt Hon Jim Anderton) eliminated the need for fuel surcharges and reductions in the open-road speed limits?
I think we all know the answer to this. It appears as if the present Labour government has never been short of idiocy and nothing’s changed recently.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Bugger, that means at least half of us are going to have to drive at 110kph to ensure the carbon emissions stay constant.
China put more cars on the road last year than all the vehicles in NZ, you breathtakingly silly “Govt officials”.
Hulun is retreating while the Pubic Service runs on with the “correctness”.
Vote:More management of the Servants needed Hul.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Alces: China put more cars on the road last year than all the vehicles in NZ
Ah, but China is not bound by Kyoto.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Well… “they”‘ve been suggesting that all along, on a voluntary basis though.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 10:32 am
What about all those environmentally conscious people that have purchased a Prius. lol
Vote:Will the 90klm limit apply to them when in electric mode ?
(or is 90klm optimistic for a Prius anway?)
May 7th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Dave Mann has hit it on the head.
Vote:The socialists are making us afraid to be humans
They have instilled fear into our lives
They want to make every decision for you.
Fear = control
I gave up on fear years ago because the simple fact is that all good risk can be managed and the actual probability of your worst fears actually happening are tiny. If they do, then as Forest Gump reminds us “shit happens” and as humans we can live with real tragedies.
It is time for fun loving, risk taking humans to claim back our inheritance.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:39 am
That opportunity cost argument is very interesting. Even when one isn’t measuring opportunity in dollars, there are social costs that really mount up as commuting time increases.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Quite Pas…..those Chinese have a few things to pass on.
There’s this Club in NZ I heard about that wants to protect the country from the ravages of rain, an appalling phenomena that has been known to flood houses.
Vote:They walk about with umbrellas doing what they can, as an example, while the major producers of rain shake their heads and laugh.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:43 am
I already posted some links but I guess they were interpreted as spam so I’ll post again (without the URLs).
Does anyone remember Jim Anderton’s support for the Magnetic Fuel saver device (back in August 2000) that was going to save us all 10%-30% on our fuel costs?
I wonder what happened to that eh?
No taxpayer funds were spent directly on promoting the device but the NZ agent did get a rather expensive “free” evaluation (and surprisingly an *endorsement*) at taxpayers’ expense.
Then I published a column debunking it and the mainstream media picked up on it.
Today…. well the proposed taxes and speed limits speak volumes for the value we got (as taxpayers) out of that investment by the Labour-led government of the day.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 10:45 am
I was just wondering if anyone had any statistics on how often cars are running at over 90 km/hr. An emperical guess during rush hour would be virtually none. So is the 11% reduction in consumption based on reality or a theoretical model?
Like Pascal I did the figures and it was quicker, cheaper and more reliable for me to drive in to town than catch the bus from a reasonable distance out. Quicker and cheaper still was riding my mountain bike, however as my work doesn’t have a shower, this isn’t currently practicable. Perhaps Labour should regulate that all work places should have a shower and a bike rack?
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 10:46 am
I thought this was satire until I saw the Stuff link! Russell Norman was on Breakfast this morning saying we will all be “doomed” unless we do something.
Pull the other one Russell.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 10:49 am
When is this lunacy going to end ? How many people down in Wellington are engaged in this BS ? The percentage of emissions from cars in this country is minimal – stop shagging around with the irrelevant and concentrate on what is important to this country. At this rate the Nats are going to get 55% plus of the vote without having uttered a word and emigration to Australia is going to accelerate regardless.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 10:54 am
The Labour Government’s vehicle emission rule shows how out of touch they are..
The Ministry of Transport’s research showed that if every potential buyer upgraded to a vehicle that complied with the rules, there would be a potential environmental benefit of half a percent.
But to even achieve this small result, replacements meeting the standards will cost $15,000 instead of $9,000 because the availability of suitable imports will be reduced. So motorists will hang on to their old cars for longer, thus contributing more pollution.
Judith Lizard has said she is not prepared to offer an incentive to scrap polluting older vehicles.
The Government did not consider the Japanese emission reduction example, which used a staged introduction of the policy to reduce emissions.
This emission rule is also an ineffective blunt instrument that will backfire on New Zealand’s desire to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Despite the Government’s own research telling it otherwise, Lizard rammed through changes that would generate more pollution. More stupidity from the stupid.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Did anyone see Russell Norman on the news last night. His opening line was, if I recall correctly, “We’re talking about the future of the human race here…… blah de blah de blah.”
Vote:So bearing that in mind, what issue could anybody have with any measures the government may choose to take. (Irony switch to off position).
Perhaps I could buy a horse and visit customers on that instead of using the car. It could probably live off Pascal’s coconuts as well.
G
May 7th, 2008 at 10:59 am
This country is friggin madness.Do officials have a brain the size of a caraway seed? What a bunch of nutjobs.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 11:06 am
This may have something to do with total life time cost. It’s not all just the petrol you consume, it’s the creation of the vehicle, the delivery and the disposal. I think that’s why Jeanette (or some other Green politician) still drives a 1984 mitsubishi… Complexity theory states that simple solutions to big problems will most likely make the situation worse.
It would quickly be fart taxed off its hooves.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Anyone interested in a “burn the planet” day?
How about we all grab an old tire or just a can of some flammable hydrocarbon substance and all set fire to our offerings mid-day on Saturday to protest against the punitive but ultimately useless measures being used by the government to allegedly reduce our carbon footprint.
Ought to attract a fair bit of media coverage (locally and internationally) — although it does run the risk of embarrassing our medal-winning PM
(snigger)
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Grant: Perhaps I could buy a horse and visit customers on that instead of using the car. It could probably live off Pascal’s coconuts as well.
Much as I’d like to give your horse my coconuts, Bevan must have been using the public rail network and the coconuts have not arrived here yet. I suspect when the rail worker strikes, broken down trains and other issues have been fixed your horse might be dead.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Geez, calm down. All it says is that “Government officials are looking at reducing the speed limit to reduce carbon emissions”. That doesn’t mean it is going to happen. Is considering all options such a bad thing?
I once looked into giving up beer. An insane idea, I know, but I looked into the idea. I am pleased to report that I still enjoy a regular pint or two or ten of Emerson’s Bookbinder.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Yeah, Russell Norman and the greenies are in the thick of endorsing climate porn & doom hysteria around the world. This tree hugger (Russell) needs to be taught to tell the difference between reality and fantasy.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 11:19 am
I thought I’d slept for almost a year when I read this, I thought it was April Fools all over again. Apparently not.
But the idiocy of this is I have it on good authority that the data they are using to support this is over 10 years old, and back when most of the NZ car fleet was carb’d rather than fuel injected! Hello idiots wake up and look at what sort of engines most cars run now.
In fact most cars on NZ roads run at their most efficient in top gear at about 108k, so shouldn’t our speed limit go up to this?
Again I think it should be mandatory for those working at LTNZ or the ministry to have valid full drivers licences & drive a car at least twice a week, and at least 1 trip on the open road every few months. Cause at times like this they are devoid of all reality when it comes to cars.
Grant – yeah I saw that & just shook my head & wondered what Norman had been smoking. He’s an idiot of the 1st degree when he says stuff like that
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 11:26 am
I sense a return to carless days coming on!
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Haven’t read above posts but suspect I will be going against the grain..
I actually think it is a much better idea to do things like this than to tax, tax, tax, etc…
Ban V8s, reduce the speed limit, etc. It’s like the excessive speedsters – if the authorities are serious about it simply reuiqre speed inhibitors on vehicles. Don’t beat around the bush with half-arsed solutions that simply punish the poorer amongst us – e.g. the ets won’t affect those with sufficient incomes, only those with insufficient income. Similar to smoking – don’t just increase the taxes, if serious just ban tobacco from NZ.
I am being a little tongue in cheek but honestly most tax-to-affect-behaviour mechanisms (always spouted by the Greens) only affect the poorer, not the richer. It is quite frankly a little unfair is it not?
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 11:31 am
The speed limit should be consistent with the speed most motorists naturally drive. Lowering it below that creates frustration. I think more could be gained by educating motorists to drive more efficiently. Also more careful placing of road signs such as intersection signs further back so cars will slow down more gradually (in theory).
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Wasn’t Carlos Dayze a Spanish guitarist?
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Or maybe fixing the idiotic traffic lights that turn red on a timed sequence, rather than using traffic as a determining factor.
At 5am the traffic light atop the Motat offramp always turns red when you’re approaching it, stays red for a while with no other cars, then turns green again.
Slowing down, stopping, accelerating again. All that lost momentum. All that wasted efficiency. Or. Or. There are loads of potential improvements they could make if they were serious about it. And not just touting climate change / Kyoto pron.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Engines run most efficiently at the speed the were designed to. The correlating factors to speed is the gearing and resistance through tyre contact and the air. The fuel consumption is dependant on power required. The greater the air resistance, the greater the power required the greater the fuel consumption. So yes, reducing your speed will reduce fuel consumption provided your cars engine and gearing will allow the engine to run in its most fuel efficient rev range. I have noticed in some cars that the gearing really doesn’t like the 85-95 range, they keep jumping in and out of overdrive in an automatic. This may be where you have got that figure from? Perhaps we should all go back to driving manual cars as these (when driven appropriately) are more fuel efficient than automatics.
From this wikipedia entry.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Dave Mann … right on the button.
Vote:Thank you.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Perhaps helen could talk to our new best friends and get them to ensure that a certain percentage of the 1800?? guest workers we’re about to receive could be rickshaw drivers and mechanics. Problem solved. Who knows, they might be faster round Auckland than our current public transport. They must certainly be faster than a horse, which means I’d not be reliant on Pascal’s coconuts and Bevan’s railway line.
Vote:See to it please winnie (whinny), there’s a good chap.
G
May 7th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Did anybody catch the Russel Norman interview on breakfast TV this morning?
Henry chewed him up and spat him out, frankly Norman was exposed as a communist first and foremost and a Green by convenience.
Much more of that and the Greens can kiss goodbye to the baubles of office.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 11:46 am
A few comments about Russell Norman on the forum I see. These neatly illustrtate why the greens will alway struggle to get real traction in the polls, because it’s central message is telling us what a bunch of enviornmental vandals we are.
Since the sad death of Rod Donald, the greens have consistently failed to get wider appeal. It’s hard to get votes when your central message is a default one of telling the average NZer that the way they live their life is scandalous, from an environmental viewpoint. It doesn’t matter if you agree with thier policies or not, being lectured to is not a good look politically.
The environmental movement needs to learn to attract us to thier cause, by making it the more palatable choice, and by making it mainstream. The greens need to know how to work with the establishment, and not against it.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Yeah well…it had to happen.
There’s an Ag paper out wanting to ban organic farming as under-utilising farmland.
Poor production yields vs carbon inputs are an inefficiency and NZ needs to be an example to China in this regard.
Who could argue?
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 11:48 am
“The environmental movement needs to learn to attract us to thier cause, by making it the more palatable choice, and by making it mainstream.”
Just telling the truth would be a good start.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Why should any of us care about the laws when our elected servants don’t?
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 11:51 am
“Wasn’t Carlos Dayze a Spanish guitarist?”
Yeah I think so. Played bass with Ho Plez Cayze on lead.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Will the new limit apply to the PM’s motorcade?
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Will the Prime Minister stop speeding when going to rugger games?
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
I think there should be a tax on stupid lefties.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Isn’t 70 to 80 kms per hour the most fuel efficent?
Maybe we should raise the speed limit in built up areas to 70Kmph.
This would save plenty of fuel. Think of all the waste at travel at 50 or below. Most trips in the car are short distances in people’s local area.
I reckon we could save 10% of our fuel bill with this measure.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Did anybody catch the Russel Norman interview on breakfast TV this morning?
I thought he was going to start crying at one stage.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Well as usual we at Kiwiblog are incapable of rubbishing an idea without descending into “The f*cking lefties this…. the f*cking lefties that… f*ck i hate lefties…” Now there’s a surprise
Their basic science behind what they are proposing is probably correct, as we know frictional drag (tyres against the road, big-end bearings against their shells) increases in proportion to speed, and aerodynamic drag increases in proportion to the speed squared, and the more drag and friction forces you have to overcome, the more power (fuel) you are going to use going the same unit distance (e.g. per kilometre.)
The only reason open-road driving at 100km/h appears more efficient than town driving at 50km/h in spite of this is that in town you stop every 500m so you spend all of your time accelerating, and that drains the tank in no time.
It would never work because people barely tolerate the 100km/h open road limit as it is, and mark my words you righties are not alone in this; the desire to go faster crosses all sorts of boundaries, not least of which is the political fence!
With fuel prices increasing as they are, I dare say the falling car useage will give us 1.4% fuel savings pretty soon anyhow. I’ve been living in the same place in Wellington for two years now, and the backed-up line of traffic going down Glenmore Street in the morning is noticably shorter than it used to be. (The tail is below Garden Rd most mornings – used to be regularly up around Crieff St.) I notice this as I – happily – WALK TO WORK alongside this traffic jam
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Aren’t we already allowed to drive at ninety kph if we want to save petrol?
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Who gives a bloody fuck what the ‘most fuel efficient’ speed of a vehice is? As long as I pay for it with money that I have earned myself, who has the right to tell me what to do? The effect of all this crap is that people’s everyday behaviour in almost every area of life is now being mutated by the UberKommisars into a morality question about ‘saving the planet’.
As long as people continue to discuss fuel efficiency in rational terms as a response to statements of irrational fear, then the Deep Greens have got us by the balls.
The correct response to ideas of reducing motorists’ speeds to reduce carbon emissions is not to discuss the relative merits of different vehicles; the correct response is ‘fuck off you stupid illusional bastards and stop trying to run my life’.
(Oh, and btw, I live in the bush and I ride a mountain bike….. but that doesn’t mean I think everybody should retreat to nature and take up cycling.)
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
RPM, I bought up the gearing issue earlier for cars, I think this is important. What speed are the vehicles designed to cruise at? Would dropping the speed limit actually put the vehicles into a less fuel efficient rev range regardless of the air resistance decrease?
Also, Pascals point is pertinent. The light phasing is shocking and so encourages the most fuel inefficient portion of driving a a car, accelerating. Symonds street in Auckland, a long 4 lane road, is almost impossible to get along without stopping at every light at 8 o’clock at night. The dutch town of Drachten got rid of traffic lights as it decided people were smarter than a programmed lighting system. Fancy that?! I can’t believe that all the new motorway junctions in Auckland have been designed for traffic lights rather than the green lane roundabout style which works very well.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Labrator;
But as no two cars have the same gear ratios, you would never be able to pick an “optimum” speed limit for everyone like that. My bosses’ Ford Territory wants to do about 1500rpm at 100km/h so it literally *can’t* cruise any slower without changing down a gear. On the other hand our little office knockabout Corolla is screaming away at over 3000rpm at 100km/h, and probably would be happier doing 90 than 100. So overall I think the fundamental increase in drag forces with increasing speed is more important, as it is the averaging factor that does affect all vehicles evenly.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
“Did anybody catch the Russel Norman interview on breakfast TV this morning?”
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/video_popup_windows_skin/1765922
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
“The correct response to ideas of reducing motorists’ speeds to reduce carbon emissions is not to discuss the relative merits of different vehicles; the correct response is ‘fuck off you stupid illusional bastards and stop trying to run my life”.
Absolutely correct! Well said, Dave.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
No reduction in speed limit planned
Press Release by New Zealand Government at 1:14 pm, 07 May 2008
The government is not proposing to cut the speed limit in a bid to cut greenhouse gas emissions, Associate Transport Minister Judith Tizard said today.
“This issue is definitely not on the table as far as the government is concerned” said Ms Tizard.
Work being undertaken by a cross-government task force on the ‘Green House Gas Mitigation Potential and Costs 2013 – 2020 Project’ includes considering some hypothetical policy options.
“Policy agencies routinely conduct analysis on policy options to provide robust advice.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Engines run most efficiently at the speed the were designed to. The correlating factors to speed is the gearing and resistance through tyre contact and the air.
Good point, and as far as I’m aware accurate.
But I drive a 1992 Ae101 FxGT, its a sportier version of a corolla with a peepier engine, and its most fuel efficient at between about 105 & 115k. Its a manual so no issue of it dropping down a gear, its just what it seems best at.
Most of the population would increase fuel economy by about the 1.4% I guess if they actually looked after their cars, i.e good tires, waxed the car once every now & then, had tire pressures at the correct levels, had their brakes adjusted, oil change every 5000k etc etc.
The Traffic light phasing point is spot on the money!
Vote:But I’ve heard that the vehicle sensor lights cost a fair bit more than the standard ones, I assume because of the sensors required in the road to detect the cars.
Though I’m sure if there was a requirement to do a proper cost benefit analysis on what type of light should be used, that included fuel cost & time of people sitting at the lights then, the sensor ones would win out in ‘greenness’ and be more efficient for the economy.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
90 kmh- get off the grass ! lifes too short to let these petty little lefties dominate our lives
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
The quality of the policy options is inversely proportional to the number of policy agencies
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Its not a bad idea really but does not go far enough. Speed limit should be reduced to 3kph thereby cutting fuel consumption by 95%. This could be policed by an unemployed person walking in front of each vehicle waving a red flag. As industry closes under labours wise rule creating widespread unemployment here and relocates to China creating widespread capitalism there we could get our red flags very cheaply as the Chinese would not require them anymore. What Helen would describe as a “win-win situation”
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
That’s a shame Hooligan… I was hoping that I might be able to purchase carbon offsets that would enable me to travel at 120kph. (or is someone going to rain on my parade and tell me that the ‘environmental logic’ only works in one direction?)
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
The fucking lefties this…. the fucking lefties that… fuck I hate lefties.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Re the Transport Ministry and carrots and sticks. Their most bizarre stick must be on biofuels where they are proposing “fines” of over $200million if oil companies do not meet the mandate, much higher than any fine they would face for illegal behaviour. If you were going to invest in these businesses would you if you faced such a risk? They are completely out of touch ans surprise surprise, the policy is falling apart before it has even started.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
GPT1 says:
If these people had the courage of their convictions and were the kind of muddle headed idealists that would forgo Ministerial limosines for a fleet of, say, 1.3L fuel efficient cars (after all, there’s usually a Minister, maybe an official, and a driver – how much room do they need in the back?) then I might not agree with their proposals but I wouldn’t feel the utter contempt I feel at present.
There could be larger cars kept for longer journeys, but when I see huge vehicles parked on kerbs, loading zones etc in the Wellington or Auckland CBD, having driven a Minister the short distance from an airport or Parliament, it’s clear what their thinking really is.
Let us go about our (productive) business subject to every restriction possible, harshly punished for the smallest infraction, while they are conveyed in luxury, “unaware” of such trifles as speed limits and whether or not they’re being observed.
This is only partly about climate change. The real question here is when the people will awake to the fact that we no longer have one rule for all, and do something about it.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
RRM, I have no evidence other than experience to back this but I think most cars are geared comfortably (and therefore probably efficiently) to run at speeds between 90-110 km/hr which covers the legal limits of most western nations. Therefore dropping the maximum speed below this could actually increase fuel consumption like with your example of the Ford Territory. I included a reference from wikipedia above about the ’97 Toyota Celica. Your office corrolla would be fine at 90 no doubt. To get cars down to the next efficiency gearing 45-60 (notice most autos are 3 speed? accelerating/45-60/90-110), you’d cut down productivity dramatically.
However as Hoolian has said, it’s not going to happen anyway but it’s still an interesting point.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Gosh, I’m convinced! Would you mind if I popped round & burgled your house? I know there’re are laws against it, but so long as I pay my own way – maybe speed to your place at 200kph, who has the right to tell me what I can & can’t do?
Seriously, there are people & agencies who can by law tell us what we can & can’t do – we’re debating here whether what they deem is right or wrong, not whether they can do it.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
llew, that’s an absolutely stupid response. Typical of a person who doesn’t reason things through. Your logic is faulty (as is, obviously your ‘thinking’ process).
Using no-sequitur arguments shows that you don’t have the capacity to think for yourself and you probably expect that people reading your comment are equally idiotic.
You might as well say that I would support mass murder as long as the murderers bought their own bullets, or that because I support the idea of thinking for oneself and personal responsibility, I don’t support the rule of law.
You are a fool. Not because you disagree with me, but because you put two and two together and come up with five. And don’t try changing it to a ‘Road Safety’ question either. This is about the idiocy of carbon emissions fantasy.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Despite this being a rather underwhelming storm in a teacup, imagine even tougher restrictions on highway speeds so that it became faster to travel by rail (or perhaps I shouldn’t type this out loud in case someone from the Treasurer’s Office happens to be reading this thread…).
Anyway, it seems to me to be more than enough to tax petrol (and let’s face it, it’s pretty darn taxed at the moment) and then let people decide if they want to use it in large quantities or otherwise… We are not all that stupid afterall (unlike what this Govt seems to think), and those that are that stupid (your average boyracer, Westie, or SUV driving stay-at-home mum) deserve to pay more for their lifestyle choices anyway…
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Sure, sure. Of course – you do what you like, whenever. No-one should tell YOU what to do. Stupid of me to mention it.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Who the fuck is anyone to tell you you can’t? Dave, you said it, not me. If you can’t think through the logic of what YOU said, you’re not in a position to criticise me.
It’s because you think I disagree with you, admit it.
Also, thanks for descending into abuse, that really won me over.
Not when I wrote it, but now I think one of them is more so.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
“Would you mind if I popped round & burgled your house?”
Duh.. When people are so stupid as to think this is a fair comparison, what hope is there??
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Once again for the slow… “As long as I pay for it with money that I have earned myself, who has the right to tell me what to do? ”
Could be any example, drugs, speed, wanton damage & destruction – Dave’s question is flawed.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
The International Energy Agency (a group of 150 scientists and statisticians paid by the OECD to monitor the world’s energy markets) has suggested this to governments all around thee world. But of course, the kiwiblog right know better.
http://www.iea.org/textbase/papers/2004/transporthree.pdf
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
“Could be any example,”
Bullshit. If somebody wants to pay more (or less) to drive around in something different to you there is no valid reason to stop them, and that you think this is somehow able to be equated with burglarising someone’s house is something that shows you don’t have a damn clue about logic.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
“The International Energy Agency (IEA) is to propose drastic cutbacks in car use to halt continuing oil-supply problems. Those cutbacks include anything from car-pooling to outright police-enforced driving bans for citizens. ”
…and don’t forget folks. If these kind of assaults on freedom ever do eventuate, you have the Roger Nomes of this world, the GREEN LEFT, to thank.
When you vote at the upcoming election, make sure they now how you feel.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
The International Energy Agency, a group of 150 scientists and statisticians paid by the OECD to monitor the world’s energy markets, or redbaiter, a raving lunatic stuck in a dead-end tech-support job. hmmmmm who do we listen to?
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Roger…. ahh so if the Arabs put the price of oil up, then free western democratic governments will send them back a weally stwong message by curtailing their citizens’ legal ability to drive? Oh yes, I see how it works. Wow, this is very clever, this ‘shortcutting market dynamics’ thingy. Gosh, police-enforcing, compulsion, banning and compulsion sounds like the way to go to me!
Who are these brilliant ‘scientists’ and ‘statisticians’ who go to such lengths to think up all these amazing new ideas? Never mind, though – I see that they are ‘employed’ by the OECD. At the rate New Zealand is
Vote:‘progressing’, we won’t be a member of the OECD much longer, so we’ll all soon be scrabbling around in the mud looking for rubbish to recycle overseen by our own homegrown totalitarian regime and fed by food parcels from China. I can hardly wait.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Quite. I don’t believe I’ve said anything to the contrary.
Actually… I wasn’t equating driving at more then the limit with burgling anyone’s house, I was taking issue with no-one being able to tell Big Dave (the) Mann what he can & can’t do. If he can break one law…
And as I mentioned, this debate isn’t (or shouldn’t be) about what “they” can or can’t impose upon us, but whether it would be right or not.
For the record – as implied in my earliest comment here, I think the idea sucks, 1.4% saving would not make this idea worthwhile, especially when you consider (as someone else mentioned above) there are many times in the day, on many roads, where 80kmh isn’t feasible anyway, so we’d be saving some tiny percentage of 1.4%.
Keep doing as you please though Dave.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Sam:
“Anyway, it seems to me to be more than enough to tax petrol (and let’s face it, it’s pretty darn taxed at the moment) ”
Not really. See the fourth graph at the following link.
http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/ContentTopicSummary____20094.aspx
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Just a guess, but I reckon it’d be some of those thousands of Policy Analysts that you hear about, not even scientists or statisticians.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Jeeze lle3w set the place alight with your strawman why don’t you.
Damn trouble making coal miners. Back to the pits with you!!!!
Oh wait we’re in this alledged mess because of you.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
LLew Dave Mann is right- the correct response is not to debate how much freedom you will agree to give up-
You need to say ‘fuck off you stupid illusional bastards and stop trying to run my life’. (actually I prefer ‘delusional’)
Bit by bit by bit, these bastards will take every choice and every freedom you enjoy. Unless you stand up to them. They’re all cowards. Tell them to fuck off, and they will.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Well considering they’d be using communal/public land and the right to use this any way you want is not enshrined in law anywhere, I’d say there are plenty of reasons to stop them. How about, for arguments sake, a tank? That’d be hugely damaging to roads so I think the communal users of the resource could say that it’s not allowed. Much like you can’t ride motorbikes on public parks or conservation land.
Just because you don’t believe in global warming, which is not to say I do, doesn’t mean that the public can’t agree to emit less carbon as there are obvious polution reduction benefits at minimum.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
“ahh so if the Arabs put the price of oil up, then free western democratic governments will send them back a weally stwong message by curtailing their citizens’ legal ability to drive?”
So what do you propose Dave?
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Perhaps the Democratic Peoples Commisariat of Transport under the revered leadership of Commisar Nome could re-introduce those glorious triumphs of socialist engineering, the Trabant and the Lada to the roads of NZ under the next central plan for the peoples transport needs and ban all other types of car. We would all then feel very grateful to Esteemed Deputy Leader Cullen for having the foresight to purchase a 1950′s rail system as it would then become our preferred means of transport.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Brilliant, Johnboy!!!!!!!!!!!!
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Yeah, it was clunky, and I really shouldn’t have bothered, I didn’t mean to threadjack, that seems to happen whenever Redbaiter sees me post I think. (“Mr Llewellyn” – that still makes me snigger RB).
As for coal… I have worked for coal mines in my chequered past… surely we can do something useful with the stuff.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
You forgot the trekker
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://auto.indiamart.com/cars/hm-trekker/gifs/trekker-car.gif&imgrefurl=http://auto.indiamart.com/cars/hm-trekker/&h=142&w=235&sz=16&hl=en&start=3&um=1&tbnid=1erw-oNpFGezHM:&tbnh=66&tbnw=109&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dtrekker%2Bcar%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-nz:IE-SearchBox%26rlz%3D1I7GZAZ%26sa%3DN
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
“whenever Redbaiter sees me post I think”
C’mon Llewser, I’ve said nice things about you and your writing in the past (especially the wonderful stuff on your blog) but you’re the one who writes nasty uncalled for things about Redbaiter all over the net. Coal miner??? I thought you’d be a school teacher and a five acre pretend farmer. Don’t tell me you’re a useful bastard after all??
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
llew:
For your information:
With a staff of around 190, mainly energy experts and statisticians from its 27 member countries, the IEA conducts a broad programme of energy research, data compilation, publications and public dissemination of the latest energy policy analysis and recommendations on good practices.
http://www.iea.org/about/index.asp
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
But then again, what would these filthy communists from the USA and other developed capitalist countries know? They just want to promote the global communist conspiracy you hear so much about at kiwiblog. Are you with me guys?
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Doh, all that frothing for nothing. That is a surprise.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Roger, are we now getting into Peak Oil scaremongery? This discussion started out on the theme of ‘carbon emissions’. However, if you wish to broaden the discussion to energy availability generally, then there is plenty of scope in New Zealand to develop our own fuel reserves, including natural gas etc for vehicles as well as coal and hydro for power. We have 200 years’ worth of known high quality coal reserves right here at this moment, for example (but of course, developing them would be akin to pissing on the bible of eco-sanctity, so we are not allowed to do that).
Also, some years ago I personally invented an ingenious gadget which runs diesel engines off the bile glands of the Stewart Island weka…. but men in dark raincoats (I think they worked for the evil oil companies) were sent to see that I was shut down, and the forest and Bird people forced me to remain silent about my discovery because of the disrespect my invention showed to our native habitat. But I digress….. where was I…..?
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
“How about, for arguments sake, a tank?”
Oh yeah, another really valid comparison. Gawd you people are straw clutchers. If I want to drive a Smart car, and you want to drive a fuel guzzling V8 that’s a matter of choice, and no matter what, anything that impinges upon your freedom to make that choice will in the end have much more damaging consequences than any fucken half witted fairy story about climate change. You need to start thinking about freedom and liberty, not the commie crap that you’re brainwashed with by single issue politically narrow idiots like Roger No Idea Nome. Thanks to he and his ilk, those two concepts are under much greater threat than anything else in your immediate vicinity.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Aww… group hug!
Surely not!??
Debatable. But yes, I did work for State Coal Mines before they became Solid Energy. I wrote a history of coal mining in NZ once, god knows what the Ministry of Energy did with all the copies.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
“I did work for State Coal Mines before they became Solid Energy.”
Yeah well in view of that later information, I agree its debatable. Highly.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
tell the bastards to Foxtrot Oscar and if enough of us do then there are stuffed. Im looking for support for cars and vans to drive on the bloody Northern Busway thats empty 90% of the time at peak hour.
Come on if enough of us used it Plod arent going top be able to ticket everyone and it will send a signal to these facists that we the citizens arent going to be trodden on any more.
lets stand up to them When push come to shove they are a bullys and cowards and like all bullys and cowards they rollover whne confronted.
Freedom to move as we wish not as we are dictated to.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Andrew:
“Doh, all that frothing for nothing. That is a surprise.”
hehe
Dave:
“if you wish to broaden the discussion to energy availability generally,”
I believe that’s the point of the policy.
“there is plenty of scope in New Zealand to develop our own fuel reserves”
Yep agreed – but even if we develop synth coal fuel plants, that will take another 10-20 years to kick in (the carbon sequestration technology is nearly there but not quite, and the plants will take 5-10 years to build). In the interim we have an oil-supply crunch to deal with within the next five years that will send prices soaring.
The IEA has the models and the technical know-how. All we have to do is be wise enough to heed the parts of their advice that can be applied to the NZ context.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
“You u need to start thinking about freedom and liberty, not the commie crap that you’re brainwashed with by single issue politically narrow idiots”
What a surprise. The OECD’s International Energy Agency is just another one of redbaiter’s discredited communist sources.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Memo Russel Norman
I wish to go Number 2s Am I allowed 2 sheets of paper or only 1 sheet.
As you wish to govern every other bloody aspect of my life you might as well govern that one.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
you get what you deserve, a dying country, helen davis nee clark and roger nome , the chinacom leftie mouthpiece, what i could do with superglue and r n keyboard
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
“you get what you deserve, a dying country, helen davis nee clark and roger nome”
Dad4justice?
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Another great rebuttal redbaiter. Your idea of freedom and liberty impinges on other peoples rights. Just because you are free to do something, doesn’t mean that other people that you share a resource with might not want you to do it because it infringes on their rights. I don’t agree with your idea of freedom where you could do anything as polluting as you want because it’s your god given right. I think you’ll also find that 98% of the population thinks the samething. Freedom and liberty are not the same as self-righteousness. I’ve already stated that this is a stupid idea and given some examples of why. You seem to be defending your right to drive at whatever speed you want in whatever vehicle you want (why not a tank? you haven’t said) and I think you are wrong. If you think that having a speed limit impinges on your freedom and liberty then use logic to state why.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
History is not on the social engineer’s side.
In the end the successful win….
And the unsuccessful retreat to see if they can’t crank up some of the values of success.
Be kind to the mutants like roger, life has hard lessons for them.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Saw that Russel Norman on the tele this morning, what a fucking flake. Where do they find these two bobs?. So you want me to take the bus to work do you Russel. Does this fool not realised not all of this countrys population live in fucking citys. God these people make you spew. And the dropping of the speed limit is only a ruse. Of course the poor old socialists will be a bit short on the petrol tax take but will make up the difference in speeding fines. Arseholes the whole Godamn lot.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
“Your idea of freedom and liberty impinges on other peoples rights.”
Misrepresentation is the only way the left can ever enter an argument. You’re the one who wants greater and more powerful government. You never stop wanting more of it. I on the other hand argue for less government. Small powerless inconsequential government that protects my right to go about my business in a law abiding manner and otherwise leaves me alone. My covenant to you is that if you leave me alone, I agree to leave you alone.
“I think you’ll also find that 98% of the population thinks the samething.”
I doubt that anyone rational would agree with the idea that you should be their spokesperson.
“If you think that having a speed limit impinges on your freedom and liberty then use logic to state why.”
I do actually, but that isn’t anything like what I said in the preceding posts. That’s the big trouble with NZ you see. The schooling system is so stuffed, so much a brainwashing system rather than an education system, you have whole generations now completely incapable of understanding any argument that doesn’t come from a pro-government standpoint.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
roger nome,
Conserving fuel to reduce greenhouse emissions is a whole separate issue from world energy markets. I think some of the ‘loony left’ would be able to make much more coherent arguments if this was recognised (I don’t see why you aren’t celebrating this mythic ‘peak oil’ for example).
Reducing demand here in NZ will have no effect on oil prices internationally. As China and other developing nations gobble up more of the world’s resources, demand will increase, even if the demands of backward developing nations such as NZ decrease. Thus we would be enforcing restrictions on our own citizens’ activities for zero effect – and as a matter of fact, preempting the restrictions that will occur naturally due to price increases anyway. I don’t see the point in bringing forward such restrictions when there is no benefit (quite the opposite) in doing so. So that argument doesn’t wash with me.
Getting back to reducing greenhouse emissions – here’s one for you:
If we do not use our share of (if you believe ‘peak oil’) a limited share of oil, then someone else will. That someone else is likely to be a developing nation (e.g. China), whose energy efficiency is far ‘dirtier’ than our own. So, if the remaining resources are to be used most efficiently (something greenies keep banging on about) we should use as much of it here as possible, to save the environment from inefficient use of those same resources. While the net effect on the environment will be the same, we will get far more out of it. We therefore owe it to the planet to use as much here as efficiently as possible. Conserving energy for the use of others therefore seem irresponsible.
Similarly, we should be firing up our own coal fired power stations – much cleaner than the Chinese ones that we export that same coal to…
In that vein, restricting the speed of cars older than 10 years old would mean more efficient use of the available resources, without affecting productivity of up-to-date fleets. You have to admit that the OECD study was (as most studies are) too narrow to be meaningful, and thus the conclusions arrived at are rather superficial… and you’d of course have us base policy on that…
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
>I wrote a history of coal mining in NZ once, god knows what the Ministry of Energy did with all the copies.
Burned them to produce electricity.
Which is why we’re missing our Kyoto targets. Thanks a lot!
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
The irony of this is awe inspiring and your gross assumptions are ridiculous and so unfounded it speaks only of your rational failings. Once again you provide no counter for the argument, just personal attacks on my integrity. This oddly reminds me of a debate I had with sonic recently, you are the same as him, you just wear a different badge of righteousness.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
the CRMS submissions on the Emissions Trading Scheme.
I was unable to attend on the original date set by the Secretary but the deferral to today (7th May) proved to be excellent timing, for two reasons.
First: The Government has been forced to modify its original proposal because of the impact of high and rising fuel prices on families, and the fear of real economic damage to key industries.
Second: the whole alarmist scenario of global warming is beginning to fray badly at the seams.
While I was waiting my turn, it seemed that all the submitters before me had immediately responded to what we might call the “GST food exemption” effect. Given that the door had been opened for some exemptions, everyone was now specially pleading their own case.
I was doubly fortunate in that Dr Willem de Lange, of Waikato University, oceanographer and an expert on sea levels, was able to mount the case against the theory of AGW which has been mounting over the last three years and over the last few days in particular. A new report out of Leipzig emphasises the role of the oceans in driving decadal climate cycles – something which the IPCC has been reluctant to acknowledge.
For a lay report on this new development, go to:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/30/eaclimate130.xml
It’s fair to say that many members of the Select Committee were visibly shaken by Dr De Lange’s recital of his experiences as a long term IPCC reviewer, and in particular his experience when MfE requested him to report on the effect of sea level rises in New Zealand. When his report said there was virtually nothing to worry about the MfE was most unhappy and kept on seeking paper after paper after paper until finally they received one which forecast the possibility of catastrophe in the event of uncontrolled global warming after 500 years. De Lange was credible and convincing and handled the questions well.
This meant I did not have to even think about challenging the science but could focus on why the Emissions Trading Scheme was doomed to fail, and how so many of the predictions we made in our original submission in February had already come true.
In response to the final question, from the chair, I said that our conclusion is that if Government feels it must do something to hasten the move away from fossil fuel then the policy favoured by most economists is a simple tax on fossil fuel. The rules are simple and well understood, and other taxes can be reduced to ensure overall tax neutrality. By that time they Committee were obviously looking for some way out of the quagmire.
I held back on the idea of linking the tax rate to measured global temperature so that in the event of cooling taxpayers benefited by a refund.
One step at a time.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Weight for weight they’d burn as warm as finest Strongman coal. Probably shred well for mulch too.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
“The irony of this is awe inspiring and your gross assumptions are ridiculous and so unfounded it speaks only of your rational failings. Once again you provide no counter for the argument, just personal attacks on my integrity. This oddly reminds me of a debate I had with sonic recently, you are the same as him, you just wear a different badge of righteousness.”
So that’s what you think of Redbaiter. Yawn. Anything to say on why you seek to limit my choices as a free man to drive whatever sized car I want?
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Sam:
“I don’t see the point in bringing forward such restrictions when there is no benefit (quite the opposite) in doing so. So that argument doesn’t wash with me.”
You should read what these two free-market endorsing economists have to say about the coming oil crisis on the Wall Street Journal’s website. Hopefully it pulls your head out of the sand. And the stand-out quote that pretty much sums up the point:
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB112298166483102477.html?mod=todays_free_feature
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Sam:
“While the net effect on the environment”
What you’ve just said is that if demand for carbon is increased, it will be consumed and released into the environment at a slower rate. That’s not making too much sense.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Redbaiter always gets stuck in pointless personal battles, distorting arguments, avoiding the real debate. You know why? He’s an idiot and a sociopath. Ignore him.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
“You should read what these two free-market endorsing wall-street journal economists talk about the coming oil crisis. ”
A naked lie. The fellow who wrote the above garbage is not a free market endorsing Wall Street Journal economist but Robert Kaufmann of Boston University’s Center for Energy & Environmental Studies.
…and his fellow commentator (James Hamilton of the University of California at San Diego) says this-
“I think it’s critical that we put all our resources to their best use. And I honestly believe that the best way to ensure that happens is to count primarily on the same system that has generated the fantastic improvements in global living standards over the last few centuries, namely, individuals choosing to direct the resources they personally control to those activities that yield the highest personal reward. Yes, the risks are great here, but so are the private rewards to those who best figure out how to navigate our way through them.”
Once again, Nome exposed as a corrupt and lying contributor to Kiwiblog- an extreme leftist who will not hesitate to twist the truth if it suits his political objectives. This at the same time as he accuses Redbaiter of failing to “back up” his claims. (“back up”- Nome code for lying whilst simultaneously posting fake wrong and useless links)
If you read the page, you’ll find its actually a debate, and Kaufman, the pro precautionary guy above, loses by a country mile.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Against my own better jusdement, I’ll enter into a debate with the moron known only as “redbaiter”. If only to rebut the smear he has attempted against me.
“The fellow who wrote the above garbage is not a free market endorsing Wall Street Journal economist”
I changed that straight after I realised my mistake some 10 minutes ago – it subsequently reads:
“You should read what these two free-market endorsing economists have to say about the coming oil crisis on the Wall Street Journal’s website.”
As far as I can tell he likes the free-market (i.e. he says “The tax does not pick technologies — that will be left to the market, which is smarter than any Democrat, Republican, or even myself!”) and he has created a model of the world oil market, which is now being used as part of a global econometric model, so that makes him an economist.
And what Redbaiter didn’t tell you about what the other economist (the one he selectively quoted), James D. Hamilton (professor of economics at the University of California, San Diego. He has written extensively on oil price shocks and is the author of “Time Series Analysis,” the leading graduate text on economic forecasting):
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB112298166483102477.html?mod=todays_free_feature
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Bleater:
“If you read the page, you’ll find its actually a debate, and Kaufman, the pro precautionary guy above, loses by a country mile.”
Actually I find that they agree on the main points.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
roger nome, quoting James D. Hamilton:
Okay… so when’s the second half of that equation going to be intelligently applied in NZ? In fact, why don’t those who deem themselves our intellectual superiors by virtue of nothing more than having gained a few more votes than the next monkey actually try something radical and assume we might know what’s best for us and try such incentives as a first response and then, only if they fail, back them up with higher taxes.
But no, the typical response is to assume those of us who didn’t pen a sociology thesis and spend our entire “working” life in a university need to be smacked on the hands with a ruler and punished from the outset.
So if we accept roger’s opinion that Hamilton is the expert to whom we should be listening in this instance, we can reasonably extrapolate that even he would see Labour’s one-eyed approach to the issue as being like the Curate’s egg.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
What really grates on me, is that taxpayers fork out $$$$$$ for these bureuacratic, cardigan-wearing nutbars to ‘investigate’ and write up screeds of shite discussing these moronic ideas. Just how much taxpayer dosh is wasted before such hare-brain schemes finally have the plug-pulled?? (I’d suggest that the halitosis emenating from these morons are a far greater threat to mankind)
In the meantime, something like 10,000 new cars hit the road daily in China and 2 x new coal-fired power stations start belching weekly. Oh dear…
FFS..This carbon-footprint/kyoto crap is the biggest global con and joke, since ISO 9000.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
“Ignore him.”
Haw haw.. shameless fuckwit… Can’t even take your own advice.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Rex
- that’s what they both end up agreeing on. So it’s not just Hamilton’s opinion. And it’s also the International Energy Agency’s opinion.
And yes, I would rather see incrementally introduced petrol taxes, and a sliding-scale tax upon purchase of vehicles based on their fuel efficiency (it uses market forces to change consumption patterns). What the government is suggesting is better than nothing though.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
I think the speed limit should be 80 kph, for many reasons…
aladin
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
What you have to show Linda is why you chose 80 and not 85 or 75. Otherwise you’re just spouting feel good garbage.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Sorry to jump back in at this stage but I was wondering how this statement resembles anything like informed debate or even reasoned opinion.
“Cars- the socialists hate em, they allow you to go where you want when you want, and that drives them crazy”
Another right wing crackpot foaming with the bile of uninformed misinformation and distrust.
So from that statement young man you are suggesting that in your crazy right wing nirvana there will be no speed limits, no road rules and that anywhere and everywhere will be a tar-sealed mat to play on?
meanwhile back in the real world…
(sunshine with you aren’t fooling anyone with that silly nom de plume)
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
I wonder if these were the same “officials” that put out that ad showing cars falling by a parking building.
That was completely ficticious (the car that drops from the 11th floor if you do the math only hits the ground at just under 90km/h, as opposed to the 110 they claim, and the “safe” speed they promote is therefore still not safe at all).
I’m sick of these b*stards lying to me “for my own good”. Trying to tell me something is safe that isn’t in order to convince me that something that is less safe is on the other side of the safety line. I think if people knew what it was like to crash at even 60km/h people would be a lot less gung-ho about it, and there would be a lot fewer accidents. But whilst liars in power persist in trying to educate us to their reality, we will continue to suffer.
But anyway, if you remember that force for wind resistance is proportional (coefficient of friction) to velocity squared, the force required to overcome wind resistance on a car travelling at 100km/h is about 23% greater than the force required to overcome the wind-resistance on that same car doing 90. How much of the overall force is being used to overcome wind resistance is another matter however (there are other sources of friction etc). However, also from engineering school they show you how a car’s engine runs a lot more efficiently at its designed operating cruise speed, which in general is 110km/h. So running a car engine at 90k will be sub-optimal engine efficiency for most cars on the road. Plus take into account the increased time to get anywhere, cost to economy etc etc etc.
Personally I think when it comes to petrol we’re screwed anyway when the oil runs out, so why not get ourselves into the best position possible to deal with that when it happens, rather than half killing ourselves first. Or is it like the airline safety videos that tell you to rest your forehead on your arms on the seat back in front of you, so that (what they don’t tell you) in the event of an emergency landing, you’ll just break your neck so they won’t need to pay out so much in damages. When the oil runs out we will have beaten ourselves into such a weakened state that it will just kill us.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
“You forgot the trekker”
Like shit I did llew I owned one. Not much cop in the mud but had shitloads of ground clearance. Explored all the firebreaks of Wainui with me streetsweeper and rifle before the Fun Police closed them down to vehicles. Wish I had been up there when that piece of shit Burton was shooting people. He would not have needed a false leg or a warm cell or a widescreen tv now just a plaque for his poor old Mum to grieve at.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
“Sorry to jump back in at this stage”
Quite OK. You can jump out again now.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
adc (51) +0 Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
…When the oil runs out we will have beaten ourselves into such a weakened state that it will just kill us.
Hmmmm…So precisely when will that be?? And incidentally, I’d be interested to learn specifically where and when ‘nature’ actually ‘stopped’ producing oil? If anyone can tell me that and prove it, I’ll tip my hat to them.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
‘So precisely when will that be??’
Tell ya what, if you can tell me right now what the lotto numbers for the next year will be, I’ll tell you precisely when the oil will run out.
Do you think we’ll never ever run out because nature is still producing it?
That’s a new one.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
(53) +0 Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
‘So precisely when will that be??’
Tell ya what, if you can tell me right now what the lotto numbers for the next year will be, I’ll tell you precisely when the oil will run out.
Do you think we’ll never ever run out because nature is still producing it?
That’s a new one’
Not for me it isn’t. An interesting notion do you think?
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
OK, what are the winning numbers? Once confirmed correct, I’ll let you know about the oil
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Me Bemmer uses less fuel at 130kph…at 100kph it uses more, where are the autobahns in NZ, ohhhh we haven’t got any in this little gulag, if you try to reduce your fuel consumption, some fucktard in a white van snaps a picture of your vehicle carrying out carbon emission reduction, and sends you the bill… Only in Clarkistan
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
“Me Bemmer uses less fuel at 130kph…at 100kph it uses more,”
Rich Prick.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Paul
Yes, very interesting notion. I have to congratulate you on pushing the boundaries of optimism
I was always led to believe oil found in nature took millions of years to form. What do you know that the rest of us don’t?
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
“I was always led to believe oil found in nature took millions of years to form. What do you know that the rest of us don’t?”
He knows that a million years from year zero happened after one million years and that a million years from year one million happened in year two million and so on —-pretty simple really if you think about it.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
OK, but for the past 4 billion years prior to the last 100 years, the consumption of it was zero. Is the rate of production naturally (which I’m sure is still happening somewhere to some extent) keeping pace with rate of demand?
and if so, then why does it seem to be getting increasingly more difficult and expensive for people to find the stuff?
Why do the oil companies complain about the strike rate having plummetted in the last 15 years, and the costs of exploration and development of new resources having gone through the roof because the strike rate was so much worse now? Doesn’t that indicate that there is less of it readily able to be found and exploited?
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Now you have asked the right question and yes you are right. Obviously the most easily exploited (cheapist) oil is extracted first and the more difficult (expensive) oil last. Also technology is improving all the time for example offshore oil was never extracted until relatively recently. Huge reserves exist in oil shale deposits but again not economical while we want it for 10 cents a litre. We are not running out of oil but it is going to cost us more than we have been used to paying in the past. Don’t forget much of the current price hikes are politically motivated rather than due to oil shortage. However a wise man would sell his V8 and buy a shopping basket on wheels unless he is a Labour Party politician with the purse of the state available to him.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
adc. I’m not pushing the boundaries of optimism. I’m putting forward a logical hypotheis which of course, no can argue against. You are correct, oil does take millions of years to form. So when did the planet stop growing forests which live and die..fall to earth, decay and turn into carbon? And how about plankton and all other sea life that live in the oceans which cover a third of the planet? Similarily, humans who reproduce, die, are buried and eventually decay into carbon (just like any other form of life). And who knows, perhaps that compost heap down at the back of your garden that you’ve used to fertilise your plants and vegetables, might one day, many millions of years from now, might also produce a drop of oil or two? Paradoxically perhaps,
mankind may even be accelerating the production of oil by its destruction of all things animal and vegetable?
But far beyond this, the understanding of nature by mankind, is still only in its infancy.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Bit off the topic here but I heard someone on the ZB talkback state today that most of the worlds methane (the worst greenhouse gas apart from water vapour) emanates from the Amazon basin due to the huge biomass rotting on the jungle floor. So if true it would be best for the world if we forgot about New Zealands cattle farting and chainsawed and burnt the whole of the Amazon rain forest. (Not that I put this into the forum to shit stir or anything).
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Johnboy check out this link http://www.eoearth.org/article/Visualization_of_the_global_distribution_of_greenhouse_gases_using_satellite_measurements, it provides an idea where it’s coming from and going to. Most of the methane seems to be emitted from the steppes of Russia. Not sure if there is an animation up to this year but it would be interesting to see the trends.
Paul M, Most of the places where biomass is accumulating is being chopped down or farmed. I’m not sure whether peat is the only precursor to coal and oil but think about how many peat deposits are going to be buried by sediments while we are around doing our thing.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Thanks for that Fred I have bookmarked it and will check it out I am getting to tired now too read serious stuff.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
adc. Whoops! Of course I should have said..’that live in the oceans and cover two thirds of the planet’
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Johnboy 3% of the worlds methane comes from termites!! so the lefties can crow when their own kind keep discharging like that
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Is it not the case that a lot of the early deposits of biomass are in fact under the oceans as witnessed by the off shore oil production all over the world (and New Plymouth) and of course the interest in the great southern basin or whatever off Stewart Island. I get a bit pissed when the professional doomsayers predict “NO OIL” Its a bit like those endless re-runs of “Nostradamus Predicts” on the discovery channel
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
As an example of scale: if you left one single dripping tap on for 300million years how many billion barrels would you get? Say it only dripped 1l/hr. Then in 1 year you’d get 8766l. In 300 million years you’d get 2629800 Ml, which is 16.644 billion barrels (at 42 US gal/barrel). So how many taps would it take to be dripping since the dinosaurs roamed to produce all the oil we have used to date?
I think the rate of natural production is extremely low (many many orders of magnitude lower) compared to our rate of consumption. The rate differential purely affects the time it takes to run out. Sure, there are large unexploited resources, and they will be more expensive to obtain, but still obtainable. But that does not alter the simple fact that if the rate of demand continually exceeds the rate of supply, then reserves will one day be exhausted. That may be a long long way off. Economics may provide more incentive to find cheaper sources of energy, but bang for buck fossil fuels are very effective ways to readily transport energy and will be hard to beat so there will be grave economic consequences unless we find another cheap and clean source of energy.
I think one of the biggest problems facing us is finding a way to cleanly convert and transport energy. We need portable energy for transportation (even if we wire all the roads and rails for electricity). We can’t cable for planes and boats. So we’ll always need energy sources suitable for transportation. Those require storage of energy, whether it be nuclear, coal, fuel, chemical or hydrogen. Many forms proposed by “greens” are not at all green. Batteries are particularly nasty things with nasty chemicals, solar cells have all manner of nasty chemical byproducts in their production (as well as energy consumption for production). We are lucky to have the amount of hydro we do have, but it’s still not enough, and is weather dependent. Nuclear waste is a terrible problem we are nowhere near solving. Coal looks like a good option when you actually weigh it up (especially more modern clean coal stations). Other options? Wind is hot air. Tidal? Maybe. In the end whatever the source of the energy, assuming we can get a clean source, we will still have the problem of efficient conversion to and from a clean storage medium.
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
“Johnboy 3% of the worlds methane comes from termites!! so the lefties can crow when their own kind keep discharging like that”
Well bugger me I hope that Aussie bastard Paul Little told Micky Cullen (and his bum boy roger nome) that most of the sleepers on the main trunk had bloody termite infestation. Christ knows what repercussions that could have with MAF Biosecurity let alone Kyoto!
Vote:May 7th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
World METHANE DISCHARGES
Vote:Wetlands (incl. Rice agriculture) 37%
Termites 3%
Ocean 3%
Hydrates 2%
Natural Total 45%
Anthropogenic Emissions
Energy 18%
Landfills 7%
Ruminants (Livestock) 19%
Waste treatment 4%
Biomass burning 7 %
Anthropogenic Total 55%
May 7th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Great research Patrick time you talked to nome re: reducing methane by 37% by telling the Chinese to starve to death (no rice).
Vote:Those fucking termites have got me scared shitless though I most admit!
May 8th, 2008 at 12:08 am
adc
“Why do the oil companies complain about the strike rate having plummetted in the last 15 years, and the costs of exploration and development of new resources having gone through the roof because the strike rate was so much worse now”
Yes and no. First, a lot of private oil companies are forced to explore more extreme areas due to laws restricting exploration for environmental reasons or more likely political- they are not allowed to explore Saudi Arabia and a number of other proven provinces for instance.
But it is common with any resource to access the easiest first, so its a logical consquence that the next bit is going to get harder. Look at how cities or farms develop – easy land first, harder land later. Look at hydro dams – easy ones first. So saying finding oil is getting harder is not really saying much in that sense.
Secondly the low price of oil for much of the 90s reduced investment in training and infrastructure so there is a shortage. Also a lot of gear that might go on exploration is being diverted into production.
Thirdly, as the price goes up more people see the opportunity so it is likely a higher percentage of exploration will be more speculative and so fail for a range of reasons such as funding and bad science.
Vote:May 8th, 2008 at 6:49 am
what a superb wa to increase the revenue=gathering powers of the police. “for the climate’.
Vote:May 8th, 2008 at 8:13 am
What you must question is how they attribute all Ruminants as Anthropogenic ? (Bison, giraffes, deer, water buffalo) Figures may have been put together by Greenpeace perhaps
Vote:May 8th, 2008 at 8:29 am
adc – well put, surely puts to bed the woolly arguments that the state must own the railways in order to “preserve our way of life” in the face of oil shortages or reduced use to counter AGW. One thing for sure though, is that a replacement technology has to be found whether it’s batteries or hydrogen or whatever. You don’t mention geothermal, here in NZ it must be almost unlimited, you just need to drill a very deep hole.
Vote:May 8th, 2008 at 9:20 am
roger nome – neither you nor your quote actually addressed the main thrust of my post. Your cut’n'paste merely confirms that there is a cost to restricting ourselves now – and a greater cost to come once peak oil hits. I am arguing that if peak oil happens, we will face that greater cost no matter what – and there is nothing we can do as a country of this size to delay its onset. But by restricting ourselves now, we needlessly double charge ourselves for peak oil.
As for your second comeback:
“What you’ve just said is that if demand for carbon is increased, it will be consumed and released into the environment at a slower rate. That’s not making too much sense.”
I said no such thing – not even close. Is this how you construct an argument by putting false words into your opponents mouth???
My, let’s face it, rather tongue-in-cheek scenario simply suggested that the use of all oil reserves, whether efficient or not, will result in (inevitably) the same result for the environment. Whether consumed efficiently or otherwise, over the longer term, the same amount will be consumed and released into the atmosphere. I am simply stating that efficiencies here might mean that we get more bang for the buck (so to speak) than the same amount used in dirtier systems. Wouldn’t it be wise if we used it rather than those pesky developing nations (who use it to increase their demand for it anyway). I have not said we should increase our demand at all, just that we shouldn’t feel guilty about the amounts we use…
Actually, come to think of it, with al the guilt we are supposed to be indulging in, are Greenies the new Catholic Church of old. There seem to be self appointed popes galore, that deal with messages of faith in the face of all logical reasoning, and indulging in guilt as a means of controlling its congregations…
Vote:May 8th, 2008 at 10:16 am
adc: my view on energy. Nuclear and hydro, maybe geothermal, are where it is at. Nuclear in particular can produce almost limitless energy, particularly if we look at the thorium cycle (which produces far fewer radioactive byproducts, and has much more source material than uranium), and particularly if we go with new generation designs that use much more of the original energy content of the uranium or thorium. Reactors are getting cheaper to build and able to be built smaller (consider pebble bed reactors for example), and the nuclear waste produced from a nuclear power station is actually lower than the radioactive waste from coal stations (most coal contains traces of uranium, and the volume of coal we burn is massive – it adds up to more uranium than the nuclear power stations do).
Storage is a big question, but if you have enough input energy from a low carbon source then the only real question is what you turn it into for storage. Hydrogen is a very good answer in this solution – it has similar energy density to liquid fuels, and we have the technology to turn it into transport (either fuel cell or internal combustion).
Once you break it down into the parts, most of this is very solveable and without major lifestyle changes. The really big one is the question of source of power. France get 90% of their power from nuclear power stations, they have no ill effects, don’t seem to have waste problems, and they aren’t growing three heads each. The main problems are political ones, not technological ones.
Vote:May 8th, 2008 at 10:22 am
flip the scale issue around.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html
has information about the rate we consume oil. For people who deny we will ever run out of oil to be correct, if we even assume (incorrect) that we won’t increase consumption over todays rates, then Nature will need to provide about 84 million barrels a day.
So let’s assume for the sake of this argument that Nature has indeed been producing oil at the rate we consume.
Then if you multiply 84 million out by 365.25 days/yr * 300 million years, you get a total world oil reserve of 9.2043E+18 barrels, or 9.4 million trillion barrels. That’s 35 million times the claimed Saudi oil reserves. Most people think the Saudis are optimistic in their claims of reserves.
So where is all this oil? Answer – it isn’t there, because nature does NOT produce it at the rate we consume. It never did. Nowhere near. Therefore, it’s just a matter of when not if we run out.
Vote:May 8th, 2008 at 10:24 am
as for whether this justifies buying a bunch of clapped out rusting trains, well I think that was completely unnecessary. New Zealand already owned the lines.
Vote:May 8th, 2008 at 11:22 am
adc: we’ll never run out of oil as such – we’ll just reach a point where the cost to extract it is so high that we cannot afford to use it for transportation – only for high end plastics or other petrochemicals that are difficult to make in other ways. Of course, this is just as good as running out in transport terms, but it is quite a different implication in terms of what that “running out” looks like – much more of a ramping up in cost than a “oops, no more oil, lets have a crisis”.
As to whether this matters – that depends on when the cost moves beyond a point that is economically feasible for transportation, and what we replace it with. If there was the political will today in NZ, we could install two large nuclear stations in Southland (not many earthquakes down that way), and use the power generated to split water into hydrogen (and, potentially, create an export industry in pure oxygen while we’re at it – the stuff must be worth something).
Put in a distribution architecture, and it isn’t too hard to run cars on hydrogen instead of LPG – the conversion kit wouldn’t be that far different. Government subsidise the whole damn lot, and completely remove our dependence on oil. Then the rest of the world can go hang – we’ll never again be dependent on oil prices.
Of course, this isn’t too far different from the ill fated think big project of the synfuels plant, but hey, why not repeat the mistakes of the past. Alternatively, we could just wait for the market to sort itself out – one of the oil majors will put in a hydrogen plant as soon as it becomes economically feasible to do so.
Vote:May 8th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
PaulL, yep, that’s basically what I meant. To all intents and purposes, for the major uses we today put crude oil to, we will have run out. Sure there will still be the odd scraping left somewhere for someone with zillions of dollars and a need that can’t be satisfied by anything else. But for the punters’ cars, it’s effectively gone.
The pain associated with the process of it becoming too expensive however should not be overlooked.
As for hydrogen, if we can solve the safety (e.g Hindenberg) issues of storing and putting compressed hydrogen into cars, it’s actually a damn clean source of energy, and you don’t even need to burn it, as fuel cells running from hydrogen driving electric motors are actually a lot more efficient than internal combustion using it, and don’t require the same lubricants or cooling systems (reduce weight). Can also use mega capacitors instead of batteries to store short-term energy reclaimed from braking (lighter and less nasty, and last longer).
But whilst the oil companies are making the biggest profits on record, there’s even less incentive for them to do anything about it. AFAICT the current price of oil is mainly down to political issues – instability in places like the mid-east and Nigeria, as well as the oil futures speculators reaming us all (cashing in on any news item that makes people question the availability of oil). Actual availability of oil I don’t think is that much different now to before the US invaded Iraq.
Vote: