|
 Skip
to this weeks poll |
Send to friend
11
May 2008
A
Citizen Revolt
|
Printer
friendly version (PDF) 
View
>>> |
In
the recent local body elections, Britain’s Labour Government
was delivered its worst election defeat in 40 years.
Commentators called the rout a “citizen revolt” against
the carbon taxes and nanny state regulations that have been
driving up living costs to unsustainable levels.
With
the New Zealand general election only months away, and Labour
trailing in the polls, Helen Clark is taking decisive steps to
avert a similar “citizen revolt” here.
Mindful
of the escalating costs of petrol and rising prices across the
board, she has announced a delay in the implementation of key
aspects of the proposed Emissions Trading Scheme. In
particular, this means that the transport sector, which was
due to face an estimated carbon ‘tax’ increase of at least 8
cents a litre from 2009, has been granted a two-year
“holiday” before being forced into the scheme in 2011.
It
has been predicted that over time, the human cost of emissions
trading will be the loss of around 22,000 jobs and an increase
in household costs of some $3,000 a year.
(See NZIER
Impacts of the Proposed Emissions Trading Scheme>>>) Is that a price we as a
society are prepared to pay? Are those 22,000 families an
acceptable “sacrifice” in what “caring” green
activists would claim is an environmental world war?
While
fear of a UK-style election-year voter backlash over New
Zealand’s soaring petrol prices has caused our government to
put the brake on their unworkable emissions trading scheme,
they appear intent on pushing ahead with their misguided
energy strategy. This is in spite of warnings that doing so
will threaten the security of our electricity supplies.
Labour’s strategy places a 10-year moratorium on the
building of new thermal energy ‘base load’ power stations.
It also commits the country to an increasing dependence on
less reliable and more expensive wind power, in order to
achieve the government’s goal of 90 percent renewable energy
by 2030. The effect will not only result in a substantial
increase in power prices, but will leave the country exposed
to blackouts and power cuts.
Wind
energy is not the panacea that many environmentalists like to
claim it is. Among the many environmental concerns are the
fact that wind turbines stand up to 140 metres tall on massive
concrete foundations, are connected by overhead power lines
and roading, and require vast tracts of land that destroy
wildlife habitats and disrupt farming. Furthermore, each year
many thousands of birds – including protected species - are
caught in the turbines and killed (see Problems of Wind Power:
Killing Birds>>>
and Green v Green>>>). And that’s not to mention
the irony that many activist groups who support the building
of these noisy and ugly “War of the World” monstrosities
on pristine landscapes, are vociferous opponents against those
who wish to build a dwelling on their own property.
With
the government predicting a 20 percent rise in power prices as
a result of this move towards greater reliance on renewable
energy, and some commentators estimating that prices will
double, the Prime Minister has been quick to reassure beneficiaries
that they will be protected from such price rises. No such
assurance has, however, been given to pensioners, to
struggling working families or to struggling businesses. It
appears that they will have to carry the full cost of this
radical green policy.
It
is a major problem for all New Zealanders that while so many
of policies introduced by governments in the name of
‘environmentalism’ sound good and caring, in reality they
are extremely punitive on those who do not enjoy the
government’s favour. Not only that, but all too often, there
are very serious unintended consequences.
That
is certainly the case with biofuels, which environmentalists
have been promoting as the clean, green alternative to
oil-based fuels for years. But now that the craze has taken
hold politically - as a result of widespread fearmongering
over global warming - the disastrous consequences are starting
to show.
Mass
deforestation is occurring around the world as forests (even
rainforests) and wilderness areas are cleared for the
cultivation of grain. But with the amount of grain needed to
fill the tank of a medium sized vehicle being enough to feed a
person for a year - and 1,700 gallons of water needed to
create just one gallon of ethanol - the biofuel “solution”
is literally taking food and water from the mouths of those
who need it the most. (See Time,
The Clean Energy Scam >>>)
As
a result, the price of grain has skyrocketed triggering food
riots in Mexico, Indonesia, Pakistan, Egypt, Africa and the
Philippines. The World Bank has estimated that more than 30
countries around the world face social unrest because of food
shortages and 100 million people are now at risk. (See Telegraph,
Global Warming Rage Lets Global Hunger Grow >>>)
In
spite of the massive environmental, social and political
threats being posed by biofuel production, neither Labour nor
the Green Party is prepared to delay the passing of the New
Zealand Biofuel Bill. It is set to come into effect later this
year even though all around the world governments are
postponing and abandoning similar types of legislation in
order to reduce the global threat.
By
embracing extreme environmental ideology, under the guise of
global warming, the New Zealand Government will not only
contribute to world starvation, but also to deteriorating
health and well-being in
this country as families under financial pressure cut back on
home heating this winter to unhealthy levels.
Unfortunately
the history of environmental alarmism is littered with false
prophecies and negative consequences. For example, in their
drive to prevent humans from ‘destroying the planet’, the
Green movement has been responsible for demonising “urban
sprawl”. The result is that stringent restrictions on the
availability of land for housing around city and township
boundaries in many parts of the country have contributed to
New Zealand’s house prices being amongst the most
unaffordable in the western world.
Bob
Day, the former President of the Australian Housing Industry
Association and this week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator, puts it
like this:
“The
regulatory seeds of the current housing affordability crisis
were sown back in the 1970s. Up until then land was abundant,
affordable and the development of new suburbs was largely left
to the private sector. Our
pre-1970s leafy suburbs of large allotments and wide streets
are an enduring testimony to the private sector’s ability
and the traditional laissez-faire approach to urban
development. It
was into this environment of clearly successful urban growth
that governments started to get involved by introducing
‘urban growth boundaries’ and ‘urban consolidation’
policies. These policies have been responsible for
astronomical rises in land prices”.
He
explains that urban planners, by promoting urban consolidation
and at the same time demonizing urban spread, have inflicted
enormous damage on the economy and society:
“The
case for urban consolidation has been advanced on the back of
a number of arguments – namely, that it is good for the
environment; that it stems the loss of agricultural land; that
it encourages people on to public transport; that it saves
water and energy; that it leads to a reduction in motor
vehicle use, and that it saves on infrastructure costs for
government. All of these claims, I repeat, all of these claims
are false. The facts and evidence from around the world refute
each and every one of them”. (To read Bob’s article, click
here >>>)
As
long as politicians believe there are votes in the
environmental bandwagon, they will press ahead with their
radical agenda. But given the disastrous outcomes that are now
emerging, it is surely time for the
New Zealand public to regain their voice and express their
view on whether or not they are prepared to bear the personal
cost. Just as the British public did with their “citizen
revolt”, in this critical election year, those New
Zealanders who don’t want to pay for the ideological beliefs
of others must now let the politicians know that their role is
to represent the public, not manage them. (The email addresses of all MPs
can be found on the NZCPR website – click
here>>>)
This
week’s poll asks whether you
are willing to pay higher taxes in order to fund projects to
combat climate change. Go
to Poll >>>
If you
would like to comment on this issue please click
>>>
Skip to top |
Skip
to this weeks poll |
Send to friend
Your
Comments:
Reader's
comments will be posted on the NZCPR Forum page click
to view >>>.
Skip to top |
Skip
to this weeks poll
Send
to a friend:
|
