“More important is that the world’s leading scientists are increasingly telling us that we are headed for climate catastrophe with an average global temperature rise of 3 -5C this century!”

Yawn.

It’s a busted flush mate. Give it up. Time to face facts.

I think you are entirely mistaken. It is axiomatic that farmers and other polluters should pay for their externalities.

The point of this thread is that the negative externalities of fracking are very modest when performed at the high standards which a First World country like New Zealand would require. This is in contrast to what the lying, self-service green fascist movement tells everyone.

And the benefits of fracking are simply enormous.

If the Greens were serious about the environment they would welcome the fact that fracking will be taking place where environmental standards are highest. As it is, they would completely oppose such exemplary exploitation, leaving Third World countries to be despoiled to provide our energy needs.

Remember, with the Greens it’s never about the environment.

“BTW GDP is a misleading statistic. We could increase it by reintroducing slavery, for example. ”

In fact GDP would decrease if this were to happen. It’s just a twist on the well-known example of the man who marries his housekeeper and thereby reduces GDP (she’s still doing the same work, but now for free.)

However there are muppets in the Taranaki Resource Council who didn’t require resource consent for fracking until 2011.

No consent for an industrial process – thiis just wrong given the shit you have to do to get building consent.

http://nowoccupy.blogspot.com/2012/11/parliamentary-commissioner-on-fracking.html

but acording to Luc, our failure to get China to join us in bankrupting ourselves is part of our grand consipiracy to bankrupt china and other poor countries… or something.

I know you struggle to make sense at the best of times but this is one of your standouts!

@Ross12 (249) Says:
November 28th, 2012 at 10:55 am

One can but live in hope, Ross.

“Mr. Graham, you say:

” * Many people oppose any debate with Lord Monckton on the grounds that the intellectual merit of a discussion would suffer. I have no comment to make on that judgement . *”

“You have just commented. Let’s too get to the real reason for the Greens’ avoidance of open debate – er, with Monckton or anyone else. It is that, on the few occasions on which they have summoned up the courage to do so, they have invariably been eviscerated. I was at one such debate myself in London, involving such illuminati from your side as Prof. Mike Hulme. It was embarrassing albeit, from my perspective, an enjoyable example of shadenfreude.

“Your comment relating to the ‘precautionary principle’ is illuminating. It has always seemed to me that the ‘principle’ is a rather sanctimonious contrivance that allows people of your claimed persuasion to continue to engage in the delightful task of self-preening without the need to temper this indulgence with any obligation to think. I make no comment on what might have been the condition of mankind had this foolishness prevailed throughout human history.

RW
“PS In passing, I use the word ‘claimed’ because, to be frank, I do not believe that it is intellectually possible to promote Green claims with honesty of purpose.”

Rupert has summed the red melons and their fellow-travellers to a T, has he not?

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/un_climate_chief_christiana_figueres_talks_making_progress_on_eve_of_doha/2593/#.UK05kQ6CU1g.twitter

“Dunedin – eagerly awaiting global warming”

I’m afraid I just cant get all exercised about this issue when there isn’t a damn thing we can do about it…perhaps if I was Chinese…

More important is that the world’s leading scientists are increasingly telling us that we are headed for climate catastrophe with an average global temperature rise of 3 -5C this century!

Panic!

Or we can do what is realistic and live with the consequences (if any).

In New Zealand, Huntly is our only coal-fired plant. I’m unaware of the Greens opposing moves to convert this plant to natural gas,

My understanding is that parts of it was converted to coal because we were running out of gas at the time.

They complain our greenhouse gas emissions are too high, yet oppose fracking for natural gas.

This comment shows about the same level of understanding as his comment about school zones. In New Zealand, Huntly is our only coal-fired plant. I’m unaware of the Greens opposing moves to convert this plant to natural gas, although an ever better move is to replace coal and natural gas altogether with renewables – 100% Pure, anyone?.

More important is that the world’s leading scientists are increasingly telling us that we are headed for climate catastrophe with an average global temperature rise of 3 -5C this century! All fracking releases new natural gas emissions into the atmosphere – and fracking is overweight in methane, the most intensive GHG over the short term – is just more bad news for all who inhabit the earth.

And a final point is this, the PCE’s report is a very qualified one and DPF’s spin on it is as mischievous as usual.

My advice would be to not gloat too soon.

I think the peice that sums this up is where david says [the greenies] have a fundamental belief system that any industry that use natural resources is wrong and must be stopped.

No they don’t. The only belief that unites environmentalists is that people should not be allowed to pollute without consequence. This unites libertarian environmentalists (those who think that everything should be privately owned) and as well as those who think that the natural world has some inherent value that we violate by exploiting it.

Pollution used to be far worse before the environmental movement began. At root, it’s not about saving otters or rolling in dirt, but about stopping exploitation of the commons. This is something that everyone bar the exploiters has an interest in reducing.

They noted that in their previous session they had discussed preditors. That’s right – they had to discuss whether to ban cats from catching mice. Incidently, they decided not to.

The Greens are wrong about a lot of things and because their world view is so distorted, they want to ban a lot of things

This is supposed to be a “right” blog, yet it’s commenters seem unwilling to force farmers and other polluters to pay for the externalities they impose on the environment and by extension the rest of us. Such externalities are paradigmatic cases of market inefficiencies, yet our market loving friends on Kiwiblog deem them of little importance. If you love runoff so much, we can arrange for it to be piped onto your section.

Privatising the waterways would be preferable to the current solution, as farmers would then have to pay the owners of waterways if they wanted to dump shit in them. As it is, the public “owns” the waterways and we get jack from them.

BTW GDP is a misleading statistic. We could increase it by reintroducing slavery, for example.

(FTR – not a Green voter or supporter – I don’t vote).

The Greens are wrong about a lot of things and because their world view is so distorted, they want to ban a lot of things as per David’s famous post on the Greens Ban List http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/10/the_greens_banned_list.html

If even half the items on the list were actually banned, NZ’s GDP would shrink and we’d be in a recession for years. The Greens would respond by printing money – something else that they are wrong about.

http://blog.greens.org.nz/2012/11/27/fracking-report-is-a-red-flag-not-a-green-light-for-new-fracking-wells/

Oh really? Well in this green dream land nirvana how do they expect the bicycles to be made that would be the only legal means of transport? Out of bamboot shoots?

Would you be allowed to bolt two bikes together and build a carry tray between them in order to transport bulky goods?

Would the rider be allowed to carry good in a back pack?

I’d say that green supporter was a few spokes short of a bicycle wheel methinks.