Well, that was that, the climate change alarmists have gone quiet. Turns out war, deindustrialisation and low birth rates are far more immediate crises.
Showing posts with label Environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Environment. Show all posts
August 05, 2026
May 28, 2025
Global Emissions
Global emissions continue to rise, and there is nothing that can be done about it. That's because two regions are developing fast and they're not going to give up their futures for everyone else, and nor should they.
Here's a couple of graphs to illustrate, the first being global emissions of carbon dioxide worldwide:
Emissions have steadily increased, becoming steeper exponentially. The only small downticks are when there is a recession, and other exceptional events.
Then, let's look at how these emissions appear when broken down by region:
So, emitters that matter are: China, Asia (excluding China and India), North America, and Europe.
What can be done? Well, consume less would be a start, and when that's done, use civil engineering, soil science and the like to deal with the changes occurring.
Blaming tourists and giving them a guilt trip over their carbon miles is simply a deflection at best, or at worst it is sending consumers in a direction whereby they're fleeced by unscrupulous businesses. Likewise, greenwashing by companies is all PR, nothing more than that.
Why can nothing be done? Does any sane individual think more than two billion people will change their behaviour when that behaviour is counter to their own progress? Yeah, give it up, stop with the delusions.
July 16, 2022
How the West brought economic disaster on itself
Freddie Sayers breaks things down, how the West managed to destroy itself.
July 01, 2021
Why Everything They Said About Solar Was Wrong
Michael Shellenberger on solar panels, they're not so environmentally friendly after all https://principia-scientific.com/why-everything-they-said-about-solar-was-wrong/
April 23, 2021
Joe Biden Makes Sound
Earth Day summit and what do we get? Completely unrealistic emissions targets, that's what. Confirmation the world has gone mad. Wasn't a pandemic that wasn't really a pandemic enough already?
It's easy to see why the USA cannot, and I stress cannot, reduce emissions by up to 52% (note the 2%, clever not rounding it eh, why not make it 55.75% and sound really authoritative). Population growth. By 2030 the US will have in the region of 360 million people. They'll all want to be fed, housed, and transported. Halving emissions is a pipe dream and foolish. Foolish because it's genocidal in scale. Think about that, even if they only try and fail badly, a lot of people are going to die.
May 04, 2020
Planet of the Humans
An interesting watch this, reveals how full of it many Green claims are, and how corporate Green interests are taking over. At the 49 minute mark the documentary addresses issues I raised in Snob's Guide to New Zealand; that Green is a kind of new religion.
March 07, 2019
Surviving the Carbon Age
Enough with the negativity, this blog post addresses how to deal with the rising levels of carbon dioxide. Here it's all about the future and solutions, the way forward.
We find ourselves in a downward spiral. At the same time as carbon dioxide emissions are rising, forest coverage is decreasing. Forests are disappearing at an alarming rate. The deforestation is having an effect on the climate, not just in reducing the number of trees available to eat carbon dioxide but also in relation to cloud formation and precipitation. It's not enough that one country acts as clouds don't observe national boundaries. Forests do a lot of good, they hold and condition the soil, suck in carbon dioxide, and help form clouds. We need forests.
But this alone isn't enough, we also need to decrease greenhouse gas emissions, the worst of which is carbon dioxide. That means being more efficient. I suggest we avoid adopting already proven failures like electric vehicles (EV's). Why? The simple reason is they don't work, they're not good cars and rely on technology running parallel to the liquid fuels industry. EV's rely on infrastructure never intended to power an automotive fleet.
My solution is three-fold:
Work on achieving greater efficiency using current technology.
What I'm talking about is reducing fuel consumption by making the engines of industry and consumerism work better. Keep developing the internal combustion engine to the point where you can run your car for a year on a single tank of gas. Why not?
This seems an obvious approach and one you never hear. It's an approach that doesn't throw the baby out with the bath water.
Put the forests back.
Instead of talking about carbon all the time (which appears to be a code word for the evils of industrialisation) and carbon trading schemes (which no-one understands), structure the world economy to reward forest creation. The more trees, the more carbon dioxide is processed by those trees. This would help a lot. I know what you are going to say, carbon trading effectively does what I'm saying, but the problem with that approach is it misses the point by making trees data units rather than living things. Everyone likes their trees, they don't care about carbon units.
Japan is a major industrialised power and they have 60% forest coverage so I'm going to use that as the benchmark. I've done some sums and it appears worldwide forest coverage of around 42% keeps things as they are now. There would be no gain as human activity from industrialisation would still keep adding greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (although at a reduced rate if my other two suggestions are followed). Greater forest cover is required to sequester the carbon dioxide that is emitted unsustainably, bearing in mind that these trees also need to be replaced as they rot and burn.
Here are the top 10 countries ranked by total size of forest coverage (with their percentage of forest coverage alongside):
Russia (49%)
Canada (49%)
Brazil (56%)
USA (34%)
China (22%)
Australia (16%)
DR Congo (50%)
Argentina (34%)
Indonesia (46%)
India (24%)
These 10 provide the big carbon sinks. We could expand this to the top 50 if you like (this is purely to illustrate). They all have work to do, some more than others. Across the board, there needs to be a 60% increase in forest size. Do this and together with greater industrial efficiency, you're almost there.
Globally, set up a system of trade tariffs that acknowledges the rate of forest creation in each individual country. Failure to meet targets would mean raising tariffs and less income for those not playing ball. This would be a new form of GATT (General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade). Forget Kyoto Protocol and its arbitrary 1990 benchmark, what my benchmark does is acknowledge that humans are the cause of the problem and the solution is collective in nature, but those areas settled earlier and deforested worst must do more to correct the harm. The tariff regime would take account of total economic output and local climate and soil types, so areas that find it harder to grow trees aren't handicapped. China would be a country required to do a lot, as would India and the USA.
What about small countries that emit a lot of carbon dioxide? I checked this and one example is South Korea. However while being a big emitter, their forest coverage is at 63%, so they would meet the benchmark. Once at 60% of forest coverage worldwide, trade tariffs would be set to zero for all nations. Global free trade so long as forest coverage remains at 60%.
Keep developing new technology.
In addition to the above, work on developing new techniques such as enhanced weathering for agriculture. This is where mineral rocks are spread on agricultural land, the effect of which is to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.
And finally, work on mitigating the effects of climate change, learn how to change and adjust. Not all climate change is a negative. Readers will note I haven't included any changes in individual human behaviour. That's because, after hundreds of thousands of years of evolution humans are unlikely to change their habits. All that can be done is to keep improving, keep advancing, and plant trees.
There we have it. Keep it sensible, keep it simple.
We find ourselves in a downward spiral. At the same time as carbon dioxide emissions are rising, forest coverage is decreasing. Forests are disappearing at an alarming rate. The deforestation is having an effect on the climate, not just in reducing the number of trees available to eat carbon dioxide but also in relation to cloud formation and precipitation. It's not enough that one country acts as clouds don't observe national boundaries. Forests do a lot of good, they hold and condition the soil, suck in carbon dioxide, and help form clouds. We need forests.
But this alone isn't enough, we also need to decrease greenhouse gas emissions, the worst of which is carbon dioxide. That means being more efficient. I suggest we avoid adopting already proven failures like electric vehicles (EV's). Why? The simple reason is they don't work, they're not good cars and rely on technology running parallel to the liquid fuels industry. EV's rely on infrastructure never intended to power an automotive fleet.
My solution is three-fold:
Work on achieving greater efficiency using current technology.
What I'm talking about is reducing fuel consumption by making the engines of industry and consumerism work better. Keep developing the internal combustion engine to the point where you can run your car for a year on a single tank of gas. Why not?
This seems an obvious approach and one you never hear. It's an approach that doesn't throw the baby out with the bath water.
Put the forests back.
Instead of talking about carbon all the time (which appears to be a code word for the evils of industrialisation) and carbon trading schemes (which no-one understands), structure the world economy to reward forest creation. The more trees, the more carbon dioxide is processed by those trees. This would help a lot. I know what you are going to say, carbon trading effectively does what I'm saying, but the problem with that approach is it misses the point by making trees data units rather than living things. Everyone likes their trees, they don't care about carbon units.
Japan is a major industrialised power and they have 60% forest coverage so I'm going to use that as the benchmark. I've done some sums and it appears worldwide forest coverage of around 42% keeps things as they are now. There would be no gain as human activity from industrialisation would still keep adding greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (although at a reduced rate if my other two suggestions are followed). Greater forest cover is required to sequester the carbon dioxide that is emitted unsustainably, bearing in mind that these trees also need to be replaced as they rot and burn.
Here are the top 10 countries ranked by total size of forest coverage (with their percentage of forest coverage alongside):
Russia (49%)
Canada (49%)
Brazil (56%)
USA (34%)
China (22%)
Australia (16%)
DR Congo (50%)
Argentina (34%)
Indonesia (46%)
India (24%)
These 10 provide the big carbon sinks. We could expand this to the top 50 if you like (this is purely to illustrate). They all have work to do, some more than others. Across the board, there needs to be a 60% increase in forest size. Do this and together with greater industrial efficiency, you're almost there.
Globally, set up a system of trade tariffs that acknowledges the rate of forest creation in each individual country. Failure to meet targets would mean raising tariffs and less income for those not playing ball. This would be a new form of GATT (General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade). Forget Kyoto Protocol and its arbitrary 1990 benchmark, what my benchmark does is acknowledge that humans are the cause of the problem and the solution is collective in nature, but those areas settled earlier and deforested worst must do more to correct the harm. The tariff regime would take account of total economic output and local climate and soil types, so areas that find it harder to grow trees aren't handicapped. China would be a country required to do a lot, as would India and the USA.
What about small countries that emit a lot of carbon dioxide? I checked this and one example is South Korea. However while being a big emitter, their forest coverage is at 63%, so they would meet the benchmark. Once at 60% of forest coverage worldwide, trade tariffs would be set to zero for all nations. Global free trade so long as forest coverage remains at 60%.
Keep developing new technology.
In addition to the above, work on developing new techniques such as enhanced weathering for agriculture. This is where mineral rocks are spread on agricultural land, the effect of which is to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.
And finally, work on mitigating the effects of climate change, learn how to change and adjust. Not all climate change is a negative. Readers will note I haven't included any changes in individual human behaviour. That's because, after hundreds of thousands of years of evolution humans are unlikely to change their habits. All that can be done is to keep improving, keep advancing, and plant trees.
There we have it. Keep it sensible, keep it simple.
March 04, 2019
Sustainable New Zealand
The new centrist Green party in New Zealand is sending out membership forms this week. I suggest, if you're concerned about environmental issues, consider joining the party. The Greens currently in parliament in NZ are a firmly leftist party, and by refusing to deal with centre/right parties have effectively painted themselves into a corner. This new party promises to not do that, which is a good start.
To register interest contact them here: Sustainable New Zealand
To register interest contact them here: Sustainable New Zealand
November 30, 2018
CO2 Capture Tackling GCC
This is the sort of thing I've been talking about, engineer solutions to Global Climate Change. Don't listen to the Greens, they want to destroy civilisation, returning us to the Middle Ages and transferring our wealth to others.
November 28, 2018
Alternatives to Household Recycling
Thought of this the other day; instead of sending a large truck past every house in the country which then use a mechanical arm to lift half-empty recycling wheelie bins (it's the emptiness of the bins being put out that really kills any scheme like this), why not require all houses to install a home trash compactor? Then have a smaller general waste truck come around and pick everything up in the one pass, and take the load straight to landfill.
This would offer several savings; the first being it takes the large recycling trucks off the road. And the smaller rubbish truck is cheaper to run. That's because the waste stream is an issue of volume not weight. Then when at the transfer station, the waste brought in is already compacted and requires less compacting for final transfer to landfill.
Alternatively, do not send the rubbish truck past each house at all. Set up collection points and accept trash compacted at home first. Each day a very small truck then clears this collection point. This is a kind of surge pile and far more efficient.
What my idea does is save on the amount of energy being used disposing of waste. The flash recycling schemes and their wheelie bins are not energy efficient at all, they're damaging to the environment and expensive for ratepayers.
Now before someone says, 'Hang on, how do you get trash compactors in every home?' What could be done is require all home construction obtaining a building consent, to install a trash compactor as a condition of that consent. This would cover all houses being modified and new house construction. For the rest, take the first year's savings from running the large trucks and subsidise the installation. They'd sit in the garage, and can be free standing, you just plug the thing in at the wall.
This would offer several savings; the first being it takes the large recycling trucks off the road. And the smaller rubbish truck is cheaper to run. That's because the waste stream is an issue of volume not weight. Then when at the transfer station, the waste brought in is already compacted and requires less compacting for final transfer to landfill.
Alternatively, do not send the rubbish truck past each house at all. Set up collection points and accept trash compacted at home first. Each day a very small truck then clears this collection point. This is a kind of surge pile and far more efficient.
What my idea does is save on the amount of energy being used disposing of waste. The flash recycling schemes and their wheelie bins are not energy efficient at all, they're damaging to the environment and expensive for ratepayers.
Now before someone says, 'Hang on, how do you get trash compactors in every home?' What could be done is require all home construction obtaining a building consent, to install a trash compactor as a condition of that consent. This would cover all houses being modified and new house construction. For the rest, take the first year's savings from running the large trucks and subsidise the installation. They'd sit in the garage, and can be free standing, you just plug the thing in at the wall.
October 09, 2018
IPCC Drivel
Why do we have to put up with this IPCC nonsense? Who in their right mind believes for one second that Global Climate Change can be reversed?
The solutions as described have the following effects; they hobble the western world and they amount to re-colonisation of the developing world. Just as they're about to enjoy prosperity, Africa and SE Asia are told to stay in their huts and suck it up. It's unworkable.
The solutions as described have the following effects; they hobble the western world and they amount to re-colonisation of the developing world. Just as they're about to enjoy prosperity, Africa and SE Asia are told to stay in their huts and suck it up. It's unworkable.
August 27, 2018
How much more electricity do we need to go to 100% electric vehicles?
Ever wondered? Here's the answer. Please be seated when reading this as the news may knock you over. Electric vehicles are a nonsense.
http://euanmearns.com/how-much-more-electricity-do-we-need-to-go-to-100-electric-vehicles/
http://euanmearns.com/how-much-more-electricity-do-we-need-to-go-to-100-electric-vehicles/
June 27, 2018
The Big Lie About Reycling
The big lie is you're helping save the planet by recycling plastics. Am I committing heresy in saying it? Probably.
Here's the thing; recycling certain metals makes sense. They're expensive and come in limited quantities when mined. An example is gold, silver, lead and copper. Steel, the list goes on and on. But plastic, that's problematic as oil is available in vast quantities despite what the naysayers claim and when produced manufacturers do so in large production runs, using economies of scale.
Now consider the consumer, that's you and me. We go into a store and buy a drink stored in a plastic bottle. Does it make sense to then separate that plastic, transport it, sort it, process it into another plastic whatever? Clearly it does not as the amount of hydrocarbons displaced in 'saving' that precious bottle is greater than what went into making the bottle in the first place.
The only sensible thing you can do is ensure that that plastic bottle takes a short and safe trip to a landfill. Maybe, possibly an incinerator. But it makes absolutely no sense to recycle the thing.
And the really big lie is the one told to you time and again. That lie is when choosing to recycle you're saving the planet, protecting cute seals or some such, sustainable this, eco that. How about this as a sales pitch; are you prepared to take a 20% pay cut to save the planet? Oh and with no certainty that taking a pay cut will actually work, but it will make you feel like you're doing something. Have I won you over? No? Well that's what the consumer is being asked to do as that recycling 'industry' is building cost into every part of their saving everything.
Recycling sometimes makes sense. Mostly though, it's a sales pitch hoodwinking you, the put-upon consumer, into paying more and receiving less. What is the answer? Engineer alternatives that's what. Find other ways to do things. Don't take junk and think you can make something out of it.
Here's the thing; recycling certain metals makes sense. They're expensive and come in limited quantities when mined. An example is gold, silver, lead and copper. Steel, the list goes on and on. But plastic, that's problematic as oil is available in vast quantities despite what the naysayers claim and when produced manufacturers do so in large production runs, using economies of scale.
Now consider the consumer, that's you and me. We go into a store and buy a drink stored in a plastic bottle. Does it make sense to then separate that plastic, transport it, sort it, process it into another plastic whatever? Clearly it does not as the amount of hydrocarbons displaced in 'saving' that precious bottle is greater than what went into making the bottle in the first place.
The only sensible thing you can do is ensure that that plastic bottle takes a short and safe trip to a landfill. Maybe, possibly an incinerator. But it makes absolutely no sense to recycle the thing.
And the really big lie is the one told to you time and again. That lie is when choosing to recycle you're saving the planet, protecting cute seals or some such, sustainable this, eco that. How about this as a sales pitch; are you prepared to take a 20% pay cut to save the planet? Oh and with no certainty that taking a pay cut will actually work, but it will make you feel like you're doing something. Have I won you over? No? Well that's what the consumer is being asked to do as that recycling 'industry' is building cost into every part of their saving everything.
Recycling sometimes makes sense. Mostly though, it's a sales pitch hoodwinking you, the put-upon consumer, into paying more and receiving less. What is the answer? Engineer alternatives that's what. Find other ways to do things. Don't take junk and think you can make something out of it.
May 03, 2017
New Zealand Environment and MMP
New Zealand has a major flaw with its economy and that is it has an anaemic secondary manufacturing sector. NZ does make some things, but not enough of its national income derives from secondary industry. This has a major impact on the environment. To maintain its position as a fully developed OECD economy NZ finds itself having to do two things in the absence of manufacturing; it must flog the land to exhaustion and pollute the rivers.
The intensification of agriculture has got to the breaking point. You will find commentators saying the answer is the service sector and Kiwis doing things smarter. Yes, fine, but NZ is small and isolated, it's hard to get noticed. Its all very well trying to be the next Microsoft or Google but how realistic is that? Not very realistic is my reply, and NZ does not have really big global scale service sectors and I'm thinking banking and insurance. NZ relies on overseas funds from banking and overseas owned insurance companies.
For little NZ, the answer is to extract mineral ores and transform them into metals. Then take those metals and make products from them. Then sell those products worldwide. And if feasible, make those same products in other countries with the design aspect handled in Kiwiland. You may think of Toyota when I say this but I'm thinking Scania. Scania are Swedish heavy trucks and made in factories around the world. But Sweden only has a population of 9 and a bit million. Less than twice the size of NZ. And they have Volvo construction equipment to boot, and on and on. NZ should try to emulate their example.
Will this happen with the current political set-up? Never. The German style of Mixed-member Proportional (MMP) voting introduced in the mid 1990's ensures NZ is stuck with the way it is. The country has professional naysayers in the Greens, refusing to lead or take any responsibility, hogging positions that could be occupied by more able parliamentarians. And contrary to what NZ was promised, the country has rarely had majority governments, instead being led by minority governments hanging on by pleasing the myopic middle ground in order to survive in office. NZ has ended up with the worst of all worlds.
And it will get worse. The day could come where MMP delivers tyranny. One example is where a party receives, say, 60% of the vote but all others fail to get to the 5% threshold. This means all Parliamentary seats would go to the one party making the threshold (in theory but with some seats being won without many party votes, there would be one hell of an overhang in that Parliament). Or how about the ultimate minority party, say one with 35% but the rest unable to garner much more than 10% each, with a large number of votes wasted on parties not making the 5% threshold; meaning the government would rule a country where the overwhelming majority had not voted for it. Incredible, it could actually happen. Who were the fools that foisted this system on the NZ people.
The intensification of agriculture has got to the breaking point. You will find commentators saying the answer is the service sector and Kiwis doing things smarter. Yes, fine, but NZ is small and isolated, it's hard to get noticed. Its all very well trying to be the next Microsoft or Google but how realistic is that? Not very realistic is my reply, and NZ does not have really big global scale service sectors and I'm thinking banking and insurance. NZ relies on overseas funds from banking and overseas owned insurance companies.
For little NZ, the answer is to extract mineral ores and transform them into metals. Then take those metals and make products from them. Then sell those products worldwide. And if feasible, make those same products in other countries with the design aspect handled in Kiwiland. You may think of Toyota when I say this but I'm thinking Scania. Scania are Swedish heavy trucks and made in factories around the world. But Sweden only has a population of 9 and a bit million. Less than twice the size of NZ. And they have Volvo construction equipment to boot, and on and on. NZ should try to emulate their example.
Will this happen with the current political set-up? Never. The German style of Mixed-member Proportional (MMP) voting introduced in the mid 1990's ensures NZ is stuck with the way it is. The country has professional naysayers in the Greens, refusing to lead or take any responsibility, hogging positions that could be occupied by more able parliamentarians. And contrary to what NZ was promised, the country has rarely had majority governments, instead being led by minority governments hanging on by pleasing the myopic middle ground in order to survive in office. NZ has ended up with the worst of all worlds.
And it will get worse. The day could come where MMP delivers tyranny. One example is where a party receives, say, 60% of the vote but all others fail to get to the 5% threshold. This means all Parliamentary seats would go to the one party making the threshold (in theory but with some seats being won without many party votes, there would be one hell of an overhang in that Parliament). Or how about the ultimate minority party, say one with 35% but the rest unable to garner much more than 10% each, with a large number of votes wasted on parties not making the 5% threshold; meaning the government would rule a country where the overwhelming majority had not voted for it. Incredible, it could actually happen. Who were the fools that foisted this system on the NZ people.
April 14, 2017
Greens Naysaying Again
Why do young people vote Green? They've got to be the most negative political party I've seen. Their latest opposition is against the water export scheme from South Westland in the South Island of New Zealand. First they opposed non-renewable, now they oppose renewable as well, when will this end, when homo sapiens are back living in caves?
I wrote about the scheme here: http://kenhorlor.blogspot.com/2017/01/innovative-water-export-scheme.html
I notice the campaign to stop this project are completely misrepresenting where the water is to be taken from and what impact it will have on the environment. The water is not being taken from a national park, and it will have absolutely no effect on the environment.
The impact on global climate change will be positive and schemes like this should get widespread support from environmentalists. One of the problems of climate change is the lack of cloud formation and thus precipitation from the areas where it is most needed. As an example, the Sahara desert is spreading south because of this, but the problem is global. Greening areas impacted by a lack of water holds back the tide. Water from South Westland is literally a drop in the bucket for that region but a vital resource for those that need the water.
Greens, a message, stop being silly and get behind something that helps the environment and which is renewable.
I wrote about the scheme here: http://kenhorlor.blogspot.com/2017/01/innovative-water-export-scheme.html
I notice the campaign to stop this project are completely misrepresenting where the water is to be taken from and what impact it will have on the environment. The water is not being taken from a national park, and it will have absolutely no effect on the environment.
The impact on global climate change will be positive and schemes like this should get widespread support from environmentalists. One of the problems of climate change is the lack of cloud formation and thus precipitation from the areas where it is most needed. As an example, the Sahara desert is spreading south because of this, but the problem is global. Greening areas impacted by a lack of water holds back the tide. Water from South Westland is literally a drop in the bucket for that region but a vital resource for those that need the water.
Greens, a message, stop being silly and get behind something that helps the environment and which is renewable.
February 24, 2017
When swimmable is not really swimmable
Now we get to see just how incompetent Bill English and his best friend Nick Smith really are. They do not understand that you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. What the National led government of New Zealand have done is lower the standard by which water quality is measured. Dirty is the new clean. It's nothing more than outrageous.
And why is Nick Smith, Minister of Friendship with the Prime Minister, referencing overseas standards? North America and Europe have screwed over their environment, why should New Zealand do the same?
National is a political party for farmers, so it is to be expected they'd protect their own. But the reason we're in this situation is because New Zealand failed to do two things, and this will be very unpalatable for the Greens to hear.
New Zealand failed to exploit mining, and it failed to develop secondary manufacturing. Had it done both, then the land would not need to be flogged the way it is now and the rivers would be clean. Instead what we have are thousands of farms irrigating like billy-o and polluting heavily. Or the rivers don't even reach the sea in some cases.
It didn't need to be this way, but New Zealand jumped on the Thatcherite bandwagon and threw the baby out with the bathwater, gutting the country's manufacturing as it existed back in the 1980's. Then latterly the Greens, who are simply communists re-branded and can't be trusted with anything, oppose mining on any level. Grow up New Zealand, minerals in commercial quantities are concentrated in certain areas, unlock those minerals and sit back and de-intensify the farmland. Then make stuff in factories and export that output.
And why is Nick Smith, Minister of Friendship with the Prime Minister, referencing overseas standards? North America and Europe have screwed over their environment, why should New Zealand do the same?
National is a political party for farmers, so it is to be expected they'd protect their own. But the reason we're in this situation is because New Zealand failed to do two things, and this will be very unpalatable for the Greens to hear.
New Zealand failed to exploit mining, and it failed to develop secondary manufacturing. Had it done both, then the land would not need to be flogged the way it is now and the rivers would be clean. Instead what we have are thousands of farms irrigating like billy-o and polluting heavily. Or the rivers don't even reach the sea in some cases.
It didn't need to be this way, but New Zealand jumped on the Thatcherite bandwagon and threw the baby out with the bathwater, gutting the country's manufacturing as it existed back in the 1980's. Then latterly the Greens, who are simply communists re-branded and can't be trusted with anything, oppose mining on any level. Grow up New Zealand, minerals in commercial quantities are concentrated in certain areas, unlock those minerals and sit back and de-intensify the farmland. Then make stuff in factories and export that output.
January 06, 2017
Innovative Water Export Scheme
I've been saying it for a long time and now it looks like someone has got the idea over the line - almost.
The West Coast of the South Island of New Zealand is one of the wettest places on earth. The rain runs right off the mountains into the sea. It's pure fresh water untouched by industry. The water is suitable for export as ships can park right off the coast for loading.
>> The Scheme <<
A company has ambitious plans to pipe glacial water from rugged South Westland mountains directly onto tanker ships headed overseas.
Plans such as these help combat global climate change if the water is used right. If the water is exported to help green the deserts, then moisture from plant growth would help cloud formation and hence precipitation around the earth in areas where water is badly needed. The volume they're talking about taking is a drop in the proverbial bucket compared to the total rainfall on the West Coast.
The West Coast of the South Island of New Zealand is one of the wettest places on earth. The rain runs right off the mountains into the sea. It's pure fresh water untouched by industry. The water is suitable for export as ships can park right off the coast for loading.
>> The Scheme <<
A company has ambitious plans to pipe glacial water from rugged South Westland mountains directly onto tanker ships headed overseas.
Plans such as these help combat global climate change if the water is used right. If the water is exported to help green the deserts, then moisture from plant growth would help cloud formation and hence precipitation around the earth in areas where water is badly needed. The volume they're talking about taking is a drop in the proverbial bucket compared to the total rainfall on the West Coast.