4 degrees - Santos Frack Off!

Santos have announced they want 4 degrees of global warming!! That's the Mad Max scenario. In this video I take a look what 4 degrees would mean for Australia and our planet. SHARE and Like this video to tell Santos to FRACK OFF!

Fracking and the Colorado floods

Radioactive Fonterra

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

Fonterra has been forced to defend its brand once again amid fresh claims milk powder from the company, being sold in Sri Lanka, had been contaminated with radioactive chemicals.

Radioactive chemicals in our dairy products…how on earth did that happen? The only way I can think of for radioactive chemicals to contaminate milk products in New Zealand is from the landfarming that is occurring all around the Taranaki region.

Landfarming is the quaint name given to the practice of disposing waste from the hydraulic fracturing of oil and gas wells, contaminated with hydrocarbons, chemicals, heavy metals and quite often radioactive particles, by spreading it onto land where cows graze.

In light of this recent development, I would also like to know why two government officials from the Ministry of Primary Industries travelled to Sri Lanka earlier this year to try to make their Atomic Energy Authority stop testing New Zealand milk powder samples for radiation?

In May 2013, the Sri Lankan Sunday Times reported:

A Government Minister has warned Sri Lankans against the use of imported milk powder while New Zealand, the largest supplier, has mounted pressure to halt an inquiry by the Atomic Energy Authority (AEA) over alleged radioactive contamination. The warning came from Agriculture Minister Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena who told Parliament on Friday that imported milk powder from New Zealand should be avoided until conclusive studies were done about the harmful effects.

Those conclusive studies have obviously come back positive and show radioactive chemicals in Fonterra's milk powder. Talk about 100% pure down the drain.

Reports that chemicals used to spray grass in New Zealand get transferred to the milk are troubling and had to be taken seriously, he said. Minister Abeywardena warned that it could exacerbate the chronic kidney diseases. Atomic Energy Authority Chairman Dr. Ranjith Laxman Wijayawardena told the Sunday Times that New Zealand authorities recently asked the AEA to suspend tests being conducted on random samples of milk powder.

He revealed that two officers of the New Zealand’s Small Industries Ministry recently visited Sri Lanka and met AEA officials and requested the suspension of tests for radiation in New Zealand milk powder. But he said that instructions have been issued to continue radiation tests.

Dr. Wijayawardana vowed that the AEA would not bow to any such foreign pressure when carrying out its duties.

It's just as well Sri Lanka did continue to test for radiation in milk products from New Zealand, because those tests have now come back positive and at levels that are not allowable under Sri Lankan regulations. Sri Lanka has quite rightly moved to halt all imports of milk powder from New Zealand.

According to Sri Lankan regulations, the maximum radioactivity level allowed is 20 Bq/kg for milk food and 100 Bq/kg for other food items. This is laid down in a 1969 act of parliament and in a Gazette notification issued in 1995. Bq is the measurement of radiation in food items.

Why exactly government officials have pressured Sri Lanka's Atomic Energy Authority to stop testing for radiation in New Zealand milk products just before those tests proved positive is a question that must be answered?

It appears that the government knew that Fonterra's milk powder was contaminated with radioactive chemicals and instead of informing their markets, which could include domestic sales; they have tried to bully our fifth largest export market for milk products into silence.

This isn't just a cover-up of huge and despicable proportions; this makes the government liable under various international product safety laws.

If the melamine, DCD and botulism contamination wasn’t enough to get a few heads rolling, the radioactive chemicals in Fonterra milk powder damn well should be. It’s time to get rid of these evil bastards!

UPDATE: The NZ Herald has edited the first paragraph of the article Fonterra powder recalled in Sri Lanka to remove the part highlighting that Fonterra's milk powder sold in Sri Lanka had been contaminated with radioactive chemicals. However there is no mention of an update on the article.

I presume this has occurred because government officials have pressured the NZ Herald to remove that information from their website. There has been no apology or retraction published thus far in the print edition. Here's a link to the original article. Unfortunately for them, the internet never forgets.

Fonterra's fracked milk

Today, the Taranaki Daily News reported:

Dairy giant Fonterra will not collect milk from any new landfarms.

Taranaki has a number of landfarms where oil and gas drilling waste is stored in pits and then spread over paddocks.

The practice has attracted critics who claim the landfarms may contain toxins in the soil that could have an effect on the milk produced by cows that graze on the grass.

May contain? Does contain more like. Not only does fracking waste contain a number of highly toxic chemicals, some of which are known to cause cancer, it also contains Radium 226, often well above safe levels.

The fact that this hazardous practice was allowed to occur in New Zealand at all is astounding!

Fonterra already accepts milk from six farms but has said no more will be taken on, Radio New Zealand reported this morning.

Thankfully Fonterra have finally realised that accepting milk from any new landfarms will be detrimental to their clean and green image, something the dairy industry relies heavily upon for much of its profits from overseas markets.

Let's hope they also decide to stop accepting milk from the existing six landfarms. With most countries not having a bar of it, surely having any contaminated milk product because of landfarming will be detrimental to Fonterra's bottom line.

The company said the cost of testing the milk is too expensive at about $80,000 per year, and the need to have a public perception of a safe clean dairy industry was also taken into consideration.

Pity it's just a perception, not a reality. With Fonterra being associated with the Chinese melamine scandal in 2008 and growth hormone scandal in 2010 plus the more recent contamination from soil-treatment product DCD found in 371 New Zealand milk samples, a safe and clean dairy industry is clearly not happening.

Unfortunately milk produced in New Zealand isn't being tested for Radium 226 at all. Fonterra is talking about testing for other toxins and Cesium 137, which is a requirement by most of our main overseas markets. With the milk and farms themselves not being tested for Radium 226, there can be no real assurance that consumer’s health isn't being put at risk.

The Taranaki Regional Council says landfarming is safe and has no environmental effect except to improve coastal sandy soils for productive farming.

But they admit there is limited information to inform their decisions.

There's no scientific information to show that landfarming "improves coastal sandy soils" or is in fact safe, and a number of reports from overseas that show it isn't safe and has adversely affected people's health. That's why many countries have moved to ban the practice outright.

Being that the Taranaki Regional Council consists mainly of people associated with the oil and gas industry, we should be sceptical about anything they claim.

In my opinion, any potential threat to people's health through contaminated milk products should be eliminated, and therefore landfarming and likewise fracking in general should be halted forthwith. The potential adverse affects clearly don’t outweigh the benefits.

Fracking waste leaching from BTW's Browns Road landfarm in Taranaki - June 2013.

Frackalypse

Granny Herald backs big business

Today, I had the displeasure of reading the most biased editorial in the NZ Herald so far this year. Not only does it argue that big business interests should trump our civil liberties, it entirely misses the point of why people are protesting in the first place.

In this case there are multiple reasons for why concerned citizens spend their time and money to deter the interests of big business; from the lack of any proper response equipment in the event of a deep sea oil leak to the effects of burning more fossil fuels on climate change not to mention the fact that there's very little return in the form of taxes and that investment into clean energy sources create at least twice as many jobs... The justifications behind people peacefully protesting are numerous.

But despite these undeniable facts, the government and todays Herald editorial argue that the new law that imposes large fines and excessive jail terms, which far outweigh the brevity of any perceived "crime" are for the protesters own good.

They no doubt find some inspiration from disruptive tactics against Japanese whaling in the southern ocean and, going back a bit, New Zealanders' flotillas against French nuclear tests in the Pacific. But sooner or later a protester could be seriously injured and sympathisers in their cause would be the first to ask why the Defence Force did not intervene.

It should be mentioned that environmental activists in Brazil who were fighting the good fight against Petrobras have gone missing or been killed, which makes the statement that "protester could be seriously injured" in New Zealand a bit sinister.

In Februray 2013, Yale Environment 360 reported:

Personal danger is not what most environmentalists have in mind when they take up the cause of protecting nature and the people who rely on it in their daily lives. But from Laos to the Philippines to Brazil, the list of environmentalists who have paid for their activism with their lives is growing. It is a grim toll, especially in the last year.

Most protestors don't want to put their lives at risk, either by direct activism, heavy-handed law enforcement or by the companies they're protesting against acting dangerously or using devious tactics to silence them. However danger is always going to be a part of active protest, even when its peaceful. In my opinion, the government's punitive measures will do nothing to reduce that danger.

The lopsided article also entirely ignores the fact that there are already laws that govern what people can and cannot do at sea, making me question whether the new laws are actually required? Obviously the government doesn't like the fact that those laws haven't worked against Elvis Teddy, who has been dragged through the courts by crown lawyers hell bent on gaining a prosecution. How much all that's costing the taxpayer the government hasn't disclosed.

But what really highlights their hypocrisy in this matter is that National said the protest to halt deep sea oil drilling in the Raukumara Basin two years ago had no bearing on Petrobras later handing in its exploration permits. Now they're legislating to specifically target that kind of activism, clearly showing that the civil disobedience had an impact.

National is also determined to weaken the RMA, which will further undermine the publics’ input on the decision making process concerning the environment. When big business effectively owns our politicians, these are very concerning issues that have wide spread implications for our Kiwi way of life that often takes our natural resources for granted.

In my opinion, the publics’ determination to halt deep sea oil drilling and protect one of our most valuable assets should be celebrated... Especially considering that such a dangerous enterprise puts at risk our environment that many people rely upon including numerous sustainable and highly profitable businesses.

If people feel strongly enough to actively protest and in some cases put their lives at risk their message should be listened to. But instead of that level headed approach, we have a deluded government implementing punitive legislation which is propped up by jaundiced Herald articles like todays editorial... Talk about a load of propaganda!

Not just forgetfulness

It's pretty clear that there's a huge flaw in the way John Key goes about his business as the Prime Minister of New Zealand, namely his continued forgetfulness and/or dishonesty.

Today, the NZ Herald reported a partial list:

* Forgot how many Tranz Rail shares he owned.
* Unsure if and when he was briefed by GCSB on Kim Dotcom.
* Forgot how he voted on drinking age.
* Could not recall whether he was for or against the 1981 Springbok Tour.
* Couldn't remember who was aboard mystery CIA jet at Wellington airport.
* Forgot he phoned future director of GCSB urging him to apply for the job.

However there's also:

* The S&P ratings downgrade.
* Secret meetings with Lord Michael Ashcroft.
* His "blind" trusts investments.
* Dishonesty about the Hobbit dispute.
* Misinformation concerning Afghanistan.
* Broken promises about the Pike River recovery.
* Disinformation about the SkyCity report.
* Dishonesty concerning the safety of fracking.
* Dishonesty about the number of unemployed.
* Promising “no job cuts” to the Public Service Association.
* "Forgetting" he signed off on the new ministerial BMW's.

In fact the list of John Keys incompetence and/or corruption goes on and on.

Wind power more viable than fossil fuels

Today, Radio NZ reported:

At a wind energy conference last week Siemens talked about the steps it has been taking to try and reduce the cost of wind power so that it can become competitive with fossil fuels.

The company, which works across the energy sector around the globe, focuses on wind in New Zealand.

Its executive vice-president for energy for the Pacific, David Pryke, says the long-term viability of gas and coal in New Zealand is a problem and given the good wind conditions, wind energy is at the point where it's close to being a competitive source.

He says New Zealand is an attractive market to Siemens because it's perhaps the only country in the world where subsidies are not needed for wind energy.

That puts into context Nationals promotion of fossil fuels instead of clean energy... Even without any government subsidies, wind power generation is nearly as competitive as coal or gas powered generation, which is currently heavily subsidized by the government.

I have to disagree with David Pryke though, wind and solar power subsidies are required to make it an even playing field. Better yet, the government should simply remove the current subsidies and tax breaks that the oil and gas industry enjoys.

Increasing competition would ensure the best systems were implemented.

But Mr Pryke says Siemens would like to move towards making wind competitive in all markets globally in the medium term.

As to why there is not more wind site development in New Zealand, he says that's because there is not enough demand for power in general.

In the Radio NZ interview embedded below, David Pryke also said the size of known gas fields in New Zealand didn't warrant further investment into gas powered generation, saying that banks would likely not fund such endeavours because the supply wasn't available to make them viable long term.

The David Pryke interview is at 7:23



You've got to wonder why the government is helping to fund the building of more gas powered plants if there is no long term viability? If the banks aren't going to provide funding, why is National spending taxpayers money on a business model that has no future?

Is that the same kind of business sense that resulted in Solid Energy failing?

Fractured Land Trailer

More fracking lies

Today, Stuff reported:

Prime Minister John Key has waded into the fracking debate, accusing its opponents of talking nonsense.

At a Taranaki energy site, he said he had had enough of the scaremongering over the practice, particularly from the Green Party.

"From what they're saying, you'd think that because of fracking we'll all go to hell in a handbasket," he said.

"But the truth of the matter is that the practice has been going safely on in Taranaki for the past 30 years without any issues. And last year the parliamentary commissioner for the environment gave it a tick of approval in a preliminary report on fracking, and I expect that nothing will change in her final report when it is issued later this year."

Clearly the Prime Ministers belief that fracking has been conducted "safely" in Taranaki for the last 30 years is wrong! There's been numerous instances of fracking accidents that have contaminated the soil and peoples water supplies in the area, and here's a few official reports that show Key up for the liar he is:

Table 3 on page 15 of this Drilling Waste Disposal Monitoring Programmes report (PDF) shows the amount of non-compliance for the Inglewood land farm. As well as ground water contamination, the operators spread their fracking sludge that contains many toxins directly onto the land.

Amongst these toxic substances, Hydrocarbons were tested for and shown to be six times over the limit or 26,742 mg/kg above the 4558 mg/kg limit outlined in the consent. There was no fine, the only response was to reduce the consent requirements and the amount of testing being conducted.

There is also the Shell Todd Oil Kapuni study (PDF) and the Cheal Petroleum study (which the Taranaki regional council has removed from their website), both showing water contamination above the already lenient consent limits.

These instances of unsafe practices have been publicly reported on and even raised in Parliament by Green MP Gareth Hughes... In my opinion, a competent Prime Minister should have been aware of those tabled documents.

If he was unaware, he's therefore incompetent. If he was aware (which is likely the case), he's attempting to mislead to public about the highly dangerous and environmentally damaging practice of fracking. Either way, dishonest John has no place being the Prime Minister of New Zealand.

Science for Sale

Plagued by right wing hypocrisy

Today, Stuff reported:

Crown minister Chris Tremain has been accused of double standards for lobbying to ban oil and gas exploration in parts of his back yard.

Tremain, the Minister of Internal Affairs, of Local Government and Associate Minister of Tourism, is a member of a government caucus that supports offering large blocks of New Zealand countryside for oil and gas exploration, including the use of the controversial fracking technique.

But in a message to constituents in his Napier electorate, Tremain has written that exploration has been outlawed from geology around aquifers - or underground wet rock - in Hawke's Bay.

The water sources are crucial for the region's horticulture and agriculture industries.

As is the water from aquifers vital to many industries in other areas National wants to frack.

In an article outlining the "huge" financial opportunity oil and gas exploration offered "The Bay", Tremain wrote: "Sure, there are risks involved, but there are risks in everything we do from driving the car to playing a game of rugby.

"In the case of the oil and gas industry, Craig Foss [National Party MP for Tukituki] and I have worked with the Minister of Energy to remove our Hawke's Bay aquifers from exploration."

The double standards couldn't be more apparent... Here we have a National MP ensuring that his constituency is removed from the permit process while still promoting it elsewhere.

I wonder what Tremain's reason is for not wanting fracking in the Hawkes Bay? Probably the same reasons to not have it anywhere else in New Zealand.

The National party has made numerous attempts to mislead the public concerning the safety of fracking, while Tremain won't accept it in his own back yard.

Hypocrisy is obviously at epidemic proportions within the National party, but what else is new?

Farmers should oppose fracking

Today, Stuff reported:

A Taranaki farming couple are "shellshocked" after 120 of their cows dropped dead one by one in their paddock.

Around 20 vets who rushed to the Oeo farm of Chris and Catherine Cook on Tuesday could not save the animals, part of a herd of 600.

Mrs Cook's brother, John Murphy, speaking for the family, said the loss of the cows was a devastating blow.

"The farmer was out there topping up the water troughs and minutes later the cows were falling to the ground," he said.

Although there are a number of possible explanations for the deaths of the 120 cows, there's one that's obvious because of its absence from the article... The water and or land were contaminated by fracking. The questions that should really be asked is was there land farming occurring and where did the farmer get the water from?

The potential for fracking to pollute pasture and water supplies in Taranaki isn't just speculation... Documented evidence shows that blow-down pits at the Kapuni site had polluted the groundwater which was no longer fit for human or stock consumption. The BETX (benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene and xylenes) contaminated water also didn't meet the criteria for irrigation, meaning it was highly toxic.

Of course Shell Todd Oil Services, which owns Kapuni, and the complicit regional council say there's no link with the fracking that's occurred in the area and the groundwater contamination, however BETX has been regularly used in fracking around Taranaki and there's no other reasonable explanation for it to be found in the groundwater other than unsafe storage of well fluids in fracking blow-down pits.

The problem here is that the oil and gas industry and the complicit Taranaki regional council are being secretive about the amount of pollution that has occurred and is still occurring in Taranaki because of fracking. They certainly won't be telling farmers when and where their water supplies have become contaminated with highly toxic chemicals that can kill their herds and impact on their livelihoods.

He said the cows were worth around $400,000, and their deaths would probably mean around another $300,000 loss of profit for the season.

"Cows are just so important and so close to farmers. It's like losing a loved one. In this case it's like losing multiple loved ones," Mr Murphy said.

That's why farmers should be against fracking... There's very little benefit compared to the potential adverse impact on our most profitable industry.

This cow died after drinking frack-contaminated water.

Jan Wright's fracking publicity stunt

Today, the NZ Herald tweeted:

That's excellent I thought, because there are a number of questions I have been meaning to ask the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Jan Wright, about her interim report (PDF) into the environmental impacts of fracking in New Zealand.

So I clicked on the NZ Herald link and was happy to see that the live chat session had only just started.

After 29 minutes, lizziemfitzgerald asked:

Based on your interim finding it seems that fracking hasn't caused any problems in Taranaki so why do you think that there needs to be better regs?

Jan Wright replied:

I haven't reached a firm conclusion that there have been no problems in Taranaki. While I haven't found any big red flags, I will be having a closer look at the monitoring that has been done. That said, I don't think it's possible to take the Taranaki experience and extrapolate it to other parts of the country, other kinds of fracking, and greater scale.

To which I asked:

Saying that you haven't reached a firm conclusion that there hasn't been any problems in Taranaki because of fracking is a roundabout way of saying you know of fracking related problems. In my opinion, you should acknowledge these various problems in your reports. I am aware of four major environmental problems as a result of fracking in Taranaki. Although I understand your need to be diplomatic, these need more than the once over lightly.

Clearly the report is misleading if lizziemfitzgerald comment is anything to go by, as there are numerous instances of environmental damage in Taranaki from various fracking incidents.

Unfortunately these problems are often not reported by the largely self-regulated fracking industry or by the complicit Taranaki Regional Council. Even when they are, they are hidden within screeds of other information and worded in a way that makes them seem less serious. Unbelievably most of the various fracking problems that have been reported were not even mentioned in Jan Wrights interim report.

How can the public have faith that Jan Wright is undertaking an unbiased investigation if she doesn't even mention all the fracking problems in Taranaki that have already occurred? Some of these problems are of major concern such as the irreparable damage to aquifers around the region.

After a while without getting a response or indeed having my comment appear on the site at all, I repeated it at 12:55 PM.

The NZ Herald then wrote:

Thanks everyone for all your great questions so far. This live chat will end in a few minutes....

Unfortunately I now have little faith in Jan Wright to properly investigate and make the appropriate recommendations concerning the highly dangerous fracking industry. This was nothing more than a publicity stunt, and a failure of one at that.

Business as usual for fracking industry

Today, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Jan Wright, released her interim report Evaluating the environmental impacts of fracking in New Zealand (PDF), which was obviously released to the oil and gas industry spin doctors earlier this week.

Here's the conclusion and some interim findings, plus a few other excerpts worth highlighting:

The high-level conclusion from the work done to date in this investigation echoes, and is broadly consistent with, the reviews of fracking that have been done elsewhere in the world. That conclusion is that the environmental risks associated with fracking can be managed effectively provided, to quote the United Kingdom Royal Society, “operational best practices are implemented and enforced through regulation”. But at this stage I cannot be confident that operational best practices are actually being implemented and enforced in this country.

Firstly, operational best practice has clearly not been adhered to and this has resulted in numerous accidents and toxic chemical spills in New Zealand. For Jan Wright to say she's not confident that; 'operational best practices are implemented and enforced through regulation' is putting it incredibly lightly.

The second issue is that even if operational best practices are followed, the environmental problems inherent in fracking technologies remain. These problems outweigh the benefits fracking can impart such as job creation, security of energy supply and economic welfare, all of which have been incredibly overstated by the oil and gas industry as well as the current New Zealand government.

Some of the problems inherent in fracking technologies include a potential for irreparable water contamination that could affect drinking water supplies and other productive industries, adverse health effects of the general population through contamination, an increased likelihood of earthquakes leading to further tectonic instability in an already tectonically active country, gas leaks and continued reliance on fossil fuels contributing to climate change and the damage done to our clean and green image worth billion's to our economy each year. The cost analysis of any one of these things clearly outweighs the economic benefits from continuing to frack New Zealand.

Unfortunately the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment hasn't adequately looked into these matters to be able to make any authoritative conclusion on the matter. She does however touch on the subject of deregulation.

It may be that light-handed regulation of the oil and gas industry is working well, but this cannot be assumed. In August 2012, speaking about fracking, the Executive Director of the IEA was reported as saying that the industry’s 'just-trust-me approach is fuelling public skepticism.' Such skepticism is one of the real challenges for the industry.

Such a statement makes me wonder if Wright is even aware of the documented evidence showing numerous events of fracking failures in New Zealand. Of course regulatory measures haven't been effective in protecting the environment from industry cowboys, and it's not simply the just-trust-me approach that's fueling skepticism; it's the documented cases of fracking "accidents" and environmental pollution.

It's also the human cost to yet another dirty fossil fuel based industry that must be considered. South Taranaki District councilor, Michael Self, was one of the first people to link environmental pollution with the adverse health effects of many people and animals living in close proximity to fracking sites in the region. The high rate of cancer in Taranaki for instance is likely a result of pollution from the rampant expansion of and improperly regulated oil and gas industry.

Unfortunately there’s been no independent scientific study into this, mainly because of collusion between the industry and government officials to ensure secrecy. Clearly they only care about the money to be made and keeping things like the high levels of cancer in Taranaki under wraps is the only way they’ll ensure their ill-gotten gains continue.

Of course Jan Wright completely ignores the fact that corruption is one of the main problems, instead recommending:

Increasing public understanding of the technology should help address some concerns.

What a load of tosh! Gaining a better understanding of the problems inherent in fracking technologies has increased people's concerns. It's only through a secretive agenda and propaganda that the oil and gas industry has been able to carry out such environmentally unsafe practices. If the public knew the extent of the damage that has already occurred in New Zealand from hydraulic fracturing, it would not be tolerated... It's as simple as that.

On the whole the interim report is highly disappointing, weak, disjointed and not very thorough. Unfortunately the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment omits some very relevant and important aspects to the fracking debate and cherry-picks what information is included. Jan Wright also seems to think that a moratorium on fracking isn't required because the oil and gas industry will somehow magically clean up its act... Yeah right!

The industry has already proven through many instances of negligence that it cannot be trusted. The current local and central governmental bodies that are meant to be responsible for oversight have shown that they're not concerned in the slightest with properly enforcing consent requirements, thus proving they also cannot be trusted.

Fracking is not a safe technology and therefore all new developments should be halted. Furthermore the industry should be made to decontaminate and decommission existing sites. In my opinion, New Zealand should follow the example of many other countries around the world and ban the environmentally destructive practice immediately. The fracking pros simply don't outweigh the cons.

Another truck accident

Today's truck accident, as reported by the NZ Herald:

Fire Service northern communications shift manager Jaron Phillips said the fully-laden B-train truck was found in the Waihohonu Stream on State Highway 1, between Waiouru and Turangi, after emergency services were notified at 4.22am.

"The concern we have is that the truck has signs on it saying 'radioactive' and the entire contents of this truck is in the river. There's a lot of debris in the river."

A spokesman later confirmed there was no radioactive material on board the truck.

Mr Phillips said the truck contained aerosol containers and was also believed to contain an environmentally hazardous insecticide called alpha-cypermethrin.

That makes no sense... Trucks are legally required to display signage about what they're carrying. If there is no radioactive material on bored, why did it have the radioactive signs displayed? And who is the trucking company involved? "A spokesman" leaves things pretty wide open.

Genesis Energy spokesman Richard Gordon said the Rangipo Power Station had been closed as a result of the crash.

The 120 megawatt power station, which generates enough electricity to power about 100,000 homes, turned its turbines off about 7.30am.

"We're not sure at this stage what material is in the river from the truck crash and we're taking a precautionary approach. We've got intake screens to take large things going through into the Rangipo turbines but we're not sure what material was on the truck."

Well at least Genesis Energy aren't taking any chances.

With so many truck accidents lately, what's the real cost to the economy from Nationals deregulation of the trucking industry that allowed heavier and longer trucks I wonder? As usual it's socialized costs in order to maximise private profits, which will just leave the tax-payer with another big mess to clean up and pay for.

Nationals ideologically driven agenda is clearly detrimental to New Zealand.

The cost of climate change

I happened to watch the Late Show with David Letterman last night. It was somewhat subdued compared to their usual exuberance and energy, mainly because there was no audience and the super-storm Sandy had just ripped the heart out of the United States.

It was interesting to see the issue of climate change being raised by the entertainer, being that on the whole it hasn't been reported on. Unfortunately Letterman's guest did not do well in explaining the link between Sandy and climate change. In fact he looked decidedly nervous in even broaching the subject.

By now, most people would have heard that climate change is resulting in more extreme weather events such as increased drought and flooding in areas that are already prone to such phenomena. Climate change is exacerbating the problem, and making storms like Sandy far worse than they would normally be. There is no doubt that the oceans have warmed, which is one of the main driving factors in storms. Sandy had another driving factor, there has recently been unprecedented Arctic ice melting, far greater than scientists previously anticipated.

Despite the United States recently suffering from another devastating storm in the form of hurricane Katrina, which occurred just seven years ago, some people are still claiming that hurricane Sandy is a once in a hundred year storm. This might work to delude people who can't remember what they were doing yesterday, but it won't work on most people. Perhaps after Sandy we can expect a change in policy direction from the United States' administration concerning their over-reliance on fossil fuels. With such devastation, how can they honestly ignore the main cause of Sandy's power?

The same can be said for the New Zealand government... What kind of moron ignores such hugely damaging events and the fact that they're undeniably linked to manmade climate change? What kind of devastating event will it take before the New Zealand government wakes up and changes our economy so that it's clean and sustainable? New Zealand is better placed to reduce GHG emissions than most other countries, and yet we are failing to do so.

Today, the Ministry for the Environment reported:

In 1990, New Zealand’s total greenhouse gas emissions were 59,797.2 Gg carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e). In 2010, total greenhouse gas emissions had increased by 11,860.0 Gg CO2-e (19.8 per cent) to 71,657.2 Gg CO2-e. The four emission sources that contributed the most to this increase in total emissions were road transport, dairy enteric fermentation, agricultural soils, and public electricity and heat production.

New Zealands failure to reduce GHG emissions is one of the main reasons National is throwing in the towel concerning the Kyoto protocol. The issue is that to reduce emissions would mean putting a limit on dairying and using less fossil fuels while many National MP's have personal vested interests in promoting farming intensification and further oil and gas exploration. This essentially means that nothing will change while they're in power because they're selfishly putting their own investments ahead of the common good.

Just like the United States' presidential candidates Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, National is tactically avoided discussing the importance of climate change and the environment. They are also trying their best to inhibit the mainstream media from having that all-important discussion as well.

Unfortunately New Zealand is entirely unprepared for a storm of Sandy's magnitude. Most of our townships and cities are situated in areas close to the sea where flooding and tidal surges are a distinct possibility. Our isolated provinces would be left to their own devices because of slips and broken bridges. Indefinite power cuts would occur because most of our power generation is distanced from the consumer and much of our infrastructure is old and prone to damage. This would have a devastating effect on our economy. That's before we even talk about the cost of repairing things when we can least afford it.

All of these costs would soon add up to be far greater than the income the government hopes to achieve from further dairy intensification and increased drilling for fossil fuels, both of which will increase our GHG emissions. National is gambling with our future in a game they will surely lose. Unfortunately we are all going to lose along with them as a consequence of their stupidity. It's not if a storm like Sandy wreaks havoc across New Zealand, because of a failure to reduce GHG emissions, it's when?

Click image to enlarge

Not For Sale

Stop the frack attack Australia

Ireland bans fracking

On Saturday, the Irish Times reported:

MINISTER FOR Energy Pat Rabbitte has reiterated that no hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” for gas would take place in Ireland pending further “detailed scientific analysis and advice”.

Mr Rabbitte was commenting on yesterday’s publication by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of a scoping report commissioned from the University of Aberdeen, Scotland.

The initial EPA report would provide a “useful basis” for the terms of reference for a further study that he is commissioning this year with the EPA, Mr Rabbitte’s spokesman said last night.

This follows Germany declaring their country frack free and leaves just China and New Zealand as the only two countries to have undertaken fracking, to not change policy.

In fact the Minister of Energy and Resources Phil Heatley is in denial that there's any problem at all, even though fracking is irrefutably linked with causing earthquakes and there are numerous documented cases of water contamination in Taranaki and around the world... something he's at pains to ignore.