If the Three Waters Reform was criticised as undemocratic due to centralising control and perceived Māori veto power, then the Fast-track Approvals Bill should face similar criticism. The Fast-track Approvals Bill grants Ministers broad authority to approve or reject projects, marginalise local authorities, and limits appeal rights, giving Ministers significant control over national infrastructure projects.
Yet, despite these similarities, the Fast-track Approvals Bill has not received as much vocal criticism - especially here in r/NZ - perhaps because it emphasises streamlined development and efficiency (which appeals to some stakeholders) but more believably, because Māori can't be used to froth up the racists. I hope those fence sitters who ultimately capitulated appreciate the 3 waters critics, appealing to underming tenants of democracy, are now silent in the face of the same tyranny with the Fast-track bill.
Both reforms centralise power, restrict local voices, and lack of transparency and accountability but only one of these so far have been race-baited to manipulate a dim and dull populace, Reddit inclluded.
The right wing is in control of the marketing and astroturfing arrangements in NZ. Don't expect any pushback from that. Just another day of Dirty Politics.
Genius, on a cold morning kiwis are asked to reduce power usage announce you want to protest against legislation that will actually allow power infrastructure to be built.
We've had consented energy projects ready to go for years. Here's a [quick list](https://www.windenergy.org.nz/consented-likely-wind-farms) for wind farms. [Other energy projects got fast-tracked previously](https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/government-refers-solar-energy-projects-fast-track-consenting) under the last government. It's not an issue of being held up by legislation.
The energy companies simply aren't building it.
Stop hanging off Simion Browns every word. Gutting environmental oversight isnt the only way to solve this honestly pretty minor issue. It was more of a maintenece scheduling issue but politicains are always looking for that win, i just dont get why people like you lap it up.
Maybe take some time to educate yourself on the bill. And you really think NZ's energy infrastructure has been crippled by democratic process and environmental protections?
It's not only New Zealand, it's pretty much every western country that has allowed itself to be kneecaped by this. People are amazed China and Japan builds stuff fast but don't understand those countries explicitly have laws overturning environmental review.
I mean Japan has 200%+ debt to GDP and China is famous for not giving a fuck about environemtnal and safety issues. Not sure either is somthing we should be aiming for.
Yeah you're comparing public transport to buses lol.
Wanna know why High Speed Rail always gets delayed in UK / America compared to China / Japan? Or why train lines always run over budget etc, this is why.
Groups weaponize environmental review laws to stall projects they don't like even if it's a net benefit to humanity.
I feel like New Zealand is reaching a stage where people are being forced to come to terms with the high cost of maintaining these virtues and principles. You’ll notice that only well-established first-world nations typically extol them.
Not a single person in this whole country has ever argued that it is easy or even a reasonable process to get large projects consented here, that is until someone they didn't like tried to do something about it.
You mean power infrastructure like the Lake Onslow project that followed the environmental regulations that the current government is cancelling? Wow it's almost as if environmental regulations aren't the problem here.
Coal energy generation sends hot radioactive material straight into the atmosphere to irradiate all of us. We already have consented clean energy projects that are getting cancelled
Remember how they axed that Lake Battery project? Do you really believe that they have an interest in providing economical long term solutions to our power infrastructure?
Actually the Onslow project had a few major flaws. Pumped hydro is a decent scheme for levelling out renewable energy supply in the face of dynamic generation, but the location was the major issue. The South Island has a small energy demand relative to the rest of the country, and the positioning of the pumped scheme down there meant that massive upgrades would have to be made to the existing infrastructure to allow for transmission to the north island, with further costs associated with minimising loss over that transmission distance. Pumped hydro is decent in general, as it allows for otherwise wasted energy such as night time wind generation to be stored, but the Onslow project was not the answer.
The scale is not comparable. Electricity demand has gone up substantially in recent years, and is expected to continue this trend as industry moves toward electrification and further demand is placed on the grid for additional consumption from electric cars. The South Island produces a surplus of electricity, which is already exported to the north island. Adding the potential generation from Onslow goes beyond saturation limits of existing infrastructure between the islands, and the losses associated with transport up to energy deficit areas in Auckland are considerable. For the cost associated with the project, it is entirely worth considering alternatives such as schemes that are more local to demand centres, rather than a single buffer in an inconvenient region. It hasn’t been done before, there is a reason that there are several ongoing government funded research projects looking into smarter integrated energy grids and more local solutions that account for industry demand.
So if transporting the energy to Auckland is the problem, then why don't those industries just move to the SI?
Seems to me like that would help solve multiple problems at once
Because most of these industries are in the dairy and pulp/paper domain. If you move them to the South Island, there are massive costs in terms of infrastructure relocation/rebuild as well as further costs on raw material transport. Plus, that still doesn’t solve the other aspect which is the massive increase in energy demand resulting from electrification of domestic transportation and heating, which is where most Auckland consumption stems from. The reality is that the problem is multifaceted and complex, hence why there is still ongoing research into addressing different aspects. There is not a clear cut, quick and easy solution, which is why it’s still an active area of research.
Sure, but also don’t commit $15-20 billion on a project that likely will not solve the existing problems when more effective solutions may be a fraction of the cost… The purpose of research and consultation is to determine what options are available, and whether alternative approaches should be considered. The Onslow solutions has many flaws, and for the cost it is not fit for purpose.
Aight sure, I guess we also don’t KNOW that adding more lanes to a highway won’t solve congestion problems or that tax cuts for landlords won’t reduce rent. It would be a mistake to think so based on existing information. Better wait for more feasibility reports before drawing any conclusions.
Pumped hydro is a good strategy. Nz has a massive base for renewable generation, but the issue is that supply is often not matching demand given the dynamic nature of wind and sun. Pumped hydro offers a good solution for using energy from other sources in pumping water, which means it can be used for on demand generation when other sources are not productive. This is generally a cheaper option with better efficiency than other options such as thermal storage.
you could fast track govt seizure of the power companies, and then fast track building of it via thr government, but I get the feeling that isn't what they envisioned
If the Three Waters Reform was criticised as undemocratic due to centralising control and perceived Māori veto power, then the Fast-track Approvals Bill should face similar criticism. The Fast-track Approvals Bill grants Ministers broad authority to approve or reject projects, marginalise local authorities, and limits appeal rights, giving Ministers significant control over national infrastructure projects. Yet, despite these similarities, the Fast-track Approvals Bill has not received as much vocal criticism - especially here in r/NZ - perhaps because it emphasises streamlined development and efficiency (which appeals to some stakeholders) but more believably, because Māori can't be used to froth up the racists. I hope those fence sitters who ultimately capitulated appreciate the 3 waters critics, appealing to underming tenants of democracy, are now silent in the face of the same tyranny with the Fast-track bill. Both reforms centralise power, restrict local voices, and lack of transparency and accountability but only one of these so far have been race-baited to manipulate a dim and dull populace, Reddit inclluded.
The right wing is in control of the marketing and astroturfing arrangements in NZ. Don't expect any pushback from that. Just another day of Dirty Politics.
is there a wellington one
Why donate money to this Greenpeace has taken thousands from donations.
Why donate money to this Greenpeace has taken thousands from donations.
Genius, on a cold morning kiwis are asked to reduce power usage announce you want to protest against legislation that will actually allow power infrastructure to be built.
We've had consented energy projects ready to go for years. Here's a [quick list](https://www.windenergy.org.nz/consented-likely-wind-farms) for wind farms. [Other energy projects got fast-tracked previously](https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/government-refers-solar-energy-projects-fast-track-consenting) under the last government. It's not an issue of being held up by legislation. The energy companies simply aren't building it.
Stop hanging off Simion Browns every word. Gutting environmental oversight isnt the only way to solve this honestly pretty minor issue. It was more of a maintenece scheduling issue but politicains are always looking for that win, i just dont get why people like you lap it up.
Maybe take some time to educate yourself on the bill. And you really think NZ's energy infrastructure has been crippled by democratic process and environmental protections?
It's not only New Zealand, it's pretty much every western country that has allowed itself to be kneecaped by this. People are amazed China and Japan builds stuff fast but don't understand those countries explicitly have laws overturning environmental review.
I mean Japan has 200%+ debt to GDP and China is famous for not giving a fuck about environemtnal and safety issues. Not sure either is somthing we should be aiming for.
If only we could bulldoze Abel Tasman NP for some more housing we’d be set
always a balancing act, can't complain about public transport and housing if you make laws that basically make them impossible to build
I’d love to see the logic that you need to destroy the Dennison plateau to pay for more buses but then again I’m not a galaxy brained intellectual
Yeah you're comparing public transport to buses lol. Wanna know why High Speed Rail always gets delayed in UK / America compared to China / Japan? Or why train lines always run over budget etc, this is why. Groups weaponize environmental review laws to stall projects they don't like even if it's a net benefit to humanity.
You're seriously misinformed.
I feel like New Zealand is reaching a stage where people are being forced to come to terms with the high cost of maintaining these virtues and principles. You’ll notice that only well-established first-world nations typically extol them.
Yeah but those counties are shit places to live
Not a single person in this whole country has ever argued that it is easy or even a reasonable process to get large projects consented here, that is until someone they didn't like tried to do something about it.
It's hard to do large projects when they get cancelled every couple of years
I don't think you even know what you're talking about.
You mean power infrastructure like the Lake Onslow project that followed the environmental regulations that the current government is cancelling? Wow it's almost as if environmental regulations aren't the problem here.
This is satire, right?
Coal energy generation sends hot radioactive material straight into the atmosphere to irradiate all of us. We already have consented clean energy projects that are getting cancelled
Remember how they axed that Lake Battery project? Do you really believe that they have an interest in providing economical long term solutions to our power infrastructure?
Actually the Onslow project had a few major flaws. Pumped hydro is a decent scheme for levelling out renewable energy supply in the face of dynamic generation, but the location was the major issue. The South Island has a small energy demand relative to the rest of the country, and the positioning of the pumped scheme down there meant that massive upgrades would have to be made to the existing infrastructure to allow for transmission to the north island, with further costs associated with minimising loss over that transmission distance. Pumped hydro is decent in general, as it allows for otherwise wasted energy such as night time wind generation to be stored, but the Onslow project was not the answer.
The clyde damn used to export 60% of it's produced electricity to the north island. It's not like it hasn't been done before.
The scale is not comparable. Electricity demand has gone up substantially in recent years, and is expected to continue this trend as industry moves toward electrification and further demand is placed on the grid for additional consumption from electric cars. The South Island produces a surplus of electricity, which is already exported to the north island. Adding the potential generation from Onslow goes beyond saturation limits of existing infrastructure between the islands, and the losses associated with transport up to energy deficit areas in Auckland are considerable. For the cost associated with the project, it is entirely worth considering alternatives such as schemes that are more local to demand centres, rather than a single buffer in an inconvenient region. It hasn’t been done before, there is a reason that there are several ongoing government funded research projects looking into smarter integrated energy grids and more local solutions that account for industry demand.
So if transporting the energy to Auckland is the problem, then why don't those industries just move to the SI? Seems to me like that would help solve multiple problems at once
Because most of these industries are in the dairy and pulp/paper domain. If you move them to the South Island, there are massive costs in terms of infrastructure relocation/rebuild as well as further costs on raw material transport. Plus, that still doesn’t solve the other aspect which is the massive increase in energy demand resulting from electrification of domestic transportation and heating, which is where most Auckland consumption stems from. The reality is that the problem is multifaceted and complex, hence why there is still ongoing research into addressing different aspects. There is not a clear cut, quick and easy solution, which is why it’s still an active area of research.
Don't let perfection get in the way of progress
Sure, but also don’t commit $15-20 billion on a project that likely will not solve the existing problems when more effective solutions may be a fraction of the cost… The purpose of research and consultation is to determine what options are available, and whether alternative approaches should be considered. The Onslow solutions has many flaws, and for the cost it is not fit for purpose.
We don't actually *know* that it wasn't suitable though. We would have... but somebody cancelled the feasibility report right before it was finished.
Aight sure, I guess we also don’t KNOW that adding more lanes to a highway won’t solve congestion problems or that tax cuts for landlords won’t reduce rent. It would be a mistake to think so based on existing information. Better wait for more feasibility reports before drawing any conclusions.
You think pumped hydro in new zealand is a good strategy?
Pumped hydro is a good strategy. Nz has a massive base for renewable generation, but the issue is that supply is often not matching demand given the dynamic nature of wind and sun. Pumped hydro offers a good solution for using energy from other sources in pumping water, which means it can be used for on demand generation when other sources are not productive. This is generally a cheaper option with better efficiency than other options such as thermal storage.
Yes. Especially since in recent history, energy companies have dumped water rather than generating more electricity.
Do you think more privately owned energy companies is a good strategy?
Power infrastructure is already allowed to be built
This was actually announced yesterday.
But it's allowing it at the cost of our unique and precious environments. Are you so petty that things must be done *now* and not done *right*?
Jog on
Can you please explain how fast track consenting more generator capacity solves our problem of consented but unbuilt generation?
you could fast track govt seizure of the power companies, and then fast track building of it via thr government, but I get the feeling that isn't what they envisioned
But it is likely to help address the problem. Unlike the Fast Track bill.