Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill

parliament.nz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 88 posts

Re: Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill

#41

Post by CamouflagedKiwi »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #9

> Ardern went on to say she absolutely believed climate change was the "biggest challenge of our time" and the "nuclear moment" for this generation. I find it ironic the prime minister is using “nuclear” as a pejorative when it was the left’s irrational opposition to nuclear power that resulted in much of the world's electricity being produced by fossil fuels. If we had embraced nuclear power 2 decades ago, we would…

Nuclear power was never a practical option for NZ; the country is too small, has no fuel handy and has no nuclear expertise, and a huge chunk of power (not all of it tbf) comes from renewables already.

Fully agreed for many other countries (disappointingly Germany, most recently) but I don't think Ardern can be held to blame for them.

Re: Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill

#42

Post by chris1993 »

A lot of the commentary here is attacking the specifics of the bill as unrealistic posturing. This ignores what I think is the main point - that the NZ government has reached consensus acknowledging that climate change is an existential risk and they need to respond at a goverment level. The details of how they act will almost certainly be changed but it's a start. It also assists in putting pressure on Australia. This is important because Australia has a climate-change denial government and powerful coal mining lobbies, and with only 25M people generates more CO2 pollution than the UK, France, or South Korea [1][2].

[1] https://www.tai.org.au/sites/default/files/P667%20High%20Car...

[2] https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-08-19/australia-co2...

Re: Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill

#43

Post by ip26 »

phs318u wrote: post #28
marcusverus wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless they plan to ban the consumption of meat, the biogenic methane cap seems like it would result in more emissions. If Kiwis don't grow their own beef, they will just have it shipped from abroad. Same consumption pattern, no global change in gross biogenic methane, but now there is the added emissions of shipping the beef across an ocean. Also, I can scarcely think of a more Orwellian idea than that Kiwis may soo…

There are other approaches to livestock methane reduction being actively investigated (and I’d suggest more promising than perennial unicorns such as carbon sequestration). One example: https://blog.csiro.au/feeding-seaweed-to-cows-our-livestock-...

Even just feeding cows grass instead of corn improves the methane emissions.

Re: Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill

#44

Post by AmericanChopper »

phs318u wrote: post #31
AmericanChopper wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The left in New Zealand literally banned all forms of nuclear energy, going as far as prohibiting essentially all US Navy vessels from entering its waters just in case they had fissile material on board.

You may be unaware that this position was enshrined in legislation that has remained untouched in the last 3 decades including by conservative governments. A couple of interesting facts: 1) the galvanising moment for this was the “Rainbow Warrior affair” in which French intelligence agents were caught after having sunk the Greenpeace vessel of the same name; 2) the nuclear-free zone act does not prohibit use of nucle…

I am aware of all these things. It is a law that will likely stay in place forever, as it is such a divisive and controversial issue, yet has barely any impact on anything in NZ, no politician will ever have a motive to take political risks required to change it. The only thing it’s ever achieved is straining the relationships NZ has with some of its closest allies.

Specifically it doesn’t prohibit all power generation, but it does prohibit nuclear propulsion. Which again has no impact outside of irritating allies, as NZ never has had and never will have a use case for commercial nuclear power production. It’s a very small country, and 80% of its electricity is already renewable.

Re: Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill

#45

Post by notmyfuture »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #36

I'd like to know how come cheapest $40k USD ($62.3k NZD) Tesla in US, cost $75.9k or about 18% more in NZ? And come the only "incentive" is "you don't pay road tax thru fuel" (while you still pay quite a bit thru yearly registration)? How come there are 0 electric buses or heavy equipment in Auckland or whole NZ? How come solar panels for your boat or lithium batteries for your bike (or electric bikes themselves) cos…

Yes, also keep in mind that incentive won't last long (ref: https://www.transport.govt.nz/multi-modal/climatechange/elec...). Once EV's make up > 2% of NZ's vehicle fleet they plan to start charging.

Given the suitability of NZ for EV's it would be nice if there was more government support for their uptake.

Re: Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill

#46

Post by yarg »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #9

> Ardern went on to say she absolutely believed climate change was the "biggest challenge of our time" and the "nuclear moment" for this generation. I find it ironic the prime minister is using “nuclear” as a pejorative when it was the left’s irrational opposition to nuclear power that resulted in much of the world's electricity being produced by fossil fuels. If we had embraced nuclear power 2 decades ago, we would…

Perhaps if the war hawks had allowed for the development of nuclear reactors with passive safety mechanisms- rather than exclusively funding R&D on those with weaponisable byproducts, we'd have globally usable nuclear energy technology today.

Regarding the irrationality of the fear of current nuclear reactors, requiring active intervention (with control rods) to prevent nuclear meltdown is a genuine and justified cause for concern (as evidenced by Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima).

Re: Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill

#47

Post by incompatible »

Taniwha wrote: post #30
alannallama wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your frustration about the green movement's knee-jerk rejection of nuclear power, but in NZ anti-nuclear policy was a very galvanising touchpoint for the environmental and anti-war movements, so there's a bit more context there. Nuclear-free and the Springbok protests are referenced constantly as progressive wins.

The NZ anti-nuclear movement was mostly (but not completely) seen as a success against the US forcing their nuclear armed warships upon us (sailing into our harbours) during the cold war, and as a result making us a potential target. In the end one of the right wing party's lawmakers voted with the left wing party, enough to pass a law, the right wing party used this as an excuse to dissolve parliament and call a nat…

I think your history is a bit off. NZ was declared nuclear-free by David Lange's government. Describing that government as "left wing" is misleading, since the nuclear-free zone was perhaps one of the few things the traditional "left" supported. His government is mostly remembered for the introduction of "Rogernomics", i.e., the introduction of neoliberalism to NZ.

Re: Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill

#48

Post by cgrealy »

notmyfuture wrote: post #45
dzhiurgis wrote: post #36

I'd like to know how come cheapest $40k USD ($62.3k NZD) Tesla in US, cost $75.9k or about 18% more in NZ? And come the only "incentive" is "you don't pay road tax thru fuel" (while you still pay quite a bit thru yearly registration)? How come there are 0 electric buses or heavy equipment in Auckland or whole NZ? How come solar panels for your boat or lithium batteries for your bike (or electric bikes themselves) cos…

Yes, also keep in mind that incentive won't last long (ref: https://www.transport.govt.nz/multi-modal/climatechange/elec... ). Once EV's make up > 2% of NZ's vehicle fleet they plan to start charging. Given the suitability of NZ for EV's it would be nice if there was more government support for their uptake.

While I agree that we should be incentivising EVs in NZ, I will point out that NZ is also probably one of the least suitable countries for EVs.

Most of NZ is very sparsely populated; your transport choices are basically fly or drive yourself. There isn't much of a rail network and buses take forever. There are basically no motorways. The South Island especially has a lot of mountains, and many roads that cover over high passes.

My wife and I are looking at an EV for our second car, but my primary vehicle will be an ICE for the foreseeable future. It's just hard to go camping, skiing, or even travel between the larger towns in an EV.

Re: Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill

#49

Post by Ericson2314 »

crispinb wrote: post #35
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #9

> Ardern went on to say she absolutely believed climate change was the "biggest challenge of our time" and the "nuclear moment" for this generation. I find it ironic the prime minister is using “nuclear” as a pejorative when it was the left’s irrational opposition to nuclear power that resulted in much of the world's electricity being produced by fossil fuels. If we had embraced nuclear power 2 decades ago, we would…

> the left’s irrational opposition to nuclear power This is nonsense. In nations where opposition to nuclear power is strong (like mine, Aus), there is not a left-right divide amongst the general population. People just don't want it, end of story, irrational or not. There is a huge divide regarding electricity supply in general here - ie. the right wants coal, the left renewables. But neither want nuclear. There hav…

As a leftist, I do concede anti-nuclear was a 60s new left thing that then went mainstream. It may not still be a leftist position today, but it was then.

Also, it does fall squarely on one side of the industrialist side of the industrialist-populist divide of the right.

Re: Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill

#50

Post by mikedilger »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #36

I'd like to know how come cheapest $40k USD ($62.3k NZD) Tesla in US, cost $75.9k or about 18% more in NZ? And come the only "incentive" is "you don't pay road tax thru fuel" (while you still pay quite a bit thru yearly registration)? How come there are 0 electric buses or heavy equipment in Auckland or whole NZ? How come solar panels for your boat or lithium batteries for your bike (or electric bikes themselves) cos…

I've been disappointed with all of that too. The only EV in any quantity here is the Nissan Leaf, used from Japan with reduced battery capacity/life.

Where I live I can't ride my bicycle to work without taking a risk higher than I'm willing to take, riding on a road without shoulders alongside milk trucks.

I looked into converting one hectare into native forest to get $4000 from the government. The cost is $20,000, and requires supervision by council and a "management plan". I became disheartened and decided to just shove poplar and willow branches in the ground and let it go wild. Government pays me $0 for taking that farmland off the market.

There are a lot of basic practical things that are holding people back who want to lower their carbon footprint, things that don't need any new innovations but just need to get done.

Post reply on HN