Return to Welcome Page   NZ PCE  on "smart meters". 
 Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment June 2009 Report
- brief and hurried reflections.

. Return to Update Page


The electrical grid/meter evaluator

(Rate your grid on an intelligence-

The Sustainability Principle
 of Energy

Evaluator of Symbol Uses.
(A psychoanalytic tool for evaluating levels of sanity, science and the "energy efficiency" in a symbol use.)

Electrical Thinking catalogue

 Compassionate Curriulum - Our Electrical Beings.

Blog on David Caygill -NZ Electricity Commission

Photo essay
-near collapse of Wellington City Grid

Smart electricity meters: 
How households and the environment can benefit.

Preface Comments
Summary of conclusions

Language Evaluation

The Carbon Trading Ethos

Confluence of Electrical Technologies

Democratic/intelligent uses  of our electrical potential

Role of the NZ Electricity Commission

Smart versus intelligent/democratic grids

NZ Citizens are commodities now

Endemic nature of loss of community intelligence

Households are NOT Corporations

HAN + NZ Electricity Industry Reform = Danger

Electric Cars = Chaos

The Power of the Dwelling Switchboard

Pathway back to  Democratic/Intelligent Electrical Grids

Response from Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment

Supplementary note to PCE re Carbon Trading

Preface Comments


The spirit of democracy cannot be imposed from without. It has to come from within.

Mohandas K Gandhi


New Zealand is a small place. This means the intimacy of its people enables considerable potential for science and democracy to exist on scale. It also means the critical process can be hampered by egos. In order to promote science and transcend egos I will set my comments against a number of key frameworks: 

(1)   The Cheap Mineral Oil/Gas Era is now over and the survival of humanity depends on our successful transition to an era in which we make far more intelligent uses of our solar, electrical and carbon potentials.

(2)      A grand confluence of technologies is occurring, which includes distributed generation of resources, “smart” metering/monitoring of resource use, “smart” household appliances, broadband, cellular radio networks, etc. This confluence affects how we use a wide range of electrical products and has the potential for considerable democracy or Fascism.

(3)      The electrical grid/meter evaluator. This employs six categories varying from high intelligent meter/grid to high incoherent meter grid. Meters and grids may exhibit the characteristics of more than one category. The rating is on a continuum:

     Intelligent .....................................Incoherent.

(4)   The Sustainability Principle of Energy -in particular the science/sanity Evaluator of Symbol Uses.

(5)   We have the option of adopting Carbon Stewardship, Carbon Tax and Carbon Trading strategies and each has very different impacts on the sustainability and stewardship of communities. 

(6)   The Electricity Industry Reforms persist and their introduction radically altered the capacity of communities to make intelligent uses of their local electrical and other potentials. 

Summary of conclusions

This report, like previous reports of the PCE office of the past decade, lack science, fails to identify and address the prime risks of current policies and there are significant indications that the report has been captured by the oligarchy of bankers that control much of the resources of our planet. It fails to identify the fundamental obstacles to New Zealand adopting and modelling sustainable transition strategies. The report’s existence puts New Zealanders at greater risk. 

Language Evaluation  


If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done remains undone; if justice goes astray, the people will stand in helpless confusion. Hence there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything.


A brief exploration of the PCE’s preface using the Sustainability Principle of Energy indicates deep denial of change/stewardship, a significant lack of science and the dominance of Banker Speak:

Sample symbol uses:

“ Electricity is a wonderfully versatile form of energy …All new power plants attract opposition… whether the energy source is ‘renewable’ or not.”

“ Better demand-side management of electricity...reducing the need for the construction of new power plants.”

“ …fewer new power plants… and have the functionality that will enable peak power to be reduced."

“A monthly ‘post consumption’ power bill is deeply uninformative.”

“…electricity cannot be stored.”

“Introducing this carbon-pricing scheme into the electricity sector means the cost of generating electricity from fossil fuels will go up relative to the cost of generating electricity from renewable sources.”

…because coal power plants emit two or three times as much carbon dioxide as gas power plants per unit of electricity.”

These sample quotes show the PCE commits the common and dangerous error of confusing and equating the “energy”, “power” and “electricity” symbols. This completely undermines science in our communities. This is pure Banker Speak and it evidences high levels of psychosis. In writing a document such as this the authors need be very mindful of its environment. In this case the environment is one in which a massive global struggle for resources is occurring and bankers of the Bulk-generated electrical products and fossil fuels sector have colonised key symbols in our language. These bankers also control much of our media and education curricula and they actively destroy science for their short-term profit. In particular they destroy the following valuable notions: 

Science suggests that energy is the potential of the universe(s), trace elements of it being actualised in any moment and the vast bulk of it being unrealised potential. 

Science suggests that power is that rate that the potential of the universe(s) is manifest. 

Science suggests there is no such thing as electricity. Rather there is a wide range of electrical phenomena, and these have varying and often contradictory qualities. All that are manifest have a name.


****Science: All elements of the universe(s) are forms of energy. Thus the PCE’s use of energy symbol is not necessary and, in our current barbaric culture, it is unhelpful.

Almost invariably the PCE employs the “electricity” symbol as in “Electricity = Bulk-generated electrical products.” 

Amend “Electricity is a wonderfully versatile form of energy” to

to “Bulk-generated electrical products form wonderfully versatile resources”.


****Science: Every particle of the universe(s) is a manifestation of the universal potential and has energy. We can measure the rate at which it is manifest i.e. its power. Thus the PCE’s use of the “power plant” symbol is unhelpful because:

(a)            Power is a rate or measure and not a commodity.

(b)            In our current culture the “power” symbol has been colonised by the small oligarchy that profit from the sale of Bulk-generated electrical products. They use the symbol as a weapon in their century-long war on community-based, distributed generation of products.  

Suggestion. In the context of this document it is more helpful to talk of Bulk-generator plants. This allows the possibility for Micro-generator plants (Typically 1MW), Dwelling-based generators (Typically 1 watt), nano generators etc.  

Amend “Coal power plants” and “gas power plants” to “coal- fired Bulk-generators” and “gas-fired Bulk-generators” (of electrical products). This use also acts to remind us that our use of these products involves combustion i.e. alters atmospheric balances. 

Amend “power bills” to “Bulk-gen bills” as this more truly reflects the nature of the products being billed. 

Amend “peak power” to “peak demand” of products. 

****Science: Electricity does not exist. Electrical phenomena do exist. Thus the statement “electricity cannot be stored” lacks science.

It is true that electrical currents -the subject of this document- cannot be stored. However it is probable other electrical phenomena can be stored, for instance, electrostatics.  


The limits of my language means the limits of my world

Ludwig Wittgenstein


The Carbon Trading Ethos

****The following statement is notable for its lack of science

“Introducing this carbon-pricing scheme (ETS) into the electricity sector means the cost of generating electricity from fossil fuels will go up relative to the cost of generating electricity from renewable sources.” 

Analysis of the Carbon Trading ethos indicates it is the perfect manifestation of the psychopathy that resides in all human beings. It is fundamentally bereft of stewardship and works to destroy stewardship. The overwhelming evidence is that this ethos puts civilisation at very high risk.

For instance carbon trading has existed for millennia now, albeit on a relatively small scale until last century. We see historically, for instance, that the trading of mineral oil/gas is subject to violent swings in price of up to 500% in a year, the resource is vastly undervalued, its use is very destructive of the thermodynamic balances that sustain us, the trades benefit a small elite of human beings and if current abuses of the resource continues then a catastrophic collapse of humankind is imminent.

Similarly other carbon trades, such as biomass for food, display similar failures. Ceding stewardship to nebulous social constructs such as “The Market” has enabled vast subsidies to be given to meat producers and equally vast pollution and soil despoliation. 

No mention is made of the recent secretive Meridian-Comalco deal, which could well result in NZ households receiving very unfair price signals. Proponents of Carbon Trading argue that is founded in ideals of transparency. All the evidence points otherwise.

The lack of transparency with such corporation deals indicates the authors of this report are inflicted with a remarkable and most unhelpful naivety.  

The majority of the evidence suggests that the Electricity Industry Reforms are designed primarily to transfer wealth from communities to such corporations. The evidence suggests that the design is very effective, as graphs of recent pricing trends reveal. These trends plus the Comalco deal indicate it could well be that households will end up paying a disproportionate amount of any pollution tax. Worse, if Carbon Trading becomes the norm then households will provide excessive subsidies to the carbon traders/speculators through their Bulk-gen bills.  

The PCE’s statement also lacks science because viable options such as Carbon Taxes and Stewardship Education (Civics) are omitted. 
Arguably this document is framed to serve as an advertisement for the Carbon Traders and evidences a major lack of morality/denial of stewardship.

Confluence of Electrical Technologies

These examples from the preface may seem trite and of little consequence. However according to the Sustainability Principle of Energy deeper exploration should indicate they reflect deep flaws in the document.  

I have already noted the general destruction of science and the prevalence of Banker Speak. Effectively this sets the framework of the discussion, thereby excluding a wide range of very valuable potentials.  

For instance, the unsustainable uses of the “electricity” symbol document preclude meaningful discussion of our electrical potential and the confluence of technologies (see No 2 framework).  

This is a particular tragedy for New Zealand as this lack of profound discussion has cost the New Zealand people hundreds of billions of dollars of real wealth this last two decades. This loss is manifest in the exponential growth of household debt, the loss of freehold assets of communities such as local grid and intelligence structures, the loss of superannuation, education and health rights and general socio-environmental failure. National assets such at Telecom, Transpower and NZ Rail and its optic fibre network were severely undervalued and sold off at criminally low prices.  

This report comes out at the same time as the Government is stalled stupid in its review of our decrepit broadband structure. Broadband is part of our electrical potential. To use an old expression, “even the bloody drover’s dog” can see that by far the cheapest and most sustainable option is to allow communities to expand their local 230-volt grid systems to incorporate broadband technology, whether it is down existing wires or by the addition of optic fibre. Thus comprehensive discussion of metering cannot occur in a framework that excludes the confluence of broadband with other electrical systems. 

Democracy and intelligent uses
 of our electrical potential


If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.



The PCE report’s use of the “electricity” symbol also limits discussion of the role of democracy and the sustainable use of metering. 

The prevalence of democracy is critical if we are to be able to make intelligent uses of our electrical potential. The report fails to identify such democratic models. These exist and the PCE need have looked no further than 20th Century New Zealand. The MEDs/Trust Boards that existed pre the Electricity Industry Reforms are the ideal structures to provide the open platforms and conduits required if we are to enjoy the benefits of a truly wide range of knowledge and retain our civic right to own personal data. 

Thus this report’s narrow vision fails us dismally, as have all similar reports this last generation. Get hold of the Treasury briefing papers promoting the sale of Telecom in 1990. From memory they did not contain a single reference to the confluence of technologies and its extraordinary capacity to generate real wealth for NZ communities in the Post Cheap Oil/Gas Era. I know for a fact that in the late 1980s people working in the Telecommunications, Rail and Bulk-gen electrical products sector foresaw this wealth potential very clearly, even if we did underestimate the power of the Internet to amplify the impacts and potential benefits of the confluence.

The Treasury analysis evidenced deep psychosis in that its suffered from the delusion that mineral oil is energy and is thus as bounteous as the universe. 

As mentioned in my preface New Zealand is a small intimate nation. Critical comment can easily be misinterpreted as personal attacks. I am hoping my commentary can be seen to transcend egos.

 Role of NZ Electricity Commission

The PCE report notes the Electricity Commission’s “light handed” approach to regulation and its use of “voluntary” guidelines.  Perhaps this is euphemism for the fact that the Electricity Industry Reform legislation enforces a brutal and unsustainable regime on the New Zealand people while letting a few powerful private corporations dictate almost all the rules governing our use of our electrical potential. 

It is a fact that the Finance Minister who masterminded the sale of Telecom, who headed the 2000 Parliamentary Inquiry into the Electricity Industry and who is now the head of the Electricity Commission is the same man. David Caygill has enjoyed all these very powerful positions determining how we use a wide range of our electrical potential but he seems quite unable to envision the great confluence of technology. He reflects the lack of vision of all our key policy makers. The PCE report does not make even an oblique reference to this phenomenon as a barrier to the ability of communities to enjoy their fuller electrical potential. 

Smart versus intelligent/democratic grids


An intelligent conversation can only occur when all participants can contribute in equal, informed and  democratic ways. Without these requisites even the smartest communication system in the world is essentially dumb and easily becomes dangerous.


Another major flaw in the document is its inability to explore the role of democracy in developing our fuller potential.

The report makes inconsistent use of the “smart” symbol. The title and preface talks of smart meters while elsewhere the report talks of “smart” meters. This is of symbolic significance because the document is often careful to use speech marks to signify the symbol use is questionable or reflective of a small sector’s interests. 

This indicates the authors fail to fully comprehend that technology is as only as sustaining as its user. Some of our smartest devices (drones, bombs, etc) are also our most lethal

This flaw means the document fails to address the potential of sophisticated technology to be used in intelligent ways. I note the PCE makes reference to “dumb” meters in the preface. 

Several years ago when I first advanced on the Sustainable Energy Forum and on my website the notion that the proposed new “high- tech” metering systems were essentially “dumb” I was careful to provide a context. I defined meaningful conversation as that in which both or all parties were capable of equally contributing intelligent dialogue. Democracy was a pre-requisite for intelligent discussion to occur. 

As I have consistently pointed out, since the Electricity Industry Reform legislation was implemented in 1998 there is no way New Zealand can enjoy the benefits of intelligent metering systems now. Indeed the old 19th Century meters and the ripple control systems of the 1950s were far more intelligent that any technology that is installed now.

The PCE report is unable to discuss this phenomenon in a helpful way, for reasons that are probably revealed in its use of the “market” symbol.

In the preface we read:

“ … the rollout of smart meters is being undertaken by the market…The competitive challenges of our electricity market go beyond the supply-side oligopoly… 

Elsewhere we read

“ The New Zealand roll-out is unusual in that it is being driven solely by market participants…a purely market-led rollout means there are no requirements to include the functionality that could deliver environmental or consumer benefits….”

Nowhere does the PCE document define what this “market” is or place it in an historical context. Thus the reader is given no inkling that until the Electricity Reforms the NZ Market for Bulk-gen electrical products was a relatively democratic arrangement. Every citizen with voting rights could vote how their local community participated in this market. Thus some 60 democratically elected community trusts representing every region of New Zealand participated in this market as well as a few large private corporations. The Electricity Reforms disenfranchised 99.99% of New Zealanders. Now participation of the reformed market is restricted to a dozen large corporations. Not one New Zealand community has intelligent participation in our national Electrical Market this century. 

The situation is far worse than that though. Whereas prior to the Electricity Industry Reforms every community in New Zealand owned both their local electrical grid and its intelligence now not one single community owns this vital intelligence anymore. It is illegal for any community to do so in New Zealand!  

41. July 1998: Electricity Industry Reform Act 1998

Under the Act, corporate separation of lines and energy businesses was to be achieved by 1 April 1999 (the separation was in fact completed more quickly than expected see section 46), and full ownership separation no later than 31 December 2003.

From the Chronology of the NZ Electricity Reforms



Understanding this is critical to any discussion of intelligent uses of our electrical potential and yet this document is seemingly oblivious to this situation and its implications.  It fails to spell out that NZ citizens have no participatory rights now and are simply tradeable commodities, evidenced by the fact that already this century the corporations have traded perhaps a million NZers between themselves. 

I made the link between democracy and intelligence before. If this report makes the link it is not obvious to me. I did hear the PCE state on National Radio that “the smart meters provide the power companies with very rich data”.  I did not hear her say that individual households can no longer own that data since the Electricity Industry Reforms - it is now the exclusive property of these corporations. They can basically use it as they please.  

I surveyed Meridian Energy, a pioneer with “smart meters” and asked if I could use the technology to broadcast the information about my dwelling to agencies of my choice eg my local council, hospital, consumer protection agency etc. I was told this would not be possible. Indeed the Meridian spokesperson seemed incredulous that I should even think to ask if I had the right. 

The PCE report states that no corporation is installing display modules in homes as part of the “smart” metering rollout. This is a further denial of my right to own my household’s data. However even if we are provisioned with display modules we are still in the invidious position of having no democratic say in how the Bulk-gen retailers use the data about our lives. Already we know corporations like Contact Energy are working closely with data mining companies such as Flybuys.  

From PCE Report "Smart Electricity Meters" June 2009

If we New Zealanders are to make truly intelligent uses of our electrical potential then home area networks (HAN) will connect our household appliances, as illustrated in the report. This was always the dream of many of us who worked in the Bulk-gen electrical industry. We saw HANS as enhancing our community wealth and conserving national resources. HAN is now something we fear will happen since the Electricity Reform legislation because households no longer have any democratic right or say in how the information is used. We face the nightmare situation in which such HAN give the small group of bankers that now control the Bulk-gen electrical industry even greater power and control of our nation. This combined with the wide-scale implementation of Carbon Trading will enable them to extract wealth from communities on an unprecedented scale. 

The PCE report fails to make it clear that the Electricity Industry Reforms were primarily about giving these bankers complete control of community intelligence. Control of the manufacture and retail of Bulk generated electrical products was a relative minor objective. And as mentioned, the Reforms have been remarkably successful in achieving this prime objective. I shall elaborate on this statement later. 

The report states in 6.1

“This also raises a question, not addressed in this report, about who should control the load – householders, retailers or lines companies. The Electricity Commission is currently investigating issues surrounding the property rights associated with load management.”

It states in 7.2

After the provision of telecommunications in New Zealand changed from a monopoly to competition, it took years before people were able to take their phone numbers with them when they switched providers. Number portability was a barrier to consumers. In a similar vein, if proprietary protocols are use in smart meters, consumers could face significant barriers switching electricity retailers.”

These statements when read together are revealing for a number of reasons. On the positive side the PCE is to be commended for highlighting the immense costs to communities of the corporations tailoring the technology to maximise their short-term profits. In doing this they are only doing what they are mandated to do. However this mandate is very dangerous when these few corporations are given monopoly control over such extensive and intimate information about New Zealanders.  

These PCE statements, and others, reveal a fundamental hostility to democracy and communities. For instance it is more true to say that when the provision of telecommunications changed from a publicly owned monopoly to a privately owned monopoly this had a relatively disastrous impact on internet usage, the adoption of broadband, social inequity and the democratic flow of information. 

The report states The Electricity Commission is currently investigating the question of who should control the load – householders, retailers or lines companies. The report omits to say that the Minister of Finance responsible for the gifting of phone numbers to private corporations was David Caygill. He clearly did not believe in the damaging effects of proprietary protocols on our infrastructure in 1990 and, judging from his major decision to reinforce the Electricity Industry Reform legislation in 2000 there is little evidence that he does now. This latter decision was despite the new Labour Administration being elected on a platform of revoking the 1998 Reform legislation and of purchasing back the newly sold Contact Energy. His decisions have been supported by a succession of Cabinet Ministers for over two decades, both National and Labour. 

The question of who should control the load is entirely one of the Commissions own making and the PCE should have been able to point this out. The Commission cannot solve it. It would have been helpful if the PCE had pointed out that when communities were permitted to own their local grids and its intelligence this issue did not exist. The households of New Zealand decided how their local loads were managed and every adult had the legal right to have a direct say through their local cooperative structure. I recall as a citizen of Christchurch we were given the option of reduced hotwater heating at peak times or paying an extra million dollars for half an hours peak supply. Personally I voted for the slight inconvenience, knowing that the million dollars saved could be used to buy a lot of hot water cylinder insulation in the city.

NZ Citizens are Commodities Now   


The most effective way to restrict democracy is to transfer decision-making from the public arena to unaccountable institutions: kings and princes, priestly castes, military juntas, party dictatorships, or modern corporations.

Noam Chomsky

The report’s use of the “retailer” symbol reveals hostility to communities and a lack of awareness of the scale of disenfranchisement that has occurred. Before the Reforms, as mentioned, individuals had democratic rights as to how their local community used the intelligence of their community’s electrical grids. The intelligence was valued as an important civic asset, which councils and trust boards used to enhance the health and wealth of their communities.

The Reforms did three things:

They commodified this intelligence and gave it private corporations– hence it is now symbolised as “retail”.

They also commodified New Zealand citizens so we are now tradeable commodities between the “retailers” now.

They systematically erased notions that the intelligence is an important civic asset.  

The latter process is instructive of the psychopathy involved.  Most of NZ’s metering was literally given to corporations, such as TransAlta. Previously our communities owned it freehold. At least of million of the meters of the 1.7 million or so were over twenty years old and had been written off as a book asset. The ripple controls in dwellings were given to the corporations for nothing simply because to quote a Government official, “ we did not think too much about them – they were on the switchboards with the meters and so we just figured the power companies should have them.” This undervaluation and destruction of the ripple system, which this report alludes to, has cost us dearly. 

Now having been literally gifted the metering by the economics of the Reforms the corporations then turned around 180 degrees and said the meters were worth huge amounts of money (they were originally purchased by the communities for between $30 and $70) and thus the corporations justified a continual rental of $50 a year ever since for each meter. That is a rort of probably upwards of a billion dollars now, particularly if we include the costs of failing and inaccurate meter registers. These costs can simply be shunted on to the “dumb” New Zealand citizen, who is powerless now to do anything about them. 

We then saw trades of New Zealander citizens in which up to $700 was paid per customer. Corporations and Government officials argued to me that this was because the trade include the meters, which were very expensive. This is a double lie.  The traditional meters are very cheap technology and many are 40-50 years old then. The real trade was the human commodities and the marketing intelligence they represent.  

The PCE report’s use of the “retailer” symbol and its failure to use the “intelligence” symbol reveals a fundamental acceptance of this commodification of New Zealand citizens. 

Endemic nature of loss of community intelligence

I should point out this problem is becoming endemic. The Wellington City Council also transferred control of its transport network to private corporations that are nominally transport operators. The truer reality is they are really property speculators. StageCoach, for instance bought up bus systems, sold off the extremely valuable downtown bus depots, built flimsy replacements out in the country and then skipped. Infratil now shows similar colours.

Infratil also can make considerable profits from data speculation. It recently installed an electronic card system on Wellington buses, providing heavy penalties for those who refuse to use it. They receive large flows of community funds through the Greater Wellington Regional Council and when I asked the Council who owns all the data of people’s movements they said Infratil does. The Council has no access to it – it is the proprietary right of Infratil. Individual citizens have no rights or say with regards to whom Infratil trades the data with.  

Also as Infratil owns the proprietary protocols the Council is now effectively powerless to institute an open-access, community-based system electronic card system in the region. In other words our councils are literally dumb and powerless and their only function is to provide ratepayers money to Infratil.  

The officials I spoke to informed me they had never thought to ask these questions. 

Similarly the new “smart” meter systems increasingly mean our Parliamentarians become more and more powerless. If these systems are integrated into Carbon Trading structure, as suggested in the report, we will be effectively a Fascist state. We will have no capacity to use either our electrical or our carbon potentials in intelligent ways. The corporation’s control of the metering systems effectively means they can control both the design and use of dwellings. Thus they can control how we use our solar potential on scale also. And as mentioned if the Government extends Telecom’s monopoly over us a state of Fascism is almost ensured. 

The PCE is to be commended for bringing this ill-conceived rollout of “smart” meters to the public’s attention. In many ways it was a brave act for a bureaucrat, given the political context of New Zealand this last two decades. It is understandable, even if it is very unhelpful to humanity, that the report uses a framework that works to defeat a visionary discussion of the issues. 

This report deserves much deeper scrutiny. I will restrict myself to a few more brief comments.   



An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics.



The report shows graphs of “historical and forecast total electricity use” and “electricity use by sector 2006”. These are interesting but do not provide sufficient context. It would have been extremely helpful to publish very instructive graphs of price movements since the Reforms. These graphs reveal an immense wealth transfer from communities to corporations with household charges for Bulk-gen electrical products rising steeply while those to large corporations have flat-lined.



3 “Householders could be using their electricity much more efficiently, reducing both total energy consumption and peak power. The Electricity Commission recently commissioned an extensive report to investigate the potential for improving electricity efficiency in New Zealand…” 

This statement is profoundly destructive of science and a classic example of psychopathic Banker Speak.  

The bankers sustain a continuous attack on the notion that “energy efficiency” involves the intelligent uses of resources and these uses are associated with an increase in wealth. Their fundamental objectives are to sustain addictive uses of the commodities they control, in particular Bulk-gen electrical products and fossil fuels. They, Government Agencies (EECA, The EC, the PCE, MfE, Consumer NZ et al) and our media now equate the “energy” symbol with these commodities.   

They actively use the potency of this symbol to manipulate the behaviour of the NZ population. When demand for their Bulk-gen electrical products is so great that it impacts on their profits they declare “energy crises” and get people to turn off appliances in the name of “energy efficiency”. Thus people learn to equate the “energy efficiency” symbol with undesirable behaviour. “Energy efficiency” is now commonly associated with deprivation. These influential groups actively deny the reality that energy efficiency can involve the use of increased amounts of energy while sustaining resources. The Bankers know this use of the “energy efficiency” symbol liberates and gives communities greater options and would lessen community dependence on wasteful uses of their products. 

The Electricity Commission statement is the embodiment of the psychopathic nature of the banker oligarchy. It confuses energy with the forms it can take and it makes non-science of the “power” symbol. Also humans cannot consume energy. It is not a commodity. It cannot be created or destroyed though it is continually transformed. Humans can however consume resources. 


4 “Providing households with information

A lack of good information has been widely identified as one reason that householders do not use electricity as efficiently as they could. This is because they cannot make a direct link between the electricity they use and how much it costs them.” 

Perhaps if the authors of this report had seen the movie, “Enron, the Smartest Guys in the Room” they could begin to understand that New Zealand is now the world model of Enronian systems. The above statement is true. It is also meaningless without context. I have already outlined how the report fails to communicate the fact that community intelligence of our electrical potential is legally impossible in New Zealand now.

It also fails to communicate the fact that the Reform legislation is specifically designed to enable corporations to stress grids systems to the maximum so they optimalise their investments in thermal plant. The Reforms enable them to better ensure price signals obscure the links between uses of their products and the social/environmental costs.

It made great sense for communities to use their intelligence to implement efficient ripple control systems and a range of signals to reduce peak demand. Now under the Reforms it make great sense for private corporations Contact Positive Energy to charge extra for installing ripple systems because they threaten their bottom line. They make their best money when the national grid is stressed and require polluting plant. Watch their share price drop as demand for the electrical products of their thermal plant falls.

Our current Enronian system provides prices signals that are bound to fail us as a people. 

Statement 4 becomes doubly meaningless when put in the context of the Carbon Trading ethos espoused by the PCE. Enron created carbon Trading and we only have to look at the price signals provided by the mineral oil trades.  Motorists and jet travellers are given massive subsidies. Motorists receive, for instance at last a $5 susbsidy for every $1 they spend at the pump. The mineral oil trade market vastly undervalues the resource and the prices it sets completely fail to reflect the negative impacts on the environmental balances that sustain humanity. This is despite the fact that a very clear physical “cap” exists on the resource. 

This flawed faith in “the market” significantly reduces the capacity of the PCE’s report to discuss price signals in sustaining ways. Its psychopathic use of the “market” symbol and general failure to acknowledge the power of individual stewardship are unhelpful too.

 Households are NOT Corporations  

Link to

Link to


“The potential of micro generation

..If all smart meters deployed are capable of import and export metering, the cost of installing a specific export meter could be avoided. It may be unnecessarily expensive, however to install this functionality in all 1.6 million households, as only a proportion of them might engage in micro generation and this functionality can be retrofitted

The Electricity Commissions voluntary guidelines state that, as a minimum requirement, Advanced Meter Infrastructure (AMI) systems should (among other things)

‘provide ability to meter both import and export power on sites where this is formally contracted between the energy retailer and their customer’.”

The symbol use in the EC statement reveals the Commission is utterly beholden to the banker oligarchy. Their corporate ethos dominates its intellectual/spiritual state. 

The focus of discussion of this PCE report is almost entirely concerned with households. It has not looked at the larger issues of the pricing and measurement of the costs and benefits of the use of our electrical potential by corporations like Comalco. Less still has it looked at how New Zealanders can be stewards of minerals like aluminium. At the same time while it omits consideration of the corporations it thinks of households as corporations.   

Take this statement:

“A number of policy issues surround the kinds to tariffs needed to reward microgeneration:

  • What should the export tariff be? (Overseas approaches include linking to the existing retail tariffs or the to cost of microgeneration.)
  • If the export tariff is not the same as the retail import tariff, should the net export or the gross export be rewarded at the higher rate?
  • Should a householder be paid the same for exported generation at all times of the day? Should this depend on the householder’s imports or should they be separated?
  • Who should pay for line losses and at what rate?”

Microgeneration is generally equated with 1 Megawatt generating plant and the report seems to suggest households will have such large-scale devices and thus lines losses etc will be a significant issue. 

The fact is that households are unlikely in the medium term to export many products to their local electrical grids and cannot be considered corporations or even small businesses. 87% of NZ households are urban based and are unlikely to have megawatt wind turbines, as farms might. 

Households are unlikely to export more than a few kilowatts a day for many years. This said, their capacity to do so has massive implications for developing resilient and dynamic grids. If we understand the relatively tiny household wattage is a civic right and not a taxable commodity then a very different discussion emerges to what we find in the PCE document. For instance the appropriate and very cheap metering technology has been in existence for 130 years: the simplest meter is a reversible meter. 

The banning of the use of this simple device for co-generation in New Zealand forms a major obstacle to the development of Dwelling-based generation of electrical products that is not experienced in other countries without GST. Take the example of New Zealand house which import 9 units and exports 8 units daily.  This generates GST on one unit using a reversible meter. However it generates 17 times as much tax when both import and export meters are used. Negotiators of this sad deal say households could register for GST. This reveals how out of touch with reality they are.  

The PCE document does mention some of the obstacles created for households by having to provision dual-metering systems but in general it fails to list all the obstacles to Dwelling-based generation in New Zealand. And one of those obstacles is to apply corporation scale policy issues to households, the focus of this document, as the PCE does. As with all the Electricity Industry Reform legislation, such discussion evidences a major devaluing of both humans and Civil Protection (Defence) considerations. 


4.2 “Different ways to inform households

Energy bills provide few details on energy consumption..” 

This statement is complete non-science. Either the report equates energy with Bulk-gen electrical products or it is talking about every and all the conceivable bills humans are capable of receiving. And as mentioned, the idea of energy consumption is a complete denial of the Conservation Principle of Energy.  

HAN + NZ Electricity Industry Reform = Danger


“ Options might be…dynamic demand controllers, which respond to frequency changes in the grid by switching appliances on or off. They can be retrofitted cheaply to appliances and require no centralised control.” 

This is a real option and Contact Energy’s statement this week (Radio NZ National) that they were not installing HAN capable “smart” meters because there are no “smart” appliances reveals their moral bankruptcy. If the Electricity Industry Reform legislation had not been inflicted on New Zealand then psychopathic institutions like Contact Positive Energy would not have existed and HAN systems would now be flourishing. It was well within the capacity of NZ community intelligence to create the dynamic demand controllers that the report speaks of. 

In the late 1970s the small community owned Heathcote Power Board (a cooperative of 5000 dwellings) created a simple switch that enabled households to switch all their appliances to cheaper night rates (11pm-7am). In the early 1990s the small Palmerston North cooperative (18000 dwellings) was installing systems that enabled neighbourhoods to monitor each other’s burglar alarm systems via the local 230-volt grid. In the early 1990s the small Wellington MED installed New Zealand designed data loggers on 250 of its biggest customers with the data being retrieved for about $1 once a month. The first actions of the transnational corporation TransAlta (controller of 540,000 NZ dwellings) were to dismantle such systems because they gave too much information to their customers. This they were mandated to do by the 1993 Electricity Industry Reforms and so they cannot be blamed. 

All this real innovation stopped with and because of the Reform legislation. This report in general fails to identify and address the fundamentally unsustainable nature of the legislation. It does make allusions to it but these are not reflected in an effective way in the PCE’s conclusions and recommendations. There is much useful discussion in the document. However its framework works against the purpose of the report as outlined in 1.1.  

I hope the reader can see now why it destroys science on scale. I also hope you can see why it is a very dangerous report. It promotes the use of smart metering interacting with appliances through a home area network (HAN) while it fails to make strong recommendations that the current disenfranchisement and loss ownership of community intelligence must be reversed if HAN are not to leave us very vulnerable to psychopathic corporations and Fascism. 

Electric Cars = Chaos


Preface. “In the longer term, the innovation that could come from really smart meters- in conjunction with a smart grid, is exciting. Imagine using the batteries in a fleet of electric vehicles as storage for our electricity system…” 

Already global economic systems are imploding and suddenly additional hundreds of millions of human beings face severe malnourishment daily now as we exit the Cheap Mineral Oil/Gas Age. Also many millions are people are being slaughtered in the wars for access to the minerals required for battery systems in our cell phones etc. The report seems to be equating electric vehicles with cars. Electric cars are their systems and this includes the vast use of resources to construct cars, motorways, storage and other elements of support structure. Is the PCE asking us to imagine the planet with 3 billion electric vehicles on it? Where will the vast quantities of minerals required come from? Are we being asked to imagine a nightmare? Is the statement a manifestation of car addiction? 

Cannot we imagine more sustaining uses of all these precious resources? For instance it is probably better to invest them in mass transit and quality broadband systems and in dwelling based generation systems.  

The Power of the Dwelling Switchboard



We cast our most critical votes at the dwelling switchboard, the petrol pump, the airline check-in and the supermarket check-out. These determine the value of the vote we cast at the ballot box.


I hope this commentary is of assistance to New Zealand. I reiterate, the PCE is to be congratulated on generating dialogue on a subject that our media have long refused to engage with. I know this is true because I have tried to engage our media for well over a decade now.  The switchboard of our dwellings is a switchboard in ways most New Zealanders never imagine. It can mean the difference between a country switching between democracy and Fascism. It can mean the difference between our nation switching the forests of our hills and valleys to industrial lakes and massive machines. It can mean the difference whether we switch from a polluted atmosphere to a sustaining one. It can mean the difference between peace and war. It is possible our switchboard affects our lives more than our vote in the ballot box can. 

The serious flaws in this PCE document reflect the wide malaise of our culture. The previous PCE, Dr Morgan Williams, was also unable to frame the issues in sustainable ways. Indeed he actively promoted education resources into our nation’s schools that were pure Bulk-gen Banker Speak and hostile to Dwelling-based generation of resources, destroyed science on scale and worked obscure the role of the atmosphere in our lives. These worked directly against his nascent awareness of the sustainability of dwelling based generation of resources. 

Our universities are bankrupt of stewardship and evidence considerable psychopathy now. It is worth noting that major architects of the NZ Electricity Reforms included our universities, Arthur Andersen and Co (major architect of Enron also) and the Harvard Electricity Policy Group. The latter, along with Larry Summers, also masterminded the Electricity Industry Reforms of ex-Soviet Union countries. These reforms transferred trillions of dollars of wealth to the small banker oligarchy with devastating effects on the people. 

“Russia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia were worst affected, with a tripling of unemployment and a 42% increase in male death rates between 1991 and 1994… 

 Pathway back to  Democratic/Intelligent Electrical Grids

I will conclude with the prime recommendation I believe the Commissioner should have made. It is one that was refused point blank by Helen Clark and her Administration. It reads:

The Electricity Reform legislation be amended to permit democratic communities to once again own local wiring grid and to trade electricity of all forms on them, including that generated from Bulk, Micro, dwelling and other means. While they may buy Bulk-generated electricity on the NZ Electricity market they are not permitted to own Bulk-generation plant (To be defined). They also will be permitted again to use community profits from these activities to promote local dwellings as generators using glass, insulation, solar water heating and other technologies. Democratic communities will also have the right to use Maria compliant metering of their choice, including reversible meters, and the right to broadcast dwelling information using broadband or radio based metering to all agencies that are approved using the democratic processes of the community e.g. broadcast to community based trading, research and consumer protection groups.  

A prerequisite for the right to own a local wiring grid and to trade electricity over it is that all members of the community with rights to vote in national, regional or hospital board elections shall have the same right to vote in how local wiring and electrical trades are administered.


This commentary is provided for free and is created in a spirit of love/stewardship. It was written with a blinding head cold in my “spare” time over one weekend, the work being sustained by my income as a school janitor. It contains information that a consulting fee of a million dollars cannot buy and that cannot be found in our universities. One of my hopes is that as New Zealand continues to fail to make the great transition beyond the Cheap Mineral Oil/Gas era our officials will begin to look for insights beyond the small group of highly paid consultants who hog policy formation at present. Perhaps my greatest hope is that we will all embrace our roles as stewards. 

In kindness 

Dave McArthur

Response from Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment


Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 3:15 PM
Subject: Smart Meters Report

Dear Mr McArthur,
I am writing on behalf of Dr Jan Wright regarding your email received today.     Thank you for your support and for writing to us and sharing your extensive research.
Kind regards,
Pam Norman
Executive Assistant
Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment


Supplementary note to PCE re Carbon Trading

Note:  The Commissioner gave a very powerful endorsement of Carbon Trading in 2008 and supported the imposition of the NZ Emissions Trading Scheme legislation. This report on "smart" meter amplifies that endorsement in most powerful ways.

The Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment

Dear Dr Wright, 

Recently I posted you my quick reflections on the “smart” metering publication. Again I thank you for acknowledgement of receipt. 

My reflections included comments on the dangers of the Carbon Trading ethos. I pointed to its Enronian origins and its fatally flawed psychology. These comments may have seemed extreme and unsubstantiated. I trust the PCE Office has had time to study the Sustainability Principle of Energy and can glimpse the high state of science underpinning it. 

Here are links to articles since published that support the thesis that Carbon Trading is an extremely high-risk activity. 

This week Rolling Stone featured an article on Carbon Trading that I have much reason to believe is accurate and prophetic.

The fuller article can be read at 

Matt also has a video intro at the Rolling Stone link. 

The Great American Bubble Machine

Matt Taibbi on how Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression

MATT TAIBBIPosted Jul 02, 2009 8:38 AM


In Rolling Stone Issue 1082-83, Matt Taibbi takes on "the Wall Street Bubble Mafia" — investment bank Goldman Sachs. The piece has generated controversy, with Goldman Sachs firing back that Taibbi's piece is "an hysterical compilation of conspiracy theories" and a spokesman adding, "We reject the assertion that we are inflators of bubbles and profiteers in busts, and we are painfully conscious of the importance in being a force for good." Taibbi shot back: "Goldman has its alumni pushing its views from the pulpit of the U.S. Treasury, the NYSE, the World Bank, and numerous other important posts; it also has former players fronting major TV shows. They have the ear of the president if they want it." Here, now, are excerpts from Matt Taibbi's piece and video of Taibbi exploring the key issues.

Fast-Forward to today. It’s early June in Washington, D.C. Barack Obama, a popular young politician whose leading private campaign donor was an investment bank called Goldman Sachs – its employees paid some $981,000 to his campaign – sits in the White House. Having seamlessly navigated the political minefield of the bailout era, Goldman is once again back to its old business, scouting out loopholes in a new government-created market with the aid of a new set of alumni occupying key government jobs.


Here is the link to an article about James Lovelock’s new book. I am not sure how much historic and psychological evidence he produces to back his conclusions about Carbon Trading 

The Dark Side of Climate Change: It's Already Too Late, Cap and Trade Is a Scam, and Only the Few Will Survive

By Alexander Zaitchik, AlterNet. Posted July 7, 2009.


…..There is another, fourth voice in the debate over cap-and-trade, one ringing out from shadows rarely approached by the media. In these shadows dwell scientists who believe the time has passed for any sort of legislation at all, no matter how radical. The best known of these frightening climate gnomes is the legendary British scientist James Lovelock, father of Gaia Theory and inventor of the instrument allowing for the atmospheric measurements of CFC's. In recent years, Lovelock has emerged as the world’s leading climate pessimist, raining scorn on the new fashionable environmentalism and arguing that the time is nigh to accept that a massive culling of the human race is around the corner. 

“Most of the ‘green’ stuff is verging on a gigantic scam," Lovelock told the New Scientist shortly before the release of his latest book, The Vanishing Face of Gaia. "Carbon trading, with its huge government subsidies, is just what finance and industry wanted. It's not going to do a damn thing about climate change, but it'll make a lot of money for a lot of people and postpone the moment of reckoning.”… 

Finally I will paste below an excerpt from an alternative commentary on two recent Wellington events that I posted on the Sustainable Energy Forum. Thus the Commissioner can rest assured that my commentary is based on analysis that is applied equally to all prominent communicators of our solar, electrical and carbon potential. 

In kindness and enjoy the hope inherent in the Sustainability Principle of Energy. 

Dave McArthur


SEF Excerpt: 

John wrote

Dave, I’m pleased to see that you must have read the 60 page PCE report 

Yes, I made a special trip into Wellington to get a copy from the PCE office so I could write a timely review. It took less than five minutes of application the Sustainability Principle to the document’s key symbols to find powerful indicators that the Report is fundamentally flawed. A further 20 hours of closer study over the weekend confirmed these initial indicators. I would have been much happier and very relieved if the Report had addressed the fundamental issues and had proved sustainable. 

I took the opportunity of the trip downtown to catch the esteemed Robert Watson at Victoria University. Before attending his lecture I was intrigued to know what his views on the Carbon Trading are compared to those of, say, Jim Hansen. Top of the Google search under “Robert Watson carbon trading “ was Carbon News NZ where I read: 

Top UK scientist here to see NZ toes the line

The appearance at a public seminar in New Zealand of a top British government scientist this week underlines the importance that the British authorities are placing on whipping New Zealand into line on emissions trading.

Professor Robert Watson, the chief scientific adviser for Britain’s Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs and former head of the International Panel on Climate Change, will speak in Wellington on Friday.

I applied the Sustainability Principle to both this lecture and the Chris Laidlaw interview on Sunday morning. It indicates Robert is in major denial of change/stewardship. Victoria University toasted him as a great scientist but my analysis suggests he actively destroys science on scale. Fundamentally he takes quality data about climate processes and packages it up to form a most effective advertisement for Carbon Trading and mass air travel.  

There is great irony to this. I have posted on SEF the fact that while humans have from ancient times created very sophisticated and destructive systems of denial of change/stewardship it was Enron that took this capacity and refined it into the Carbon Trading structures we are now afflicted with. Enron used Bill Clinton and Al Gore to ensure they were adopted at Kyoto and concepts of stewardship were rejected.   

>>>>cut and paste

Soon after he lost his seat as chair of the IPCC I heard a story from a very reliable source of what happened. I know for a fact that Bob pointed a very direct finger at the US as the major polluter, especially when calculated on a per capita basis nationwide because in 2000 I wrote his statements into the revised Energy Action climate programme that never was. It seems Ken (Kenny Boy) Lay of Enron rang up the new president (Georgie Boy) and told him get rid of Bob because he was “badmouthing the USA”. Georgie Boy complied and set diplomats to work in “Third World” countries. They pretended great concern for the welfare of these peoples, pointed out that they would be most impacted by human-induced changes to climate balances and thus it was only right that they have a voice at the top of the UNIPCC. They agreed, Bob was ousted, and Dr Putchari was put in his place.


Now this may not turn out to be a bad thing, who knows. The thing is Bob is now a leading promoter of Carbon Trading and promotes it far more effectively into our media and universities than Kenny Boy ever could, even if he were still alive. My analysis suggests history will reveal that Bob would have acted more wisely if he had not destroyed all those barrels of oil racing around the world promoting psychopathic regimes. His lectures rated very high on the psychopathy and psychosis scales. Great irony and also grim irony.



I did have a prepared question for Robert but questions closed one before mine. I was going to quote the Carbon News item, say how some of us are concerned by the Enronian nature and origins of Carbon Trading, say how our research suggests it is a psychopathic construct and then quote Janet Redman, co-director of the Sustainable Energy and Economy Network at the Institute for Policy Studies:


“What's at Stake in Copenhagen?

There's much more at play in the UN climate negotiations than a concern for the health of ecosystems, or even the safety of the world's most vulnerable people - and not surprisingly it has to do with massive amounts of money. What's at stake is perhaps the largest transfer of resources from the global south to the north in history…”

My question would have been, “How can you assure us you are not just an agent for the London Stock Exchange mafia?”   

I guess the same can be asked of the inaugural Government Mfe “consultancy” meeting that I attended in Wellington last night. You have to register to attend and the MFE page has a single large link on it. This directs people to



New Zealand’s Change Solutions.


 The New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme

An emissions trading scheme introduces a price on greenhouse gases to provide an incentive for people to reduce emissions and enhance forest sinks. Emissions trading provides flexibility in how participants comply with their obligations, enabling a least-cost response. Changes to the scheme are being considered as part of the Select Committee Review and discussions with Australia on harmonisation with their similar Carbon Pollution Scheme.”




This provided me fair warning. I thus allowed the possibility that this is no “Government listening exercise” but rather the probability that the MFE is being used as a conduit for a very sophisticated campaign to impose the Carbon Trader’s regime on New Zealand.  

Nick Smiths presentation at the meeting ticked every box indicating denial of change/stewardship. It deserves awards for excellence in advertising practice and I concluded it is the most finely crafted piece of work since the Contact Positive Energy “Energy solutions” campaign. It is a superbly effective piece of PR work, as evidenced by the response of the audience. 

The large audience (they cannot be described as participators in this context) consisted of a wide cross-section of ages of what one speaker called “middle class liberal Wellington people”. A large proportion signalled they believed in the target of “40% reduction by 2020”.  Members of the audience were allowed three minutes maximum to speak to a beaming Nick Smith, MFAT and the other Government officials present recording contributions. Thus I heard scores of people speak before I had to go to catch a bus home. I left with the line closed at about 8 speakers to go.  

All the signs of vast denial of change/stewardship were there for those willing to detect them:

the introductory imaging of Earth’s atmosphere as a greenhouse;

the comparison of NZ’s total pollution compared to that of China and India;

Energy Gobbledygook such as “renewable energy” and “stationary energy” (‘scuse me if I stop to laugh at the absurdity of such a notion);

the promotion of car systems albeit electric car systems and biofuels;

 the “horrendous” (Quote Nick Smith) cost impacts of harvesting our forests in the next decade;

the need to conserve our Clean Green Image;

the need to harmonize our carbon trading regime with that of other countries

 “It is the Government’s opinion that a Cap and Trade Emission’s system is the efficient way to go”. Hon Nick Smith 

The audience included MPs, top policy makers and NGO executives. I did not note a single one speaker from the audience identify the real politics underpinning the agenda of the evening.  It seemed pretty much total capture. Not one person said, “I suggest the real reason for these meetings has nothing to do with promoting stewardship and everything to do with destroying stewardship in our communities. These meetings are about sustaining our current addictive uses of our carbon potential and promoting the interests of the bankers who profit from intensive carbon trades speculation.” 

It is interesting to observe that it was young people in the audience (30 and under) who made the most sage comment. It was a young person who told Hon Nick Smith that the word he wanted for is the word “responsibility”. It was a young person who suggested we stop using cars. It was a young person who said it made absolute sense to him that NZ set annual targets of a few % reductions of our pollution rather than the current distant targets decades away. (This is sustainable psychology and when we each get to adjusting our targets in the moment then sanity can prevail again.) 

The only older person who offered real insight was Barry Coates of Oxfam who spoke of the inequitable impacts of human-induced climate change. However he failed to articulate the probability that if Carbon Trading is implemented universally then it will cause a massive and violent wealth disparity. (See Janet Redman quote above plus 2008 “mineral oil bubble” riots.) 

Many older people, including SEF folk, spoke very eloquently. That they received loud applause was symbolic, as their contributions failed to address the real politick. Indeed they all tended to essentially endorse the Carbon Trading ethos and in some cases, the related Electricity Industry Reform and car ethos. 

Many, particularly younger people, pleaded with the Minister to be strong in pushing for a commitment to a 40% reduction in pollution by 2020 and promised to support him in every way they could. Sadly often this promise was accompanying by signs that they still consider our car and jet use acceptable.  Their actions at the pump and airline counter will undermine any capacity they have to offer him real support. 

I did not get to speak, which might not be a bad thing. My writing may be difficult to comprehend but my public speaking is far, far worse. It is possible that other silent members of the audience feel the same as I do. 

For instance, I remarked to a stranger who departed at the same time as I did, that I figured the evening was a giant Banker’s con to force Carbon Trading on New Zealand. He agreed, saying it had nothing to do with stewardship of the atmosphere. He had attended international conferences overseas on the subject and “ is entirely about money, money, money.” He said the London stock exchange expects the carbon trades to quickly become by far its greatest source of income.  

If this is true then it does not bode well. The London Stock Exchange makes massive profits from speculative trades of commodities such as food, mineral oil, armaments, the British Afghan opium operations and hosting very corrupt agencies such as Russian Mafia, the London division of AIG etc. Indeed the UK would collapse overnight if these trades were banned.  

These trades are a source of widespread misery as it is. It is difficult to imagine that misery magnified many fold. Well, yes it is possible but even as I accept the indicators that the universal adoption of the Carbon Traders’ ethos will result in catastrophic global collapse within five years I don’t think I really feel the hideous reality of that collapse into warfare, famine, disease…"

End supplementary note to PCE


The electrical grid/meter evaluator

The Sustainability Principle
 of Energy

Evaluator of Symbol Uses.

Electrical Thinking catalogue

  Compassionate Curriulum - Our Electrical Beings.

Blog on David Caygill -NZ Electricity Commission

Photo essay
-near collapse of Wellington City Grid

Return to Update Page

Return to Welcome Page