Comments on: Maybe this shows the Greens shouldn’t shut up, even for a day

By: katie

katie — Wed, 25 Jan 2006 01:18:09 +0000

BJ,
as always, straight to the heart;

the maths on currency-pegging is terrifically complicated, and the old “change an aussie dollar, get an extra 20c in NZ” rule was quaint when Muldoon enforced it, but really, really not going to work in this decade of this millenium, when most of the sophisticated, and a lot of the unsophisticated, can check the latest exchange rates hourly on the internet, if so inclined….

Those kind of controls are in the past, deservedly, and not even Brash inspired megalomanic thinking will bring them back.

By: fastbike

fastbike — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:24:15 +0000

If I had more time I’d check out the methodology behind the report.

Specific concerns:
1. Is it weighted for population density. As Stuey points out, we appear to be clean/green because there’s a mere 4m living here. What would we look like if we had the population of the UK, all living like us.
2. And then this line
“Britain, which ranked 65th on last year’s sustainability index, came in fifth in the new study, among the 133 nations measured.” Oh for God’s sake - do you really believe the Brits have cleaned up their act in a year. “Yeah Right” - I smell a rat.

More later ..

By: even

even — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:21:26 +0000

It’s more a case of geography than our country having a better attitude and approach than others; overall we might even be worse in attitude and also alot of it is absolutely because we are not as far down the path of unregulated free market corporate capitalism as other countries, but that is the path our corporate media has instructed us to go down, no mistake.
Also the real indicator of how things are, is how a society views people to people relationships and rights for quality of life, the level of respect there will always reflect the societies attitude toward nature. And for us we are told it’s all about competition, corporate sports and privatisation. So go pat yourself on the back New Zealand.

By: bjchip

bjchip — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:12:08 +0000

SPC

Fixing the currency relative to a single other country’s currency is a long term prescription for trouble. We aren’t Australians. We don’t use their currency. Watch the US $ move with respect to gold as well as the NZ $ vs the US $ vs the Aus $. Topic is too complicated for a simple 1:0.8 relationship.

respectfully
BJ

By: Huskynut

Huskynut — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 20:27:52 +0000

Another way to look at it is as a wake-up call for how far advanced environmentental destruction is across the planet. If this is as good as it gets, then….
OTOH, the quick route to burnout is to remain fixated on what still needs to be done (as opposed to the results of the work already done).. so it’s quite legitimate for many people to take a measure of satisfaction from the ranking.

By: ACeng

ACeng — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 13:08:33 +0000

I Think the Greens should be giving themselves a pat on the back for New Zealand’s ranking on these world indicators, I’ve no doubt that the Greens presence in parliament has had positive outcomes for NZ’s environmental policies and this is borne out by New Zealand getting the highest score in the Policy section of the indicators.

But it is not a time to rest on our Laurels, the reports specifically says “New Zealand’s management of Natural Recourses shows plenty of room for improvement�?. Finland dropped from 1st to 3rd in one year so good work folks, but keep the pressure on.

By: phil u.

phil u. — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 09:45:01 +0000

oh well..that’s good…we can all pack up and go home now..

our work is done…

phil(whoar.co.nz)

By: peterquixote

peterquixote — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 09:44:50 +0000

green party especially jeanette you not looking good where it counts green issue didymo, check out what tj selwyn say over at tumeke, he say you wimp poofter victim pussycat

By: stuey

stuey — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 07:34:29 +0000

don’t know about you, but I am absolutely astonished that New Zealand does well, since my anecdotal perceptions were that we were terrible and that only the fact that there are very few of us in a very bountiful country means that NZ is still cleanish and greenish.

Looking at the data, I see that many of the measures, especially the various air pollution measures, this is true, we are only “green” because there are so few of us.

I note that a lot of it is based on ‘expert judgement’ so I wonder if the experts were unconsiously swayed by the 100% pure propoganda.

By: SPC

SPC — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 06:29:54 +0000

Have they looked at the lakes and rivers?

The fertiliser impact in lakes and the end of drinking from and increasingly risky swimming in rivers?

Have we fenced off livestock yet? Are not there more and more infestations of our waterways (from imported “uglies”).

Have we made any progress on solar water heating? Have they noted our Kyoto “bill”?

Totally off topic.

A call for Greens to call for a fixed (lower value) currency.

“It’s easy to sit back and criticise, but in a country dependent on manufacturing and primary production, actions speak louder than words. The more we can do to talk down or otherwise achieve a lower exchange rate, the better.”

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3550164a10,00.html

Maybe Greens and NZ First can work together on something.

Any party proposing to fix the currency at 80 cents Australian (and make that a condition for coalition) will have my vote in 2008.

I forsee a party with this policy doing well in 2008 if neither Labour (possible) or National (unlikely under Brash or Key) take it up.

Either NZ First or Green Alliance?