There is no greater challenge to the Government than the rising price of petrol because the entire economy is at risk and those workers already trying to survive in a country where costs outstrip wage increases will quickly revolt.
Our biggest city was built for cars, not public transport.
Our free market imported tens of thousands of cheap cars.
Our user pays culture underfunded public transport and privatised what was left.
Our total reliance on cheap oil has been obscured over the last decade by a high NZ dollar and incredibly low oil prices caused in part by flat lining economic activity in the wake of the GFC and massive domestic fracking in America, however with geopolitical tensions ratcheting up against Iran and Trump’s over heating of the US economy with massive corporate tax cuts, there has been a sharp increase in the price of oil alongside a surge in the US dollar strength.
Add to those dynamics to the recently announced petrol taxes and we have a perfect storm of everyone being whacked hard in the pocket at a time when they can least afford it.
The Government will counter that recent increases in state support will offset these petrol tax increases but that’s just nonsense, when petrol prices rise, they impact every single cost on every single thing you purchase and use, not just the direct cost of that petrol tax increase to you.
Pain at the pump matters because it eats into voters immediate spendable cash, it’s something you notice week in and week out so allowing that pain to build unchallenged is electoral suicide. Because the global dynamics at play are out of our control, the Government must seek radical solutions that go someway to actually solving the problem for the voting base they need to keep on side.
I think the Government must consider the idea of free public transport.
We can afford to give that to Gold Card members, I argue we should expand it to everyone.
Free public transport would immediately take numbers off the roads and unclog our roads while having a direct impact on the pockets of the poorest. Users of the roads would get congestion free flow while the poorest save real dollars week to week. More mass transit use would also be a far more appropriate response to the issue of climate change than the ongoing cult of the car.
Nationalising public transport alongside a huge upgrade of the existing service could be a response or a higher subsidisation rate, either way, the Government must show leadership to sorting out what could build to be the greatest challenge they’ll face.
You could also impose unpon the Transport Sector hand over their subsidy! Theyve had subsidised diesel for decades! The price differential between petrol & diesel is about 70 cents! Split that and that’ll be a 35 cent drop at the pump for petrol! Time to price heavy trucks off the road and the goods can go by rail!
This is not entirely right. Its true that diesel is sold at the pumps at a lower price than petrol but owners of diesel vehicles must also pay a advance on their diesel based on expected usage over a year.
Ae. Scrap that for private users.
I wish you the best of luck if you take into account the tepid response so far to the Wellington bus debacle. (That;s going to be fixed by December supposedly, although I have to ask if it’s not, then what then? SOME of those problems could have been reversed within the first week of that bugger’s muddle but for dithering.
Apparently SFA has been learnt from the ‘oil crisis’ of the 70s.
The world was warned about the oil predicament by the geologists Dr Colin Campbell and Jean Laherrere, in the article ‘The End of Cheap Oil’, Scientific American, March 1998. Yes, that’s over 20 years ago!
Sure enough, conventional oil extraction DID peak and go into decline, just as indicated by Campbell and Laherrer (and as suggested in the mid-70s by Dr M. King Hubbert, Shell’s top oil geologist, though the peak did not quite occur on his time frame).
From around 2007 the decline in conventional oil has been compensated for by increasing quantities of unconventional oil (extracted via deep water drilling, boiling up tar sands, condensates and fracking etc.).
The world briefly saw oil at nearly $150 a barrel as a consequence of supply constraints and speculation; oil at that price caused such demand destruction the global economy nearly collapsed, resulting in a momentary $100 drop in oil prices.
Politicians ignored the Campbell-Laherrre warning at the time the Scientific American article was published and ignored the subsequent warnings given by the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO), just as they had ignored the Hubbert warnings given by decades earlier. Politicians just kept ignoring warnings. And those who tried to raise awareness of the consequences of the peaking and decline in global extraction gave up in the face of political stonewalling and ineptitude, and public apathy.
So now we are on the cusp of the predicted major crisis (the crisis that will at some point terminate the current way of life of most New Zealanders). Our so-called leaders having squandered decades of preparation time still sit on their hands.
Whilst the ideas you have present do have merit Martyn, they do not correspond with the government’s business-as-usual thinking, and are therefore unlikely to be adopted.
The Scientific American article:
https://nature.berkeley.edu/er100/readings/Campbell_1998.pdf
“Peak Oil” never happened. It was utter nonsense promulgated by fear mongers who can only see doom and gloom around every corner:
http://peakoilbarrel.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/World6.png
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=29672
Further global oil reserves are likely higher than ever:
https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy/oil/oil-reserves.html
http://www.gswindell.com/temp5.gif
http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2012/06/21/how-much-oil-is-left-in-the-world/
Face it, “peak oil” was nothing but a chimera designed to fool people into thinking that we were at the cusp of some sort of crazy post-oil apocalypse. It never happened, and won’t happen even in the distant future, given that coal (of which there is at least 134 years of proven supply) can be trivially converted to oil by the Fisher-Tropsch Process at around US$30 barrel (which SASOL is doing right now). As long as there is demand for oil, there will be oil.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process
https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy/coal/coal-reserves.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasol
NITRIUM,
The first graph is untitled and unsourced.
The second graph shows total extraction (conventional plus unconventional) which the IEA (a discredited organisation) chooses to call production even though oil is not produced but is extracted.
Your third link: Total reserves are always overstated by oil companies to inspire market confidence and do not represent extractable reserves. What actually matters is the ease of extraction and the quality of the oil. All the easily extracted oil was extracted decades ago, and what is left is hard to extract, e.g. very deep, as per Deepwater Horizon, which BP lost control of because it was so deep.
Also note that whereas oil used to flow under natural pressure in numerous fields in Saudi Arabia and Mexico, that is no longer the case and water is injected under the oil layer to force the oil out.
Since humans are using oil much faster than nature is generates it (over 30 billion barrels a year) reserves cannot increase. What BP will not tell you is that much of their ‘reserves are actually stranded oil.
The really telling factor is the discovery of oil, which peaked in the 1960s, and the massive decline in discoveries in recent times.
https://srsroccoreport.com/the-energy-cliff-approaches-world-oil-gas-discoveries-continue-to-decline/
Yes, oil can be made from coal but the energy loss I horrendous and the effect on the environment disastrous. That said, industrial humans do tend to wreck the environment for short-term gain.
It is very interesting that the BP coal reserves link does not distinguish between the various forms of coal. As with oil, all the best was used up decades ago and much of what is left is difficult to extract and of low quality.
Anyway, there are few faster ways to destroy life on Earth than increasing coal use. Indeed, the Earth cannot cope with the current loading of pollution from oil and coal, which is why both should have been phased out long ago.
It will be interesting to see what the UNIPCC report, due for release very soon, has to say.
‘According to the drafts, the report finds that it would take a massive global effort, far more aggressive than any we’ve seen to date, to keep warming in line with 1.5°C — in part because we are already en route to 3°C of warming. And even if we hit the 1.5°C goal, the planet will still face massive, devastating changes. So it’s pretty grim.
https://www.vox.com/2018/10/5/17934174/climate-change-global-warming-un-ipcc-report-1-5-degrees?fbclid=IwAR3CJLaxRVfTyLGqsAwkBymT4dyvxEoMT_S33kXThIODtxmroQ_mHpNTgx0
http://robinwestenra.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-ipcc-plays-catch-up-with-reality-in.html
A very timely piece.
The July – 11 cent per litre hike, plus a tax on a tax, has so far provided ……nothing. Millions syphoned off from the everyday person pocket straight to Auckland Council and on it goes, every minute of the day.
There is the talk of more speed camera’s and red light camera’s coming from that money but not exactly what we thought would happen, more devices to take money from people. Not even close.
That tax needed to be front-footed beforehand by loans to start light rail and show dividends immediately for the pain. Sadly no, no strategy, no plan, just leave it to the idiocy of the ever-bungling Auckland Council to use and or squander the money at some point in the distant future, maybe.
And where the fuck are you, Phil Twyford? Does one term only before your political demise concern you because mate, it should! You sit in a marginal seat with a population closer to the margins than many. This is a one-shot idea that if it is not managed right, National will dispose of the day after they take your job. Want that as your political epitaph?
And with the same equal bumbling drunken unawareness that seems to inflict this politically naive lot, they whack on yet another petrol tax, right when it’s hitting yet another new record. Talk about DUMB!
Labour MUST get their academic wasteland of brains around the cost of basics for people. They must realise but they don’t, that if there is not some kind of gain for the pain they will be toast. That last tax should never have happened. But then again a number of the MP’s in Labour have never known what it is like to struggle.
Please Jacinda, no more baby stuff, for now, too many of us are feeling the costs of running cars just to get through the week. Focus like a laser beam on what lies ahead and do something. Please!
Twyford is an ideas man but clearly not a practical man, Robertson is seemingly is faking it till he makes it and few others seem to possess the influence to change course.
Back in the 1970’s I travelled from Timaru to Gore and Invercargill and back quite regularly to visit friends and relatives.
I’d get on the Southerner passenger train and sink into the big soft blue vinyl seats and away we’d go. I could have a pie and a beer in the dining car then take another beer outside and have a cigarette while watching the beautiful countryside and coast lines slide by without one single care.
Now? After neo liberalism… You know the rest.
How’s that for progress? Progress neo liberalism style. Where less is more and they make millions because we have to do without in times of need.
But prior to that, pig muldoon thought Big and pulled up the rail tracks into the countryside where our primary industry is and lo and behold! Millionaire heavy transport operators now flourish.
But nothing to see here, right? Move along now, right? No commissions of inquiry, no criminality, no swindlings. No prison sentences, no asset stripping. None of that. Now? It’s public liability for the private fortunes made from their thievery of our stuff and things.
P.S. Transport fuel? What about LPG? Has anyone thought to ask the Todd Group about that?
Are we just dumb shits? C’mon? We can be honest here.
Roger douglas? Where is he? Does anyone know where he lives? We should all go and have a chat with him. He can explain why this is better than the way it was because I’m fucked if I can see how it is.
… [ I’d get on the Southerner passenger train and sink into the big soft blue vinyl seats and away we’d go. I could have a pie and a beer in the dining car then take another beer outside and have a cigarette while watching the beautiful countryside and coast lines slide by without one single care.
Now? After neo liberalism… You know the rest ] …
The imagery ,… of the ‘ no worries’ Kiwi.
That was a magical time. There’s no reason it cant be again.Seems successive govt’s are too afraid to upset the big private trucking company’s, – as Cleengreen often reminds us. I haven’t fell well about my country since 1984. And moreso as time went on. In fact , with every year that has passed, and every lie, every self justification , every obvious rort,… the anger has just grown and grown. 34 years of it.
I think Martyns right.
‘that, pig muldoon thought Big’
In the 1970s NZ had largely untapped natural gas fields.
The Muldoon government did a deal, whereby an overseas corporation was assisted in the construction of an experimental and chemically inefficient plant that converted natural gas into methanol, and converted the methanol into synthetic fuel. This was supposedly going contribute to solving New Zealand’s fuel quandary.
The wastage involved in the construction became the stuff of folklore, and the costs escalated. NZ borrowed US dollars for the construction of the synthetic fuel plant and other ‘Think Big’ projects. The NZ dollar went down, causing the cost of servicing the loans to go up. That, amongst other things, eventually led to a major financial crisis and the fall of Muldoon.
In the 1990s oil prices plummeted, making the synthetic fuel plant unviable.
Oil prices then rose, making conversion of natural gas into fuel financially viable again (but did not change the inherently wasteful nature of the process, of course).
NZ greenhouse gas emissions went up substantially and a huge amount of natural gas ‘disappeared’ as a consequence of all the bad decisions made in the late 1970.
Far from solving the transport predicament, Think Big simply bought time for business-as-usual and allowed corporations to profit from the use of natural resources; it ended up exacerbating the transport predicament by facilitating even greater overconsumption than was already occurring. And Think Big exacerbated the long term energy predicament and exacerbated the planetary overheating predicament.
If NZ remains a habitable land mass for a significant time after the inevitable collapse of the fossil fuel economy, the forms of transport in common use will be the same as those of Maori prior to the arrival of Europeans -walking and paddling canoes.
We have something the Maories never had – namely horses!
If not free… then just a basic flat rate. $2 per bus trip anywhere. Let’s also get a decent (fast) train service linking auckland and whangarei (it’s going to be important in the future) and perhaps more urgently a highspeed train that links Auckland-Hamilton-Tauranga. The line exists let’s upgrade it and get something more 21st century!
Free public transport and bring back a real rail network. Otherwise ongoing high fuel prices will make this a 1 term govt. $3 by Christmas and Bridges will be PM in 2020.
If we fail to give Jacinda her mandate New Zealand will drive backwards pretty hard into the Serco economy.
Very intuitive comment Sam………
The ‘good news’ is that international oil prices have fallen slightly, making further fuel price increases less likely.
http://www.oil-price.net/
The bad news is that the fall in international oil prices allows business-as-usual more time, making a transition to saner living arrangements less likely.
I think the problem is New Zealanders don’t have a back bone any more. The moment the going gets tough, they squeal and look for the easiest option. They don’t have the stomach any more for doing the right thing, even if it is going to hurt a bit more
Hope this is OK, but hopefully people who might be interested in the rise of petrol and pollution will also be interested in the rise of cruise ship pollution and put in a submission to stop Auckland council stealing our habour for mega cruise ships in Auckland 24/7 (against their own strategic direction).
More stealing of our harbour for corporate gain…
Cruise ships are exempt from the ‘conservation tourist’ tax of $35 and are highly polluting in every way.
Last day today to oppose in submissions.
https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/have-your-say/have-your-say-notified-resource-consent/notified-resource-consent-applications-open-submissions/Pages/ResourceConsentApplication.aspx?itemId=243&applNum=CST60323353
From ‘stop stealing our harbour’
“Our reasons for objecting to the proposed ‘dolphins’ are:
An unnecessary 90 metre extension into the Waitemata Harbour from Queens Wharf into the busiest and most publically significant part of the harbour – something current political leaders including government Ministers, all opposed at the last election.
Queens Wharf was purchased by the Auckland Council and the Government to be our premier waterfront space, our marae atea, connecting the city with the harbour – berthing the oversized vessels on Queens Wharf industrialises and commercialises the “Peoples Wharf”.
Queens Wharf is a Cat-1 listed Heritage place, including the views to and from the end of the wharf. The mooring buoys and gangway will severely impact these features. A 35 year consent is not for a temporary facility as alleged. “There is nothing more permanent than a temporary structure.”
The extension of Queens Wharf with concrete 15m x 15m mooring structures and gangways is an ad-hoc, inappropriate solution to allow mega-cruise ships to dock 3 to7 days only a year. It is not aligned with Council’s long-term waterfront planning objectives as underway in the Central Wharves Strategy that propose Captain Cooks wharf as the prime cruise ship berth.
We believe the Market Economics economic report used as justification for extending Queens Wharf has used exaggerated revenue figures and does not use Cost Benefit Analysis methodology correctly.
We believe alternative arrangements for these mega-ships should be managed within the existing Port, as the Queen Mary 2 has been accommodated previously.”
Forgot to say, more info on fb, look up
Stop Stealing Our Harbour
Lots of comments about trains etc.
What kind of trains Bomber?
You do realise that the overhead electrification is to be ripped out in favour of large smelly American and Chinese diesel locomotives, don’t you?
Show me one contemporary European country that doesn’t have electrification…
What’s next, Diesel trams?
Nope. Chinese made roads to no where.
🙂
Comments are closed.