Kim Hill again – was there no good reporting in the week between?

I’ve said it before – we have only one reporter in this country, who ‘gets it. There are plenty of others who could be called ‘intelligent’, and to that could be added ‘enough’. They could get there IF THEY SO CHOSE.

In that list, I include Jim Mora, who’s pathetic Panel efforts this last week just make you wonder. The question about those folk – and I regard Mora as at least as cognitively-capable as me – is whether they are totally knowing but in denial, or seriously capable of genuine between-the-ears cognitive dissonance.

I’ve mentioned Joanne Black (Listener, Panel) in that list before. Opined that “I think there are too many people in the world”. Good on you Joanne, I urged at the speakers on the wall – and? Surely the flip-side of ‘too many people’ is ‘not ‘enough resources’. It’s not rocket science. And – if there aren’t enough resources, then the ability of the future to underwrite debt has to be some degree of short-fall. But – she goes on to enthuse about her house (I wouldn’t mind betting it’s old, and unsustainable in energy terms) do-up. Maybe hers was done with cast up-front – but most weren’t.

Closer to home, an ODT (Truth is part of their Mission Statement) man rejected an OP/ED piece from me, because “Folk would choke on their muesli”. That’s a long way from their avowed goal, if my OP/ED contained ‘the truth’.

This morning, Kim did a brilliant wee interview with a 16-year old (after So on to it. He understood Peak Oil, realized we had to morph early, If he can do it, so clearly, there is no excuse for Mora. Mora has an obligation (the News of the Day in a Different Way?) to ascertain truth. If public radio can’t do it – who will?


Why do I care? Does it matter?  The answer to that is “Do you think our society owes it to future generations to give them a chance at life (not just our standard, but any) or do you think we’ll be extinct at some point, and it doesn’t matter which?”


I’d like to have a crack at the first option. It probably has collateral bonuses for almost every other species on the planet too. Roll on the raising of awareness. Roll on more fearless reporting. Good on you, Kim. How long before the ‘silence Lauder’ ethos organizes a ‘silence Kim’ one?





Kim Hill – brave. Guy McPherson. Brave too. Radionz Saturday 11.05

Well done Kim Hill. Easily the smartest Journo in the country, and the only one going anywhere near the truth of what is hitting us.

McPherson could be Jennie and I. No difference = or bugger-all – when you work it out. Like Orlov, he understands Jevons:

very well, and suggests that a fast crash will leave more chance for those who follow. Some folk complained that Hill chopped-in too often – but they will be those who understand, and who wanted to listen to one of their own kind. Interviewing – from a basis of ‘extracting the truth’ – needs to ask the hard questions, and attempt the trip-up. His reply re flying (you used fossil fuels to get here) was classic. How can we have a country being removed from the truth (NIWA / Lauder silencing / Steven Joyce / Tertiary ‘funding’) and yet there is the information, on National Radio.

Clearly, the current Govt can’t have such comments going mainstream – imaging the consternation: “You mean my mortgage won’t be repaid, my investments will be worth progressively less, and I won’t get a pension?”  Watch for National Ratio to get knobbled soon. Can’t have this truth stuff getting about, now, can we?


a good wet weekend read – what really underpinned the Industrial Revolution

Heinberg – on target as usual

a wee taste:

We’re at a crossroads. Up to this point, cheap and abundant energy has fueled consistent economic growth. The only real discussion among the managerial elite was how to grow the economy—whether in planned or unplanned ways, whether with sensitivity to the environment or without.
Now the discussion must center on how to contract. Sadly, that discussion is radioactive—no one wants to touch it. It’s hard to imagine a more suicidal strategy for a politician than to base his or her election campaign on the promise of economic contraction. Instead, discussions in policy circles tend to turn on how to maintain the illusion of growth. Denial runs deep, but sooner or later reality will make itself known.
Ain’t that the truth.

English, Joyce, infrastructure resiliency vs ideology.

So, we have ‘The Final Countdown’ playing softly in the background. Wheel out the dinosaurs. Add the spin.

This is an ideologically-loaded bunch. There will only be one outcome – more infrastructure sprawling across the land, with less cognisance of impact (be it via a watering-down of the RMA, or a silencing of the critics, or a privatising of the commons).


English mentioned (and interestingly, only Nat Radio seem to have picked up on it) resiliency. He’s talking of earthquakes, of course, but when you open that Pandora’s Box, you let out Peak Oil too. I sense a step-change, alright – but not the one Key had in mind. They’re heading down the track of triage-of-existing, aka Cuba – whether it’s being announced as such or not. Indeed, wehether they realise it or not.

There will be no ‘second crossing by 2030’ – the Krumdiek report to the DCC tells us why, as does the Parliamentary report:

Interesting times. I’ll elaborate more if the weather turns to custard. Too much to do outside…..

Interesting – on energy return (via RNZ Afternoons/Easter Island)

I came across this, while investigating Carl Lipo, after Mora interviewed him on Afternoons.

an excerpt:

“Lots of things naturally show diminishing marginal gains.  Imagine foraging for berries in a blueberry bush when you’re really hungry.  When you arrive at the bush (i.e., ‘the patch’), your rate of energy gain is very high. You’re gobbling berries about as fast as you can move your hands from the bush to your mouth. But after you’ve been there a while, your rate of consumption starts to slow down.  You’re depleting the bush.  It takes longer to pick the berries because you have to reach into the interior of the bush or go around the other side or get down on the ground to get the low-hanging berries.


Chances are, there’s going to come a point where you don’t think it’s worth the effort any more.  ”

Mora missed the energy thing, and the ‘limits to growth’ thing. Or maybe he was just addressing the populist (statues) thing. I suspect that, instinctively he was gleefully putting the Diamond Collapse ogre down. It doesn’t matter, interestingly: the ‘Steady State’ population as per Lipo, is absolutely a population living within it’s resource means. Indeed, a canoe-less (via treeless) society cannot escape doing just that. They are limited by energy-gain gotten.

Mora, had he been onto that, could have asked who gathered the food (energy) while the 600 statues were being rocked the kilometres they travelled. That would have been the real question: Eroei. Energy Return on Energy Invested.

Something the above (referenced) blog, addresses very well.

this is one of the best yet – Associate Prof George Mobus

Alias ‘Question Everything’

and a little excerpt:

Globalization, in effect the attempt to find low energy demand populations to do the labor, was a response to lowering NEE

It’s long, and needs thinking all the way. But worth it. It puts clearly what I mostly wing with conceptual grasp and instinct.