Return to the Welcome Page

   Bonus Joules and the Knowledge Economy



Return to Update Page


Link here
 to a list of 
sustainable uses of key symbols - including

energy energy efficiency
global warming

Peak Oil
exponential growth







 Renewable Energy Mayhem
Bonus Joules discovers a perpetual motion machine- and stops the universe.


Click on any cartoon

Chapter Five - Land of the Other- The Dangers of Renewable Energy.

JOURNEY Index                                                               


Bonus Joules and the Knowledge Economy: All content on this site is copyright 2001 and you are free to use it with care. 


Blog by Dave McArthur  10 Sept 2008

Add a new word to the list to express being shafted, Rogered*, screwed, ripped off, cheated, done over, extorted etc. People could well soon be complaining about being ETSed. And watch our carbon emissions rise in the process. 

*Note: Overseas readers should know that to be Rogered has an extra meaning in New Zealand. The Right Honourable Sir Roger Douglas, our Finance Minister in the 1980s, without pre-consultation with the New Zealand people, instituted radical economic reforms with great zeal. Other nations experienced similar reforms as Reagonomics and Thatcherism. Here the reforms included the transfer of ownership of hundreds of billions of dollars of national assets to a few merchant bankers and overseas corporations in exchange for a few token payments. To be Rogered is a polite term for the deep sense of betrayal and loss that many New Zealanders experienced. 

In New Zealand last week the Green Party here endorsed the ETSing of our nation and humanity in general. In other words they agreed to commit the nation to the Emissions Trading Strategy and effectively further impose Rogernomics on us.

The spin merchants would have us believe that the ETS is about stewardship of our climate. It is nothing of the sort and never has been since its genesis in the murky psychopathology that is the likes of Enron, Arthur Andersen and Co and those who would commodify anything, including their parents and children, to make a quick buck. They did this to all New Zealanders in 1998.  

Enron Online was the actual mechanism they designed to enable mass trades of anything – and that includes every use of carbon. Its essence is non-stewardship. It is about maximising trades in carbon and this inevitably promotes the inefficient uses of our carbon potential generally –as we have seen with the “market driven” trading systems of both mineral oil and Bulk-generated electricity. 

I have attempted to point out to the leaders of NZ’s Green Party (and Greenpeace, the NZAEE, Climate Defence Coalitions, Consumer groups et al) the folly of their ways for several years now. In brief and most fundamentally I pointed out the lack of science underpinning their policies. In general, it is fair to say their responses lacked science and that their endorsement of the ETS is an accurate reflection of the lack of science in their lifestyles – lifestyles in which their walk is in great dissonance with their talk. In particular if every person in the world adopted the model provided by our Parliamentarian’s life style then all the systems supporting our global civilisation would collapse in that instant. 

The Green Party decision means our education system is ETSed now too. It will be impossible to communicate concepts of personal stewardship to our young people now without having to mount a comprehensive attack on our National policy. Judging from their uncritical acceptance of the closely related ethos, the  NZ Electricity Reforms, very few teachers will question the ETS. I summed up the situation for Environmental Educators this week on their national forum EElist thus:


“The reason I thought Environmental Educators would be at the forefront of the debate is that the ETS decision goes to the heart of Environmental Education, which supposedly is about promoting civics and stewardship. In this particular case we have a clear choice of decision as Carbon Beings:


We accept our roles as stewards. We say, “ I am responsible for how I use carbon in all its forms. It is my civic duty to use carbon in ways that sustain the balances and flows of carbon transformation that enable my life and the lives of our children’s children. Hence I value carbon forms and will promote national taxes so market prices reflect those values.”


We deny/reject our roles as stewards.  We say, “I am not responsible for how I use carbon in all its forms. I believe The (Carbon) Market determines the ways I use carbon and I believe that it will sustain the balances and flows of carbon transformation that enable my life and the lives of our children. Hence I hereby cede my civic rights and my nation’s sovereignty to the entity, which is the global Carbon Market. It will value carbon forms and I and my fellow human beings will live by the prices it decides.”

I suspect this statement was not really welcome because it makes educators, especially Environmental Educators, confront the unsustainable elements of their own lifestyle. In the event there was not a single response. Lest they were opting for the Green Movements general excuse “ oh well, any legislation is better than no legislation” I reminded people:

 “The argument that the ETS is better than nothing is plain arrogant. It ignores the fact that many humble folk are already living lives that reflect their relatively high valuation of carbon resources and the ETS actively punishes them for not using cars, jets, McMansions etc. It is also flawed because the ETS diminishes stewardship and disempowers people, which is a loss situation, a less than zero situation. And serious evidence is accumulating now that the ETS increases carbon emissions.”

 My popularity among NZ Environmental Educators was probably further diminished when I pointed out that Enviroschools, the dominant national Environmental Education resource, had its genesis in the murky world of Enron too. In the past I have attempted the thankless and daunting task of explaining how this education resource is superbly designed to serve the interests of the Ken Lays of this world and works directly against the objectives of the very well-meaning but perhaps naive educators who designed the resource. They have been exploited just as surely as Ken Lay et al exploited Greenpeace, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Federation, James Hanson (one of Enron’s “consultants”) and other such groups. 

Now I have been aware of the unsavoury history of carbon trading for a decade now. In my blogs I have detailed my experiences working in the Enronian environment created here in New Zealand by the Electricity Reforms of the 1990s. The NZ media is a sick parody of journalism and it was not until the advent of SCOOP News this century that people like myself have had a voice at all. In general journalists dished, distorted and mostly dismissed our accounts. 

 When the US books and movies came out exposing the profound corruption at the heart of the Enron ethos it was such a blessed relief. I, for one, had been thoroughly trashed and even had my sanity questioned for trying to tell the NZ Enron story in the 1990s. I grabbed every American book and movie on the Enron subject I could find and clung to it like a lifeline amidst the ocean of derision and dismissal that I experienced. I knew all about the origins of carbon trading but poverty meant I could only borrow the exposes of its history. So I had no handy references. 

This week I did a Google search on Enron and was delighted to find some of the references I needed on line. Top of the search list was Investigate Magazine, a New Zealand magazine I don’t normally read. The article is fundamentally flawed in that it confuses the issue of Enron’s abuse, manipulation and callous levering off of those with a reputation as “environmental carers” with the issue of science (or lack of) underpinning our use of our carbon potential. The fact that psychopaths are able to exploit the naïve does not alter the reality of the impacts of human activities on vital climate balances. It simply means this reality is further obscured and our ignorance puts us at greater risk. Thus the Investigate article is unhelpful.

With this caveat in mind the Investigate article  is valuable because it provides links to online accounts that reveal the vicious politics underpinning the carbon-trading ethos. One of the more helpful links is  the Colombia Tribune link, which details detailing a few of the relationships that Enron established with “environmental” groups so it could better exploit them. The accounts are consistent with the deep research I have read of Enron practices. It is also consistent with my experience of the New Zealand version of Enron – TransAlta/OnEnergy. 

As I have explained else where it is no mistake this structure, the largest “energy trader” in New Zealand collapsed within weeks of the collapse of the Enron in 2001. It had the same architects (Arthur Andersen and Co) and I witnessed how it manipulated our media, city councils, community trusts (e.g. the Hutt Mana Energy Trust and the Karori Wildlife Reserve) while systematically destroying a range of education programmes that promoted wise uses of our electrical and carbon potential. 

If people wish to see carbon trading in action then watch the traders gaming California negawatts trading scheme in the documentary movie “Enron – the Smartest Guys in the Room.”  Watch as they threaten the lives of millions of people and know this is how much they care about our vital carbon balances. 

The endorsement of the Emissions Trading Scheme by the New Zealand Green Party last week is another step in this Enronian process. It sustains New Zealand’s role as the nation that is the world’s most influential agent promoting carbon trading. My analysis of NZ Green Party speeches and media statements over the last few years had led me to the conclusion that its leaders would end up for opting for Carbon Trading rather than Carbon Taxes – and they have. 

As I wrote in a  forum posting last week: 

“The Green Party plays a critical role because it is highly influential among the 15% or so of the population who are mainly middle class, who destroy about 60 barrels of mineral oil each day per 1000 people and who are looking for guidance on how to live sustainably. This group is often identified as the “change leaders” that enable the 50-60% who are “change passive” to alter their behaviour and thus societies adapt (or fail to adapt). This drags the “change resistant” minority along.


The Green Party caucus has signalled very clearly to the “change leaders”– Its OK folks – Carry on as Usual – the Market will provide for your children. I did hear the co-leader of the NZ Green Party, Jeanette Fitszimons, attempting to say otherwise but it is clear she is unaware of the fact that we are Mirror Beings – our brains are wired with networks of mirror neurons that cause us to respond to what is, not what is said. What matters is the walk, not the talk.  Our neural networks now register the reality that the Green Party formally dances to the ETS tune now. And we can be sure the media will amplify this reality in the popular mind.


The Green Party has supported the ETS informally for quite a period now, even when Party leaders were saying they opposed it. Jeanette reacted quite sharply and objected to Mary Wilson’s suggestion on Checkpoint NZ Radio National on ETS DAY (Tuesday) that “We always all knew that the Green Party was going to support the Emissions Trading Scheme…” Mary reflected the insights of many.


I knew it was almost a certainty after the 2006 budget in which the Green Party caucus negotiated tens of millions of dollars towards the entrenchment of the Enviroschools ethos into our education system. Longer-term SEF members will recall how I have provided the forum with a detailed exposition of how Enviroschools had its genesis in the psychopathic world of Arthur Andersen and Co and the Enronian trading ethos. That is why it was designed without substantive reference to the role carbon plays in our lives and fails to provide a coherent vision of our roles as stewards of carbon flows and balances. This means it accurately reflects Parliament’s fundamental ethos and funding for it occurs. 


I am aware the resource is being reviewed. However to my knowledge it still is unable to communicate a comprehensive vision of humans as Carbon Beings and at this point in time a recent survey I did of NZ’s leading Environmental Educators has provided no evidence of such a vision.


I have very good reason to believe the Green Party caucus believes that Carbon Tax ethos is the way to go but their lifestyles as Parliamentarians are very much in dissonance with the concepts of stewardship implicit in the ethos. This dissonance has consistently been reflected in the symbols used in their media statements and the vote reflects the Parliamentarian walk.


The ETS ethos was very apparent in an address Jeanette gave to the Methodist national conference at the Wesley Church in Wellington a year or so back. What was interesting is that the congregation was in sympathy with her for most of her sermon but belief systems diverged sharply at the point at which she started talking about carbon trading mechanisms as a solution. The audience turned off in a most palpable way. One of the first questions afterwards asked her if the concept of “carbon offsetting” is just a way of our justifying our continuance with unsustainable uses of carbon and I sensed the congregation felt that Jeanette was unable to provide a convincing case that this is not so.”  

Always I have continued to hope against hope that the Green Party membership might somehow dissuade its caucus from this disastrous course. It is disastrous as it represents another major step towards a catastrophic world war and because it means we now have no political party that espouses the values of stewardship, sovereignty and equity any more in New Zealand. All promote the psychology of denial inherent in the ethos that says, “The Market will provide our solutions”. 

Which I am annoyed about as it has been very convenient for me to give the Green Party my vote these last several elections. I now have to work at the best way of voting so as to ensure the elimination of dangerous warmongering policies such as the ETS and KiwiSaver. I far prefer to vote for positive sustaining options. It will be interesting to see how fast the implications of the Green Party’s action sinks in and where homeless votes like mine will go. 

The country has been eerily quiet about the Green Party decision to endorse the Emissions Trading Strategy. This has been little celebration of the act, or even any real debate or reflection in the media considering the momentous implications of the commitment to carbon trading. The media has allowed itself to be distracted into a vast hypocritical hyperstate of indignation about the NZ First Party funding and is blinded to the critical issues by the froth whipped up by its own feeding frenzy. 

I have experienced this sensation before over the decades, usually after elections. It is the silence of a nation that cannot look itself in the mirror for it knows in its heart that the decision that has just been made is an ugly one in which self interest and confusion prevailed over truth and love. It is the silence of the young child that has crapped in their pants and hopes that by keeping quiet no one will notice what has happened. It is the silence of the parent who has come home to a hungry family, having just blown the weeks income gambling or at the pub. It is the silence of the sensitive person who has just killed another creature and is disorientated and vaguely sick in the stomach at the decision. It is not healthy silence. 

Already the excuses are starting to flow and I hope to find time to post a web page providing people with the truth. It will go something like this: 

Excuse “We had to do it because the concept of political carbon taxes was politically dead”.

Truth: We voted for what we really believed in and what we actually do.

Reality: Millions of people acting as individuals, communities and states are instituting a wide range of carbon taxes.


Excuse “It was a caucus decision and does not necessarily reflect the party position”.

Truth: The Green Party voted to commit New Zealand to the Carbon Trading ethos.

Reality: The Green Party has been incapable of debating the fuller issues of the impacts of the ETS on education, sovereignty and social equity and currently lacks science. In that it is no different to any other NZ parliamentary party. 


 Excuse “There is no alternative”.

Truth: Remember Roger's TINA? The same was said of the sale of New Zealand’s national assets at fire-sale rates and those who declare war on other peoples almost always say it.

Reality: There is always an alternative as long as compassion prevails. Enabling the alternative often involves much pain, including loneliness, social rejection and conflict with peers.


 Excuse “We had to do it so that if National gets in the legislation will pre-empt their attempts to undermine attempts to reduce our stewardship of carbon emissions.”

Truth: We voted for the ETS because deep down we approve of the strategy and wanted to enshrine it in legislation. In practice National’s decisions pre-empts our decisions and we are just reacting to the Fart Tax campaign etc.

Reality: The ETS works to destroy stewardship at every level. The Green Party’s endorsement of this unsustainable framework actually enhances the ability of future Government’s to reduce our national sovereignty, equity and general stewardship still further.


Excuse “The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment endorses carbon trading and the ETS.”

Truth: I ‘d really rather someone else make this decision for me. I’d rather outsource or offset responsibility to some authority.”

Reality: The appointments of staff to this office tend to reflect the beliefs of the Government of the day. All the Governments since the inception of the PCE office have strongly endorsed “market driven” solutions and policies and have favoured large multinational corporations. At the same time they have actively suppressed the potential for community-driven solutions and policies and have disenfranchised individuals.
The office of the NZ PCE has a very high carbon footprint compared to the bulk of humanity and its literature is framed in the “tradespeak” of Enron et al. It is not a sustainable exemplar.


Excuse: “Anything is better than nothing”.

Truth: Personal stewardship of carbon use reflected in civic carbon tax structures amounts to nothing.

Reality: The statement reflects great ignorance/arrogance. Many individuals place a far higher value on carbon forms than the market price and work hard to conserve valuable carbon forms. Without their presence Homo sapiens would experience instant and catastrophic warfare.
The emerging confluence of evidence is that the ETS ethos has increased carbon emissions.


I hope you get the picture and it helps you see through all the sophisticated rationales people will use to justify their failure to act as stewards. I described the decision as disastrous. That understates the grave consequences of the decision. It compounds our parlous position now in which global warfare is imminent because of our abuse of our carbon potential.  Deep in the mists of my early blogs are predictions that the US economy would implode because of its wasteful use of mineral oil and gas. 

In brief, I pointed out that a people that say mineral oil is energy and create credit system based on this belief, valuing its energy capacity at the equivalent of 0.04 cents per man-hour of labour is doomed to know immense misery. As I write this sentence the credit systems have just lurched and crumpled on a seismic scale yet again. In this moment as I write the radio news is stating that the US Government is to bail out Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae to the tune of $US5.3 trillion dollars. The headline should really be that the money traders have just received guarantee of a subsidy of five trillion dollars so they can maintain their jetsetting lifestyle at the expense of public services like hospitals, schools, mass transit systems etc. 

The bailout of the money traders is also effectively a subsidy for the military industrial sector for it diverts vital funds into unsustainable uses of mineral oil, thereby hastening the conflict over and the destruction of this wonderfully valuable resource. This in turn increases the risk of a catastrophic collapse of our world food, health and transport systems. It will also result in increased carbon emissions. 

Within days of the NZ Green Party decision to endorse the Carbon Trading ethos I experienced more examples of the derelict nature of our New Zealand ethos.  

I presented a personal submission to hearings being held by Wellington region councils on our transport system. Initially I was told there was no record of a submission from me and I had missed the hearings. However I had taken a copy of my submission on their website and suggested that as it was their mistake then a special hearing should be held for me. To my surprise this occurred and I went through the formality of making a personal submission in which I spelled out why any further investment in motorways is a declaration of war on our children and the focus must now be on creating a smart light rail system if Wellington city is to remain competitive.

At one point I looked up to find some members of the panel enjoying some joke among themselves and I refrained from walking out. At the end neither the two councillors nor Mayors Kerry Prendergast and Jenny Brash nor the Chair of the Regional Council, Fran Wilde, had a question to ask. Indeed the only member who asked a question was Wayne McDonald of the NZ Transport Agency, which was to the effect: “Could you make your submission pertinent to the corridor proposal.”

I doubt I could have spelled out my case more clearly without splicing it with strings of vivid and violent expletives. Others who have read my transport submission have commented that “it goes directly to the heart of the matter.” I could only assume he had been too busy enjoying the joke to hear my message. 

The lack of substantive questions confirmed my feeling I was operating in a vacuum of knowledge. Panel members clearly think it is our God-given right to destroy remaining easily accessed mineral oil reserves in the next decade and I came away sure in the knowledge they would recommend building more motorways. I did elicit indications of agreement when I said there is no way the proposed motorway flyover, for instance, would built if we were at war. However I don’t think members really accepted the thought that conserving vital resources as we do in times of major warfare can also prevent war.  

All in all I walked out feeling a bit hollow and dispirited. Its funny though how small things matter longer term. I find myself remaining mindful and grateful that the Chair, Fran Wilde was kind and accorded me respect.  

It was an equally hollow experience giving a submission to the hearings being held by our regional councils on the application of one of New Zealand’s Bulk-gen electricity companies.  Meridian Energy plans to construct a conglomerate of very large wind turbines near Wellington city. Again I spelled out how and why humanity is close to experiencing a catastrophic world war in which billions perish. I explained why and how New Zealand can provide the world with a model of sustainable uses of our electrical potential, how the wise of use of our electrical and solar potentials are the main means of averting this horrific event.

I spelled out why the recent confluence of electrical technologies had such potency for peace and argued that we should implement a moratorium on proposals such as Meridian Energy project until the current serious obstacles preventing communities from making intelligent use of their electrical potential are removed. I also pointed out that the current lack of national planning meant our landscape could become one large military industrial complex of giant wind turbines. I was being mindful of how already New Zealanders are paying dearly to subsidise Comalco’s large aluminium smelter, most of whose product goes to make polluting combustion machines such as cars and other devices of war.

This time not one member of the panel had a question to ask though the Chair did comment that I had kept my promise to provide them with the big picture.

Again it was easy to experience that hollow feeling of operating in a spiritual vacuum. It would be a very brave act for the panel to call for a moratorium and admit they are impotent in the current framework. I hope against hope they enjoy such courage.

After the hearing I had an hour to fill before a lecture and thought I would go to the Rita Angus exhibition at the nearby Te Papa. The unquestioning commissioners had left me hanging in a vacuum. Also I am not used to talking into a microphone and hearing my voice booming back at me through amplifier systems. It creates a sense of a strange artificial loop in my head and it is hard to feel I am part of a real conversation.  And even though I had long anticipated the Green Party caucus decision announced the previous night  some part of me hoped against hope that maybe a groundswell of sanity within the Party might prevail. That hope was gone now too.

I needed grounding, spiritual sustenance after experiencing two weeks of mean, miserable visions of the nature of energy and I knew Rita Angus enjoyed a potent and vibrant vision of its nature. 

Well, I walked into yet another squalid vision of the nature of energy.  I discovered Te Papa is featuring an exhibition of art works framed as “ Moving towards a Balanced Earth -Kick the Carbon Habit”. I watched families reading the propaganda detailing how the exhibit is Government and MfE sponsored and how it is “carbon neutral” and how “ 120 trees will be planted to offset the carbon emissions for the New Zealand venue, through carbon-offset credits from the CarbonFund…” As I observed the visitors to Te Papa soaking up this ethos I realised just how insidious the Spin promoting the denial of stewardship in us is and how morally bankrupt our Government structures are now.  And the idea that carbon is malevolent is born of insanity.

Rita revitalised me but the lecture afterwards worked to devitalise me. A range of Government Departments including the NZ  Treasury had sponsored the destruction of yet more barrels of mineral oil bringing Dr Roberto Roson from Italy to tell us here in  about using economic modelling to examine the consequences of climate change. 

In brief, the modelling was based on 2001 data –including, I established afterwards, International Energy Agency data. It is helpful to be aware that IEA projections have traditionally been based on mere wish fulfilment and are no reflection of the limited nature of mineral oil/gas reserves. IEA projections have been based on faith in the market to supply solutions - supply will somehow miraculously expand to match market demand.  

Roberto’s modelling suggests climate change could reduce the global Real GDP by up to 0.10% by 2050 and “one would be better off living in Holland than in Bangladesh”. Perhaps I did not ask my question clearly enough when I asked if it would be more useful to focus on the impact of mineral oil use on GDP. Roberto answered they could alter the oil or “energy” factors in their model but his response did not satisfy me. 

This is because the reality is that the immediate feedback between mineral oil prices and our use of biomass is so very rapid and enormous, as we have seen with the move to bio-fuels for cars. It has promoted the use of massive mono-cultural farming techniques that destroy vital forests and soil balances. Poorer countries are reverting to wood-based cooking as mineral oil prices become prohibitive. There was not time to point out to Roberto that the above-mentioned Bangladesh is now suddenly close to famine as the global food growing potential is increasingly used to fuel cars.  

Roberto’s research is displayed on a graph that was required to show maximal variations of O.1% with US-EU-EEFSU variation under 0.02% of GDP.

I suspect it will require a very deep graph to illustrate the drop in global GDP if we attempt to persist with current mineral oil/gas policies till 2050. I left the lecture wondering if anyone is modeling how much negative impact the Climate Change industry is having on vital carbon balances. 

The insanity in New Zealand is being mirrored in the US election campaign. No one in the media seems to be looking at the central issue. I have considerable respect for the work of the prominent cognitive linguist, George Lakoff. However I found his commentary his commentary on the US elections, like all our media, missed the point. So last week I posted the following thought on the Sustainable Energy Forum in New Zealand:

      Hi SEF

This week George Lakoff, renowned cognitive linguist, published this article:

Dems Beware

By George Lakoff, AlterNet. Posted September 1, 2008.

The initial Democratic response to Palin indicates that many Democrats have not learned the lessons of the Reagan and Bush years.  

“This election matters because of realities -- the realities of global warming, the economy, the Middle East, nuclear proliferation, civil liberties, species extinction, poverty here and around the world, and on and on. Such realities are what make this election so very crucial, and how to deal with them is the substance of the Democratic platform.

Election campaigns matter because who gets elected can change reality. But election campaigns are primarily about the realities of voters' minds, which depend on how the candidates and the external realities are cognitively framed. They can be framed honestly or deceptively, effectively or clumsily. And they are always framed from the perspective of a worldview…”


George then goes on to define that view as reflecting the world view of “the conservatives”, as summed up in his statement- “ she (Sarah Palin) is on the whole a radical right-wing ideologue” i.e. is anti-abortion, denies the scientific truths of global warming and evolution etc. His use of the conservative symbol is probably very unhelpful for reasons I wont venture into now


Now I largely agree with George’s statement in another article last month:


“Approximately 2 percent of the millions of pieces of information the brain absorbs every minute are processed consciously. The remaining 98 percent are handled by the unconscious brain. The mind, in other words, is like a tiny island of conscious reasoning afloat in a vast sea of automatic processes. In that sea, which Lakoff calls "the cognitive unconscious," most people's ideas about morality and politics are formed. We are all, in many respects, strangers to ourselves.”


However I go further and suggest the conscious element of information processing is a trace element of our being of the order of 0.0001% or less. And this is what gives the Sustainability Principle of Energy its potency as a guide to our behavioural drivers. So I applied it to the US elections.


The principle resource enabling the economics of constant expansion of population, consumption and credit this last century in the US has been the people’s access to extremely cheap mineral oil/gas. Almost all its institutions and infrastructure are founded in the symbol or equation “ Energy =Mineral oil/gas”. This, of course, is a complete denial of the Conservation Principle of Energy and the denial of reality is the hallmark of addictive behaviour.

Below is the brief summary of the insights the Sustainability Principle affords us of the potential impacts of the selection of Sarah Palin for potential vice presidency of the US.


All the best



The Sustainability Principle of Energy

“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.” 


 3 Sept

Hi George and all

You wrote “ But the Palin nomination is… about the symbolic mechanisms of the political mind -- the worldviews, frames, metaphors, cultural narratives, and stereotypes.” Correct but your article fails to provide insight. It is our walk, not our talk that matters. The US destroys about 68 barrels of mineral oil a day/1000 people. (My country, New Zealand destroys 38 barrels; most nations destroy 3-4 barrels or less per 1000 people.) Like New Zealand, the US culture and credit system is shaped by our addictive uses of this precious and very finite resource. We fail to conserve it. 


In this context we are non-conservatives and we live in fear that the object of our addiction will be taken from us. This fear dominates our responses, in the USA case, Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian and Constitutional non-conservative alike. So as mineral oil prices rose and credit systems collapsed this year people responded with unease and Barack Obama’s call for change (any change) resonated. Now mineral oil prices are dropping, credit systems have been temporarily propped up and the addictive behaviour again feels sustainable. 


All non-conservatives of mineral oil are relieved to have the status quo and we see this in the swings towards John McCain – and Sarah Palin, for she symbolises the “great untapped mineral oil resource of Alaska” in the minds of non-conservatives. She reflects the reality of even those that profess to oppose mining Alaska for she reflects the reality of their addictive use of mineral oil. In this context the McCain-Palin ticket cannot fail because it shapes the reality of whoever becomes president. The majority voted for it at the “gas pump”.

Footnote: Your association of the “global warming” and “conservative” symbols with malevolence suggests it is probable that you too are a non-conservative of mineral oil, George. Your uses of the symbols suggest a considerable denial of change/stewardship. 

More at 

In kindness 

Dave McArthur

The cartoon that accompanies this blog was first published in 2001 and it is sheer coincidence that it accompanies this 2008 blog. It is the epitome of the insanity I have written of in this blog. Genesis Energy, a Bulk-gen electricity company in New Zealand created an Internet education resource for our children, which includes an interactive model of a water-driven turbine. No matter how fast you drained the lake its level never changed, yet no cloud ever passed by to refill the lake. It is incomplete breach of the Conservation Principle of Energy and it a classic example of human’s capacity to deny change/stewardship. The cartoon strip was part of my campaign to expose this Greenwash and Spin. Eventually the resource was removed from the web because, to quote a Genesis Energy manager “ It was not working”. 

Return to Update Page

Return to the Welcome Page