Electricity consumption is falling in NZ

This is an interesting article from NZ. NZ has apparently recorded a fall in power consumption. This article posits a number of reasons why this has occurred, and I am adding my own below.

1. NZ has static population growth - there are roughly the same number of people going to Australia and other countries as there are going in as Asian or European immigrants.

3. They use 70% hydro here

4. They use a lot of open fire places in NZ using wood logs or pellets, which will offset the demand for electricity.

5. NZ electricity and gas prices are very high because of the small, uncompetitive nature of the market. High prices are likely convincing a lot of people to shift from central electricity and gas heating to open fire places, i.e. Wood in rural areas is cheap, and its renewable.

6. NZ experienced the Christchurch earthquake in 2010; and its plausible that that event destroyed a lot of electricity consumption, which has not been made up by greater home use, as people run their businesses from home.

7. All new generating capacity added in NZ is likely to be expensive wind or geothermal based capacity; simply because of the opposition to coal plants, the lack of current gas reserves, and the small increments of power required.

This story does however give you a clue as to what is happening when you strip out population growth. The question is whether these trends are evident in other countries, concealed by actual population growth.

I frankly think there would be less energy consumption if business was allowed to make money, and if scientists were able to think conceptually, as opposed to relying on the correlation-based 'scientific method'.

------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

The US scolds NZ for lack of carbon abatement

The UN appears to be becoming the global police agency for climate change. Consider that it has sanctioned NZ for not doing enough to curtail greenhouse gas emissions. With 20% of the population living in uninsulated homes in a coldish climate, and not having any industry, you might wonder what they could do. Oh, of course they could stop expanding their dairy industry based on farting cows, and of course they could educate the Chinese to eat local produce rather than imported fatty foods, but that is not going to happen.

The issue of course raises several issues:

1. Is there really any anthropogenic climate change 'effect'? I'm a geologist and I'm convinced there is not, based on my appreciation of 'scientific expertise', human nature, political systems, and the nature of the debate itself.

2. Ought the UN be telling anyone how to behave? Well I guess they claim to embody science. The problem is that these politically aligned and appointed scientists represent only one side of the debate, and they give no standing to people with alternative views.

3. How ought the pain of climate change policy be implemented? Need Chinese people go without air conditioning? Ought NZ'ers go without housing internal heating? Do Chinese women have the right to drink milk? Its an important source of calcium.

4. Is UN intervention political meddling? It is an election year in NZ, and the UN is sticking its nose into local politics.

The reality is that the UN is not the problem or the solution. What we need more than another layer of government is a layer of objectivity. This is lacking from every government agency, as well as from a great deal of corporate and even personal discourse. Why? Well, I would suggest it has a lot to do with the nature of social institutions, as well as the quality of our education system. Yep. Its a question of values. But I will say more about that later.

I think if I was the NZ government, I would terminate the funding for the UN climate change division. I would be inclined to argue against the ardent 'scientific rationalism' that these government agencies are prone to engage in, and I would suggest that the future of carbon abatement lies in energy efficiency measures and technological improvement, and not the ideology of fascism that would see us renouncing all personal values for the sake of the climate. Parallels can be drawn with Hitler's animal rights campaign. At the time most people were probably inclined to think Hitler cared about animal welfare. The reality is that he cared more about animals than humans. The UN is the same. They are haters of humanity. They want to enslave mankind to serve its puerile policies. They ought to be asking instead why car engines are still using 1880s engine technology? Why people are so materialistic? You will find them on the wrong side of the climate change ledger. History is full of cases of 'do-gooders' who are actually antagonists for the causes the profess to embody. I assert with confidence that emissions will increase more because the UN exists than if it didn't. Not just because more government cars will exist; not just because the funds wasted on it would otherwise be invested in emissions abatement; not because they embody the worst standards of science; but because they are simply another layer of the same policy...a legitimatising agent for government coercion. Coercion that always is destined to destroy the human mind and its capacity to bring about the ideas that would result in improved efficiency. In the interim, we will have to accept the 36% efficiency of the internal combustion engine, space heating, etc. Good luck with that!

-------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

NZ climate change data dubious

Would it concern you that climate change data in NZ does not show a 'warming' in the raw data. The premise that there is warming arises because of 'adjustments'. This is shaky science at its best. There is nothing in itself wrong with adjusting data, however it must concern people that a vast expense is being considered to reduce 'global warming' when the evidence is 'derivative' rather than primary. It of course doesn't invalidate the sciences, but it does cast doubt on the veracity of their findings. There are several problems:

1. If we chase straw men by accepting these findings we could be undermining our capacity to deal with the issue if it does arise in future. i.e. Scientists are less likely to be accepted next time.

2. We would have undermined economic growth or real wealth in order to pursue these agendas.

The reality is that global warming is evident in the sense that the Earth is hotter than it was a century ago. It is another thing entirely to suggest that this warming is because of humanity.

See the article on NZ climate debate. The ACT Party led by Rodney Hide is critical of the research undertaken by the State meteorology service - NIWA.

--------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com