Southerly by David Haywood

Russell Brown recently commented that ever since he's known me I've been about to leave my job. On some occasions, this was because the dark angel of redundancy was hovering over my humble work cubicle. On other occasions, it was because I felt myself to be an excellent candidate for vocational self-euthanasia.

In the end, I decided to jump before the redundancy angel gave me a push. Ten days ago I said goodbye to the Crown Research Institute (CRI) that has been my home for the last couple of years, and set off on my own as a freelance writer. Yes, I am really that stupid.

Major life changes tend to make me philosophical, and looking back over my scientific research career -- such as it was -- I think my greatest achievement is the fact that I never took sick leave from my job. I may have solved a few difficult equations, and I may have patented a few good ideas, but I suspect that my glowing attendance record is what really made me an outstanding CRI employee.

Of course, as a newly self-employed writer, I'm keen to maintain this exemplary work record. I simply can't afford to lose money through illness. Domestic accidents are the leading cause of lost work-hours, and on this basis I spent my first employer-less Saturday morning sharpening all the knives in our house. I have been told many times that a blunt knife is more dangerous than a sharp one, and -- by that measure -- I judged that our cutlery drawer was an accident hazard comparable to a box of loaded revolvers.

While cutting an apple that afternoon I had cause to appreciate my foresight. A doctor's scalpel couldn't have made a neater job of slicing open the fingers on my left hand. I shudder to think how much worse it would have been with a blunt knife.

Later that same day, while attempting to operate a pressure cooker with my heavily-plastered digits, I somehow managed to immerse my other hand in boiling water. If captured on film, the subsequent cascade of events would earn a fortune on 'The World's Funniest Home Videos'. Suffice it to say that -- in my hilarious attempts to get my burnt hand to the cold tap -- I smashed my knee into the corner of our table so hard that my leg went numb for three days.

Over the next week, while hopping one-legged around our house with both hands in bandages, my dodgy spine became agonizingly painful. Then, as an encore, my remaining operational limb began to exhibit symptoms of an affliction that I dubbed 'throbbing pulse kneecap'. Nothing ever came of this ailment -- and it's stopped throbbing now -- but I thought I should mention it for medical completeness.

So being self-employed isn't as easy as you'd think.

On the bright side, I've used my recuperation time to build this website. The intention is to advertise my writing wares so that people will hire me to produce articles for their newspapers and magazines. If you know a publisher who likes to throw money around then ask them to contact me.

I must admit that it's annoying to have spent so many years studying to be a scientist, only to wind up doing something entirely different. But I've discovered that science in this country is just too dependent on the whims of bureaucrats for my tastes. You need continuity to do proper research -- it takes many years of consistent funding to build a world-class science programme. It's not something that can be achieved by changing direction every eighteen months at the behest of pen-pushers. Sadly, many of my former colleagues have poured years of their lives into brilliant projects only to have them inexplicably cancelled in mid-stride. I've found myself particularly haunted by the comments of one senior scientist, who told me: "When I look back on my career all I see are decades of wasted effort".

That's just too depressing for me. Of course, I know other people have much less satisfactory jobs, and I know I should stay and fight the system. But you only get one life -- and I don't want to fritter it away on form-filling and scientific make-work.

Nevertheless, my last day as a scientist was somewhat emotional. There are only thirteen full-time employees at my office, but we are a reticent bunch and spend most of our working lives huddled alone in our cubicles. I have colleagues only a few metres away with whom I have exchanged barely a dozen awkward words over the past two years.

Surprisingly, it was one such colleague who presented me with a farewell card on my final afternoon. The card was inscribed with a simple but heartfelt message: "It's sad that you're leaving us, Steve. We will miss you. Good luck for your future endeavours."

I was almost reduced to tears by this testimony to my qualities as work-mate. And if only my name were Steve then it would have been really beautiful.

Thus a new and exciting chapter has opened in my life. I have enough paid writing work to provide a starvation wage for the next three months. If the work dries up then I begin auctioning off my body-organs to the highest bidder.

So if you're visiting Christchurch in six months time, and you see a particularly shabby-looking tramp with surgical scars -- perhaps holding a sign which reads: "My name is Steve, I solve differential equations for food" -- then please give generously. It will mean that self-employment hasn't really worked for me.

Postscript

Several people have emailed me to ask if I was serious in this explanation of last week's post. It speaks volumes for the wonderful world of Cultural Studies that such questions are even possible.

So I'm sitting on the front steps of my house having a beer with Alan Bollard and his mate Darfield Charlie.

And Bollard is going: "Look, it couldn't be simpler. We're all having a nice barbie. Charlie is cutting a bit of meat. The knife slips, and -- whoops-a-daisy -- off comes one of his fingers. The finger falls in the barbie, and up it goes in flames. Everyone's happy."

And Darfield Charlie goes: "Accidents happen all the time, mate. Who's to say my finger wouldn't have got cut off anyway -- sooner or later?"

Of course, I remember what happened the last time I got involved in one of Bollard's schemes, and so I'm like: "Well, why can't Charlie cut off his finger at his own house?"

Bollard stares at me like I'm stupid. "Charlie's pregnant girlfriend is a born-again Christian, you dick. She's not going to let us rip off the ACC at her house."

Then Bollard goes into this long explanation about how accidents are part of Gross Domestic Product, and how Darfield Charlie should be encouraged to contribute to economic activity. And then he's like: "Look, don't be such a pussy!"

I hate it when Bollard calls me a pussy. So we fire up the barbeque, and I get the knife from the kitchen.

Five minutes later, and Bollard's shouting at me: "For fuck's sake, why don't you sharpen your knives?" And I'm like: "Because they might cut someone, dude." Darfield Charlie is groaning with pain -- and Bollard still hasn't managed to chop off any of his fingers.

So then Bollard goes: "Okay, change of scenario. What if Charlie has an accident when he's cutting firewood for the barbie?"

I get my axe out of the garage, and Bollard doesn't waste any time. The next thing blood is spraying all over the place -- and Darfield Charlie is running crazily around my backyard and shrieking like a steam-whistle.

I'm wondering if we'll be able to catch him, but after a few circuits around the lawn he falls to the ground and has convulsions. So we pick him up, and lug him down the driveway to Bollard's ute.

Of course with Bollard at the wheel there's no way I'm getting into the back. So I offer to drive, but Bollard goes: "Fuck you, it's my ute." And then I'm like: "Well I'm not coming if I have to sit on the tray." And Bollard goes: "So how am I supposed to get him out at the other end?" And I'm like: "That's your problem, dude."

And then Darfield Charlie starts moaning: "I'll ride in the back." So we tip him over the side of the ute, and he lies on the bottom of the tray and bleeds over everything.

We get in the ute and Bollard floors the accelerator. Everything's going fine until we're on Woodham road. Then we see a police car coming from the other direction, and of course Bollard can't resist giving them the fingers.

I just have time to go: "Bloody hell, Bollard, don't be such a marnus." And then the cop does a U-turn, and flicks his siren and lights.

So we pull over, and Bollard is like: "I'll handle this." And when the cop comes up to his window, he goes: "Hello officer, I was just pointing at those two ducks perching in the tree. I hope you didn't misinterpret my gesture."

And the cop asks: "Who's the guy bleeding in the back of your ute?"

Two minutes later we're getting a police escort to the hospital. We go down Kilmore street like a bullet. I can hear Darfield Charlie's head hitting the tray as we go over the judder bars into the hospital parking lot.

Bollard drives the ute right into the ambulance bay. I'm like: "Dude, should you be parking here?" And Bollard goes: "If the hospital can't handle where I park then fuck them."

We open up the tail-gate of the ute, and Darfield Charlie is lying there all white and drowsy because I guess he's got hardly any blood left. So we drag him through the doors to the Accident and Emergency department. Bollard goes up to the counter, and he's like: "Excuse me, I'm a doctor and Darfield Charlie needs urgent medical attention."

The whole waiting room goes very quiet at this, and then someone asks: "Hey, aren't you the stupid dick who keeps putting up our mortgage rates?"

Bollard turns around, and I can tell he's a bit pissed off. But he keeps his cool, and he goes: "Who wants to know?"

And someone points to this nervous-looking guy with his arm in a sling, and so Bollard grabs a crutch from a kid with a broken leg, and he's like: "You're the dick, you... dick." And he whacks the nervous-looking guy on his bandaged arm and knocks him over.

The next thing the whole waiting room has erupted in a huge brawl. The mother of the kid with the broken leg is trying to strangle Bollard. Bollard is trying to beat the nervous-looking guy to a pulp with the crutch. And a couple of patients have taken advantage of the confusion and are giving one of the registrars a good thumping. I can see that no good will come of this -- so I leg it out the door and catch the bus home.

Bollard gets out of jail the next week, and we go down to the pub to celebrate. But I can tell that something's bothering him. He's barely touching his beer, and finally he's like: "Dude, I don't know about human nature. That thing with Darfield Charlie couldn't have been a bigger success. It turns out that his wounds get infected, and they have to amputate his whole hand. Charlie's absolutely rapt! He's up for this massive compo payout -- enough for a holiday on the Gold Coast. He told me it was better than Christmas."

And I'm like: "Well, that's great, I guess..."

And Bollard goes: "But then Charlie's pregnant girlfriend visits him in hospital. And those born-again Christians, dude, they're so suspicious. She's full of questions: 'It was a gas barbeque, Charlie -- why were you chopping wood? Is there something you want to tell me? Don't you think it's important that we have honesty in our relationship? I want to know the whole story, Charlie. We can't build our relationship on lies.' And so in the end he comes clean with her."

And I'm like: "Dude, don't tell me that Darfield Charlie is back in prison."

And Bollard goes: "It turns out that the ACC offers a reward for dobbing in false claims. She says that God told her to do it."

And I'm like: "Dude, that like totally sucks."

Note:
David Haywood is willing to sell the exclusive rights to this true story to New Idea, Investigate Magazine, North & South, or similar publications.

My recent post on Sue Bradford's proposed amendment to Section 59 of the Crimes Act has managed to offend almost everybody. I've been bombarded with angry and anguished emails from both sides of the debate, as well as some slightly peevish comments on the discussion thread at Public Address System.

So I've decided that it's time to steer away from controversy for a while. And what could be more uncontroversial, wholesome, and inoffensive than puppies?

Joanne Hammond is someone who knows a lot about puppies. She's an instructor at the Christchurch Dog Training Club, and has been teaching dog-owners how to train their dogs for twelve years. I asked her some questions that people have recently put to me.

You can't have a conversation with a dog, so how do you get it to obey you?

The secret is only to reward positive behaviour, and never to reward negative behaviour.

[For example] say that you're training a dog to walk on a lead. If the dog is pulling: you stop, you call the dog back to you, and you gently wind in the lead. When it's back into the right position you give it a reward of some kind.

The old methods of training used to be that you gave a jerk [on the lead], and the choker chain used to grab, and the dog would come back to you because it was hurt. But the technique that we use is to reward the dog with a pat, hug, food, or a toy. You want the dog to learn that if it's behaving it gets lots of rewards. So that it obeys you because it wants to -- not because its frightened of you.

With respect, Joanne, that sounds a little like political correctness to me. Don't you think that the tried-and-true method of physical punishment wouldn't deliver better results?

People only use harsh techniques because they don't know any better. [They think:] "That's how Dad did it, that's how Granddad did it -- so that's how it's done." Positive reinforcement techniques are better for both the owners and the dogs. And the training itself is more enjoyable for the owners. I have lots of people who say to me afterwards: "I really enjoyed that class."

Even in years gone by I think there were people [who] knew deep down inside that what they were doing was not the correct method. And you actually get more from your dog by positive reinforcement through reward. It may take a little longer, but in the long run your dog will actually work better for you.

Your dog will work better?

They'll work better for you because they want to. A dog who's working for you only because they don't want to be hurt isn't [as] reliable.

Do you ever advise anyone to hit their dogs?

No, we don't use those techniques at the Christchurch Dog Training Club. All our techniques are based on reward using praise, food, toys, or hugs. Definitely we don't use any harsh treatment whatsoever. As a club we've decided that we don't need it, and we frown very heavily upon anyone who does. They should come to us first and we'll show them the correct methods.

But don't you have to use physical punishment as a last resort? For example, if your dog runs at people and you need to give them a really hard message. Won't the fact you are advising people not to use physical punishment mean that the streets will be full of wild undisciplined dogs. Won't your approach -- over the long term -- result in a massive increase in dog attacks on innocent people?

Well, my response to that would be: if you use physical punishment then you're more likely to get dogs that are uncontrollable. If you get your puppy from an early age, and bring it up using positive reinforcement -- they don't ever turn nasty because they've never experienced harsh treatment. So that side of them never comes out.

Okay, if what you're saying is true then you've got the opposite problem. Since time began people have owned dogs, and all that time they'd been training them using physical punishment. Won't your methods breed a generation of 'girly-dogs' who will lack the killer instincts necessary to win at international dog trials?

Every dog from the time it's born to the time it dies wants to be leader. What we're doing is training you to assert your leadership over the dog -- but not in such a way that you actually are competing with the dog. Using the harsh techniques you are actually fighting the killer instinct and forcing it out. But if you can get your dog to work for you because it wants to -- because it respects you as the leader -- then you won't ever have problems.

Let's turn to the biblical argument against the sort of methods that you employ. I'm thinking of Proverbs 22:15 which I'll read to you: "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a dog; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him." Don't you think that your methods for dog-training are actually going against God?

{Long pause}

I've never met anybody that's come to me with religious issues like that. I show people the correct techniques, and if they don't like them then they either don't come back, or they convert to my way of thinking. I do not allow anyone to use harsh techniques on dogs -- whether it's from religious beliefs or other reasons.

Do you think that your methods for training dogs without physical punishment could also be used successfully on children?

It's funny you say that because I train a lot of people who ask me: "Could you do that with my child?" I can't actually see why you have to use force on children -- but dogs and children are different, of course.

You can talk to a child and reason with it. You can't do that with a dog.

DISCUSS THIS POST on Hard News 'The Arguments' thread.

Last week my esteemed whisky-drinking colleague, Russell Brown, posted an article on Hard News which discussed the debate surrounding Section 59 of the Crimes Act. Entitled ‘The Arguments’ this post has generated a phenomenal amount of discussion on Public Address System.

Along the way, my own very first Public Address post has also been in the firing line. ‘A Modest Proposal’ was an attempt to question our attitudes towards physical punishment of children in New Zealand, and it seems that least one person really didn’t like it. Peter Cox has posted a nice summary of the article here, and a detailed analysis of the logic here.

One thing we can all agree on -- perhaps the only thing -- is that punishment of children is an emotive issue. Public opinion on the subject has changed considerably over recent years. A few decades ago physical punishment was employed in almost all pre-tertiary educational institutions. At the school I attended children were regularly beaten until they were severely bruised and (on at least one occasion) bleeding. This was seen as quite normal, and an entirely acceptable method of enforcing discipline.

But today -- for better or worse -- corporal punishment is no longer permitted in schools. And now, as we all know, Sue Bradford is proposing to abolish corporal punishment in all situations. She hopes to achieve this by amending Section 59 of the Crimes Act to give children the same legal protections against physical punishment as adults. Despite the thousands of words written on this subject, the actual text of the proposed amendment is rarely (if ever) quoted by the media.

Here is the original version of Section 59 of the Crimes Act:

1. Every parent of a child... is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.
2. The reasonableness of the force used is a question of fact.

Here is Bradford's proposed amendment:

1. Every parent of a child... is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of:
   
   1. preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
   2. preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
   3. preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
   4. performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
2. Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
3. Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).

The word 'correction' in this context means punishment intended to rectify behaviour. Bradford's amendment allows the use of force against children in the course of preventing harm, offensive behaviour, criminal acts, and so on -- but not for the administration of punishment.

To give an example: your four-year-old son runs onto a busy road. The amended Section 59 permits you to forcibly pick up your son (against his will) and remove him to a safe location. But it does not permit you to punish him with a good walloping afterwards.

The amended Section 59 effectively removes what some see as the parental 'right' to physically punish their child. Unsurprisingly, this has generated an enormous amount of controversy. Amidst all the emotional shouting it can be difficult to separate out the valid arguments from the dross.

As a starting point, however, it may be helpful to consider the issue as two separate debates. The first debate is about human rights and physical punishment. The second debate (which is only somewhat related to the first) is about Section 59 of the Crimes Act.

Debate 1: Human Rights and Physical Punishment

The question in this debate is whether or not children have the same human rights as everyone else in terms of physical punishment (note: we are only talking about the specific case of human rights with respect to physical punishment -- we are not talking about all human rights). Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Rights states: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".

Proponents of this argument would point out that we don't permit physical punishment of criminals. Our society has decided that it would be "cruel, inhuman or degrading" to beat or hit them. So why do we allow physical punishment of children? Sue Bradford obviously falls into this school of thought. She thinks that what is "cruel, inhuman or degrading" for an adult is also "cruel, inhuman or degrading" for a child.

Bradford's way of thinking has strong parallels to one of the arguments that saw corporal punishment removed from schools. The fact that teachers were in loco parentis had previously allowed them the right (under Section 59) to enact physical punishment upon children. However some people argued that children had certain human rights in terms of freedom from "cruel, inhuman or degrading" punishment. They maintained that the rights of the child trumped the rights of the teacher to fully enact the parental freedoms that they had previously enjoyed.

An important question in settling this argument is whether non-physical forms of punishment are truly effective in disciplining children. If they aren't effective, then children are in a special human rights category (with regard to punishment) that is different from adults. They must be physically punished for their own good. In other words, the harm they might experience from ineffective parental discipline is worse than the "cruel, inhuman or degrading" punishment.

It's worth noting that some people will say that they are "personally anti-smacking" but "pro-choice in terms of a parent's right to choose to smack". But, of course, this is indefensible if you subscribe to the idea that children have the same human rights (in terms of punishment) as an adult. It is nonsensical to say: "People should be allowed to choose whether or not they abuse someone else's human rights". That misses the whole point of human rights.

Debate 2: Problems with Section 59

The second debate is about perceived problems with Section 59 of the Crimes Act. Although it is related to children's rights it is actually a somewhat different issue. The question here is: does the "reasonable force" provision under Section 59 allow parents to get away with physical punishment that (most of us can agree) is genuinely abusive?

There are at least three possible viewpoints on this debate:

1. You favour the status quo because you think that Section 59 is already totally effective in protecting children.
2. You agree with Bradford's conclusion that children have ordinary human rights in terms of physical punishment. In this case you will think that Section 59 is inherently wrong because it does not prohibit the physical punishment of children.

1. You think that Section 59 is ineffective but disagree with Bradford's analysis, i.e. you think that children's rights are in a special category where physical punishment is permissible. In this case you will think that the issue can be resolved by explicitly defining what is reasonable physical punishment. This is the approach favoured by some members of the National Party, e.g. Chester Borrows. He thinks that bruises, welts or bleeding should be classed as abuse, as well as any punishment that involves an 'implement' -- but that physical punishment causing "transitory and trifling discomfort" should not.

It's worth noting that all three viewpoints involve the government legislating for external interference in the parent/child relationship. At one extreme to pass judgement on the limits of reasonable force; at the other extreme to ban physical punishment altogether.

Sorting out the various arguments can be very tricky. It's fair to say that proponents of all three viewpoints are guilty of clouding the issue with red-herring statements. It has been claimed that granting normal human rights (in terms of punishment) for children will reduce the murder rate. It has been claimed that un-smacked children will become criminals. It has been claimed that parents who don't employ physical punishment are going against the will of God. It has even been claimed that the abolition of physical punishment will result in a generation of 'girly-men' who will be unsuitable All Black material.

There's not much about this that's based on scientific fact. In fact, it's very difficult to get concrete proof on any of these topics.

Even evaluating the performance of Section 59 is tricky. Do I think that it has occasionally allowed people to get away with child abuse? Yes, I do. But that's just based on my own personal definition of "reasonable force". In other words, it's just my opinion.

But let's say that I'm right -- and, after all, every major New Zealand organization that works with children agrees -- what are the respective merits of the alternatives proposed by Bradford and Borrows?

Bradford's amendment makes the physical punishment of children into a crime. But she acknowledges that 'mild' smacking should not be a police matter. As stated in her bill: "We would not expect prosecutors to bring trifling matters [such as minor acts of physical punishment] before the court". In other words, minor acts of physical punishment would be considered in the same class as stealing a pen from work, or copying a DVD for a friend -- a crime so trivial that it would be unlikely to result in anything but a warning or caution.

Borrows's amendment makes most forms of physical punishment of children into a crime. The only exceptions would be punishments that cause only "transitory and trifling discomfort" and that do not involve implements. This would limit parental correction to 'mild' smacking and (presumably) 'mild' kicking and so forth.

If we are to take Bradford and Borrows at their word then in both cases the practical result is actually the same. The more forceful punishments that were previously allowed under Section 59 are no longer legal. Minor acts of physical punishment are effectively permitted.

What remains is a matter of principle. From Sue Bradford's perspective the principle is for the law to recognize that children have the same human rights as everyone else in terms of physical punishment. From Chester Borrows's perspective the principle is that the letter of the law does not criminalize parents who only engage in 'mild' smacking.

It is perhaps useful to make an analogy between physical punishment and the trivial crime of stealing a pen from work:
Bradford's principle: All stealing is wrong, but stealing a pen from work is too trivial to be prosecuted.
Burrows's principle: All stealing is wrong, except in the trivial case of stealing a pen from work.

I have considerable sympathy for Bradford's argument, and (for what it's worth) I think she has a point -- in theory. I understand why she thinks that Borrow's amendments are objectionable. But in practice the important thing is to protect children and lower the bar on what's currently permitted under Section 59.

The worst outcome would be for Bradford to throw a hissy fit and withdrew her bill in the event that Borrow's amendments are successful -- as she has threatened to do. In my opinion either of the proposed amendments to Section 59 would make this country better for children.

But that's just my opinion.

Acknowledgements

I'd like to acknowledge the comments made by Graeme Edgeler and Danyl Mclauchlan which have helped me form an opinion on some of this issues.

DISCUSS THIS POST on Hard News 'The Arguments' thread.

There are certain moments when history is changed by the impetus of a truly great speech. Winston Churchill managed to achieve this on several occasions:

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.

John F. Kennedy (although not exactly a prime minister) had his moments too:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe -- to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

Then there are the more run-of-the-mill speeches, such as this no-frills effort from Michael Joseph Savage when he announced that New Zealand would follow Britain into World War II:

Where she goes, we go. Where she stands, we stand.

And then there are the truly ordinary speeches such as this one:

I believe we can aspire to be carbon neutral in our economy and way of life...

"I believe we can aspire"? It's hard to imagine Winston Churchill employing this particular turn of phrase. Helen Clark's unassuming words are perhaps unfortunate -- because her proposal for New Zealand to become a carbon-neutral country is every bit as challenging as fighting a world war.

There are two possible pathways to carbon neutrality [1], and neither of them are easy. Both pathways necessarily involve a dramatic transformation of New Zealand's energy sector. This is because the vast majority of our man-made atmospheric carbon emissions are due to energy use: the coal we burn in industry, the natural gas we burn to generate (some of) our electricity, and the petrol and diesel we burn in cars and trucks. These carbon-emitting fossil fuels represent about 70 per cent of New Zealand's total energy consumption [2].

One possible pathway would be to continue the use of these fossil fuels, but to capture and sequester the carbon so that it does not enter the atmosphere. Unfortunately, there are a number of cost issues and practical difficulties associated with sequestration. Furthermore, the hydrogen fuel that results from this process is not compatible with our existing transportation infrastructure [3] (indeed a low-cost method for on-board storage of hydrogen in cars and trucks has not yet been developed). This represents a significant obstacle because transportation accounts for the majority of New Zealand's fossil fuel energy usage [2].

The other option would be to avoid burning fossil fuels altogether. This can't be done overnight, of course -- if most of New Zealand's energy supply were suddenly eliminated then our society and economy would be thrown into turmoil. But it's possible that the energy that we currently get from fossil fuels could be gradually replaced with energy from renewable carbon-neutral resources.

Which option is better? At the moment the option of renewable energy is the most technically feasible. This approach also has the advantage of eliminating New Zealand's dependence on unreliable energy imports [4], as well as offering protection from the future effects of a diminishing petroleum supply. The elimination of our fossil fuel consumption would not only make a small (but important) contribution towards the health of the planet [5] and our society [6], but would also prevent our trading partners from holding our carbon emissions against us -- as Helen Clark noted in her speech:

More than any other developed nation, New Zealand needs to go the extra mile to lower greenhouse gas emissions and increase sustainability.

In our high-value markets in Europe, we face increasing pressure on our trade and tourism, from competitors who are all too ready to use against us the distance our goods must travel to market, and the distance tourists must travel to us.

It sounds like a great idea -- but let's put the scale of her proposal into perspective. A carbon-neutral New Zealand would require tripling the energy that we currently produce from renewable resources [7]. That's the equivalent of two more Clyde dams, two more Manapouri hydro schemes, two more Wairakei geothermal stations -- two more of everything renewable that we've already got. And don't forget that our existing infrastructure has taken decades to build. Helen Clark is proposing a truly mammoth task.

Of course, no one expects it to happen overnight. And no-one expects too many more hydroelectric dams -- the new carbon-neutral energy would come primarily from wind, geothermal, marine, solar, and above all biofuels. New Zealand is fortunate to have vast resources of renewable energy. In fact, it has been estimated that the long-term potential of wind energy is 360 petajoules (100,000 gigawatt hours) per annum -- enough (on a net basis) to supplant all of our current fossil fuel consumption by itself [8].

So it's technically feasible -- but is it economically sensible? Well, surprisingly, perhaps yes. If carbon emission rights become successful as an internationally tradable commodity, and if energy prices continue to rise over the long term (as widely predicted), and if the implementation is carried out in a sensible manner over a reasonable timescale -- then the proposal may well be of net economic benefit to New Zealand.

Of course, that's a lot of 'if's, and comparison with Muldoon's 'Think Big' policies will be inevitable. But there are some important differences -- not least that 'Think Big' was based on the exploitation of a finite resource using borrowed money. A better comparison might be New Zealand's investment in the network of hydroelectric dams that were constructed in the first two-thirds of last century (and which continue to pay dividends today).

In fact, components of the proposed carbon-neutral energy infrastructure might even be attractive to the government's own superannuation fund as an alternative to investing in cigarettes and nuclear weapons. It's even possible that New Zealand industry might export the carbon-neutral technology and know-how that it develops. This certainly occurred when the Danish government made a similarly bold decision to exploit its wind energy resource -- and the clever Danes have now become the largest producers of wind turbines in the world.

So might Helen Clark's audacious proposal become a reality?

No... of course not.

Here's why: the development of energy infrastructure on this scale isn't a technical problem so much as a political one. It would take decades to implement, and in meantime two things will almost certainly happen.

Firstly, opposition parties will use any long-term energy plan -- however sensible -- as a stick to beat government. In fact, even minor parties within government will exploit this issue as a point of difference (witness the embarrassing temper-tantrum already thrown by Peter Dunne over the innocuous carbon-tax proposal). And both groups will promise to dismantle the plan when they are voted into power. In all likelihood even the timid and inoffensive proposals in the New Zealand Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy will meet this same fate.

Secondly, fear of voter backlash will prevent the government from implementing any policy that forces us to pay the true cost of energy use and carbon emissions. It will be too tempting to take the well-worn path of previous administrations: dither, do nothing, and let the next government deal with the problem. It hardly needs to be pointed out that over the last seven years -- despite its achievements in other areas -- the current government has only dealt with energy issues on a fire-fighting basis. And it is depressing to note that the next large energy scheme to come on-stream will be the carbon-emitting Huntly E3P project.

If carbon neutrality is a desirable goal then it will need to be delivered by some other mechanism than our three-year political cycle. A multi-party accord is an obvious approach, although a more successful option might be a referendum on a carbon-neutral New Zealand -- perhaps with the bicentenary of the Treaty of Waitangi (2040) as a completion date. This would send a clear message to future governments that they need to engage with the long-term plan to meet the country's energy needs in a sustainable manner.

But frankly, neither of these alternatives has much chance of coming to pass. Not unless our politicians manage to put aside their differences, and work together to achieve what's best for New Zealand in the long run, rather than what wins elections in the short term.

So Helen Clark was probably sensible to whisper her plans for a carbon-neutral country. In another few years they will be all but forgotten. The government of the day will still be passing hasty legislation to shore up our energy supply -- and New Zealand's carbon emissions will continue their relentless rise.

Notes:

[1] It is sometimes suggested that carbon neutrality can be achieved by absorbing an amount of carbon from the air that is equivalent to New Zealand's emissions. This sounds simple: we just plant trees. But the hitch is that the trees must remain as permanent forests -- because if we remove the forests then the stored carbon will be returned to the atmosphere. This approach is unsustainable in the long run, because if we keep planting new forests then eventually we simply run out of room.

[2] It is a little difficult to extract information for this reference: (i) Go to this URL (ii) Select "What fuel was used to generate the energy?" from the 'Questions' drop-down menu (iii) Select "PJ" from the 'Unit' drop-down menu (iv) Select "Delivered energy" from the 'Energy types' drop-down menu (v) Select all the energy sector boxes ('Agriculture', 'Household', 'Commerce', 'Industry', and 'Transport and Storage'). Click the 'submit' button.

[3] An alternative approach would be to sequester only a portion of the carbon, and to store energy for transportation applications in the form of low-carbon fuels such as ethanol or methanol. This would not decrease carbon emissions from petroleum-based fuels, but it would significantly reduce emissions from coal-based transportation fuels. This could theoretically enable New Zealand to replace oil imports with our indigenous coal resources without increasing our net carbon emissions.

[4] Exploitation of New Zealand's coal resource (in combination with full carbon sequestration) would have a similar effect on imports -- although most likely at a higher cost.

[5] According to the current scientific evidence.

[6] There is mounting evidence that the fossil fuel emissions have a significant impact on human health. Some researchers have claimed that air pollution from vehicles kills over 800 New Zealanders per year.

[7] This assumes the current amount of fossil fuel consumed by New Zealand. In fact, by reducing our nation's colossal wastage we can avoid having to produce anything like this quantity of renewable energy. To give one example: if most New Zealanders drove a car such as the Audi A2 5-door or the Volkswagen Lupo then we would immediately reduce our total energy consumption by more than 10 per cent.

[8] Wind energy would not, of course, be directly usable in New Zealand's current vehicle fleet.

PLEASE NOTE: DAVID HAYWOOD IS AN ENERGY ENGINEER & RESEARCH SCIENTIST. THE VIEWS EXPRESSED HEREIN ARE HIS OWN, AND DO NOT PURPORT TO REPRESENT THE OPINIONS OF HIS EMPLOYER IN ANY WAY.