Return to Welcome Page

World WildLife Fund Alert!
The WWF PowerSwitch may well be switching you off.





Return to Electric Thinking



Return to Energy Gobble-


Power Power Power Power 
Power Power Power Power
 Power Power Power Power 
Power Power Power Power
 Power Power Power Power
 Power Power Power Power

Yes, you got it! The WWF PowerSwitch website welcome page uses the symbol “Power” no less than 24 times and yes, every time it is working to reinforce public perceptions that the the Bulk-electricity sector is the source of power in our world. It is an exquisite example of one of the prime principles of the PR industry in action – repeat-link repeat-link repeat-link. And repeat-link in as many different ways as possible. This page accomplishes this superbly. The subtext of Kyoto is totally wrapped and defined by the Bulk-electricity sector, thereby diminishing the level of debate on climate issues. 

My summary conclusion is that the WWF PowerSwitch education resource contains fatal flaws and will result in a very large environmental footprint.  

The ultimate objective of the WWF website is to promote uses of energy that maintain the global environmental balances that make life comfortable for the human species.  It attempts to do this by alerting us to the differing impacts of our use of Bulk-generated electricity from different forms of generation.

Readers may be interested in my analysis of the New Zealand Government sponsored programme, PowerSwitch. The Government here is sponsoring agencies such as the NZ Consumers Institute and the Citizens Advice Bureaux to promote it. Arguably it is propaganda to obscure the fact that the NZ Electricity Reforms legislation enacted in the 1990s disenfranchises and disempowers most citizens. By effectively removing the rights of people to participate in the Electricity Market, the Reforms cripple sustainable development. NZ PowerSwitch has only one bottom line - the price per unit of electricity. It punishes the most civic/environmentally caring companies while rewarding the least caring/most polluting companies.

I apply the same analysis to the WWF PowerSwitch. Refer to the NZ PowerSwitch article for more detail. Rather than repeat some arguments, I have simply selected a sample of symbols I consider Energy Gobbledygook and prepared them in the format  for inclusion into the register of Energy Gobbledygook
The translation provided is my attempt to cut through the Energy Gobbledygook and translate what I speculate is the intent of the  WWF message into commonsense and scientific language.

The reason why the WWF can generate a very large environmental footprint is because its audience is “concerned people”, people who will write and talk about the issue. Many will be impressionable students and their teachers. Media/education authorities such as the WWF have a far greater impact on the shape of the popular images of energy and our options than do spokespeople for an industrial sector. The PR industry is well aware of this. It knows the most potent agencies for delivering their messages are consumer organizations. 
This is a classic case of where a well meaning environmental organization has been used to leverage an industrial sector's short term interests.

In short, when the WWF says it is “partnering with electric utilities and retailers in various countries”, analysis shows it is colonised by them. They provide the vision and leadership of the WWF effectively and it is a very limited vision.

Analysis Framework

Energy use in planning, consultation and construction
Includes manufacture and transport of materials and all persons.

PowerSwitch is a computer programme. Most of the information and skills are available online or in existing publications such as share brochures. Unless personale were imported from other centres, the creation of the resource should not have involved air travel etc.
Footprintpotentially minimal


Energy use during the lifetime of resource:
Includes maintenance, disposal, fuel use and net electricity use.

Updating and reprogramming can be done from any computer and centralised website hosts use electricity efficiently. Disposal of the resource can be achieved with the touch of a delete button.
Footprint– potentially minimal


Energy use in direct transportation for duration of resource:
Includes transport of audience and resources to each other. (Electronic v hard copy v rail v bus v car v pedestrian etc.)

Access to SwitchPower  is via the internet. 
Footprint– minimal.

Energy use promoted by design of resource for duration of resource:
Includes enhancement of vehicle type use and media type use.

The telecommunications basis of PowerSwitch provides a good model of how information can be communicated with the effective use of electricity. 
Footprint– minimal

Energy use leveraged off sponsorship for duration of resource by sponsors: Includes suppression of public awareness of environmental impact of activities of sponsor, facilitation of approval of activities by regulatory authorities and enhancement of image (language) engineering to serve sponsors interests.

The WWF SwitchPower education programme is not available in New Zealand. This is my area of greatest expertise. Indirectly I have some knowledge of Australia as Origin Energy and Prime Infrastructure have recently assumed control of significant sections of New Zealand’s Bulk-electricity and gas sectors. I also worked under NGC, till recently owned by Australia Gas Light (AGL). Hence I am aware of how company information is carefully tailored by the PR industry to maximise short-term profits for principal shareholders (Investment Bankers) by providing the most positive spin on company activities to legislators, regulators, small shareholders and the general population. 

The WWF mentions it too had to rely on company statements to small shareholders as companies either did not respond or their plans and projections were shielded by considerations of “commercial sensitivity”. The Australian SwitchPower linked me through to GreenPower. Its ratings are based on the National Green Power Accreditation Document. The use of the symbol “Green Power” is a major alert to the fact that the resource has its genesis in the Bulk-electricity sector interests. 

In both Australia and New Zealand, the last two decades have seen a large increase in the levels of Energy Gobbledygook and the sophistication of Greenwash. Investment in Supply- side options of Bulk-electricity has increased dramatically at the expense in investment in Demand-Side (energy efficiency practice etc.) and distributed generation. The ratio now is $100s to $1. Key national statistics reveal the failure of such resources as GreenPower to achieve their stated objectives. NZ CO2 emissions have increased as much as 40% since 1990 (See Footnote).Our methane emissions are even greater than our CO2 and this is a much more potent Warmer Trace Gas.

Every country has different legislation and customs. Bulk-electricity companies exploit these using a range of custom-designed methods  It requires people with intimate knowledge of these to evaluate the sector impact in that country. They need knowledge of company politics, Government politics, fuels and resources used by the sector, the technology the company promotes and suppresses, the companies use of sponsorship and association to lever off environmental education resources, etc.  If the New Zealand situation is any example, then companies are able to gain very large leverage off Environmental Education programmes for Greenwash and general marketing purposes. 

Researchers may find discussion in Energy Gobbledygook and Electric Thinking helpful

Footprint: Large-potentially massive.


Energy use promoted by use of symbols and evocation of flawed images of energy: Includes uses of symbols (words, illustrations, graphics, etc) designed to enhance use of forms of energy dominated by sector interest.  To the extent they devalue scientific principles of energy; the resource will have a negative impact on the environment.

I have simply chosen a selection of the counterproductive symbols used on WWF SwitchPower to illustration the potential impact of the education resource. I will let them speak for themselves. The impact of the symbol “SwitchPower” is so large, analysis would take many pages. I will restrict my comment on it and let the rest of the analysis reveal why the symbol is fatally flawed.

WWF PowerSwitch website Feb 2005

This symbol use is misleading, obscuring and unsustainable. In short, it works to reduce sustainable practice and disempowers people. It promotes the very electricity market system the WWF condemns.

“Bulk-gen Alert”

WWF PowerSwitch website Feb 2005 Highlight quote.

“From coal to clean. Wind and solar power generation provides a clean energy alterative for future generations Ó Adam Oswell"

 It is an extraordinary act of arrogance or ignorance to describe energy as inherently clean or dirty. While we are of energy we can never truly know the nature of energy. It is more helpful to describe the value of an energy form in terms of our use of it and how it might impact on the viability of humanity. 

The statement also makes a very confusing use of the symbol “solar power”. Does it refer to the kWh generated by the sun or the electricity generated from solar energy? If it is the former use, then the idea of generating wind is difficult to make sense of.

Also the solar-based generation (including wind and tidal) involve cleaner, not clean activities. The Bulk-generation of electricity from wind and direct solar sources has significant environmental costs.  They still require a considerable amount of energy to construct and operate compared to small-scale distributed generation, ‘smart’ management systems and sane dwelling design. 

Compared to using fossil fuels, a variety of solar-based electricity generation provide a safer use of valuable energy forms and leaves more options for future generations.
Ó Dave McArthur

 WWF PowerSwitch website Feb 2005
“Power companies fail to respond to global warming crisis as window of opportunity closes.” 

This, the web page’s introductory sentence, is a classic case of Energy Gobbledygook. What is a power company? It is a company that supplies power of some sort. It may be a village co-op growing food to power its people in a sustainable manner as they have for centuries. It may be an insulation/glazing firm creating thermal barriers so dwelling owners can power their building using solar energy. 
In this case, WWF is bestowing the title ‘power company” on Bulk-electricity generators. 
This works to obscure the many forms of power companies possible – including companies that provide small-scale electricity generators. Far worse, it works to reinforce the marketing messages of the Bulk generators that they are THE SOURCE OF POWER! 

This message is further confused by the use of the term “global warming”. To my knowledge there is no crises in global warming with sun spot activity being at comfortable levels at present. Some scientists believe it may increase in the near future and this could have serious implications for communications and electricity networks. It is possible the WWF is referring to a potential crisis for humanity caused by Human-induced Climate Change.

“Bulk-electricity companies (generators and retailers) fail to respond to potential threats to humanity from Human-Induced Climate Change.”

WWF PowerSwitch website Feb 2005

“A new report by WWF shows that the power sector, the biggest single contributor to climate change, is failing to act responsibly in the face of the greatest threat confronting the world in the 21st century.” 

The use of the symbol “power sector” is a sublime endorsement of the century-long campaign of the Bulk-Electricity sector and its bankers to reduce our awareness of life–options to their product. In this use the WWF is working directly against all those sectors involved with sustainable uses of power, especially those using non-electrical means to provide for our basic needs. 

The use of the symbol “climate change” is equally destructive. Most people understand that without climate change we could not exist. Our life is dependent on the transfers of thermal energy around the planet to maintain its over-all climate balances as it rotates around the sun.

Finally, assuming the WWF is only referring to the Bulk-Electricity sector, then the statement may be inaccurate and misleading. It is possible the largest “power sector” is the automobile sector. Some suggest that the combined power of the automobile motors manufactured in 2003 alone was greater than the combined power of all the generators in the Bulk Electricity sector on Earth. In terms of impact on the atmosphere, the automobile sector probably has a far greater impact once all costs are included such as construction, maintenance, distribution, urban development and general infrastructure.

A new report by WWF shows that the Bulk-Electricity sector, a major contributor to potential climate change from human activity, is failing to react responsibly to one of the greatest risks confronting humanity in the 21st century." 

WWF PowerSwitch website Feb 2005
"The report Ranking Power reveals the companies’ overall failure to significantly invest in renewable and efficient energy in order to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions."

The sentence is a classic confusion of issues. The first thing to make clear is that there is nothing inherently wrong (or right) with energy. Any efficiency relates to our use of it and this ought be the focus. It is an effective PR strategy to divert blame and the WWF falls into this trap here. 

Similarly there is no such thing as renewable energy as energy is by its very nature constantly renewed. The focus should be on conserved renewable forms and sources of energy. The title Ranking Power supports in most profound ways the Bulk-electricity sectors attempts to dominate public consciousness on numerous levels. In the WWF ranking, the majority of the most sustainable uses of energy forms, and the energy carrier, electricity, in particular are not even given a ranking. 

Finally the use of the term “greenhouse gas emissions” is most unhelpful. It evokes maladaptive images of greenhouses for no justifiable reason. Its blanket use of the “greenhouse gas” symbol obscures the role and the range of Warmer Trace Gases. For instance, we simply do not know the impact of human activities on the dominant Warmer Trace Gas – water vapour. 

The report Ranking the Bulk-Electricity Companies reveals their overall failure to significantly invest in renewable resources and efficient uses of electricity in order to reduce Kyoto Protocol designate trace gases.

WWF PowerSwitch website Feb 2005

“Campaign launches are occurring in over twenty countries today – sending a clear signal that the power sector must change.” 

Probably the clearest signal that this sentence contains is the fact that the WWF is very confused about the nature of power, does not understand how the PR industry works and that its signal is subject to a lot of interference. 

“Campaign launches are occurring in over twenty countries today – sending a clear signal that the role of the Bulk-Electricity sector must change.”

WWF PowerSwitch WebsiteFeb 2005
“Developing countries could save 30% of their energy through efficiency.” 

What is this eye-catching message telling Developing Countries they can do? Is this flashing panel saying they can breach the Principal of the Conservation of Energy? Or is it telling them they can store valuable forms of energy more effectively? Is the “energy” it talks of electricity sourced from the Bulk- Electricity sector?  Hopefully none of these. 
What this sentence is doing, placed as it is at the head the “energy efficiency” page, is creating a major association between energy efficiency practice and deprivation. This is a common and damaging definition of energy efficient practice. This use of the symbol energy within the context of the WWF framework is particularly unhelpful. It works to focus attention on to the Bulk- Electricity sector and away from plentiful sources of energy such as solar-sourced forms.

Energy efficiency is behaviour that enhances the quality of life, not reduces it, as this use implies.

“Developing Countries could add 30% value to their lives by the efficient use of all forms of energy.”

WWF PowerSwitch website Feb 2005
“Power production in the future might work a bit like the Internet”

What the WWF is attempting to discuss here is the possibility that electricity use in the future may be on a decentralised basis with generation occurring at the point of use. When your dwelling produces an excess of electricity, you transmit it to the local grid. When your demand outstrips your ability to generate it, you import some off the local grid. Why this WWF use of “power production” is particularly unhelpful is that there are a range of energy forms you can convert into power for warming/cooling and the supply of other basic needs. Some of these power sources are dependent on the intelligent design and use of dwelling and urban space. These factors, part of a greater potential revolution in the use of energy forms,  impact on the intelligence with which you use the local electricity grid. The Internet link is important, as intelligent use will be enhanced by “smart technology” and greater Internet capacity.

“Electricity production and distribution in the future might work a bit like the Internet”

WWF PowerSwitch website Feb 2005

“…power lines”

This use of “power” is part of a wider domination of public consciousness by the Bulk-Electricity Sector. It is linked to symbols such as “power bills”  “power poles”, “power stations”, “power plant”, “power companies”, “power trusts” et”power”cettera. It is increasingly unhelpful as it obscures the fact that the networks we use to transfer energy in the form of electricity have long been used for communication too. Public understanding of this fact is essential for a number of reasons. One is that the use of the grid wires as communicators is essential for controlling peak demand for grid- sourced electricity. The recent restructuring of the Bulk Electricity sector has resulted in the destruction of such communication, as the new imperatives are to maximise profits from bulk sales. Effective demand-control activities reduce bulk sales and thus profits for Bulk-electricity principal shareholders*.

 A second reason is that soon it may be possible to transmit broadband data through the local grid. This gives the owners of the grid extraordinary control over communities.

*”An interesting feature of the New Zealand Electricity Market is that on average, for every extra kWh sold the generators get the revenue from 5 kWh! And, whenever an energy user saves 1kWh, all the other user’s electricity costs drop by the equivalent of 4 kWh". Source Rob Bishop - Sustainable Energy Forum 24 Feb 05.

“..Utility lines” or, if appropriate, “main grid lines”

WWF PowerSwitch website Feb 2005
“People power” 

This is a link on a side bar of the web page. As such it has a more potent role than the mass of text it wraps. It gives the symbol use exponential power. In this case it is making powerful links between people and the WWF’s definition of power i.e. electricity sourced off the Bulk Electricity sector. This use of symbol and the resulting link enhancement actually dis-empowers people. It obscures the fact that in many of the countries surveyed by the WWF, communities have been disenfranchised from their local and national Electricity Market. As part of this process communities have lost their capacity to invest energy efficiency measures, intelligent communication with the grid and small-scale electricity generation. 

The website does contain small text acknowledging the vital role democracy plays in promoting sustainable uses of electricity. However the dominant impact of the site works to support the short-term interests of the principal shareholders of the Bulk-electricity sector. This small segment of the population works at every level of politics, legislation, media and society in general to control electricity use for their own benefit. The website is fundamentally a powerful tool supporting this group on all the levels mentioned.

"People Potential"

WWF PowerSwitch website Feb 2005
" ‘Global warming is exactly that – global’ ”

This is not a direct use of a symbol involving energy and power. However it is attempting to express the nature of energy and power that enables our solar system. The statement is confusing on a range of levels. Global warming is a healthy process enabling life on Earth. 

I think the WWF is attempting to communicate that when we alter the gas balances in the atmosphere and oceans we alter the thermodynamic balances that enable us. This could result in more extreme weather, including severe cooling effects in some regions. 

WWF’s own text reveals the difficulties their use of the symbol ‘global warming’ creates e.g. “Ironically, this effect of global warming could be a new Ice Age in the part of the northern hemisphere.” Expressed more accurately there is no need to plead irony.

“Human-Induced Climate change has global impacts.” 


WWF PowerSwitch website Feb 2005
"All our discussions about the future of energy start with the idea that in the future we will be using less overall, through efficiency and conservation."

Such discussions are a waste of time. Astrophysicists are unanimous that energy will last for many billions of years, at minimum. It is more helpful to discuss our use of valuable energy forms. This may reawaken our awareness of solar energy in its various forms as a resource. These include biomass, wind  tidal forms and direct solar energy. Over 4 billion humans are in a poor position to reduce the amount of energy they use. 

Of greater practical concern is the way this use of the symbol "energy" is associated with deprivation. It plays into the hands of marketeers who define their products as energy and create cultures of exclusivity and deprivation fear around them.

"All our discussions about our future uses of energy start with the idea that in the future we will be using renewable sources more effectively and conserving nonrenewable resources."

WWF PowerSwitch website Feb 2005 Sidebar web links
"Humans at risk
Nature at risk"

These two links do not directly use symbols of energy and power. However in this context where symbols used frequently work to divert focus away from human activities, comment is warranted.

It is accurate to say humans are at risk because of our activities. We are. However to say nature is also at risk is to elevate humans above nature. Certainly we can alter environmental balances and destroy those that sustain us. We then die out as a civilisation, if not as a species. Nature is far more enduring than the human species.

"Humans at risk
Other species at risk"

WWF PowerSwitch website Feb 2005
“Meanwhile, the 2004 Bonn conference on renewable energy – the first of its kind – set the international stage for renewables to be a part of the planet’s energy future.”

The symbol “renewables” is a useful for communicating a range of ideas e.g. renewable sources, uses, forms and types of energy. These are profoundly different concepts to the concept of “renewable energy”. The latter is either an impossibility and/or a nonsense. Energy is renewed and renewable. Such inaccurate use of symbols makes it difficult to know whether energy here is defined as Bulk-generated electricity, electricity or what. I still do not know what the Bonn conference was about. 

Similarly there is considerable confusion in the symbol “the planet’s energy future.” Most astrophysicists concur that there is sufficient energy to enable the universe for some billions of years into the future. Most also anticipate Earth will exist for many millenium. It is more helpful to set the international stage for the use of Renewables as part of our use and conservation of the forms of energy that are the most vital for the existence of  humanity.

“Meanwhile, the 2004 Bonn conference on Renewables  – the first of its kind – set the international stage for them to be a part of humanity's continuing existence.”


Summary comment:
 The whole WWF website is polluted with such examples of Energy Gobbledygook. For more discussion on this phenomena and a guide to avoiding it and the related process of Greenwash visit Energy Gobbledygook

Footprint: Large-potentially massive.


General Comment

This site, though clearly extremely well intentioned, is perhaps too smart for its own good. In attempting to be punchy and communicate very valuable concepts to the wider public it has become a powerful agent of Energy Gobbledygook and subverted its objectives. I recommend teachers do not refer to students to it for communicating social studies or science, particularly environmental science. It has considerable value for advanced students studying media processes as an example of the colonisation of environmental agencies by industrial sectors.

This said it is a major advance on the New Zealand Consumer Institute’s PowerSwitch site. This not only contains all the above counterproductive elements but also actively punishes Bulk-electricity companies that are attempting to reduce risky activities and rewards those that are promoting the most risky activities. At least WWF is attempting to provide an extra level of information about the activities of the Bulk-electricity companies and their impact on the environment. 

The WWF appears oblivious to the most profound pollution factor in our environment. This is the corruption and destruction of vital scientific symbols of the nature of energy and power. As a result the agency is a major polluter of the images that drive our activities. As the WWF is a world-esteemed authority on the communication of environmental issues then its use of symbols to portray energy and power have a profound impact and the agency has an enormous environmental footprint. 

On the website Jennifer Morgan says, “ These companies lack the accountability needed to win public trust and are vulnerable to charges of arrogance.”

This may be true but equally the same comment can be applied to the WWF. So far receipt of my observations to its Europe based members and to its New Zealand counterpart have not been even acknowledged.

As an important communicator the WWF must be accountable for its use of symbols. It must also review its portrayal of the role of the human species. We are part of nature, not apart from nature, less still above nature as its choice of symbols suggests. The WWF needs to establish a clear understanding of the nature of energy and power. Humans can only use energy. They cannot create or renew energy. All forms of energy have their own form of power.

The website asks, “What’s the problem?” Nowhere does it mention that image pollution is the problem – that popular understanding of science is being corroded by environmental agencies around the world by their choice and use of key symbols. It is hard to believe the statement on the website, “Since our beginnings in 1978, we have sought to maintain the role of science and scientific analysis of environmental issues as the basis for our work.” It is as though the environment does not include human imagery of how it works.

When the WWF says, “ WWF believes that changing the current energy model is essential for sustainable development and poverty alleviation” it may be speak truer than it knows. Its own definition of energy and power as the Bulk-electricity sector is ripe for review. Till this occurs the WWF PowerSwitch website will have a massive environmental footprint.

WWF says,"WWF is working to kickstart the transition to a new "People Power" model to replace both state monopoly and the blanket privatization that succeeded it". There is the very real possibility the WWF is bootlacing such a transition and erecting significant blocks to it.

So Readers Take action:
Make a pledge to contact WWF and put its image pollution under scrutiny to make the agency more accountable for its environmental impact.As the website says:
"There's no shortage of solutions - we've just got to get on with it."


To my knowledge there is no science in the communication of climate issues. I have pointed up confusing examples in my analysis. I will pick on a couple of other confusing statements:

“Burning fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide (CO2) – the dominant greenhouse gas” 
Putting aside the complex of responses the greenhouse images generates, the dominant Warmer Trace Gas is water vapour. Without it Earth’s surface temperature would be 20
°C colder. Understanding the role of water vapour with its short cycle in thermal transfers is by the biggest challenge to understanding and communicating our impact on the climate. 

The “greenhouse emissions calculator” has to be seen as very misleading in that context. What does it mean “Your current CGH emissions in CO2”? 
Does that mean that all the Warmer Trace Gases designate in the Kyoto Protocol are converted to CO2 thermal equivalents? Is water vapour included in the equation? 

The statement “Comparative savings in cars off the road”  works to promote cars as a lifestyle. The rationale promoted by the Kyoto Carbon Credit system enables car users to justify their use as they can say their investment in electricity from less polluting sources ameliorates the impact of their car use  The precedent for such thinking is well is strong. For instance, many “environmental education workers” justify their use of jets by arguing that their time and work is so valuable it ameliorates the impact of their investment in the airline industry. 
The “cars” equation fails to include the impact on Warmer Trace Gas levels of the construction and maintenance of the enormous infrastructure surrounding car use. 

Footnote: New Zealand CO2 emissions

Correction to Greenpeace's Press release on "NZ's Kyoto Integrity at Stake"

In the press release on the Marsden B power station from Steve Abel
yesterday, there is an error in the fourth para where he says "NZ is
currently at 22% above our 1990 levels  of CO2 emissions". As noted
below the correct figure is around 40%.

As stated in the 20 December 2004 email Bulletin from the NZ Climate
Change Office (entitled "Have a Climate Friendly Summer Holiday")
distributed through SEF news on 20 December, "At the moment, NZ's gross
greenhouse gas emissions are about 21.9% above what they were in 1990".
But this is the combined total of the six greenhouse gases in the Kyoto
Protocol, of which the three major ones are carbon dioxide, methane and
nitrous oxide.

The situation regarding increases in carbon dioxide, as reported in the
MED Report of June 2004 entitled "NZ Energy Greenhouse Gas Emissions
1990-2003", is that over the first few years from 1990, the average
annual increase was around 2.0% but then these annual figures started to
increase significantly, such that  by calendar year 2003, the average
annual increase from 1990 to 2003  was 2.7%. The actual figure for the
2003 calendar year was 4.1%, but this may have been unusually high
because of the winter electricity shortage in that year. It will be very
interesting to see what the annual figure is for 2004 when that comes
out in June this year.  The cumulative figure from 1990 to 2003 is
40.7%, which is almost double the percentage increase in overall
greenhouse gas emissions (21.9%).

The MED figures quoted above are for gross CO2 emissions from energy
sources. If you add in the CO2 emissions from industrial processes
(about one tenth as much), total gross CO2 emissions from 1990 to the
end of 2003 have increased slightly less, at 39.7%.

Projecting these figures forward under "business as usual" assumptions
to the first five year commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, I would
estimate a 59% increase from 1990 in annual gross CO2 emissions  from
energy sources on 1 Jan 2008, increasing to an alarming 84% from 1990 in
annual gross CO2 emissions as at 31 Dec 2012.

New Zealand certainly needs a sustainable energy policy strategy and we
need it NOW.


John Blakeley

The Sustainable Energy Forum. 24 Feb 2005

Return to Electric Thinking

Return to Energy Gobbledygook

Return to Welcome Page