Chris Hipkins tells councils Govt should borrow for infrastructure and Labour is looking again at its comittment to fiscal rules limiting Government spending and debt to 30% of GDP
Please read Mike Casey’s submission re energy future in “Rewiring Aotearoa” ( online) Easier than LNG. What next can these idiots come up with to protect their rich prick mates and destroy our planet.
On the development near Massey not attached to a proper sewerage system:
Seriously??? Are there any stats anywhere for actual large projects that run to time and budget? And get the basics right (like connecting to an actual sewerage system). In what universe did this seem like a good idea?
The mind boggles.
And there I was thinking that the issues were that the schools were bursting at the seams.
It also makes me a lot more concerned about all the other greenfield developments happening. Are those all connected to the sewerage system? This is not a question I ever expected to feel the need to ask.
On Labour revisiting those 30/30 rules: it would be wonderful if they did actually do this. And did actually come up with a plan and get it all together. I have been repeatedly underwhelmed by them. They will have a LOT of work to do to do all the thinking, convince the voting public that they’re not being irresponsible and are actually capable of delivering.
I think it would help if they publicly led a cross party debate around what we want the future of NZ to look like. I won’t be holding my breath but look forward to seeing it unfold.
It would be really good to ask the Government what other options where considered and on what basis they chose LNG and consenting as the focus. As RA have pointed out solar and batteries are well understood technologies that can go on roofs now, no consents needed. And if we pushed hard at the commercial and industrial sectors there are some really big roofs out there with existing electrical connections and on site load.
To be clear we need short term plans (within 12 months) and medium term (1-5 years), LNG might be a good medium term option but we aren’t having a meaningful discussion.
When I look outside my office window, I see Bunnings Warehouse at Tower Junction. Can you imagine how much electricity solar panels on that roof can generate! It's a crime against humanity not to require it by law.
Tino kino te pai! Hints of Labour relenting on 30/30 is great news, but will be terrifying the Atlas Network. When you add Hipkins’ views on te ao Māori you see why the right wing writers’ guild (Wilson and Hooten) suddenly want to get rid of Chippy…
Seems to me that Treasury and RBNZ have a lot to answer for. They will be advising ministers so how they were trained will impact their advice. Unless they think freely we are likely to be in the same fiscal straight jacket for some time to come.
I can see labour being called fiscally irresponsible for wanting to invest in health, education and infrastructure.
It's hard work to explain to people but it cam be done, and the work needs to be one by one.
There was also a good video made by UK Labour explaining why it's better to give low income earners more money than tax cuts for the rich. Should also be endlessly circulated on social media.
Early on in the neoliberal project a number of laws and regulations were put in place which significantly limit the range of sensible fiscal policy actions that can be taken.
The change has to be much more than just increasing the gdp borrowing ratio. It involves fully realising the potential of central government being a currency issuer.
Chris Hipkins maybe is saying the right things, but imo last night in his interview with Moana Maniopoto (Maori TV) he showed little fire in the belly. Compared to the candid robust enthusiasm of Chloe Swarbrick who came after him, he was lacklustre.
Thanks again Bernard for such clarity on explaining the realities of govt debt and spending, it’s so important that loads of people understand it. AND for promoting WHO Economics of Health for All - it is a v exciting initiative combining a lot of bright international economic minds
Thanks Bernard, had not heard Chippy speech. Going back to 1984 is essential to explain why NZ is as it is. Mistaken ideas that have a stranglehold on taxes, banks, and so it goes on. I boringly refer to Muldoon & his actions as Minister of Finance, secretly propping up economy, most folk go silent & do not 'get it' wish I had your eloquence.
Fingers X Chippy & Labour 'get it' & listen to you.
Re. Infrastructure spend and leveraging natural resources (including waste), there is a technology that is being developed right here in NZ that could enable a clean economy alongside solar, geothermal and wind. Turquoise Hydrogen or Methane Pyrolysis. The IP being developed from one of our public research orgs goes even further than the current IP of converting natural gas - it can convert any hydrocarbon (wood waste, waste coal fines, methane from landfill etc) into emission free hydrogen. The by product of solid carbon (instead of C02) goes another step further as well by creating graphite for EV batteries or Activated carbon for water filtration. Mind you the carbon black can also be used for fixing potholes and new asphalt roads....
This corny US video (June this year) talks a bit about their version which is focussed on natural gas conversion. It shows the potential for NZ to go one or two steps further in the tech (if the right infrastructure investment and strategy was adopted). Also combined with other industrial hydrogen applications like heating, power generation, ammonia for fertilizer and making methanol for shipping, we could decarbonise our biggest emitters who currently take free carbon credits....
anyone else see LNG FSRU and read White Elephant? I am doubtful the market will put money on the line to invest in this infrastructure without any quid pro quo from the government. Only logical place to locate it is off the coast of Taranaki, as this will give access to pipeline with enough capacity to get it into the system, Marsden would require an upgrade of the pipeline to get enough capacity. Ironically, the battery project did some work on this: https://www.mbie.govt.nz/dmsdocument/28343-nz-battery-future-of-gas-considerations-june-2023
As far as I can see rental of an FSRU is USD250K per day, who is going to pay for this, as well as holding the gas for dry year? I cant see NZ companies paying for this security of supply when it starts raining in the right places again. Interestingly Oatar's PM was here a couple of weeks ago, perhaps they are happy to invest in opening up a new client for their LNG exports?
I'm trying to keep a lid on my excitement, it's just very early days.
Soooo. Bernard, if one wants to have a conversation with friends/ whanau about this topic, how do one deal with the counter argument that printing more money increases inflation?
Good question Cristina, I would think creating funds to invest in infrastructure and other assets which generate a benefit (or return, if you like), would inflate the value of the country's asset base, but isn't that what we want? It's building wealth, not consumption.
While I am by no means a fan of the nasty austerity produced by mostly conservative governments world wide, I am concerned with what could happen to the environment and emissions if an increase in government borrowing doesn’t have STRONG environmental guardrails. If we can put limits where we currently waste emissions and cause destruction (eg. put huge taxes on flying, single-use anything that isn’t medical, ban oil and gas exploration again etc…) then we could do minimally destructive infrastructure development and not add to emissions. But we can’t have more money to play with and a liveable long term future if we don’t constrain ourselves in some capacity. This is why Degrowth is more realistic and equitable than MMP. The physics of the situation needs to be taken into consideration.
Now I’m all for a reallocation of resources away from where we waste emissions etc… But what are the environmental consequences if we just throw more money into the situation without reducing elsewhere? I hope this makes sense, cos I’m certainly not a fan of austerity and don’t want to come across as through I am.
Think how Kainga Ora was critised for the cost of their housing build. The reason for it was the high efficiency star rating. If this was the standard in all houses we would see a reduction in emissions due to less heating/cooling requirement. If we add to it a compulsory solar system that's an additional reduction. If we densify our cities and build more cycleways and PT that's another reduction.
We know what the solutions are and what we need to do. We just need a govt willing to invest.
Hi Bernard et al
Please read Mike Casey’s submission re energy future in “Rewiring Aotearoa” ( online) Easier than LNG. What next can these idiots come up with to protect their rich prick mates and destroy our planet.
Patrick Medlicott
Got a link?
Is this it https://www.rewiring.nz/news/rewiring-aotearoas-submission-to-new-zealands-second-emissions-reduction-plan-2026-30 ?
Here's a link to register for the livestream of the launch happening 5:30pm tonight: https://www.rewiring.nz/events
So exciting! Chippy maybe and might do it!
On the development near Massey not attached to a proper sewerage system:
Seriously??? Are there any stats anywhere for actual large projects that run to time and budget? And get the basics right (like connecting to an actual sewerage system). In what universe did this seem like a good idea?
The mind boggles.
And there I was thinking that the issues were that the schools were bursting at the seams.
It also makes me a lot more concerned about all the other greenfield developments happening. Are those all connected to the sewerage system? This is not a question I ever expected to feel the need to ask.
On Labour revisiting those 30/30 rules: it would be wonderful if they did actually do this. And did actually come up with a plan and get it all together. I have been repeatedly underwhelmed by them. They will have a LOT of work to do to do all the thinking, convince the voting public that they’re not being irresponsible and are actually capable of delivering.
I think it would help if they publicly led a cross party debate around what we want the future of NZ to look like. I won’t be holding my breath but look forward to seeing it unfold.
Me too. They had an enormous mandate to start a bunch of this work in 2020 and dithered until it was too late
Near the start:
> Transfer of wealth from old to young?
Not the other way around?
Corrected at 5.
Argggh. My fault. Will flip. Thanks and sorry. Bernard
Hi again Bernard
Not good with links but document is “Submission New Zealand’s second emissions reduction plan ( 2026-2030):Discussion document”
21 August 2024
Rewiring Aotearoa
Https//wwwrewiringnz/
Patrick Medlicott
Found it. Here we go. Now I just need to read it. https://www.rewiring.nz/news/rewiring-aotearoas-submission-to-new-zealands-second-emissions-reduction-plan-2026-30
It would be really good to ask the Government what other options where considered and on what basis they chose LNG and consenting as the focus. As RA have pointed out solar and batteries are well understood technologies that can go on roofs now, no consents needed. And if we pushed hard at the commercial and industrial sectors there are some really big roofs out there with existing electrical connections and on site load.
To be clear we need short term plans (within 12 months) and medium term (1-5 years), LNG might be a good medium term option but we aren’t having a meaningful discussion.
When I look outside my office window, I see Bunnings Warehouse at Tower Junction. Can you imagine how much electricity solar panels on that roof can generate! It's a crime against humanity not to require it by law.
As for your first point - OIA request?
Well worth reading that submission - time much better spent than going outside on a damp day.
The sun's shining in Christchurch
Tino kino te pai! Hints of Labour relenting on 30/30 is great news, but will be terrifying the Atlas Network. When you add Hipkins’ views on te ao Māori you see why the right wing writers’ guild (Wilson and Hooten) suddenly want to get rid of Chippy…
IIRC the 30/30 figure was plucked out o the ether by Roger Douglas during his axe-swinging days. Hocus pocus. And we've paid for it ever since.
I think the inflation target was also plucked out of thin air. Just need to find the recording of admission and play it on repeat.
Yep I heard the clip of Roger Douglas saying that
That range was made up by Don Brash wasn't it?
Seems to me that Treasury and RBNZ have a lot to answer for. They will be advising ministers so how they were trained will impact their advice. Unless they think freely we are likely to be in the same fiscal straight jacket for some time to come.
I can see labour being called fiscally irresponsible for wanting to invest in health, education and infrastructure.
It's hard work to explain to people but it cam be done, and the work needs to be one by one.
There was also a good video made by UK Labour explaining why it's better to give low income earners more money than tax cuts for the rich. Should also be endlessly circulated on social media.
Early on in the neoliberal project a number of laws and regulations were put in place which significantly limit the range of sensible fiscal policy actions that can be taken.
Discussed at length in Jane Kelsey's The FIRE economy and by Geoff Bertram https://geoffbertram.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/iron-cage-slides-for-covid-19-reset-2021.pdf
The change has to be much more than just increasing the gdp borrowing ratio. It involves fully realising the potential of central government being a currency issuer.
Chris Hipkins maybe is saying the right things, but imo last night in his interview with Moana Maniopoto (Maori TV) he showed little fire in the belly. Compared to the candid robust enthusiasm of Chloe Swarbrick who came after him, he was lacklustre.
When your spirit animal is a sausage roll your fire is tomato sauce
Absolutely. Not even a wisp of smoke.
Thanks again Bernard for such clarity on explaining the realities of govt debt and spending, it’s so important that loads of people understand it. AND for promoting WHO Economics of Health for All - it is a v exciting initiative combining a lot of bright international economic minds
Thanks Bernard, had not heard Chippy speech. Going back to 1984 is essential to explain why NZ is as it is. Mistaken ideas that have a stranglehold on taxes, banks, and so it goes on. I boringly refer to Muldoon & his actions as Minister of Finance, secretly propping up economy, most folk go silent & do not 'get it' wish I had your eloquence.
Fingers X Chippy & Labour 'get it' & listen to you.
Re. Infrastructure spend and leveraging natural resources (including waste), there is a technology that is being developed right here in NZ that could enable a clean economy alongside solar, geothermal and wind. Turquoise Hydrogen or Methane Pyrolysis. The IP being developed from one of our public research orgs goes even further than the current IP of converting natural gas - it can convert any hydrocarbon (wood waste, waste coal fines, methane from landfill etc) into emission free hydrogen. The by product of solid carbon (instead of C02) goes another step further as well by creating graphite for EV batteries or Activated carbon for water filtration. Mind you the carbon black can also be used for fixing potholes and new asphalt roads....
This corny US video (June this year) talks a bit about their version which is focussed on natural gas conversion. It shows the potential for NZ to go one or two steps further in the tech (if the right infrastructure investment and strategy was adopted). Also combined with other industrial hydrogen applications like heating, power generation, ammonia for fertilizer and making methanol for shipping, we could decarbonise our biggest emitters who currently take free carbon credits....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gAAsM8-wqI
anyone else see LNG FSRU and read White Elephant? I am doubtful the market will put money on the line to invest in this infrastructure without any quid pro quo from the government. Only logical place to locate it is off the coast of Taranaki, as this will give access to pipeline with enough capacity to get it into the system, Marsden would require an upgrade of the pipeline to get enough capacity. Ironically, the battery project did some work on this: https://www.mbie.govt.nz/dmsdocument/28343-nz-battery-future-of-gas-considerations-june-2023
As far as I can see rental of an FSRU is USD250K per day, who is going to pay for this, as well as holding the gas for dry year? I cant see NZ companies paying for this security of supply when it starts raining in the right places again. Interestingly Oatar's PM was here a couple of weeks ago, perhaps they are happy to invest in opening up a new client for their LNG exports?
I'm trying to keep a lid on my excitement, it's just very early days.
Soooo. Bernard, if one wants to have a conversation with friends/ whanau about this topic, how do one deal with the counter argument that printing more money increases inflation?
Good question Cristina, I would think creating funds to invest in infrastructure and other assets which generate a benefit (or return, if you like), would inflate the value of the country's asset base, but isn't that what we want? It's building wealth, not consumption.
Yeah, fair comment Mate 👍
While I am by no means a fan of the nasty austerity produced by mostly conservative governments world wide, I am concerned with what could happen to the environment and emissions if an increase in government borrowing doesn’t have STRONG environmental guardrails. If we can put limits where we currently waste emissions and cause destruction (eg. put huge taxes on flying, single-use anything that isn’t medical, ban oil and gas exploration again etc…) then we could do minimally destructive infrastructure development and not add to emissions. But we can’t have more money to play with and a liveable long term future if we don’t constrain ourselves in some capacity. This is why Degrowth is more realistic and equitable than MMP. The physics of the situation needs to be taken into consideration.
Now I’m all for a reallocation of resources away from where we waste emissions etc… But what are the environmental consequences if we just throw more money into the situation without reducing elsewhere? I hope this makes sense, cos I’m certainly not a fan of austerity and don’t want to come across as through I am.
Think how Kainga Ora was critised for the cost of their housing build. The reason for it was the high efficiency star rating. If this was the standard in all houses we would see a reduction in emissions due to less heating/cooling requirement. If we add to it a compulsory solar system that's an additional reduction. If we densify our cities and build more cycleways and PT that's another reduction.
We know what the solutions are and what we need to do. We just need a govt willing to invest.
For anyone interested, the capping of government investment and its consequences was discussed with Andy Haldane (ex chief economist of the Bank of England and now head of Royal Society of Arts) after about 4mins on https://open.spotify.com/episode/6ItAJ6QjRCfCnFsIUR7zs8?si=QyqQYZwbSHeZhFHLXomS9g
Sounds like a summary of MMT to me Bernhard.
National Party are particularly locked into Austerity, time for NZ voters to wake up