Nats give thumbs down to energy efficiency.

Posted on 12:54, January 12th, 2009 by Roger Nome

The Herald is running a story which re-confirms the National Party’s climate change denier status.

In contradiction with their stated desire to be “fast followers” in measures to combat climate change, the National Party is refusing to follow European countries which have committed to fazing out inefficient home appliances, that result in unnecessary carbon pollution.

Over at the National Party’s semi-official blog David Farrar is aghast that the Green Party wants to keep in-step with other developed countries by putting an end to the SUV of the living room, the plasma screen TV.

Meanwhile, National’s Energy Minister, Gerry Brownlee, who last year proclaimed that “coal is sexy”, has stated that:

Consumers should be given as much information as they possibly can about the energy efficiency of appliances … but at the final point of purchase it’s the consumer’s decision.

So in other words, the National Party’s view is, “if you can afford to pollute, then you should be able to do so with impunity”.

The question is, how long will a 21st century public allow a party with a 19th century environmental philosophy to stay in power?

Tags: Climate change, Gerry Brownlee, National

Posted in Environment | Print

12 Responses to “Nats give thumbs down to energy efficiency.”

1. erikter on January 12th, 2009 at 13:10

   I side with Farrar on this. Once you stop banning things because they are do not fit your green mold, where do you stop? The final decision is to be made by the consumer, not by a faceless bureucrat following orders from his/her “enlightened” political masters. The Green Party is absolutely wrong.

2. Anita on January 12th, 2009 at 14:59

   So in other words, the National Party’s view is, “if you can afford to pollute, then you should be able to do so with impunity”. They also have no intention of actually making you pay the cost of your pollution (cf the death of the Carbon Tax and the impending death of the ETS).

3. roger nome on January 12th, 2009 at 15:35

   erikter: In the end the public will have their say by voting for a party that brings NZ into line with 21st century international politics. In the 18th century it was legal for people to pollute the public realm by throwing their home effluent out into the street – but in stepped the voting public, in stepped the faceless bureaucrats, and now it’s illegal to chuck you crap on to other people’s heads. Yet another example of the voting public and faceless bureaucrats destroying our precious liberties. Where will it all end aye?

4. Ari on January 12th, 2009 at 18:00

   I certainly don’t see why we shouldn’t set minimum efficiency standards for all our home appliances. That still lets us have plenty of choice, but it also protects consumers from expensive and ineffective products.

5. rainman on January 12th, 2009 at 20:28

   “21st century public” Bwahahahaha! You made me spill my drink! Who voted these b*stards in then?

6. MacDoctor on January 13th, 2009 at 01:00

   It’s probably a mute point anyway. LED and Organic LED screens will probably replace both plasma and LCD within five years or so. They consume about a quarter of the power of LCD, perhaps less.

7. Phil Sage (sagenz) on January 13th, 2009 at 01:53

   Do TV’s use less power when on moot? :)

8. MacDoctor on January 13th, 2009 at 09:57

   Ah, the dangers of commenting late at night. :-)

9. reddeath26 on January 13th, 2009 at 20:01

   I also agree with David Farrar on this issue, which is not a very common occurrence at all. I think it is much better to provide the consumer with accurate information so that they are able to make informed decisions. Simply Banning products left and right is not the answer. However I would strongly support the energy efficiency rating spreading to other products and being compulsory.

10. Anita on January 13th, 2009 at 20:12

    reddeath26, Are you also in favour of consumers paying the true cost of the products and power? If so, carbon tax, ETS, or something else?

11. jackp on January 14th, 2009 at 11:16

    This is why Labour and the greens are out of power. They always thought they knew what is best for the public. Also the mention about affording to be able to pollute has that \rich prick\ syndrome. I talked to a manager of an electronic store and he was saying that LCD screens looks like the wave of the future. Strike one for freedom of choice and negative for hard nanny state regulation suppression. And think of the taxpayers money we are saving on less bureaucratic nonesense!

12. roger nome on January 14th, 2009 at 13:08

    Jackp: “the mention about affording to be able to pollute has that rich prick syndrome” That’s your paranoia i’m afraid. Fact: ceteris paribus, the more you consume, the more you pollute (i.e. the more you drive your car around, the more you pollute), and the more money you have, the more you can consume (this is why OECD countries have a much higher carbon emission per capita figure than third-world countries). This isn’t to say everyone should be poor, but that the free market results in negative externalities (in this case pollution) that need to be rectified by regulation, via the democratic process. “I talked to a manager of an electronic store and he was saying that LCD screens looks like the wave of the future.” Time-Series graphs show that, growth in carbon emissions is nearly perfectly correlated with growth in GDP – i.e. the “free-market” is not the answer. “They always thought they knew what is best for the public.” I disagree – most of the reforms of the 5th Labour government were very popular. Ultimately it was the “time for change” sentiment (which afflicts all 3rd term Governments), along with (what appear to be now) National’s false promises of moderate policy, that brought the government down.