Hooton on Greenpeace

November 24th, 2013 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

Matthew Hooton writes in NBR:

They were there, they said, for everyone.

This week, chief executive Bunny McDiarmid led a self-described flotilla to try to stop Texas-based company Anadarko from exploring for oil off the West Coast of the North Island. The effort, according to Ms McDiarmid, was “in defence of our oceans, future generations, our climate and our coastline.”

Her sidekick, former Green Party co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons, went further, claiming to speak for all living creatures.

Both insist Anadarko is not welcome in our waters. …

In my life, I have swum in the ocean, sailed Lasers, gone snorkelling, caught the odd fish, water-skied, built sand-castles and strolled along Piha at sunset. The New Zealand coastline and ocean are as much mine as Ms McDiarmid’s. So too “the climate.” I also have just as much interest as her in “future generations.” Indeed, when I speak of these things, I do so without ambiguity or conflict.

In contrast, Ms McDiarmid speaks as a paid employee of a multinational empire with assets of $350 million and annual revenues of $435 million, of which about $110 million is paid to head office in Amsterdam.

The New Zealand franchise raises around $8.5 million a year, of which $2.5 million is spent on further fund-raising and another $2 million is paid to Amsterdam, including for the rights to use the Greenpeace brand. It is a similar setup to an oil company or fast-food chain.

Greenpeace is indeed a multinational brand.

Speaking, therefore, without the same financial interest in the matter as Ms McDiarmid, I say Anardako is welcome in my country, including along my coastline and out in my oceans. I hope they find oil, and lots of it, and I hope others do too.

Speaking on behalf of future generations, I then hope Energy Minister Simon Bridges gets on a plane to Norway before too long and learns what a successful oil industry and associated investment fund can do to transform the living standards of a small country, while not compromising its tourism industry or natural beauty. I hope that Mr Bridges and his superiors understand that if New Zealand does not drill our oil and sell it to transform our living standards, then – as global supplies eventually become scarcer over the next century – someone will one day come and take it. It’s always better to sell something than have it stolen. Mr Bridges should also increase the royalties the oil companies have to pay.

Having said all this, I also understand that there is a risk, albeit miniscule, of a serious spill. This would kill birds, seals, dolphins and whales, and swimming, snorkelling, sailing and sandcastles would be out of the question for a while. But I also know the environment would heal itself much quicker and more completely than Greenpeace will tell us, as was the case in Brittany after 1978, Prince Williams Sound after 1989, the Gulf of Mexico after 2010 and the Bay of Plenty after the Rena in 2011. It is a risk, in my view, worth taking.

Next time Ms McDiamid purports to speak for me, I would kindly ask her to also make these points. If her bosses in Amsterdam will allow it.

We’ve had drilling for decades in Taranaki. I get sick of people in Auckland and Wellington demanding that people in Taranaki and the West Coast should lose their jobs, to make them feel better.

Tags: , ,

71 Responses to “Hooton on Greenpeace”

  1. duggledog (1,559 comments) says:

    Piha and Muriwai are full of feral metro greenies. Usually they have high paid jobs in advertising, consulting, television, film, or they are trustafarians. They all commute into town for work, often in gigantic European 4WDs, unless their privileged lifestyles allow them to sit around and make sculptures.

    Good post Matthew. I’m signing my ballot paper today, ticking Yes to asset sales.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Archer (210 comments) says:

    Very well written piece by Hooton. I might fill in my ballot paper today too, although I’ll be voting No, as I think we should sell off 100% of the companies, rather than the limit of 49% specified in the referendum question.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Linda Reid (415 comments) says:

    Yes, I agree completely with Matthew. On this topic he has my permission to speak for me. Greenpeace does not.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. tvb (4,430 comments) says:

    There are huge economic risks in not drilling for oil. The lost economic opportunities will mean our health is not fully funded nor education and our welfare means people will live in growing poverty.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Pete George (23,591 comments) says:

    I’ll be voting No, as I think we should sell off 100% of the companies

    A no vote will be claimed by Russel Norman to be a vote for no asset sales at all (he is campaigning on that), demonstrating how confusing the question is and how futile the referendum is.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Michael (910 comments) says:

    Archer/Pete – I’m voting ‘Yes’ as although I wish 100% of all SOEs are sold (Kiwirail about to cap in hand to the Government for $200m to replace the Aratertanic), I agree the selling up to 49% of SOEs is a good step to that goal.

    And as Pete points out, Russel Norman and David Cunliffe will take your no vote and make it theirs, even if you don’t intend it to be.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Pete George (23,591 comments) says:

    I’m voting Yes and No as a vote of no confidence in the referendum (returning a blank ballot would do the same).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Archer (210 comments) says:

    I can change my vote, but what about the thousands (maybe even hundreds of thousands?) of voters who have voted “No” on the basis they want 100% of assets sold? Guess the results won’t mean much one way or the other… Who are the idiots who worded the question?

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. duggledog (1,559 comments) says:

    It should be remembered far more people did not support the Sue Bradford anti smacking legislation, than those who will not support asset sales, however the Greens and Labour saw this as a trifling matter and shoved it through (sadly) with the support of National too.

    Same goes for the referendum years ago that saw 90 – odd % of the country wanting much tougher penalties for violent criminals.

    Back to Hooten’s post; yes it would be good to have higher royalties but – National is keenly aware we are a tiny pimple on the world’s butt and we really have little in the way of negotiating power, or power on the world stage for that matter.
    A fact that escaped Lange in the 1980s when he told the world’s economic super power to get f***ed, and a fact that continues to escape the Left especially people like Helen Kelly who would stick to her pie in the sky Principles as the country fell to pieces around her.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Komata (1,191 comments) says:

    FWIW: Greenpeace continues to present itself as a poor, underfunded organisation that is trying so, so hard to ‘save the planet’. To this end it recruits from the unemployed and university students and, after paying them a pittance sends these ‘useful idiots’ who have naively bought-into the ‘save the whales’ manta to fund-raise.

    Due to a very-professional and clever PR-campaign, they have created a certain public-persona which ‘hooks-into’ the Kiwi sympathy for an underdog.

    This from an organisation that, as already noted, has ‘…Assets of $350 million and annual revenues of $435 million’.

    With such amounts, this is NOT a poor, underfunded’ organisation by any means.

    Such figures do raise a question which (unsurprisingly) the MSM seems to be studiously-ignoring; Namely, who are Greenpeace working for, and what are their POLITICAL objectives?

    No-one seems to have considered this (although Hooton has implied it), and given that the Gweens are now starting to be recognised as ‘closet’ socialists, one does wonder what Greenpeace’s actual agenda is and who their masters are.

    BTW: Has anyone considered it odd that a certain B. McDiarmid, despite ‘pleading poverty’ as a representative of a ‘poor environmental-protection’ group, somehow seems to be able to own a very nice ocean-going yacht of considerable size and have access to al the advanced technology in terms of navigation equipment, a yacht that, curiously, has a diesel-powered auxiliary power-unit and uses mined and processed materials in its construction. A ‘raft’ it is not!!

    Odd really……

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Pete George (23,591 comments) says:

    Who are the idiots who worded the question?

    The same idiots who drove the petition using taxpayer money, the same idiots who have forced a $9,000,000 referendum that will many anything anyone wants it to mean to promote their agenda, and due to this will mean nothing.

    Roy Reid from Grey Power was the official petition promoter and the Grey association with NZ First is well known, and Labour went along for the ride, but Greens have been the most active promoters of it all the way through. They have been prominent in promoting a No vote, especially Russel Norman but also Turei and other Green MPs. Labour seems to have receded into the background.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Camryn (543 comments) says:

    Archer – If you agree with seeking 100%, then you logically must agree with selling 49%. You can’t sell all of house but not 49% of it. Vote yes.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Pete George (23,591 comments) says:

    It should be remembered far more people did not support the Sue Bradford anti smacking legislation, than those who will not support asset sales, however the Greens and Labour saw this as a trifling matter and shoved it through (sadly) with the support of National too.

    Bizarrely Norman has claimed that because the MOM vote in Parliament was close the asset referendum should have more weight. Overriding Parliament after the legislation has passed. That is nonsensical.

    If a precedent was set where a referendum could put legislation on hold for eighteen months and then potentially overrule Parliament it would open the door to endless petition filibustering. It would bust our democratic process.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. wat dabney (3,775 comments) says:

    It’s a choice between environmentally sound oil extracted with the highest standards from places like New Zealand, or despoliation oil from poor countries where the environment is destroyed.

    Unfortunately, the fate of the environment in poor, distant countries does not play nearly as strongly with rich Westerners. It doesn’t bring in the millions that Greenpeace needs for its obscene, bloated pay structure, and it doesn’t bring in many votes for the Greens.

    So they elect for the second option: They campaign against best-practise, first-world exploration and extraction, in the full knowledge that the net effect is environmental devastation.

    These anti-environmentalists cynically sacrifice the environment for their own benefit: millions of dollars for Greenpeace and votes and power for the Greens. They really are evil.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. itstricky (1,851 comments) says:

    Seeing as we are talking about International Brands.

    Why not use this opportunity to develop other technologies, instead of just going for the easy (and risky) buck.

    Consider a spill. “Government will rebound”. That’s completely understating it. If that happened in Kaikoura and entire town would disappear overnight. 100% Pure would be the laughing stock, fisheries would go down the gurgler. Tourists would stay away in droves. To say “a few whales would die” is in itself an understatement.

    The quickest buck is not always the best buck. As oil is a finite resource no matter how much downplaying in the opposite direction is done by the industry. Why not play with something that matches the brand of the country? It’s short sighted as f* to consider anything else I think.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    PG

    I’m voting Yes and No as a vote of no confidence in the referendum (returning a blank ballot would do the same).

    and it gets thrown in the bin as a vote submitted by someone with no literacy skills. Your action will not make any point at all except go to the void pile, which is usually where votes from those who can’t understand the process go. duh

    and returning a blank form does nothing either.

    Yes and no votes get counted- pretty fucking simple really

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. davidp (3,581 comments) says:

    I’m not sure why I’m being asked if I approved of a historical event. Wouldn’t the poll be better worded if it asked people if they wanted the government to purchase airline and power company shares or not? As it is, it feels about as relevant as asking me if I approved NZ joining the Boer War.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Komata (1,191 comments) says:

    istricky

    Re: ‘Why not use this opportunity to develop other technologies…’

    OK, I’ll bite.

    Whatever ‘other’ technologies are developed to eliminate the dreaded ‘oil monster’ from New Zealand society, will need to meet the following criteria:

    They must be:

    Readily available to all and everyone NOW, not ‘later’.

    They must have multiple uses.

    They must be cheap.

    They must be ‘environmentally friendly’.

    They MUST NOT be mined, quarried or drilled-for.

    They MUST NOT involve the use of either animals or animal by-products.

    They must NOT be capable of polluting anything.

    They must be ‘home grown’ (in New Zealand).

    They must be locally-produced, and at low cost.

    They must be capable of being exported (and to earn foreign-exchange as a result).

    They MUST be able to IMMEDIATELY replace ALL mineral oils (irrespective of grade or octane-rating) without interruption or dislocation.

    The must be able to IMMEDIATELY power all machinery powered by internal-combustion engines in New Zealand, at a cost that is either LOWER or ON A PAR WITH all and any mineral-oil based products.

    The technologies MUST be able to replace and replicate ALL AND ANY items currently made from mineral-oils or their derivatives.

    IF you can tell me of ‘other technologies’ can meet all these criteria then I for one will be very, very interested. No doubt others will be-so as well.

    BTW: In case you are wondering: This is not a’send-up’ or ‘try-on’. It is a genuine request for details.

    I hope you will respond in kind.

    Thanks.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. CharlieBrown (1,014 comments) says:

    I wonder how those tosser protesters get to the protests? If they go in a car or motorbike then they are f’ing hypocrites.

    As for the referrendum, i will vote in support of asset sales, even though I don’t support selling them (I support privatisation). I’d much rather they privatise all SOE’s by giving every voter some shares and then let all those left wing dickheads put their money where their mouths are.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Komata (1,191 comments) says:

    CB

    Don’t forget too that they were probably carrying mobile phones and wearing clothes made from synthetic (oil-based) materials…..

    It all depends upon who is using such things, old chap…..

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. hmmokrightitis (1,590 comments) says:

    As a ‘Taranaki-ite’, I concur DPF. When the idiots boarded the ship here in port, security made sure they stayed put, knowing that at some point they would need ‘logistical support’, aka a dunny. Funny how they don’t think things through. And Ms Xena, tell me, oh warrior princess, how many times do you fly backwards and forwards between here and LA? What do you drive whilst in LA?

    As usual, do as we say, not as we do.

    As for me, I will enjoy the rich province I live in, safe in the knowledge that our white and black gold economy continues to flourish. Fuck you greenpeace :)

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. lilman (960 comments) says:

    Agree to the Naki been the chosen province.
    Lucy brainless should have been left up the tower and the ship set sail.
    After all she loves Shell oil,as she has told us.
    Or is she a liar?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    “Piha and Muriwai are full of feral metro greenies. Usually they have high paid jobs in advertising, consulting, television, film, or they are trustafarians. They all commute into town for work, often in gigantic European 4WDs, unless their privileged lifestyles allow them to sit around and make sculptures.”

    Talking shit again puddleduck?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Bovver (173 comments) says:

    Steve Abel “Many felt the full economic potential and the possibility for New Zealand to become a world leader in green energy would be lost if the government focused on deep sea oil drilling, he said.”

    A monumentally stupid statement, the only truly green energy is nuclear, if Greenpeace can make NZ the world leader in this I’ll give them a dollar donation.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Pete George (23,591 comments) says:

    PE – ‘void’ votes also get counted along with the rest. Pretty simple really.

    New Zealand corporal punishment referendum, 2009
    “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”

    No 1,470,755 87.40%
    Yes 201,541 11.98%
    Invalid or blank votes 12,106 0.72%
    Total votes 1,684,402 100.00%
    Voter turnout 56.09%

    A high number of “invalid or blank” votes is the best way of registering protesting against the referendum.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    “the only truly green energy is nuclear” Are you greening us Bovver?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Reid (16,509 comments) says:

    A high number of “invalid or blank” votes is the best way of registering protesting against the referendum.

    Really? Most people would think the 87.4% No vote was the best way of registering protest against that particular referendum.

    Pretty simple really. Also pretty fair, reasonable and sensible, I would have thought.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    No 1,470,755 87.40%
    Yes 201,541 11.98%
    Invalid or blank votes 12,106 0.72%
    Total votes 1,684,402 100.00%
    Voter turnout 56.09%

    A high number of “invalid or blank” votes is the best way of registering protesting against the referendum.

    Pete

    please explain how the invalid or blank votes is a protest rather than the person submitting the paper hasn’t filled it out correctly. Your protest vote is lumped in with the retards and counts for nothing.

    they are not going to invent a new catargory for yes /no voters from Dunedin

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Pete George (23,591 comments) says:

    The smacking referendum and the asset referendum questions were designed so that a No vote was what the promoters wanted – not a protest against the referendum but a protest against the policy/legislation.

    Norman et al are now promoting a No vote as no more asset sales (it was originally to oppose the MOM policy but most of that is too late) – no to Genesis, Kiwibank, no to 100% of MRP, Meridean, Air NZ etc etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Reid (16,509 comments) says:

    The smacking referendum and the asset referendum questions were designed so that a No vote was what the promoters wanted – not a protest against the referendum but a protest against the policy/legislation.

    Indeed they were Pete. So what?

    Norman et al are now promoting a No vote as no more asset sales (it was originally to oppose the MOM policy but most of that is too late) – no to Genesis, Kiwibank, no to 100% of MRP, Meridean, Air NZ etc etc.

    How dastardly, but seriously, did anyone on Planet Earth not expect them to do this, if so, who?

    So in short Pete, what’s your point?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Johnboy (16,651 comments) says:

    I do really hope that Bunny and Genetic haven’t been squashed between the “Bailey Tide” and the “Noble Bob Douglas” while we argue over semantics here on KB! :) :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Johnboy (16,651 comments) says:

    Flossie and I voted YES. Seeing we bought shares anything else would be hypocritical.

    That would mean we would have a moral obligation to become Green/Labour supporters.

    That would mean we would have to commit suicide! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Pete George (23,591 comments) says:

    Tell me how a Yes vote or a No vote will be any more effective than an invalid vote? What will those options achieve?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Reid (16,509 comments) says:

    Tell me how a Yes vote or a No vote will be any more effective than an invalid vote? What will those options achieve?

    Er.

    In the same way the 87.4% No vote was much much much much much much much more significant than the piddly 0.72% invalid vote in the anti-smacking referendum. Ask anyone in the street what they remember about that referendum and I guarantee think it only fair, sensible and reasonable to imagine they will NOT say the piddly 0.72% invalid vote was the highlight of their memory.

    Of course in this case it would be the Yes vote that would be much more effective, and imagine how stupid and mental the Gweens and the media would look if we got 87.4% saying Yes. I think reaching any other conclusion on this referendum would have to be the most unfair, unreasonable and insensible conclusion anyone has ever heard of.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Pete George (23,591 comments) says:

    In the same way the 87.4% No vote was much much much much much much much more significant than the piddly 0.72% invalid vote in the anti-smacking referendum.

    I said ‘effective’, not significant.

    The most significance this referendum will be remembered for is how futile CIR are, especially when hijacked by political parties.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Johnboy (16,651 comments) says:

    Why a “Yes” vote would be a huge moral victory over the twin-headed turtles Silent and Wussel PG!

    Surely a politician like yourself can see that? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. srylands (410 comments) says:

    istricky

    Re: ‘Why not use this opportunity to develop other technologies…’

    It is so easy to say. Like the “Green Economy” will create 100,000 new jobs.

    I know a bit about relative costs of energy. If a “Green Economy” means subsidising or mandating a higher proportion of renewable energy, this will involve higher costs of production, and make New Zealand poorer. That is a fact, from which Russel Norman cannot escape.

    The other thing to remember is that New Zealand is mostly a technology “taker” in energy. There may well be firms here that develop niche energy products. Good luck to them. But they will do that despite Green Party policies, not because of them.

    Seriously fucking up BOTH energy markets and food markets – which is what R Norman wants to do – is truly frightening. Think a combination of Pol Pot and Greece.

    As I have posted before, it baffles me why National does not go full out and make these points, if necessary by bypassing the MSM, and directing well done direct messages to the public. R Norman gets a free ride that would be impossible in any other country I have been in.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Reid (16,509 comments) says:

    I said ‘effective’, not significant.

    In the same way the 87.4% No vote was much much much much much much much more significant effective than the piddly 0.72% invalid vote in the anti-smacking referendum. Ask anyone in the street what they remember about that referendum and I guarantee think it only fair, sensible and reasonable to imagine they will NOT say the piddly 0.72% invalid vote was the highlight of their memory.

    Of course in this case it would be the Yes vote that would be much more effective, and imagine how stupid and mental the Gweens and the media would look if we got 87.4% saying Yes. I think reaching any other conclusion on this referendum would have to be the most unfair, unreasonable, ineffective and insensible conclusion anyone has ever heard of.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    “Seriously fucking up BOTH energy markets and food markets – which is what R Norman wants to do – is truly frightening. Think a combination of Pol Pot and Greece.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_happiness

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Spam (588 comments) says:

    Interesting link to hooten’s story, DPF!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. flipper (4,083 comments) says:

    srylands (75) Says:

    November 24th, 2013 at 12:51 pm

    *****

    You are too kind on green energy policies. They can best be summed in a word – CRAP.

    Europe has had disaster upon disaster. The US (think Solandra and others) likewise. In every case an attempt to switch to “green” jobs resulted in HIGHER unemployment.

    In January 2012, Outside The Beltway (New Zealand) noted in their paper, “Demolishing… ” :

    ” Another major contributor to the wider economic malaise has been the desire of many euro nations to introduce “green” jobs. (See also Part 7.) The State of California tried with disastrous consequences. In Britain the results have been appalling. Spain embraced green jobs with a vengeance, losing 2.2 jobs for every “green job” created. So bad did the situation become that unemployment rose to 22 per cent as the socialist government was tipped out of office just a few weeks ago. [It peaked at more than 25%]

    (See also The False Promise of Green Energy by Morris A.P. et al; the Cato Institute Washington D.C. 2011. ISBN 978-1-935308-41-6 for a detailed, peer reviewed analysis.) …”

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Viking2 (11,488 comments) says:

    Thought for the day.

    http://screencast.com/t/BelVcVftF

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    Crude oil is marine, coal is terrestrial.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. itstricky (1,851 comments) says:

    Komata

    I didn’t say anything about completely replacing oil in a day.

    What I was suggesting was that conitnuially drilling it up just delays the inevitable.

    There are plenty of point solutions for lots of different things that oil provides (transport and plastics being most common so far) but if you keep on blindly chasing the easy dollar, drilling it up and not thinking then it all comes crashing down eventually.

    Why not use the economic incentives to continue to develop these sorts of things that more closely match the “ethos” of the country?

    Commentors on here crack me up with some of the comments above. If they were astute business men they’d be right into some of these products. But then, I guess, each KB thread attracts different types of commentors. The ones on this thread aren’t likely to be scientists or innovators, more likely “I’m all right buddy, f* everyone else” owners of truck companies or drivers of Holden Commodores who think that the car is an extension of their personality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. DJP6-25 (1,388 comments) says:

    Good post Mr Hooton!

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. srylands (410 comments) says:

    “There are plenty of point solutions for lots of different things that oil provides (transport and plastics being most common so far)”

    Can you please outline these solutions? i.e solutions available now that would replace oil based transport on scale, and which would be a profitable investment?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. OneTrack (3,114 comments) says:

    itstricky – “if they were astute business men they’d be right into some of these products. ”

    I guess that leaves the market open to you and Greenpeace. They could use the massive revenue they get each year to develop alternative products, get a lead in the market, and put big-oil out of business. Hmm. Why havent they done that?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. itstricky (1,851 comments) says:

    srylands

    I didn’t say anything about the Green party. I’d be quite happy to see National spring some business incentivising cash into the arms of companies that show a bit of innovation for materials and fuels that replace oil.

    So, you know a bit about the sector.

    You’d be perfect to tell us what the plan is. Or is it just “keep on digging it up ’cause there ain’t no other hope”? I mean, the industry will provide stats. to say that peak oil hasn’t been reached etc but *nobody* is arguing it isn’t a finite resource.

    Just like that whole helium thing a couple of years back. I don’t know how true/correct/exact the helium thing was but the day will come where the doctors and scientists will say “please stop buying stupid motor driven sharks for Christmas, we need that there oil for, like, saving people’s lives, and stuff”

    At which drilling platform do you stop? The 500th? The 501st? The 502nd? At some point, a Government must say – stop now, we’re doing something else. Seems that the Government of this country would be the perfect place for such a thing to happen given our tourist “pitch”, the nuclear free thing etc. Good branding.

    But don’t let me keep you from slagging such things – shut your eyes and go back to driving your Commodore. I guess at least a few other people are talking about shit rather than pretending a problem doesn’t exist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Reid (16,509 comments) says:

    Why not use the economic incentives to continue to develop these sorts of things that more closely match the “ethos” of the country?

    Because the “ethos” of the country doesn’t give you a license to impose your idealogy wholesale on everyone anymore than it does for those who, for example, would like to privatise every single govt operation and sell every single taxpayer-owned asset.

    I know you think that you are in the right because you weally weally care – in this case about the enviwonment – and therefore you MUST be right because how can you not be because you weally weally care so vewy vewy much.

    But newsflash, mate. Just cos you weally weally care doesn’t make you correct, instead it makes you blinkered, in precisely the same way that truly evil bankers and people who make war, are blinkered. They weally weally care too, they just weally care about the wrong things. But the fact you guys care about the right things doesn’t make you right.

    Because it’s not what you care about that makes you, bankers and people who want war wrong, it’s the process you’ve followed to reach your conclusion. And newsflash, ALL of you have followed the same process.

    Which is, none of you care what it costs to achieve your ends. While bankers and people who want war are prepared to throw widows and orphans out on the street and even kill people to achieve their ends, you guys are prepared to do the same thing. The only distinction is, you don’t intend to do it, whereas the former two types do, but who cares what your intent is, because that’s still what all of you are going to achieve.

    And if you deny that, then tell us how you would avoid the tens of thousands of people who’d be thrown out of work and consequently from their homes by implementing your enviwonmental policies as you yourselves advocate them to be implemented, and how much revenue base would be decimated thus forcing cutbacks galore in every single govt service including healthcare, resulting in thousands and thousands of unnecessary deaths.

    You know the one thing that would make me respect the Gweens on this? If they started advocating water-powered cars, of which there are hundreds if not thousands of working examples, but which have all been mysteriously shut down, inventors silenced and in many cases, murdered. That’s not a theory, that’s a fact. Educate yourself. But if the Gweens said they would use the protection of the NZ govt to licence and manufacture these vehicles, they would become the reality they should have become decades ago. But have they ever said anything about that? No. Thus proving they’re not part of the solution, they’re just another part of the problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. itstricky (1,851 comments) says:

    They could use the massive revenue they get each year to develop alternative products, get a lead in the market, and put big-oil out of business. Hmm. Why havent they done that?
    solutions available now that would replace oil based transport on scale

    There’s nothing that reaches the scale of oil. Of course not. I’m not a masocist. I mean come on – all you have to say is “oil is finite and we need something to replace it”

    If you can’t or won’t then keep living in your little bubble. I hope you’ve built up your massive concrete brick walls and barbed wire up around your house high enough and fenced off the community off enough so that you are guaranteed to not have to fight low lifes looking to steal your petrol.

    You say “it’s easy to say Green energy is the future”. I say “it’s easy to hack down potential solutions in a condescending fashion just because you can’t be arsed to think about the future”. Glass half full, glass half empty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Johnboy (16,651 comments) says:

    I’m seriously considering buying Thorium. I hope Bill has a few million tons stashed away somewhere. Maybe in the bankrupt Solid Energy concessions? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. srylands (410 comments) says:

    itstricky suffers from a common failure in the Left of being unable to distinguish technical and economic feasibility. R Norman does it constantly, or simply assumes there is an endless supply of free money from taxpayers, or printing presses, or fairies.

    Electric cars are expensive and suffer from being unable to carry batteries that support range. Battery technology has improved over the last 20 years, but there is no sign of a break through in battery technology that will deliver electric vehicles AT SCALE with an acceptable range and at an affordable price.

    I wish it were otherwise, but petroleum based transport will dominate for at least the next 30 years.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. itstricky (1,851 comments) says:

    itstricky suffers from a common failure in the Left of being unable to distinguish technical and economic feasibility

    So, have you said “oil won’t last forever and we need another few solutions”

    Hmm… reading reading reading… oh look – you did, in thirty years from now. There we go. Break through. Acknowlegement of a future problem. Better start thinking about what to do now to make that a reality in thirty years, then.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. itstricky (1,851 comments) says:

    Which is, none of you care what it costs to achieve your ends

    I think you may have pigeon holed me with, er, some other group. Just slightly.

    Oh, there’s a solution. Nup, it’s shrouded in conspiracy.

    Followed by more negatives, nay saying and reasons why one *can’t* do something. Way to go. Good contribution to the human cause. I salute you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. OneTrack (3,114 comments) says:

    “I’m seriously considering buying Thorium”

    But, Johnboy, thats “newklear” which is “bad”(tm). We protested against that when we were growing up and sticking it to the man. Well we still havent grown up yet and we cant tell the difference between different technologies so even discussing modern reactor technologies is verboten.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. srylands (410 comments) says:

    “At which drilling platform do you stop? The 500th? The 501st? The 502nd? At some point, a Government must say – stop now, we’re doing something else. ”

    That decision is one for the market, NOT the Government. The Government is totally ill equipped to make such a decision. Just like you.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Johnboy (16,651 comments) says:

    “and we cant tell the difference between different technologies so even discussing modern reactor technologies is verboten.”

    Auchtung. Ve can all tell vot ze bottom line is itstricky.

    Any von wot cant understund zimple arithmetic vill be shot! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. itstricky (1,851 comments) says:

    That decision is one for the market, NOT the Government.

    Something as important as oil (therefore energy supply, therefore viabliity of a state) ? Governments go to war over that. It’s not just market rules only.

    If the precious market is the truth and the only way of energy supply (and therefore the complete viability of a state) then I think I’ll join Reid in his conspiracy theories about dead inventors killed off by the competition.

    If NZ want to be there in thirty years when the herald of a new era is pronounced then someone better start trumpeting it now.

    You continue to show me that, as expected, this KB thread is full of fuddy duddy moaners and whiners who can’t present any positive thinking apart from ideas that result in a jolly good put down. In fact, the presence of Johnboy pretty much signs and seals that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    also know the environment would heal itself much quicker and more completely than Greenpeace will tell us, as was the case in Brittany after 1978, Prince Williams Sound after 1989, the Gulf of Mexico after 2010 and the Bay of Plenty after the Rena in 2011.

    Goodness, Hooton is now an expert on the marine environment. Is there anything that this dolt isn’t an expert on?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Viking2 (11,488 comments) says:

    HMMM,

    ross69 (3,107) Says:
    November 24th, 2013 at 8:00 pm

    Goodness, Hooton is now an expert on the marine environment. Is there anything that this dolt isn’t an expert on?
    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    ==============Well , well.

    best you have a gander back at all the wisdom you have attempted to bestow up Kiwi bloggers in your 3107 posts..

    Most of it crap by the way.

    Please set out for us your subjects of high level expertise and then you can forget about rambling on about the rest.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. itstricky (1,851 comments) says:

    Hardly an on-subject retaliation. He said “will heal itself quicker”. Who’s word would we take based on experience and subject matter expertise?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. lofty (1,316 comments) says:

    @itstricky…….I am still waiting for you to answer a question above re alternative billion dollar alternatives.
    What’s your answer pal? It’s your chance to become a billionaire buddy…I will become a shareholder of your expansive sure fire lets make billions together scheme.
    If it is so easy mate (or matees) green pieces would be cashing in to ensure their multi million dollar enterprise has a sure fire succession Plan.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Sonny Blount (1,783 comments) says:

    Archer (123) Says:
    November 24th, 2013 at 9:51 am
    I can change my vote, but what about the thousands (maybe even hundreds of thousands?) of voters who have voted “No” on the basis they want 100% of assets sold? Guess the results won’t mean much one way or the other… Who are the idiots who worded the question?

    Who are the idiots that don’t understand selling 100% of something includes selling 49% of it?

    Anyone who votes no because they want 100% sold is a moron.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Please set out for us your subjects of high level expertise and then you can forget about rambling on about the rest.

    No, it’s not me pontificating. Hooton is, as he does on just about every subject under the sun. He needs to outline his expertise.

    Oh and I wasn’t aware that the ocean is able to “heal itself”. If that is the case, why did Anadarko pay BP some $4 billion to clean up the gulf of Mexico? That’s a hell of a lot of money when the ocean could have healed itself.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. itstricky (1,851 comments) says:

    Lofty you and everyone else buddy. All I am asking for is for you to say “oil is finite. We need a plan (b)”. I can see you are also quite comfortable being the sarcastic self contained being who can’t bring himself to care about anything other than a quick buck. Don’t worry yourself – I’ll remember to wake you in twenty years so you can scream “we should have done something about that! with the rest of the crowd”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. freemark (581 comments) says:

    “oil is finite. We need a plan (b)” There, I said it. Plan B is not a bunch of hypocritical hippies trying to stop exploration. If it is finite, we just need to find it – a low risk, economically vital operation. If Gween, Piece & Co are that concerned about the spill scenario, why are they not part funding some state of the art spill recovery vessels..and some good technology in biodegradable booms etc. They could partner with Big Oil, & with Govts maybe. But no, they prove themselves once again to be scum sucking Socialists and ignorant followers.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. freemark (581 comments) says:

    This is what I have to put up with on my Island…but I guess it’s nice that the old dear is able to remain in The Community. The secret naval battle off NZ, no one else seems to have heard about it, but it was a big oil spill.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. ManuT (54 comments) says:

    Thanks freemark
    That stupid old trout seriously needs to be put out of her misery. One would think folk got more intelligent as they aged. Not the case here.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. freemark (581 comments) says:

    @ManuT
    She is probably not a bad old lady, I have never encountered her. Doubtless however, she is being used by the nasty Gween c**ts in their increasingly desperate political campaign. They will stoop to any level, the worst troughing lying bitch happens to be an unelected MP..and will use children, the poor, the desperate and the ignorant to further her desperate desire to be one of the Governing Elite..but she’s about to take a massive fall..

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. itstricky (1,851 comments) says:

    Never purported to be a part of Greenpeace, nor to support them. But good on you for your attack.

    If Gween, Piece & Co are that concerned about the spill scenario, why are they not part funding some state of the art spill recovery vessels..and some good technology in biodegradable booms etc

    Probably because, I imagine, their aim is to slow down & stop oil exploration altogether. Not really helping their cause – is it – to say “oh well, it’s okay, just a little bit, try not to hurt too many mammals – here we’ll help you”

    Plan B is not a bunch of hypocritical hippies trying to stop exploration

    Why not? I mean not the hypocritical bit and not the hippy bit, but why not? I would say their whole plan, or rather their goal would be to focus research and development and you don’t do that by drilling another well. As the raving hippy said:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11162191

    The industry should be winding down, not winding up.

    Then again, this was in the “Sustainable Business” section with a quote from the chief saying he “understands the concerns” – something that none of the commentators on this thread can bring themselves to say. Oh well, you know that’s just the scummy communist MSM for you – couldn’t possibly be the thoughts of real people who realise these things do matter to their businesses, both for their survival and for good profit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. itstricky (1,851 comments) says:

    Here is another link from the commie MSM for the two downvoters:

    http://m.nzherald.co.nz/#!/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11162662

    Catch the non-oil-slicked wave fellas, catch the wave. You’re just like, soooooo, like, last century dudes. Peace out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote