James Shaw tells us to “use the energy nature provides”

Coal, oil and gas are provided by nature

Turn the coal, oil and gas right back on, Mr Shaw.

The Green Party’s Clean Energy Plan released yesterday announces they want to save the world by eliminating crude oil from our lives. They haven’t asked whether we want this, but surely James Shaw’s heart is in the right place because he says they want to “create a truly sustainable Aotearoa that runs on the energy nature provides.”

I can only agree. “Yes, Mother Nature provides fossil fuels. We should use them. James Shaw for king.”

“When all our energy comes from the sun, the wind and the flow of rivers,” he says, “we won’t need to burn the fossil fuels that cause the climate crisis.”

Stop trying to ban them, Mr Shaw. Those wonderfully convenient, reliable and inexpensive forms of energy are provided by nature and, as you say, we should use them.

The truth is that any open-minded inquiry into the climate system uncovers serious defects in the UN climate story. Such as, there’s been precious little warming this century not associated with El Ninos. At the root of the “climate crisis” declaration lies not a wish to repair the environment, for there is nothing whatsoever wrong with it, but a wish to instil guilt about imagined man-made damage and so justify creating a new society aligned with socialist principles.

But the Labour/NZ First/Greens coalition has no mandate from voters to do that. Leave our society alone, Mr Shaw.

Views: 4

9 Thoughts on “James Shaw tells us to “use the energy nature provides”

  1. Gwan on 14/07/2020 at 11:25 am said:

    James Shaw needs to wake up .
    New Zealand has to earn its place in the world by exporting food ,wool ,timber ,iron sand and some manufactured products .
    Our tourism is on hold and no one knows when we will see tourists in large numbers here again.
    At least the government realizes that farm exports are crucial to New Zealands future moving forward .
    Our agricultural exports can be shipped to the other side of the world and their emission profile is lower after shipping than most locally grown food in those countries .
    As I have said before New Zealands emission profile is inflated because of our livestock methane .
    Livestock methane should never have been included in any countries emission profile as methane from livestock is a CYCLE and not one additional atom of carbon or molecule containing carbon such as CO2 and CH4 is added to the atmosphere .
    All fodder consumed has absorbed CO2 from the air and the small amount of methane emitted during digestion is broken down into water vapour and CO2 in around 8 to 10 years .
    Andy Reisinger head of the agricultural greenhouse gas commission does a real disservice to New Zealand with his arguments that New Zealands enteric methane emissions are heating the world .
    He shows a graph that clearly shows the emissions are level at a constant rate and he admits that methane breaks down into water vapour in a time between 8 to 12 years .
    The facts that Reisinger and Shaw won’t mention is that methane levels are increasing because of a surge in world coal mining and combustion .
    Methane levels were flat lining from 2000 to 2009 when world coal production was around 4.7 billion tonnes .
    From 2010 coal production soared and is now over 8 billion tones and methane levels have increased over the last ten years in line with coal production .
    The Greens solution can only make all New Zealanders poorer and will encourage China to buy more coal to supply New Zealand with goods that could have been made here with cheap electricity .
    Proud to be farming and exporting high quality food to the world and earning much needed income for New Zealand

    • Richard Treadgold on 14/07/2020 at 11:08 pm said:


      I haven’t checked your figures but I presume they’re accurate. I know there’s very little methane in the atmosphere and I hope to have evidence shortly showing there’s little likelihood methane is significantly heating the atmosphere.

  2. Andrew on 14/07/2020 at 3:35 pm said:

    If it wasn’t so serious it would be laughable that James Shaw only talks about “controlling” farm source methane, when there are plenty of other sources that for some strange reason he ignores. One such source is wetlands, another would be rubbish dumps! A few years ago he advocated for keeping & maintaining wetlands but seems to ignore the fact that any rotting vegetation releases methane – so how does he propose to control that?

    Also – when are these idiot politicians going to learn about the carbon cycle? I have written to most suggesting they have a crash course in carbon cycle – I might as well talk to the trees!!

  3. Richard Treadgold on 14/07/2020 at 3:43 pm said:

    Hi Andrew, thanks for dropping in. I have to agree with you. It goes without saying that Shaw acts from an ideological agenda, not from science. He also ignores the fact he has no electoral mandate to ban fossil fuels. Not a single Green MP was wanted in any electorate, they’re all list MPs.

    • Andrew on 14/07/2020 at 10:52 pm said:

      Thanks Richard – i am not sure why my post doesn’t show up, i must have pressed the wrong buttons as i was editing it!!
      I totally agree, Shaw is ideologically driven, he hasn’t got a scientific bone in his body, if he had he would be consistent about reducing all sources of CH4 & not just singling out farmers because he hates farming! I suspect most readers here will understand there are many components that make up ‘the climate’ and know that CH4 & CO2 are but a very small component (in current %’s) & are not the enemy – politicians like Shaw are!

      Fantastic website by the way, i have only recently found it so still reading through some older links!

    • Richard Treadgold on 14/07/2020 at 11:04 pm said:

      Glad you like the site. There’s a lot to explore but don’t forget the farm!

  4. Gwan on 17/07/2020 at 9:54 am said:

    Just how crazy are the Green party and their politicians ?
    They are hell bent on destroying New Zealands economy by classifying methane from livestock as a green house gas emission when every other country in the world ignores this .
    They pushed the Zero Carbon Bill and they will never accept that livestock methane is a cycle and adds no green house gasses to the atmosphere .
    That is a fact and if the sums are correctly estimated a cycle adds nothing.
    Not one additional atom of carbon or molecule containing carbon over any time frame is added to the atmosphere .
    The planting of trees for carbon credits is only an offset as eventually all the carbon will return to the atmosphere when the trees are burnt or die and decompose .It is a cycle but that is OK with the greens as their mates are earning Carbon credits.
    China has a free pass to keep on mining and combusting coal and increasing both methane and carbon dioxide emissions at a rapid rate .
    Have the Greens ever taken a moment to consider that the Chinese are rubbing their hands with glee when they see stupid governments all over the world deliberately increasing energy prices by using wind and solar .
    Where is the logic of moving countries manufacturing industries offshore to use coal fired electricity and effectively increase world wide emissions .
    Every tonne of coal burnt releases 2.7 tonne of CO2 and a large amount of methane is released during coal mining and combustion .
    The Greens want to restrict our farming so that China and other countries can burn more coal .
    The greens are now attacking hydro electricity as some clown has come up with the idea that methane is emitted from rotting vegetation in the hydro lakes .
    This is exactly the same as live stock methane as it is a cycle but these people have no reasoning ability and all they know is Methane is Bad .
    There is no logic to the Greens thinking as they are driven by false ideology .

  5. Andrew on 21/07/2020 at 7:45 pm said:

    I absolutely agree that the Greens are nuts and will destroy NZ – even old Winston has finally realised that!! We could argue until the cows/sheep come home but this nonsense gains traction because the wheels of politics demand it & sadly the townies believe it! It won’t stop me, but convincing socialists the ills of their ways is a tough road to hoe especially if they don’t have a basic understanding of science.
    I have been involved in agriculture for 50 years and have frequently discussed / argued many of the points you raise with politicians / farmers / colleagues. I understand the carbon cycle, I understand the outputs of ruminants plus the minimal, if any, effect it will have on the climate but the problem is most people don’t understand it like we do! If you talk about a cow giving off between 70-120kgs of CH4 / year, which equates to atmospheric content of 1.9ppm & BTW it won’t affect climate their eyes glaze over – they just don’t get it! I have asked the Greens how they plan on measuring my farm CH4 outputs & their answer is with a measuring tool!!! So when I ask them how will they know my farms methane number is not my neighbours 500 cow herd they haven’t a clue & don’t seem to care!! I remind them that a 50kg range of bovine CH4 outputs in this context is huge and, largely dependent on feed intakes, & will vary which begs the question as to how farmers will be able to change their outputs if, as most farmers do, feed pasture only (systems 1 or 2)? One can only conclude that their ability to reduce CH4 output is limited unless they reduce stock numbers which is what the greens want us to do. The Greens do not understand basic science, they don’t care, they just want to tax the shit out of us to oblivion and ensure veganism rules!
    I own a few sheep & of course they give off methane; when the Greens get their god awful zero carbon bill into full swing I will probably sell up before I pay any tax but tax me they will! Help please!!

  6. Richard Treadgold on 23/07/2020 at 12:58 pm said:

    Andrew, a cri de cœur, sir!

    We can of course forget about persuading Shaw and his socialist cronies to back off. They want to save the planet (doesn’t everybody?) but unfortunately not a single Green MP has an electorate to answer to, since they were all elected on Party votes, so there’s no natural resistance to their diabolical designs. Of course, Jacinda and Winston needed the votes, and that is the only reason the Greens have a sniff of the Treasury benches.

    However, as climate sceptics we have two big advantages: we’re entering an election, which makes all politicians nervous, and we know the scientific truth — a powerful asset when your opponent denies it. We publicise the truth among the voters and thus remove the oxygen from Shaw’s political lungs. Turn off the Greens and towards … not sure. National’s almost disqualified itself, except that Judith has a shiny titanium spine so she could save them. Perhaps Act?

    We’re already doing fairly well on the web traffic, not to mention that detailed, honest reporting such as yours gives a huge boost to morale, believe it or not, because it clarifies what we’re working for and how these issues affect real people. Climate change is otherwise somewhere way off in the future for most people, and it’s only our accounts that put it squarely in the present. Strangely enough, I think the likes of Greta Thunberg and Al Gore help with focussing the issues, too, even with the make-believe science.

    Anyway, just briefly, I can report the following website traffic over the last four calendar months:

    There were 3,016,000 hits
    through 215,000 visits
    from 45,500 sites
    while 707,700 pages were served by my hosting provider.

    That’s something to be proud of and tremendously encouraging. I should do a post on this. Not many people feel the need to comment, but the numbers watching are staggering.

    Andrew, I think we’re doing the right thing in writing about what’s happening, correcting the mistruth in the media and finding bright new ways to make the science simple. But we should make better efforts to convert all these watchers to voters. Vote with their feet, ask questions at public meetings, write letters to the newspapers, talk on the radio programmes and make just a tiny effort to get through to your politicians, no matter which party they represent.

    If we all contribute, that’s 215,000 contributions. Politicians start to sweat at three letters on the one topic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation