More Green Taliban economy wrecking

While some political parties in New Zealand claim that they will create a “Green Economy”, similar plans for renewable energy targets are clearly wrecking the German economy.

Today’s Herald provides yet another story illustrating the economic catastrophe that is subsidised renewable energy.

“German firms pay twice as much for electricity as US rivals, and 30 per cent more than the EU average.

“The international competitiveness of German industry is in danger,” said the BDI.

The deal will trim subsidies to solar and wind power to contain costs spiralling towards 1 trillion over 25 years, but at the same time it sets a renewable target of 55 per cent to 60 per cent of total energy by 2035.”  

And fracking seems to be very unpopular – so they are going back to burning old fashioned coal.

“The coalition ruled out any move on shale fracking. Utilities will have to rely on coal to plug gaps, playing havoc with Germany’s greenhouse gas targets.”

As usual, more policy based on fear, scaremongering and complete lack of scientific evidence.

So they fire up some dirty great big coal power plants instead.

Clever Greenies.


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Quinton Hogg

    The odd thing is yesterday I read that Berkshire Hathaway (Warren Buffett) are buying into a turbine manufacturer.
    probably because the price is good, but it did strike me as an interesting move.

    • Patrick

      BH are awash with cash apparently & have been on an acquisition path for some time, swallowed up one of the largest crane companies in Perth about 12 months ago, bunch of Yanks telling Aussies how to run their (previously theirs) company has caused ructions too.
      As for the turbines I guess they have recognised how beholden the Western economies have become to this “Green” socialism & decided to cash in.

  • Polish Pride

    So you want clean waterways and clean air (presumably) yet at every opportunity you point out the prohibitive cost of having it without subsidies.
    It will at the moment cost more to have Green Energy (after all big oil have had subsidies and tax breaks for decades upon decades ). Not having it will simply result in more pollution – something nobody wants more of.

    If it is not financially viable long term, then this is more of an argument that the System and its focus on the economy and its inability to deliver Green Energy en mass is inadequate for the needs of mankind and that we need to seriously look at alternative systems that can deliver it where money will not be a barrier to doing so.

    • Other_Andy

      What is the relation between clean waterways, clean air and solar and wind energy?

      • Medium Sized Des

        Exactly, there is no such thing as ‘clean energy’.

        • Other_Andy

          As it is impossible for solar and wind energy to provide a sufficient and reliable base-load for a modern industrialised country and need ‘conventional’ backup 247, they are just useless, expensive feel-good gimmicks.

          • Polish Pride

            Really!?! Try thinking outside the box for a second Andy.
            Imagine solar grid tied systems on the roof of every home in this country.
            Imagine small silent wind turbines on every home and building where it’s viable (not financially i.e. with enough wind to generate electricity)
            Now imagine the remainder of our electricity needs supplied by Geothermal, Hydro and, Refuse.
            Result: about as clean as it gets and 100% renewable.

          • Other_Andy

            Yes really.
            1. Wind and solar energy are only viable in areas where it is not possible to connect to the grid. Even then, to have a sufficient and reliable base-load, it ALWAYS requires conventional backup.
            2. Solar and wind feedback into the grid (grid tied systems) causes havoc for transmission and back-up power
            3. I like hydro and geothermal. But then again, the green Taliban also opposed hydro and geothermal power.
            If you are really serious, buy your solar panels and windmills and get off the grid!

          • Polish Pride

            Your still thinking inside the box.

            “1. Wind and solar energy are only viable in areas where it is not possible to connect to the grid. Even then, to have a sufficient and reliable base-load, it ALWAYS requires conventional backup.”
            ignore cost (in dollar terms) altogether it should then be much more viable

            “2. Solar and wind feedback into the grid (grid tied systems) causes havoc for transmission and back-up power”

            Why does it cause havoc? how do you solve the problem so that it doesn’t?

            “3. If you are really serious, buy your solar panels and windmills and get off the grid!”
            That was the plan.. but I bought a toy that nearly doubled my power bill ;) so I think at best I’ll probably have a grid tied solution down the track…

          • Bretto

            It’s a nice idea, but the box may be there for a reason. Geothermal is a very limited resource, environmentalists have blocked any investment in hydro, and refuse burning uses natural gas.

          • Polish Pride

            The box is only there to defend the indefensible.

            Yes Geothermal is limited but should be used where it is available.

            environmentalists have blocked any investment in hydro – if the alternative choice is further investment in coal mining and a solution such as the one outlined above giving 100% renewable energy within 10 – 15 years is put on the table then it should be pretty easy to get them to pull their heads in on expanding hydro. (My personal experience is that there are no downsides to hydro).
            Wasn’t aware of refuse using natural gas – I guess you learn something new everyday.

          • Bretto

            Yip, geothermal will run out if it’s used for energy, or if it doesn’t rain for a while. Refuse doesn’t burn by itself, they’re actually just gas-fired incinerators with a little “energy recovery”. Unless you burn the methane (a greenhouse gas) from decomposition. And the greens will keep bouncing you back until you agree to use less energy i.e. reduce growth (although they do want to reduce poverty at the same time).

            So not so indefensible after all.

          • Polish Pride

            oh sorry it was the methane gas solution I was thinking of.
            Talk to the ‘right’ Greens and there are some that want a systemic solution that requires less energy with more technological advancement and more for everyone than is provided by the current system.
            Geothermal if used needs to be used sustainably.
            As for not being indefensible I guess it all comes down to perspective.

          • Bretto

            Less energy and more for everyone… there’s that box again!

            I think well managed nuclear is a great solution until fusion is cracked. And that’s where all the research money should be going, instead of floating wind farms and solar arrays.

            That’s what the “right” Greens are advocating.

  • Other_Andy

    “So they fire up some dirty great big coal power plants instead.”
    Myth alert: Modern coal power plants are not dirty.

    • Polish Pride

      Maybe so but they are anything but renewable energy..

      • Other_Andy

        “…but they are anything but renewable energy.”
        So what?
        It is reliable and cheap when compared to wind and solar.
        But then again, nuclear (Thorium) power is even better.

        • Polish Pride

          wind and solar in the right system can be free and unlimited.
          In that same system coal is free but not unlimited.

          • Andy

            In the UK they are backing up their wind fleet with diesel generators. Also, they are finding that turbines are not actually lasting that long, especially the offshore ones. The only bit that is “free and sustainable” is the wind. The rest of the system is incredibly expensive and inefficient, and might actually increase fossil fuel usage overall

          • Polish Pride

            This is why I keep saying to take financial cost out of the equation.
            Do so and you remove vested interests that come with fossil fuels.
            you remove planned obsolescence that probably exists with wind turbines.
            You allow for better design unconstrained by both cost and the profit motive.
            Not saying it will solve all the problems at once but it will remove the monetary and current systemic barriers that exist and fast track us away from needing fossil fuels.

      • Lopsy

        Ever considered that perhaps they are?. What are the chances that those emissions are absorbed into the biosphere to become earthbound hydrocarbons once again?. It happened before without a single human influence. Just a thought.

        • Polish Pride

          Interesting.. And no I hadn’t

  • Orange

    The odd German I have spoken to are very upset at the direction the country is going in.

    • This survey suggest the majority of Germans support the adoption of renewable energy, but fewer are comfortable with the process the government has undertaken to implement the change (at least I think that is the general tone.): “82 % of the German consumers still support the phase-out of nuclear energy and the expansion of renewable energies, but only 40% agree with the implementation of the energy turnaround, the Federation of German Consumer Organisation (Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband – vzbz) says.”

      • Bretto

        I think it means that 82% like the theory, but 60% can see the negative consequences of uncompetitive industry and higher living costs. When I lived there, the one thing Germans feared more than pollution was unemployment. Looks like that hasn’t changed.

  • cows4me

    The only thing the Melon bastards will excel in producing is poverty and misery. Like the arseholes in Germany our home grown fools would kill this country by a death of a thousand cuts. They would up the carbon taxes and dairy farmers would be taxed out of existence because of the lies that cattle are warming the atmosphere. Fracking and oil exploration would cease, hundreds would be out of work. I guess the list is endless. I would even go so far as to say if these fucktards ever get the chance to govern New Zealand will be in a near state of civil war.

    • No, we wouldn’t want anything like the democratic process getting in the way of environmentally destructive practices.

      You go, girl!

      • Other_Andy

        Straw man alert.

      • cows4me

        There’s nothing democratic in removing vast amounts of wealth from the productive in a vain attempt to bribe the feckless.

    • Polish Pride

      “I would even go so far as to say if these fucktards ever get the chance to govern New Zealand will be in a near state of civil war.”

      And you would be wrong ……historically speaking

      However this:
      They would up the carbon taxes and dairy farmers would be taxed out of existence
      ….is worth talking about.
      This is thinking about solutions solely within the constraints of the current system where the current system is quickly becoming unable to cope with the problems (real or imaginary) we face. The belief that a carbon tax on a food source is required to solve climate change is astoundingly shortsighted at best.
      The whole premise behind carbon taxes should to encourage the polluter to reduce there emissions. How is a dairy farmer to do this?
      If this does go further then the cries of show us where he money will go first should be deafening.
      Next it should be pointed out that if this is the best solution they can come up with then perhaps we need to look at a new system that will easily enable us to solve the perceived problems as the current one clearly does not.

      • cows4me

        The case could be strongly made PP that pastoral farming actually reduces or helps to control climate. Our grasses are vast absorbers of carbon as grass growth is rapid and takes in huge amounts of carbon dioxide. Also new studies have shown that gasses emitted from livestock actually help in the formation of clouds and they in return reflect infrared rays back into space thus reducing so called global warming. Of course is will not matter when it comes to the fruitloops, they only seek to destroy by way of wealth redistribution.

        • Andy

          The other issue is that methane is formed from CO2 and water that originally came from the atmosphere and ground, hence is a closed loop (unlike CO2 from burning fossil fuels). methane breaks down to the original CO2 and water after a decade.
          The argument hinges on the “Global Warming Potential” of methane which the official position puts at 23 times that of CO2. This figure is based on some fairly speculative stuff though.

          The ruminant methane issue is a massive non-problem

    • Gordon Gibson

      Very good points there Cows.

  • Germany’s economic performance faces it biggest criticism from its competitors because its trade surpluses are too high: “A repeat of the recent international criticism over Germany’s massive trade surplus, however, is unlikely, as imports rose at an even greater rate than exports — at a surprising 2.9 percent. Thus the trade balance, the difference between exports and imports, shrunk to €17.9 billion from the record high of €20.4 billion reached in September.”

    Furthermore, Germany’s energy policy is, domestically, very popular: “Germany doesn’t just have an incremental approach to renewable energy, but a commitment supported by 84 percent of residents to get to 100% renewable energy “as quickly as possible.” A few U.S. states have renewable energy visions (e.g. 33% by 2020, 25% by 2025) that approach Germany’s, but they’re mired in the notion that despite enormous savings to society in terms of health and environmental benefits, renewable energy shouldn’t cost any more today than conventional, dirty energy on the utility bill. Germans have taken the long view (about energy security, price volatility, etc).”

    • Other_Andy

      Yep, it such a success that they are opening ten new hard-coal power stations in the next two years.
      And solar and wind energy don’t save society anything in terms of health and environmental benefits.

      • Polish Pride

        “And solar and wind energy don’t save society anything in terms of health and environmental benefits.”
        Please elaborate, I’d love to know what you base this statement on…

        • Other_Andy

          You’re a funny guy.
          Why don’t you elaborate why solar and wind have health and environmental benefits.

          • I provided a comprehensive article with references to detailed analysis which clearly demonstrates renewables have huge health and environmental benefits, here it is again: “The economic value of health impacts is approximately an order of magnitude larger than estimates of the social cost of carbon for fossil fuel electricity. In total, we estimate that the economic value of health impacts from fossil fuel electricity in the United States is $361.7-886.5 billion annually, representing 2.5-6.0% of the national GDP.” US National Library of MedicineNational Institutes of Health

          • Other_Andy

            you ‘provided’ a link to a page of the “Union of Concerned Scientists” (Ahum…) which states that the health and environmental benefits are:
            1. Little to No Global Warming Emissions
            2. Improved Public Health and Environmental Quality

            Number 1 – neither a health or an environmental benefit
            Number 2 – a statement without facts.

            Detailed analysis hardly.

          • Number 1 – neither a health or an environmental benefitNumber 2 – a statement without facts.

            This summary: “”The economic value of health impacts is approximately an order of magnitude larger than estimates of the social cost of carbon for fossil fuel electricity. In total, we estimate that the economic value of health impacts from fossil fuel electricity in the United States is $361.7-886.5 billion annually, representing 2.5-6.0% of the national GDP.”,is from the abstract of a study published by The National Center for Biotechnology Information.

            But by all means, Other_Andy, you keep digging that hole.

        • Andy

          Wind energy has been shown to have adverse health effects on humans due to the sub-audible noise from the “thump-thump” of the blades. This information has been suppressed from the public until recently

          • Polish Pride

            In my view it is being done at the wrong level. ie. wind farms
            and I’m not surprised they are a blight on the landscape and if they tried to put them in our area the farmers might start targeting something other than possums.
            Instead smaller silent wind turbines on houses or buildings would be a better alternative….. but not under the current system as it would not be sensible economically.

      • “And solar and wind energy don’t save society anything in terms of health and environmental benefits.”

        Can you back this up with anything resembling empirical research, as this article here suggests the exact opposite of what you are saying:

        “According to data aggregated by the International Panel on Climate Change, life-cycle global warming emissions associated with renewable energy—including manufacturing, installation, operation and maintenance, and dismantling and decommissioning—are minimal”

        Generating electricity from renewable energy rather than fossil fuels offers significant public health benefits. The air and water pollution emitted by coal and natural gas plants is linked to breathing problems, neurological damage, heart attacks, and cancer. Replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy has been found to reduce premature mortality and lost workdays, and it reduces overall healthcare costs [6]. The aggregate national economic impact associated with these health impacts of fossil fuels is between $361.7 and $886.5 billion, or between 2.5 percent and 6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).” [in the US]

        “Compared with fossil fuel technologies, which are typically mechanized and capital intensive, the renewable energy industry is more labor-intensive. This means that, on average, more jobs are created for each unit of electricity generated from renewable sources than from fossil fuels.”

        “The costs of renewable energy technologies have declined steadily, and are projected to drop even more. For example, the average price of a solar panel has dropped almost 60 percent since 2011 [20]. The cost of generating electricity from wind dropped more than 20 percent between 2010 and 2012 and more than 80 percent since 1980 [21].”

        “Wind and solar are less prone to large-scale failure because they are distributed and modular. Distributed systems are spread out over a large geographical area, so a severe weather event in one location will not cut off power to an entire region. Modular systems are composed of numerous individual wind turbines or solar arrays. Even if some of the equipment in the system is damaged, the rest can typically continue to operate.”

        • Other_Andy

          I stopped reading your copy and paste job when I got to ‘International Panel on Climate Change’ and ‘global warming’.

          • Heh, no, we wouldn’t want anything like empirical peer reviewed scientific research undermining your fanciful rant.

          • Other_Andy

            “empirical peer reviewed scientific research”
            From the IPCC?
            Now who is ranting?

          • johnbronkhorst

            BULL SHIT……..says it all really.
            When you have to make up results, compound your lies with “peer reviews” of made up results.
            The evidence is neither “scientific” or “empirical”.
            The IPCC is a POLITICAL entity that has been discredited, due to the pressure and threats it puts on real scientists to come up with “evidence” that agrees with the IPCC’s view of the world.
            Ignoring anything that disagrees with their world socialist money redistribution solution to a nonexistant (or at least unproven) theory!

          • Talk about an easy beat:…a new report out last week showing that 97% of published papers affirm a human cause for the changing climate—piggybacking on a report showing only 24 papers out of 14,000 refute climate change as a phenomenon—you might have to spend awhile page turning; you are more likely to have a stroke than pull a negative study from the pile.

          • johnbronkhorst

            See you deleted the BS that arrived in my inbox.

          • Talk about an easy beat:…a new report out last week showing that 97% of published papers affirm a human cause for the changing climate—piggybacking on a report showing only 24 papers out of 14,000 refute climate change as a phenomenon—you might have to spend awhile page turning; you are more likely to have a stroke than pull a negative study from the pile.

        • cows4me

          The IPCC …………oh please, they have about as much credibility as old pants down.

          • The IPCC is a hub that collates a publishes data from many thousands of scientists globally. The fear among a growing number of climate scientists is the IPCC is down playing the threat anthropogenic global warming presents to the survival of the human species:“According to a study just published in Nature Geoscience, twice as much methane as previously thought is being released from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, a two million square kilometer area off the coast of Northern Siberia. Its researchers found that at least 17 teragrams (one million tons) of methane are being released into the atmosphere each year, whereas a 2010 study had found only seven teragrams heading into the atmosphere. … Ira Leifer, an atmospheric and marine scientist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and one of the authors of the recent Arctic Methane study pointed out to me that “the Permian mass extinction that occurred 250 million years ago is related to methane and thought to be the key to what caused the extinction of most species on the planet.” In that extinction episode, it is estimated that 95% of all species were wiped out.”

          • johnbronkhorst


          • cows4me

            So all this AGW crap and the IPCC reports aren’t worth a tin of horseshit then but it never was Yoza, it is about simple wealth redistribution or in lay mans terms, highway robbery dressed up as a good cause.

          • Wealth redistribution is the essence of the capitalist system, when wealth ceases to be redistributed the system atrophies and social unrest ensues.
            The economy does not require fewer and fewer people gaining greater control over the allocation of resources, especially when that control is having an observably destructive effect on the habitat which we require to survive. The big problem with the IPCC is the pressure placed on it by governments to understate the threat humanity faces from the inevitable effects of global warming as a consequence of human activity.

          • Don W

            Would you prefer that the wealth is in the the hands of gov’t . Who do you think creates the wealth. Definitely not gov’t. When Gov’t’s control the means of production it means Gov’t rich ,citizens poor . eg North Korea , Soviet union

          • Workers create wealth as they are the group to which currency must flow as motivation for the varying forms of production to be maintained. Without the existence of future potential production the idea of ‘wealth’ is meaningless. Where there is ‘wealth’ there must also be a corresponding level of debt (to put it in simple terms: If you have $100 in a bank account the bank owes you a debt of $100 plus the interest they have agreed to pay; the bank must then loan that hundred out at a higher rate of interest to stay ahead of the game; the person to whom the bank has loaned the money then has to figure out a way of investing that $100 in a project that will return a greater sum than the principal plus the interest being charged by the bank; renting themselves out to work off the debt; or selling possessions.)

            So we can define wealth as that which can motivate future enterprise among the productive classes – the workers. In such a scenario it makes little difference if the coordination of wealth is in the hands of the government or private interests, what is important is that sufficient levels of wealth are allowed to continue flowing through the system to maintain a functioning, cohesive society.

            One major problem/contradiction the financial system will be forced to confront is the amount of debt it expects to be met by future production exceeds the planet’s capacity to both satisfy this need and provide a survivable habitat for its denizens. Allowing private interests to orchestrate when and how much debt must be repaid; or to put it another way the level of future production required, is allowing an undemocratically selected group to risk the survival of the human species in the interests of increasing their personal fortunes.

            The survival of humanity should be a democratic process, not an externality imposed by an out of touch ruling elite attempting to force an unsustainable economic system to deliver on their delusional ideology.

          • Don W

            Wealth can be defined as the provision of goods and services that we as humans need to not only sustain our lives but also to pursue our happiness for the short time we are here on mother earth. When men are free to pursue free productive enterprise,supply of those goods and services are ample, when the state controls the means of production shortages ensue as there is no imagination, no innovation , stagnation, history tell us this.Russia’s state owned car factory , Lada ceased the production of it’s car, wagon last year. They had been building these vehicles for 40 years without any real change, no imagination ,no innovation , stagnation. Everyone in the soviet union had a job ,there were very old women working long hours during the night shoveling snow just to scratch a subsistence living. The soviet union went broke because socialism is unsustainable. The soviet union was extremely polluted. China under Mao tse tung was impoverished . Post Mao,China open it’s borders to trade and introduced a capitalist economy and hasn’t it changed for the better. Mugabe expelled the capitalist farmers and Zimbabwe has gone from a prosperous country to one of the most impoverished countries in the world.
            Human survival is dependent on the human mind, but only if as individuals we are free to be able to exercise their minds and apply our talents. We have a good standard of living here thanks to a good amount of freedom and free enterprise

    • Don W

      Correct me if I am wrong but haven’t the Pom decided to build more nuclear power plants because the wind and solar are not up to providing an adequate supply of electricity?

      • I’m not sure. Nuclear energy does seem to offer environmental benefits as they do not emit carbon dioxide and nuclear waste is managed relatively efficiently in the case of modern nuclear power-plants.

        There still exists public concern about the potential for catastrophic accidents and they are extraordinarily expensive to construct.

        • johnbronkhorst

          So the solution:
          Build a nuclear power plant in Len Brown’s back yard.
          That way when his dick falls off and he starts to glow in the dark, we will have our early warning system, that there is a leak!
          Solving NZ’s electricity and mayoralty problems in one go.

        • Don W

          U K Prime minister David Cameron announced in October that they would start building nuclear power plants because he feared that electricity could be in short supply

        • Other_Andy

          “.. environmental benefits as they do not emit carbon dioxide”

          Emitting carbon dioxide is environmentally beneficial as it promotes plant growth.
          I am hoping it will increase to 1000 ppm.
          As the effect on temperature of CO2 is logarithmic and the T varies with the 4th root of P doubling CO2 levels might increase the global temperature a bit which is also beneficial as it has been cooling for the last decade. However, that might be optimistic as the feedbacks seem to be negative.

      • Gordon Gibson

        Yep, heard that somewhere.
        Reminds me of folks I know on a remote North Pacific island, they paid heaps to install a windmill, about 2 metres diameter, for their house and business.
        Trouble is they then had a protracted period of very minimal wind.
        I told them I could probably generate more electricity by rubbing my ball bag up and down the back of Grandma’s velour couch.
        Needless to say I haven’t been invited back for lunch lol.

  • ridsel

    Current “cleantech” is too useless to waste money implementing. The fact that it needs subsidies to be adopted indicates there’s a problem. R&D will be conducted to find a compelling substitute for fossil fuels and that will eventually result in good cleantech that doesn’t need subsidisation. The big energy firms are smart enough to trying to find good substitutes first so they don’t go out of business. Trying to make a difference by implementing current cleantech would be like trying to get universal adoption of personal computers in 1970… expensive and of no little benefit beyond making people think something tangible was happening.

  • Gordon Gibson

    Clever, clever Gweenies.

  • Truth lies

    I love the bigotry any discussion on green issues brings up. It really shows how much as a nation we exploit the nature based resources at our disposal. Once we had the luxury of being smug and looking at Europe and saying we can still plunder and free trough, now we are seeing the dire impact of unfettered greed. Why are we so short sighted that we are keen to leave our grandchildren a unproductive farm essentially?

    • Don W

      Everything we use as humans use comes from mother earth , Un less you know something that the rest of don’t ?

      • Polish Pride

        There’s technology that allows us to do so responsibly and irresponsibly. So far we continue to follow irresponsible methods because it makes sense economically. If that is the justification then we need to relook at the basis of our system and what it is here to do for us.

        • Bretto

          I believe the basis of our system is to improve quality of life (see, how capitalism has lifted people out of real poverty). So we could also consider a massive population reduction to help the environment, but it’s a bit of a hard sell to the voters.

          • Polish Pride

            “I believe the basis of our system is to improve quality of life”
            It is unfortunately still a pretty poor system in the big scheme of things.
            and over half the population of the world do not have the bottom level of Maslow’s Hierarchy met through Capitalism.
            You could increase the worlds population and help the environment and easily meet all of the levels on Maslow’s with the right system.

          • Bretto

            Over half is way less than 1000 years ago. But with The Right System everything would be fine? Good luck with that.

          • Polish Pride

            Yes but given the following:

            “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” – Margaret Mead.
            Everyone has the same 24 hours in a day. The difference between a beggar on the street and JP Morgan is simply what they did with those 24 hours. ie. do more be more everyday.
            That I have about 50 years to do it
            The belief that every problem has a solution, you just have to find it.
            a crystal understanding of the levers required to facilitate change and how and when to apply them.
            I like my chances ;)
            The best part is that if I win… then so do you.

          • Don W

            What do you think would be the right system. You seem to dislike capitalism. The quality of life in this country has improved immensely in my life time and most of the technical advancements have come from competitive industry endeavoring to make a profit. Would you prefer to see the means of production in the hands of gov’t.

          • Polish Pride

            I apologize in advance for the long response but your questions are timely as I needed to provide this information for another party (not political) by Monday anyway so the timing was almost uncanny.

            No its not that I dislike Capitalism. I simply see its flaws and the fact that it is now holding society back from advancing.

            Consider this for a moment.. We have a System that we all live under and abide by.

            This system has evolved overtime but is essentially a system for mankind.

            Why is it then that if the system is for mankind that we have to work for it in order to survive.

            This is akin to Henry Ford designing the Model T and then pushing it everywhere he wants to go.

            It is only common sense to have a system that is for mankind to be structured to work for man not the other way around.

            “The quality of life in this country has improved immensely in my life time and most of the technical advancements have come from competitive industry endeavoring to make a profit.”

            Yes it has but arguably the combustion engine has had more to do with that than Capitalism.

            If you want to look at it like you are then you should look at the entire picture. This would include Capitalisms part in Poverty, War (through war profiteering), and the Human trafficking and child sex slave trade.

            Even Communist countries have made it into space and now to the moon so I don’t think you can lay technological advancement at the feet of Capitalism or the Russians and the Chinese would still be on horseback.

            The thing that Capitalism does have over Communism though is much shorter planning timeframes and the ability to react faster to demand from the populace as a result.

            In fact this was the ultimate failure of Communism. You can plan all you want but if you get it wrong on something like the food supply then either your system will collapse or you need to rule with an iron fist in order to maintain control. You can see these things if you look hard enough into every country that has tried Communism.

            However this is not about Communism.

            It is about systems analysis and system design.

            It is about determining what the purpose of the system should be…. and as it is a system for mankind it is about determining what it is that Man wants…

            As Bretto has said earlier he believes the current purpose of the system is to improve the quality of life for people.

            A noble cause … but how many people around the world has it failed to do this for.

            If we are to have a system for mankind It should be a system that is designed to enable Man to be happy.

            This should be the goal of the system. How do we achieve this when what everyone wants is different…?

            This is where Maslow’s Hierarchy comes in.

            Maslow’s Hierarchy is widely accepted as what man needs to have fulfilled to be truly happy.

            The system that we have should facilitate these things in the most direct and efficient way possible.

            Capitalism has unfortunately become inefficient and money has gone from being a mechanism for exchange to now being a barrier to being able to do many of the things we need to.

            Prime examples in this country are

            The Auckland Traffic

            Transmission Gully

            We have both the resources and know how to do both of these things. So why haven’t we done them if they fix problems that exist.

            Money or lack of it is the reason they haven’t been done.

            By the same token, poverty and people not having enough to eat in African countries (aside from dictatorial regimes) is also down to money being a barrier. Its not that we don’t produce enough food. Its also not that it costs too much to feed them, it doesn’t. The problem is that under Capitalism feeding them just isn’t profitable enough. In fact it is more profitable to overfeed people in first world countries, leading to obesity problems which then become lucrative not only for the food industry but for the health industry and pharmaceutical companies with the health conditions and complications that come with obesity.

            The solution is actually to remove money from the equation and to change the way we think about things.

            Sound crazy?

            Well think about it. Think about the things you want, need and already have in your life. You didn’t actually need money, You needed (or wanted depending on the item) the things you bought with it. Food, Car, Home, Flat Screen TV. The money was what was the mechanism to obtain them in the current system but it can be removed. If the money wasn’t there, the need (or want) doesn’t disappear and is still satisfied by the same items.

            You need to get around and as such you determine that you need a car.

            Removing money from the system and providing direct access to the things that people want eliminates the problem of money having become a barrier.

            There are a couple of concepts that come with Capitalism

            ‘The Profit Motive’ and ‘Planned Obsolecence’.

            Under the current system The Profit Motive essentially means that the ultimate goal of any business especially under capitalism is to make money. Whats wrong with that!? well on the face of it nothing. Look a little deeper though and a few things that are not so good start to emerge from it. The Profit Motive doesn’t necessarily result in the best possible design or the best use of resources. In fact it often results in a shocking use of resources compared to what we could have.

            Consider the following:

            Chances are you own a vehicle, in fact in this day and age you probably have more than one. So do most of the people you know. So do most of the people in this country. Now think about how many Cars are sitting on car yards (both new and used) where you live, now think about all the cars on car yards throughout the rest of the country. Now on all car yards around the world, Now think about all the cars that are being manufactured right now at Toyota, Nissan, Mazda, Ford, Holden and so on.

            It is not mainly to satisfy demand (although granted a certain amount of real demand does exist) It is because of the Profit Motive. People have to be paid in order to survive in the current system.

            Toyota have to continuously make and sell cars in order to make a profit.

            They of course like any business or company have to do this so that they can pay their staff, their shareholders and their suppliers. Marketing companies get paid to essentially manufacture demand. It is all about sell sell sell. The more profit the better in the current system.

            Often that means building things of lower quality in order to derive a greater profit through either a higher margin or selling greater quantities at a lower price.

            Many products are built to have a short lifespan so that you the consumer need to purchase the same product every 2-5 years. Mobile phones and Laptops are a great example of this. If you have your phone for more than two years you are probably the exception to the general rule. If something breaks on your laptop, it is often cheaper and easier to buy a new one than it is to replace the failed part.

            This is planned obsolescence in action.

            Swandri make a product that is so good and so reliable that it nearly put them out of business. Why? people generally only need one swandri or perhaps two in their lifetime. Great for the consumer but not so good for the profitability of the company.

            Lightbulbs is another. We know how to make lightbulbs that last pretty much forever or at least a very very long time. We don’t though as it is not good for the profit of the lightbulb manufacturers. They want you to, in fact they need you to buy more lightbulbs.

            Taking the ‘Profit Motive’ and ‘Planned Obsolescence’ out of the equation paves the way for us to have products with better design that last and as a result use far less resources.

            Under the current system people need to make money in order to survive and lead a somewhat normal life. But we have reached a level of technological advancement where if we wanted to we could automate and do away with half the roles currently fulfilled by people in society.

            I have spent nearly twenty years in IT working on projects that often streamline and automate things so that people are no longer required to do the role in question. Often large groups of people. If we can automate a specific role in one company, we can automate them in all of them.

            The problem is that despite society not really needing that role anymore, because of the way the system works and the need to earn money in order to survive and live a normal life, the person must now go out and try to find another job. One of the key indicators for Government is the Unemployment rate. The goal under the current system is of course to aim to have it as low as possible.

            If we looked at what people really want and need and designed the system around that this would be the first concept to go. For most people the most important thing for them is spending time with friends and family, yet despite this and because of the way the system is right now, a large percentage of this time is spent away from them. In fact many people spend the majority of their lives working so they can afford to spend time with friends and family. If you can take a step back from the system it is easy to see that this defies common sense. But right now that’s the way the system works.

            I said that if we designed the system around what people want and need, the concept of needing low unemployment would be the first thing to go.

            The reality is it would not only go, it would be flipped on its head entirely. The goal would become to free as many people from having to work as possible or to have the highest possible unemployment.

            This doesn’t mean that their wouldn’t be work to do, there would, and despite how it may initially sound, it is anything but utopian. But it would mean that people would have to work far less than what they do now. Possibly only half as much as they do now, and with the goal of society to be to find ways to automate as roles as possible it would become less and less over time.

            So what would this mean a country or world full of couch potatoes where everything grinds to a halt!?

            Far from it. Sure there would be a few that would possibly do that but in all fairness probably less than we have now. People would have the resources and the time to do things that interest them. Things that they are passionate about.

            Some of the greatest and most revered achievements throughout human history have come through the passion of an individual or group of individuals:

            Leonardo Da Vinci

            The Wright Brothers

            Madame Currie

            Thomas Edison

            Albert Einstein

            Neil Armstrong

            Nikolai Tesla

            Henry Ford (yes he made a shiteload but it was passion that drove him to build the Model T)

            Viktor Schauberger

            are but a few examples of this.

            Is it about big government and government controlling everything? No definitely not! We have Capitalism and that hasn’t gotten rid of big government. What I am talking about has government as small as possible. After all the goal is to free people as much as possible. Much of the decisions would be left to science (free from bias that comes from needing funding) and computer software with the goals of using resources in the best and most efficient manner possible to meet the needs and wants of the individuals in society.

            The dictionary definition of science is: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
            I do find it odd (insane is a better word) that we hold up science as the best method for determining most things yet leave decisions to politicians who have little to no expertise in the field they are often presiding over.
            I don’t really think anyone truly wants big government once you take the monetary system out of the equation. People do want to be able to have their needs and wants met and the needs and wants of others met.
            Redesigning the system to do exactly this in many ways eliminates many of the functions that exist in government today.
            Commerce Commission – Gone
            Winz – Gone
            ACC – Gone
            IRD – Gone
            120 MPs – Gone
            MBIE – Gone
            ERA – Gone
            This is obviously a much wider conversation that needs to be had by society but my personal view is that we would likely have a new constitution backed by a small Senate whose sole job would be to ensure and veto any laws that are at odds with the constitution. In fact many existing laws would end up being redundant and common law would take care of most things.
            There is much more I could cover…
            such as why the left vs right political system is incapable of ever being able to deliver what each side wants and how this system delivers the wishes of both.
            but I will have bored you enough.
            I will leave you with the fact that I am not just some random idiot with a bunch of strange ideas.
            This has come through nearly 20 years as a Business Systems Consultant in many Public and Private Sector organizations. The skills I have learned over that time have been applied to our system to see if it is the best one for Man and it isn’t. It is a very very poor one compared with what we should have.
            This System has a name and I didn’t come up with the concept first. The system is most commonly referred to as a Resource Based Economy and was first put into the public Arena by a man named Jacque Fresco.

          • Don W

            Thanks for the detailed reply and I would agree that we need small gov’t we need to be free to follow our hopes and dreams after all we are a long time dead. we all need to be free to reach our full potential . You are correct capitalism has not gotten rid of big gov’t and in fact gov’t’s seem to be getting bigger and more powerful as Ronald Regan said Gov’t is the problem not the solution. I believe we all need challenges whether that be through our work sport or what eve turns you on. It saddens me that so many people do not have a reason to get out of bed in the morning, their benefit is enough to be a disincentive for them to look for work but not enough to give them a decent living and others who are employed seem to be just going through the motions in order to earn a living. But at this point in time capitalism is probably the best we have and yes it’s not perfect. When you get a bit older , waking up in the morning means you a having a good day. And I agree Henry Ford by following his dreams along with all those other passionate and driven individuals applying their minds that you mentioned, have made world a far better place than any politician.
            You have a merry Christmas

          • Don W

            The true greens believe humans are the problem and the world world be better off if humans didn’t exist.

        • Andy

          I don’t see how carpeting our landscape with industrial wind turbines that kill birds and bats and cause health problems in humans is “responsible”.

          • Polish Pride

            Its not – I am in the same camp as you when it comes to industrial wind turbines.

          • Andy

            OK, sorry Polish, I misunderstood

      • Andy

        The Chinese are currently looking at the moon for potential Helium 3 extraction for use in nuclear fusion reactors. So, mother moon as well as mother earth

      • Truth lies

        Key word is exploit, maybe I should have used the dreaded (on here) word sustainable. If we want our grandchildren to live (hopefully) a lifestyle at least equal to the joys we can currently consume then we need to lower our resource use.
        But then I do not have grandchildren so I say eat the rich!

        • Don W

          Do you use products made from resources that you think are exploited by those greedy capitilist

          • Truth lies

            Yes, but that is why clear labelling of ingredients and the production process is important so as a consumer I can choose what style/type of exploitation I support. Every purchase happens within a global environment!

    • timemagazine

      You are visiting the wrong blog. Please, go away and don’t come back. Thanks.

      • Truth lies

        Explain why the wrong blog?

    • cows4me

      Who’s plundering and where are the free troughs?

      • Truth lies

        The free troughs are the resources (plunderers are private or corporate who depletes a resource commonweal owned or causes impacts upon others) eg. (In this case) Air, water, natural bush, minerals, national parks etc.
        Anything else is non sustainable theft.

  • redeye

    Green Scam! “Four of nine-person Climate Change Committee, official watchdog that dictates green energy policy, are, or were until recently, being paid by firms that benefit from committee decisions”

    The fatcat ecocrats exposed: Web of ‘green’
    politicians, tycoons and power brokers who help each other benefit from
    billions raised on your bills

  • timemagazine

    Remember Algore scarring people that in 2013 the North Pole will be ice free? It has 50% more ice.