On the New Zealand government’s deal with BlackRock

Two questions need to be asked about the government’s arrangements with BlackRock, firstly “Why does the government need to be involved in a private investment initiative?” and secondly “What exactly is the deal between the government and BlackRock?”. It should come as no surprise that the mass media has asked neither of these questions of either the government or BlackRock.

However we can make an informed guess as to the answer to both questions. BlackRock is proposing to invest in renewables, specifically solar and wind power. Both methods of generation suffer from the problem that they cannot supply continuously. Therefore, in the periods when they are generating they need to be assured of a high price per unit supplied. They cannot risk being undercut at those crucial times by suppliers capable of continuous generation, such as hydro, geothermal and gas or coal fired plants. In short, before investing BlackRock needs an assurance that New Zealand electricity prices will remain consistently high, and to that end it would appear that government has given BlackRock an assurance that generating capacity in New Zealand will lag behind demand for electricity or that government will institute a mechanism to impose minimum price levels for electricity.

Clearly there will be consequences for New Zealand electricity consumers who will be paying through the nose to guarantee BlackRock’s profits from an inherently risky venture.

(from http://www.republican.co.nz)

https://www.waikatodistrict.govt.nz/docs/default-source/your-council/plans-policies-and-bylaws/plans/district-plan-review/hearings/hearing-18/legal-submissions/hearing-18—rural-legal-submissions-on-behalf-of-bathurst-and-bt.pdf?sfvrsn=448e8dc9_8

In the Matter of the Resource Management Act 1991 And In the Matter of the Proposed Waikato District Council Plan – Stage 1
…. The plan addresses the positive and adverse effects of energy infrastructure and development and makes provision for the continued supply of coal by recognising and making provision for future expansion of existing coal mines….

Yippee! we are on task

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snTaSJk0n_Y&ab_channel=Movieclips

Again, not wrong. Big money is ubiquitous. Even in the most hallowed of NZ’s institutions.
https://www.greenpeace.org/aotearoa/press-release/greenpeace-hands-nz-rugby-a-red-card-over-oil-industry-sponsorship-deal-with-all-blacks/

RIGHT ON AO

Well, the entire Western world is being screwed by big money, that means almost the entire world is being screwed. This includes Japan, who maybe strong in some areas, but they are still under the hammer, well and truly (boy, they’d love to get rid of that US base in Okinawa for starters). And ideology is not stopping us from changing our tax system – big money is the road block to this. Sure, we can always tinker with it, but we are not allowed to make the wholesale changes it really needs, namely taxing the multi nationals and the richest among us to pre-1980 levels. This level of change is a direct threat to big money. It will not fly….unless we make it happen, and our first step into doing this is to turn our backs on the mainstream media that either relies upon big money advertisers to survive or is owned by big money interests in the first place. Free-flowing information can lead us out of this mess, but given the rising levels of censorship cropping up, here, there and everywhere, the big moneyed crowd knows this all too well.

Can’t disagree AO. But wouldn’t it be nice to have the population of Japan and the domestic savings to boot. Never need to go cap in hand for offshore investment. We’re a distant island in the South Pacfic and rely primarily on primary industry, yet need top notch infrastructure in the current global economy – and more to the point, the need to reduce our carbon footprint and invest in renewable energy. Borrow big time and somehow do it ourselves as with think big back in the day? Swallow the ideological pill and adopt a bipartisan commitment to change the tax system and collect more revenue? Go cap in hand to big players like Blackrock and fall foul of moneyed interests? A lack of morality as WH argues, or simply a pragmatic decision? Whatever the answer however this kind of deal needs close media scrutiny. That much I agree.