|
Presentation to NZ Minister Of Energy
(David Parker 10 October 2006)) |
|||||
|
Return to Blog of Presentation to NZ Minister of Energy & Climate Issues
|
My prime concern is that our
children know science so they are better able to understand the nature
of energy and how to use it so climate balances are conserved. What was: Energy
Action 2008/Energy Action Australia
1)
Now outdated though probably still without peer. (E.g. comment
Jonathon Poritt* 2006) 2)
Creation (c1995) and distribution of resource funded by community
Trusts now extinct. In particular Hutt Mana Energy Trust, also Capital
Power (WCC), South Power (CCC) etc. Motivated by community desire to
make more intelligent use of Bulk-generated electricity, Gas and Water
and need to access “energy efficient” products and practices. 3)
TransAlta inherited programme when it assumed ownership of the
above community Trusts. 4)
2000 Revised and Expanded: Original resource lacked science and
reflected core interests of Trusts i.e. “energy”
and “power”
defined as Bulk-generated electricity. Climate component was expanded to
support Climate Change Office materials for Level 4 (Climate Impact
Report 2000). Pete Hodgson presents Grant Dunford, creator, with
communication award 5)
2000 Funding ceases. Reasons: What is: (Or why NZ carbon policy and stats are
what they are)
(1) Climate Change Office posters and
booklets. -Portrays Earth as sick, not human behaviour. -Omits
dominant Warmer Trace Gas = water vapour. -Promotes use of incandescent light bulbs i.e. status quo.
(2) Enviroschools
-Based on five themes - excludes atmosphere (Deliberate decision) *Jonathon in his key note speech noted that he had spent the previous couple of hours being shown all the wonderful things Enviroschools is doing and not once in that time had there been a single mention of the great issue of our times - our use of carbon!
(3) Genesis Energy –Royal Society Education Module
(Recently pulled after 5 years. Reason given: “not working”) -Lacks science -“Energy”, “power” = Bulk-generated electricity
-Omits
controlling role of retailer in utility grid use.
-Generator dams remain full regardless of outflow, inflow. No atmosphere.
-Omits
controlling role of retailer in utility grid use. (5) Contact (Positive) Energy.
- Lacks science; - Actively destroys “positive energy” symbol. -“Energy”,
“power” = Bulk-generated electricity Click here to view sample Powerswitch advice and commentary. -Lacks science eg “energy”, “power” = Bulk-generated electricity. -Promotes myth of competitive market (Obscures fact 99.9 % of consumers are now excluded from intelligent involvement in Electricity Market since 1993) -Just one bottom line =$$$. (Ignores social /environmental factors, penalises companies that invest in long term resource conservation.) -Corrupt. (Institute promotes itself as fiercely independent and completely free of sponsorship. The truth is this education programme is heavily sponsored.) Psychology (Advertising) 101 (1)
A symbol can take many forms – word, picture, smell, gesture, sounds
etc. All generate a common response. (Example given: greenhouse) (3)
Our mirror neurons play a powerful role in the decision making process.
We model what we see. (5) It is all about ringing the right bells i.e. primal resonance and about the framing of the content and discussion. NEECS v Kyoto national strategies –Resolving the Conflict. July 2001 NGC-OnEnergy (Merv English CEO) withdraws long- standing commitment to fund Energy Action 2008. December 2001 I am made redundant from Negawatt Resources Ltd. Continue work on the dole while waiting alternative funding. Jan 2002. Marian Hobbs views prototype Energy Action 2008 at NZAEE national conference at Hamilton. Very impressed. Wants all correspondence with Government officials. Supplied. May 2002. Climate Change Office publishes primary school booklets. I forward Marian a brief cartoon critique. Marian promptly responds with letter informing me she has given instructions to her officials that representatives of all Government Departments involved be immediately convened in a meeting with me. May–October 2003. Remain on dole waiting meeting. Research Government NEECS and Kyoto Strategies. Conclusions:
(6) Use Trace Education Model for communicating Kyoto. (Lesson activities based on comprehension of tiny proportions/ high leverage. See Note *2) Click here to see rationale posters Note *1 Recent Research by the Frameworks Institute (not yet published) advises against the use of greenhouse symbol to evoke climate processes. See attached article. Note *2 This is the basis of comprehension of Chaos Theory (weather and climate systems), Civil Defence (compounding of earth/water/air forces with speed) and economic theory (compound interest, debt management etc) . Also air molecules are able to move freely because they are only a trace proportion of the air space. Trace gases (<o.1% of atmosphere) retain almost all its thermal energy. Trace Education Model does not confuse Kyoto strategies i.e. does not suppress ameliorating behaviour as the Greenhouse Model does. October 2002. Give up on meeting with Marion Hobbs. Write to Helen Clark requesting meeting to show her NEECS-Kyoto work. Nov 2002. Receive invite to attend meeting 14/11 with reps of Min of Ed (too busy to attend), EECA, Mfe, Climate Change Office, Royal Society NZAEE. NZAEE President (Pam Williams) stops my presentation after one minute – condemns it as “just science” and says that I do not know what I am talking about. Meeting effectively ends. No minutes kept by Mfe. The Re-engineering of the energy and power symbols 2003-2004 on dole. Continue work re symbol use. In brief: both these vital symbols have been colonised and redefined by bankers of the fossil fuel/Bulk-generated electricity sector to serve their medium term interests. This results in a gross loss of science in the community and denial of the Principle of the Conservation of Energy (See Note #1.) Examples symbol uses that destroy science: (1) Power = Bulk-generated electricity. Since c1920s (Confuses power form with power. This works directly against the awareness of distributed generation options i.e. small-scale generation at point of use employing a range of energy sources.) (2) Energy = tradeable activities only, especially Fossil Fuel and Bulk-gen electricity use. Since c 1950s. (Confuses energy form with energy. This works directly against the awareness of distributed generation options i.e. small-scale generation at point of use.) (3) Energy is scarce. (Untrue) (4) Energy = Fossil Fuel (Excludes atmosphere from energy equation) (5) Humans can conserve energy. (There is not one single example known where a human has breached the Conservation Principle i.e. has created a perpetual motion machine, achieved eternal life in this form etc.) Note #1. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed and is constantly transformed. The Conservation Principle is as near as we have to a natural law. Key ideas: (1)Energy
is bounteous. (2)The amount of energy remains constant. (3)Change is constant. (4)All forms are mortal. (5)There are many forms of energy. (6)In practice, this means we have many options. (7)We need conserve useful energy forms (8)The issue is not how much energy we use that matters. The critical issue is that our use of resources conserves the environmental balances that sustain us. See Clayton Cosgrove statement re “need to use less energy” in homes (4 Oct) 2005-6 Recent work: a new Principle of
Energy? (Tentative
name The Survival Principle) “When a symbol use works to deny change it will materially alter the potential of the universe (energy) in a way that results in a reduction in the capacity of the symbol user to mirror reality. When a symbol use works for the acceptance of change it will increase the capacity of the symbol user to mirror reality.” Put another way, the denial of change results in disharmony with all environment and the latter is reshaped so that humans are more at risk of starvation, warfare, pollution, disease and misery. We are less able to mirror the balances that sustain us. A corollary of this principle: When a communication is framed with symbol uses that deny change, then the communication will tend to work to suppress science and destroy the knowledge content inherent in the communication. In other words the communication generates nonsense and maladaptive behaviour. The Survival Principle of Energy emerged from the collation of a list of common symbol uses that generate nonsense (non-science) See attached list. It derives directly from the Conservation and Uncertainty Principles. I sought to identify common factors in the symbol use and the behaviour drivers of the behaviour of the choice. In brief, the common factor is that all symbol uses contradict the Conservation Principle and/or the Uncertainty Principle. Key hypothesis: The confusion reflects dysfunction (conflict) at the primal level in the user. The fundamental drivers are a denial of change (mortality) and a desire to avoid responsibility for the consequence of actions. Application of Survival Principle of Energy. Example: EECA and current review. The framework paper identifies eight
main objectives for a replacement Strategy: Comment: Already the debate is set within an impossible framework. It evokes images that humans can conserve energy, which is a violation of the Principle of the Conservation of Energy. It confuses our capacity to conserve valuable energy forms with the impossible notion that humans can conserve energy. The focus on reducing energy use is unhelpful and needless. Again the debate is framed in conflict by confusing energy with the forms it takes. The issue is not how much energy we use. It is how our use of energy affects the environmental balances that sustain us. It is possible to alter our behaviour so that we use more energy and yet reduce our impact on environmental balances. For example, it is possible to maintain higher temperatures in homes using careful use of resources such as solar and air (insulation) while reducing the demand for other resources such as Bulk-generated electricity, Gas etc. The net number of joules used is increased while the impact on environmental balances is reduced To teach as EECA does that we must reduce the amount of energy we use is unhelpful because: (1) It is the language of deprivation. In doing so it denies one of the great messages of the Conservation Principle i.e. energy is bounteous. (2) It plays into the hands of sector groups who generate concepts of “energy crises” to sell their products. (3) It obscures the fact that legislative, behavioural and other changes can result in more energy being used at reduced or no environmental cost. (4) It is an insult to deprived people who do not even have the basics. Conclusion: The review is at high risk of being counterproductive of its stated objectives Alternative: 1. A weighting towards actions that use resources so that the environmental balances that sustain us are conserved. Measuring energy efficiency: Current economic measures means the efficient use of resources results in a reduction in the GNP figures i.e. energy efficiency is framed as negative. This is unsustainable. Amory Lovins (Rocky Mountain Institute) created the negawatt measure to provide an efficiency measure that would register as a positive contribution to the GNP. Hence multi-billion Negawatt Trade Flaws: (1)
Nega = symbol of bad, backwards, loss, deprivation. (2) Focus on Watts (Bulk-gen electricity i.e. elicits associations with electric wall socket, not solar resources. (3) Assumes Market will make energy efficient use of profits from generation of negawatts. (See Enron for counter evidence) I have attempted to redesign and improve on the negawatt symbol: Bonusjoules: tends to be generated when a use of energy is primarly driven by long-term, low- risk considerations. Junkjoules: tends to be generated when a use of energy is primarily driven by short-term, high-risk considerations. Bonusjoules-junkjoules is a complementary co-evolving measure. We live in a flux of change. What can be considered an efficient use of resources in one period can be considered inefficient in the next period. 2006- The Great Electric-Solar Age The issue in this Age is not climate change. There is nothing inherently wrong (or right) with climate change. It is the natural order and most sane people sense this is true at their cellular level. The issue is Climate Balance Protection. The concept of Peak Oil is unhelpful: (1) No one can know how much oil there is in Earth’s Mantle. (2) The focus is on extraction, not impact of use. (3) The Bell Curve lacks hope. Suggestion: We are now in the Post Cheap Oil Gas Age: (1) Oil-Gas retrieval will become a more high risk and expensive activity from now on. (2) Combustion of oil-Gas alters the carbon balances of the atmosphere (We are at greater risk of unsustainable changes to thermal balances.) (3) The use of oil-Gas enables the sustenance of 5.5 billion of the 6.5 billion humans. (I.e. provides the additional fertilisers, pesticides, food storage and transport required.) The Post Cheap Oil Gas Age will probably prove to be of duration of less than a generation. Failure to adapt to it will result in catastrophic collapse of the global human civilisation. At present I suggest the greatest hope lies in transitioning to what may be described as the Great Electric-Solar Age. Key characteristics: (1) Planned population reduction by voluntary birth control. (2) Intelligent uses of electricity in all its forms for thermal needs, food storage, communication and transport. (3)
Conservation and use of our solar capacity (4) Focus on the generation of resources at point of use i.e. community/dwelling level. Some obstacles to Distributed Generation include: (1) Hostile language (symbol use). (2) The destruction of solar generating capacity. See photo showing how RMA-Building Code-Wellington City Council permitted the destruction of my access to solar energy.
(3) The current construction of rooflines so they are not inclined to sun to benefit from future solar-based technology. (4) The disproportionately high compliance costs plus large tax disincentives. Example: the NZ Electricity Reforms block the effective use of reversible meters on dwellings (less than 1kw generators). This increases compliance costs by up to 1000% and can result in 2000% increase in our Goods and Services Tax. (5) The NZ Electricity Reforms. Householders must sell on the Electricity Market through one of the Bulk-gen retailers i.e. through companies profoundly hostile to such competing products. Communities can no longer make intelligent uses of their local utility grid. Summary key ideas: We are our symbols. Many key symbol uses deny change and that humans are mortal forms. We need a national review of our current use of key symbols. Teachers need a resource that shows at a glance key science principles underpinning climate issues from Level One up. The Principle of the Conservation of Energy is as near as we have to a natural law. Air =Large capacity for thermal convection. Air = Small capacity for thermal conduction. We need understand trace quantities and leverage principles. Thermal energy constantly moves from warmer areas to cooler areas and never the reverse We need a Minister for Solar Energy Resources, a Minister for Climate Balance Conservation, a Minister of Electricity Resources and a Minister of Mineral Resources. The Electricity Reforms are designed to promote inefficient uses of electricity and other resources. Every act has the potential to generate either bonusjoules or junkjoules and this potential is subject to constant change. We are now in the Post Cheap Oil-Gas Age. The vision of a Great Electric-Solar Age is a unique source of hope. Thank
you for this opportunity to present a few of the many ideas I have re.
the promotion of science in the communication of nature of energy in
general and of climate balance protection in particular. Return to Blog of Presentation to NZ Minister of Energy & Climate Issues
|
|
|||
