*

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

More expensive greenwash coming right up!

scope for additional complementary policies, reinforcing the ETS, to improve energy efficiency and reduce carbon emissions


Didn't take long. The rabid greenies have been awfully quiet during the past couple of months whilst Red Russel was trying to get more tree huggers in our faces at the trough.

time to recalibrate environmental policy

Whatever that piece of bollocks means cannot be good for my wallet. Three days in and the nutters are back.

Drill it, Mine it, Sell it while you have a mandate!

6 comments:

Jeremy Harris said...

You might have also noticed the Auckland Council's draft plan will require all new commercial buildings to have a "green" roof.

Yeah I bet putting a forest on the roof of every new building will be cheap...

PM of NZ said...

Jeremy, a disease no doubt came with the eco-loons from the previous Waitakere City, infesting the current council. Ex-Mayor Bob had no hesitation imposing his own brand of unproven greenwash on ratepayers.

The WCC white elephant built to house the bureaucracy just before the Super City changeover is a prime example of ultra-expensive rooftop greenwash on the ratepayer's dime.

Rooftop forests are not cheap.

Mort said...

A green roof top can't be cheap. We just had a quote for a Green wall on the side of a small building, was only 15m long, but is quoted at 25k

Does this green roof shite have to be trees or can it be solar panels? (Not that i think that is any better, but just slightly less fucked, as it may decrease the overall running costs of the building for the same kind of coin, thus helping the building owner meet the ever burgeoning rates demands of socialist felchers in Local Govt)

PM of NZ said...

Mort, I the "rooftop forests" are not actually trees but a glorified water catchment system about 150mm thick made of lightweight pumice type materials. With some stunted 'green' weeds parked as groundcover in the medium. Requiring an expensive waterproofing membrane and design to support the increased weight at build along with continued maintenance / upkeep at hideous ongoing cost.

Whereas a normal roof can be inexpensively fitted with similar insulating properties, painted any colour desired to reflect or absorb heat as required and still catch water to discharge to the street as stormwater. With zero maintenance (other than normal exterior mtce) for the life of the building.

You choose which is better for your wallet.

Mort said...

I'll take option 2 thanks, option 1 looks like a recipe to add another building into the league of leaky buildings, what is it with these people? Is council really that thick, they only just managed to have a rethink and finally move away from 10+ years of faulty designs for residential properties.
With the advent of CHC EQs and the current re-rating of EQ standards and building strengthening that is going to be enforced, will this stupidity be added onto the regime too?

PM of NZ said...

"what is it with these people?"

It is the bureaucrats unbridled sense of entitlement in that you will pay for their stuff ups like leaky buildings.