Skip to content
Green Party Co-Leaders Marama Davidson and James Shaw. Photo Credit: Niu FM

Macca

While listening to Magic Talk off and on, I had a bit of a lightbulb moment regarding the Green’s true agenda. I missed a lot of it but the talk was about the use of large furnaces to burn plastics and other rubbish. My understanding of this process is that it is a two-edged sword. The heat from the fire can be converted into energy but equally importantly, mountains of plastic are burnt thereby helping to sort the massive pollution problem.

According to NZ Green party politician Eugenie Sage, the Minister of Conservation, this is a no go and this is the bit I didn’t hear. Apparently her reasons for this were threefold:

  • The huge cost of the plant
  • The emissions from the plant
  • And that we wouldn’t be able to supply enough plastic to make it work!

Now I’m no brain surgeon but surely the plant could be scaled to suit and if need be we could even import the plastic as countries would be only too happy to ship it over for free. The emissions statement was also debunked by a caller who said that was ‘rubbish’ and that plants used in other countries gave no emissions or such a small amount to be negligible. Surely the small emissions must be better than mountains of plastic going in to landfill or just dumped into rivers and the sea? There has also been discussion of a 44-foot container system which has plastic fed into one end and biofuel comes out the other. The Greens are not interested in that idea either!

The BFD. globalenergyworld.com/news/traditional-energy/2019/02/26/global-plastic-fuel-technology-market-set-grow-854m-2019

My light bulb moment was that the Greens just don’t want to solve these problems – probably because they would then have nothing left to do. The left is all about creating mountains out of molehills with no solutions or actually fixing the problem other than to give them money so that the state will fix it.

A figure I heard this week was the spend in the US last year on climate change research (over 99% of which is for the pro man-made side), was 80 billion US! Just imagine for a second how many pro-climate change advocates would be out of a job if that trough dried up?

If you enjoyed this BFD article please consider sharing it with your friends.

Latest