Excerpts from yesterday’s Hansard
Exhibit A - are a “range of proposals” the same as targets and dates?
Jeanette Fitzsimons: Recognising that international scientific opinion agrees that very major reductions in carbon emissions-such as a reduction of 60 percent by 2030-are needed to prevent climate disaster, will the Prime Minister set targets and dates for reducing our emissions that aim towards that ultimate goal of carbon neutrality?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The Government has a range of proposals coming out, including within the next 2 weeks. We look forward to the new era of bipartisanship that the new Leader of the Opposition has promised in working on these issues, and to National working constructively-as the Greens have always done-on these issues with the Government.
Exhibit B - “National’s spirited green-baiting was upstaged by the Greens themselves … while Labour and National were bickering with nothing yet on the table, the Greens had been a fountain of practical suggestions, all ready to be legislated. Naturally, the major parties denied leave for any of the bills to be introduced.” - Jane Clifton
Jeanette Fitzsimons: I seek leave of the House to have the Climate Change (Government Vehicle Procurement) Bill, a member’s bill in my name, introduced and set down for first reading, as a first small step towards carbon neutrality.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Sue Bradford: I seek leave of the House to have the Climate Change (New Zealand Superannuation Fund) Bill, a member’s bill in my name, introduced and set down for first reading.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Metiria Turei: I seek leave of the House to have the Climate Change (Airline Emissions) Bill, a member’s bill in my name, introduced and set down for first reading.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Sue Kedgley: I seek leave of the House to have the Climate Change (Rail Electrification) Bill, which would require the systematic electrification of the rail network, and is a member’s bill in my name, to be introduced and set down for first reading.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Keith Locke: I think the House will like this one. I seek leave of the House to have the Climate Change (National Land Transport Fund and Financial Assistance Rate) Amendment Bill, a member’s bill in my name, set down for a first reading.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Nandor Tanczos: In the interests of a cross-party approach to climate change, I seek the leave of the House for the Climate Change (Electricity Fixed Charges) Bill, a member’s bill in my name, to be introduced and set down for its first reading.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is surely not an acceptable practice to come down to this House, mention bills that no other parliamentary party has seen, put them up for a fast track, and waste Parliament’s time. This practice is unprecedented, and those members should be asked to desist and get on with questions.
Madam SPEAKER: Members are entitled to seek leave; it is for others to judge.
December 6th, 2006 at 10:05 am
To misquote an old saying:
Parliament fiddles as the World burns.
December 6th, 2006 at 10:32 am
Although Winstons point of order may be correct, his statement that “[t]his practice is unprecedented” could be matched by “these times are unprecedented.”
Mike
December 6th, 2006 at 11:00 am
If nobody had time to read the bills, then the objections would not have been because of the content of the bills, but because members rightly object to having something unknown foisted upon them. Would it not have been reasonable for the Green members to have given warning of their intentions, so that all other members had time to read the bills first.
I suppose the 6 bills can now go into the ballot for private members bills, so maybe tabling them was simply a clever ploy to gain publicity for them first.
kiore1
http://www.epf.org.nz
December 6th, 2006 at 11:00 am
Um, well I’m glad Jane Clifton liked it because it seemed more shtick than serious Green Opposition. At a time when we have more media coverage than ever before I don’t see a strong Green presence and those Bills are a bloody mouth full - what does the average Kiwi bloke get from ‘Climate Change (Airline Emissions) Bill’. I agree the times are unprecedented and require a level of diet radical and militant lite tone to grab the seriousness of the issue for the media. Things like this seemed gimmicky. Look at what ‘we’ on the left are facing from Hager’s revelations, my god they are Machiavellian pricks who would sell their Grandmothers ovaries if they thought it could get them power. I don’t think it can be Mr and Miss Nice Green any longer. I mean I don’t know about you but I’m angry. Angry that so much of what the Greens have been talking about for years is now suddenly this universal blossoming of environmental fundamentalism. To have climate skeptic John Key attacking Labour over it’s lack of success since in office BECAUSE of the anti-PC backlash that his political party unleashed on things like the ‘fart tax’ is a fucking joke and we all know it.
December 6th, 2006 at 11:08 am
That’s just the thing, kiore1. These bills went into the ballot at the start of November (launched to mark International Day of Action on Climate Change) so the other parties have had plenty of time to read them.
And mrbomber, yes, of course it was a bit of a stunt, but with a genuine question behind it. They might have long names but these bills are six simple and effective measures we could be taking to combat climate change right now, so the symbolism of having both major parties oppose them at the very same time as trying to outdo each other on the issue is poignant.
December 6th, 2006 at 11:12 am
By the way, here is summary of the bills and what they would do.
December 6th, 2006 at 11:24 am
frog..i’m sorry i asked…
so..that’s it..?
that’s the green masterplan to combat climate change..?
and cure the urgent environmental issues that face us..?
you’d better get back to the drawing board ..eh..?
to describe them as underwhelming and only fiddling at the edges..is being kind..eh..?
are you telling us this is the sole sum of green policy-making efforts of late/to date..?
hello..!..is anyone awake in there..?
i mean..in the main…they are weak-as policy proposals..eh..?..(save the transport fund one..which has other issues..)
this is the ‘green solution’…?
whoar..!…eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 6th, 2006 at 11:32 am
mrbomber has a point though, regarding the “average kiwi”. The Bills referred to are important, though small, steps that Parliament can take. But they do little to empower the community to take action on climate change.
IMO, the Greens have an opportunity to not only do good work in parliament, but also to begin to build a grass roots movement, and a viable alternative that the community can implement. I would like to see the Green MPs and staff spend 50% of their time on Parliamentary business, and the other 50% on researching and presenting a viable alternative that the community can implement - a “How To” including community gardens and other food co-ops, sustainable energy sources, decision making processes in small communities etc. Much of this information is already available, but is yet to be compiled into a coherent, easy-to-implement plan that any small community can adopt. In the end, much of the day-to-day work at Parliament is a waste of time anyway, and this is an opportunity to create something more tangible for the community to start working on now. At present, the main solutions we hear are: the Al Gore type “turn your lights off”, the NGO type “give us some money and we’ll lobby”, or the Parliamentary “just vote for us”. The Green movement has the potential to be more than this.
The Greens, along with others, have the people on the ground to start making this happen. But unfortunately, in the current climate (excuse the pun) some leadership from the Parliamentary team is essential.
December 6th, 2006 at 11:56 am
m, the idea of a comprehensive community-based “how to” approach to climate change is excellent. The Green MPs do get out there and hold public meetings, show powerpoint presentations, speak in debates and support community initiatives as much as possible, but they can’t be everywhere at once. MPs are the only people with the power to influence things at a Parliamentary level - to draft bills, ask questions in the House, negotiate policy agreements (like Buy Kiwi Made and Solar Water Heating). Surely the they and their staff, who are paid by Parliamentary Services to undertake Parliamentary business, should maximise the opportunities available through this legislative channel?
Other groups in the community could implement the kind of plan you outline - and indeed already do. I know a “Sustainable Dunedin City” public meeting was held in Dunedin last week by a group of almost 200 concerned residents keen to future-proof their city.
Phil, the Greens do not have “the solution” to climate change. Sadly there isn’t one. But there are lots of measures we can take to slow it and mitigate its effects. These bills complement the Turn Down the Heat paper the Greens put out earlier this year and will complement whatever new proposals they will put out in future. The fact that they are the current focus doesn’t mean all work will cease on climate change policy forever, full stop. Things aren’t as black and white as you make out.
Cheers,
frog
December 6th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
C’mon Phil, i’m pretty sure you’ve been involved in comments on the Turn Down the Heat climate change doc.
Mike
December 6th, 2006 at 12:25 pm
Which MP or MPs objected to the Bills’ introduction? Winston? His party was opposed to the carbon tax, I think.
In any case, it might be more appropriate for Parliament to delay consideration of these Bills pending the government’s release of its proposals for climate change policy, particularly anything with legislative implications. So long as this doesn’t take too much longer!
Interesting times. Community based approach sounds like a good idea, in tandem with other (key) approaches such as legislation and government action.
December 6th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
I’ve said it many times before (incl here and here).
The AGW debate is essentially being undertaken at the wrong level. Sure, its helpful for framing the big picture, but at this level it leads to individual helplessness (m and mrbomber) - or more accurately, it implies that individual action comes a distant second to govt. and big biz solutions.
We consume in a consumer society that consumes resources in a voracious manner. Emissions are caused by consumption. Stop and have a think about how you consume. Either reduce or decouple.
Mike
December 6th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
mikeymike -
I think that you make a good point about the consumer society and thr power of individuals. However - Parliament sets a lot of important ground rules (or not) that can influence individuals’ behaviour. Eg whether consumers even get to see the information that is going to help them decide what to buy, or what not to buy, at point of purchase.
I have said this before - even if 40% of the population reduce their environmental impact each by 10% - the overall reduction for the total population is only … 4%. More is needed.
December 6th, 2006 at 1:18 pm
mikeymike - Winston’s point of order was not even close to being correct.
Frog, I realise your bills have been available for perusal for some time, but the fact a bill is in the ballot does not mean it is available - as Idiot/Savant’s coverage of the members ballot shows.
I suspect both major parties oppose these bills (some are rather odd, and they’re certainly not all simple), but the opposition to introducing them by leave does not signify this. I note that the Green Party opposed leave for the extraordinary introduction of Don Brash’s National Party (reimburse screwed over media companies) Bill. I would also note that the right to decline leave is a right accorded to individual MPs, not parties, that a Laboru MP or a National MP opposed leave signifies their opposition alone.
And MikeyMike - these times aren’t unprecedented, why just last week we had news stories of how NZ scientists had discovered 20 periods of global warming over the last few million years by taking ice core samples from Antarctica.
December 6th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
For once (and I hope only once) I agree with Winston, we have some serious issues facing NZ right now that we CAN do something about.
This is not one of them.
December 6th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
Something that only happens 20 times in a few million years still seems pretty unprecedented to me! Like, how many times has it occurred since the introduction of Parliamentary Standing Orders, since that is the kind of time frame Winston was discussing.
December 6th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
Prim
I hear you with those numbers. So pricing is crucial. There is a very solid business case for addressing sustainable consumption issues. Govt. has a role to play in coordinating sticks that point peoples attention to their carrots. Did someone say price on carbon?
Edge
One point - AGW is unprecidented. Lets not degenerate into a discussion about science. I dont know enough. I suspect that you dont either.
Compounded growth, finite resources. Mismatch. End of story.
Mike
December 6th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
Edge
The fact that the climate in ANY chosen interglacial contains periods that are as much as 3 degrees warmer than today is not the same as worrying about what we are doing to climate. In any of those interglacials, the rates of temperature change we detect and the rates of CO2 change we detect are less than what we are measuring. A 50x difference in rate of change. Yes, these times are unprecedented.
We know we are adding to the problem but this begs the question of what our additions will do. The only thing clear from the cores so far, is that collapse of the WAIS (West Antarctic Ice Sheet) is apt to happen suddenly, and that it has happened suddenly in the past, and that it collapses with only a couple more degrees of temperature. How fast the water rises is a function of how fast the WAIS collapses… we’re putting our foot on the accelerator with our CO2 emissions, and what happens next is something our kids will likely get to regret.
Which is the problem. For Winston and for Keys and for Clark (and Bush and Howard) it isn’t OUR problem… it belongs to the future and they are happy enough to leave it there. Greens look to the future.
The idea that we can’t address global warming because it will prevent us from helping the poor is BS. We’ve never helped the poor, we’ve have invariably blamed them for their condition as well as for a host of other things. All that is happening now is that something has come along that might actually demand that we get up off our comfortable butts and actually contribute to the maintenance of the civilization that has served us so well and an awful lot of people are, in perfect accord with their “we’ve got ours so go bleep yourself” philosophy, refusing to acknowledge that something is happening and that they must do something to justify their hubris.
That refusal to face the future is what I see in the record of the Hansard. People who, where I to face them in the street, would be unable to answer my questions, unable to refute the science and unable to justify their actions, behaving abominably because THEIR positions are secure and they do not have to face people like me and aren’t worried about their children’s children.
Which is my concern with your attitude here Big Bruv. The future is far more dangerous than the present. Current problems? A piffle compared to what is to come.
respectfully
BJ
December 6th, 2006 at 9:04 pm
Aye, well done Green MPs. Good score. This stuff is your angle; team attack on the two Tweedlers. Grunty without malice. Pragmatic, pointed and clean. Keep it up.
December 8th, 2006 at 8:53 am
“I have said this before - even if 40% of the population reduce their environmental impact each by 10% - the overall reduction for the total population is only … 4%. More is needed.”
Yes. Severe cutbacks in all the things which make for a modern society.
This kind of militancy from Green supporters is quite scary. If you want to live sustainably like a 3rd world peasant, go live in the third world! Why inflict severe deprivation on NZ when:
a) it likely won’t make any difference globally and
b) the majority of NZers don’t want to- isn’t a government supposed to represent the will of the people?
December 8th, 2006 at 10:35 am
UK_kiwi:
We each can cut back a lot on the unneccesary “things that make for a modern society” without “living like a third world peasant” … (at least in the ways that this life would be “unpleasant”.)
From my (and my young-adult family’s) experiences we can even enjoy, and benefit from, the differences these cuts can make!
With ceaseless “marketing” our unnecessary comsumption is reaching greater and greater heights as we risk “drowning” in more and more discarded stuff … and for what great benefit to us? (This stuff is often obtained at the expense of the resources and the environment of the countries of those “third world peasants” whose lifestyles you despise.)
We organise our work so that we have plenty of money to fly across the world but “no time” to stay long enough to appreciate it …
Every lifestyle has its pros and cons, but “head in the sand” denial about what is happening on this Planet will not make for “pleasant lifestyles” for any of us in the future.
In answer to your summary points above:
a) the cumulation of each person’s contribution is the only thing that we can do that “will make any difference globally”.
b)”the majority of NZers” must be given better information - the government must act for the good of the people … (and I think you underestimate “the people” of Aotearoa/NZ).
December 8th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
Well said UK Kiwi
December 8th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
Eredwen
Having read your contributions for some time now there are a few things that I find interesting.
You seem to have a dislike for any corporation at all, indeed the bigger the corporation the more you dislike them.
You also seem to think that the vast majority of the people (be it in NZ or elsewhere) are unable to think for themselves and that we are “victims” of the marketing people.
Every possible solution you suggest would require more government intrusion into our life’s, (most Kiwi’s DO NOT want any further government interference in their life’s) or is totally impracticable given our economy is almost entirely based on agricultural exports.
UK Kiwi makes some very good points, all of which I support and have mentioned before, we can make NO difference at all to any possible climate change and as the theory has yet to be pr oven I wonder why there is such a rush to implement any changes or taxes that would adversely affect the living standards and conditions of NZers.
I am left with the feeling there is more to this that meets the eye, your constant “head in the sand” support for the global warming theory does not do justice to your obviously high level of intelligence.
December 8th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
I agree with eredwen, I think it is possible to cut back on things and do without some aspects of a modern society and not cut back on our quality of life.
I won’t miss these aspects of a modern society:
excess packaging, water coolers with polystrene cups, leaf blowers, driving to the corner shop for a pint of milk, leaving electronic devices on standby all night long, plastic bags, disposable cameras, leaving lights and air conditioning on in empty offices all night, single-occupancy car trips.
uk_kiwi, I think you underestimate the power of millions of people taking small measures. After all, during the last winter power crises in NZ (2003 wasn’t it?) the country as a whole managed to use 10% less electricity when the government ran a patriotic save power campaign over 10 weeks.
and I think it is you, not “green militants”, who are being irresponsible and making it more likely that NZ will suffer a drastic fall in living standards: if we don’t collectively reduce our ecological footprint then we are heading for a catastrophic resource depletition that will see NZ reduced not only to third world standards but to a New Orleans style level.
December 8th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
big bruv!
there you go again mate
I’m having a chuckle for the 2nd time in a couple of weeks at your well-meaning (?) stereotyping. We truly appreciate your efforts at calmly, gently, pointing out the error of our ways (much like a big brother, in fact). Truly.
Anyway, what I meant to say was that I found a quote for you that I was searching for a few weeks back, on an earlier thread.
The quote is from Arthur Miller:
“Few of us can easily surrender our belief that society must somehow make sense. The thought that the state has lost its mind and is punishing so many innocent people is intolerable. And so the evidence has to be internally denied.”
Thought you’d like it!
December 8th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
Eredwen,
So much good sense!
Let’s look at the reality of who we are, and where we are now.
It’s (how many?) shopping days to Christmas, and most of the country is busy rushing around buying junk they don’t need, imported at huge climate cost from everywhere you can think of, just to satisfy our urge to consume, and thus prove ourselves to be living at a satisfactory level of socio-economic status.
Give it all a break! Mike Ward drew a fantastic Green Christmas card a while ago (Frog, can we show that on the site?) which emphasises the cost of “junk-presents” in terms of resource waste, overpackaging, and simply not providing jobs for locals who manufacture stuff, because of the over-supply of imported junk.
Go cold turkey - remove yourself from the addiction to one-up-man-ship that is christmas in this decidedly secular country of ours.
Make presents. Give promises to help (ie; your time). Exchange experiences instead of glitter-coated boxesof plastic junk.
Think about the simple stuff that can be done any day of the week, and don’t leave it to the legislators to make you do it:
we can all choose not to buy over-packaged junk, we can all choose to recycle packaging from what we do buy, we can choose to take our own carry-bags with us and refuse to acept more plastic shopping bags, then there’s choosing to walk/take buses/trains where available, buying from the local outlets not travelling miles to buy essentailly the same stuff, and supporting artists and creative people in our communitites who produce great art, music and handcrafts.
Those who have gardens can choose to compost kitchen and garden waste, and along the way maybe remove themselves further from the retail consumption stream by growing some of the food their family eats.
For those who haven’t learned these practices, just pick up one new idea at a time; no-one expects that you can change everything at once.
Starting with light bulbs is an easy one - change one light bulb to an eco-bulb in your home each week or so, and before you know it, your home is using less electricity (good for your power bill) and you’ve completed your first sustainability project!
With respect to the rocket scientists, none of this is rocket science; if you have the inclination it’s easy to put into action.
And sure beats sitting around criticising MP’s over what their advisors have told them to vote for/against! Although I have to say - Winston Peters attacks Greens for wasting the House’s question time? …. that’s pretty rich!
Happy holidays, everyone, let’s all hit the beaches and chill out for a while
December 8th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
what rush to introduce changes or taxes would that be, BB? NZ is lagging behind the rest of the world, any proposed legislation has been cancelled and nothing so far has been done.
And why can’t we have changes or taxes that reduce emissions, yet DON’T affect the living standards and conditions of NZers?
I think they are possible, and that is all that eredwen is advocating, and what I believe that GP policy seeks to do.
December 8th, 2006 at 2:52 pm
Eredwen and Katie
cheers! Always enjoy reading your comments
December 8th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
Stuey
1 Taxes will not reduce emissions.
2 How can any new tax NOT affect the living standards of NZers?
December 8th, 2006 at 5:06 pm
Hey BB,
and I always thought
1. taxes are a distortion to the perfect functioning of the market and will always cause deviations from ideal equilibrium outcomes - typically by reducing the output of whatever product is being taxed - in this case carbon emissions. If you’re right I want my money back for that economics degree.
2. as i understand these crazy greenies they want to offset any “eco-taxes” (which I assume includes any carbon tax) with reductions in income tax to neutralise any impacts on living standards. Nuts eh? Bl..dy socialists.
But my mate Stephen Franks said in the last election campaign that polluter pays was the best approach to dealing with market imperfections of this sort - so maybe these loonies have got a point?
But I have to agree with your comment:
“as the theory has yet to be proven I wonder why there is such a rush”
Any self-respecting scientist knows that there can be no certain proof, it’s all just hypothesis more or less well validated by statistical evidence. The only real proof is going to be in 100 years, so lets just wait until then before deciding to do anything.
Merry Christmas
December 8th, 2006 at 6:32 pm
kiwinuke, yeah!
Its often called tax shifting Bruv. Scandanavian countries have been doing it for years. Ze Germans have elements of it too.
Mike
December 8th, 2006 at 7:31 pm
How can any new tax NOT affect the living standards of NZers?
If it is offset by a reduction or elimination of an existing tax. Strangely enough, the very thing that the Greens proposed years and years ago. Take the stereotypes out to the back pasture and shoot ‘em in the head BB. Deal with us as you find us.
respectfully
BJ
December 8th, 2006 at 7:56 pm
Kiwinuke
I am glad you paid for your own education, It shows that at least you are prepared to take some personal responsibility.
1 A carbon tax that is introduced BEFORE you have a viable, reliable, clean and safe public transport system is not a carbon tax at all, it is just another way the left can extract taxes from the public, of course the ironic thing about this is that the very people the left are supposed to help will be the ones most affected, but then in the rush to create the green utopia not everything is thoroughly thought out it seems.
2 I am glad you understand them, because apart from their fantastic work with Animal rights and Anti whaling (see there is something about the greens I like) I do not have a lot of trust in the rest of their policy, to me it is hard left (red) policy wrapped in a green skin.
I do not trust any party from the left to ever give back money they steal from me., just look how long it is taking for Labour (and the Greens) to pay back the money stolen from the tax payers for the election overspend.
3 I have said it here before but i am sure you remember how the world was going to stop spinning when Y2K kicked in…that turned out to be a massive over reaction as well, But perhaps an analogy that might hit home with you is the one about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, look how that little over reaction has worked out.
December 8th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
I have this picture in my mind of a World becoming more and more unihabitable for life forms > mammals > humans
… and we-who-care will still be doing everything we can to deal with the situation
… and big bruv and his ilk will still be sitting there counting their piles of MONEY !!
December 8th, 2006 at 9:12 pm
Eredwen
Relax a little, it probably will not ever happen, and if you are being honest you will admit that there is not a lot we here in NZ can do about it anyway.
December 8th, 2006 at 9:38 pm
oh for gawds sake you are a troll and no mistake, there have been about 10 attempts to explain to you over the months that the greens eco-tax is to be offset against reductions in personal taxation but you still go on about left wing attempts to get more money out of the people.
I agree that the Greens will not give you more money back, since their policy is fiscally neutral, but it is NOT an additional tax.
And, Y2K was not a disaster because 10000s people worked for years, costing their employers many millions making sure that it wasn’t a disaster. To compare it with climate change and resource depletion is not relevant, and that has also been discussed here, and I’m sure you took part in that discussion too.
December 8th, 2006 at 9:47 pm
Stuey
Oh so I get it, because it is written down I MUST accept it.
The greens admit to being a left wing party so excuse me for not believing that they will not raise taxes.
I do get annoyed that you expect blind acceptance of your policies and ideals, that (as I am sure you are aware) was another question i asked last week.
I want to know some more about the Greens as I have a great belief in SOME of their policy, I would not think that healthy debate is something that any political party should be scared of.
December 8th, 2006 at 10:52 pm
Big Bruv - You’re getting answers from us and you are telling us you don’t believe or accept the answers because we MUST do what you expect us to do. The only one saying we will “raise” taxes is you. We don’t plan on it, nor is it part of our policy. If you wish to debate here you actually have to accept that our position belongs to us, it is not yours to define… otherwise there is little sense in continuing to discuss anything.
Green party policy is not lightly or casually derived. No one person writes it, nobody can buy a word of it, and we all prefer the method by which we arrive at it. We agree with the party principles, that’s unanimous, but I promise you there’s no mind-control here. Read the principles and tell me which you disagree with if any. As for blind acceptance, that is simply wrong. I know of no green at all who doesn’t think for themself and reach their own opinions.
We aren’t what the National party or Peter Dunne or the EB say we are, nor what the media bother to report. You see any party out there that does not have a few loose cannon rolling across the deck?
I was serious about you doing something about the stereotypes. They are starting to get in the way of serious discussion. You have been mostly an honourable interlocutor, but we don’t say stuff we don’t mean and we shouldn’t be chewing over what you want to believe we said but didn’t.
{sorry, tired, I think that last bit still parses though}
OK?
respectfully
BJ
December 8th, 2006 at 11:02 pm
big bruv:
I am being VERY honest as I continue to do MY SHARE of what everyone should (must) do to reverse the damage Homo sapiens has caused, and is causing, to the life supporting systems on this Planet.
As a parent I want this Planet and its systems to remain supportive of life as we know it and thus allow my/our descendants to survive and thrive.
MY MESSAGE IS: that the life we lead, having made “sustainable living” choices, can be GREAT! (Nothing to be afraid of there, UNLESS we ignore the problems now!)
It is a less frightening prospect for me, in that I was born in the 1940’s during WW2, when there were very few cars. We used trams and trains and bicycles (all of which are potentially much more efficient now) … and when I was only 6years old we took the train to Arthurs Pass and I was introduced to Alpine Skiing (which became and remains the skill and great passion of my life).
I live in the same (very well designed in 1920’s) environmentally friendly house that I grew up in, and thus I have experienced a simpler life here in the “pre-plastic” days, that was very little different from the life I lead now.
In the time we have lived here we have developed a beautiful indigenous forest which requires no watering … and it absorbs “greenhouse gases”!
I buy my clothes (and computers) etc second hand … I reduce, reuse and recycle … I use the Public Library … etc … etc
Last evening I had a delicious meal with my kids … vegetarian, largely home grown … I have a “state of the art” bicycle … I use public transport … and drive my fuel efficient well tuned car only when necessary.
Tough life eh?
In EVERY individual choice we make, we each contribute, or don’t contribute, to the destruction of Earth’s ability to support life … It is as simple as that!
I’ll end this with the famous quote:
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has.� Margaret Mead
Kia ora!
eredwen
December 9th, 2006 at 2:25 am
Stuey : oh for gawds sake you are a troll and no mistake
I think of our Big Bro as more of a mascot than a troll. I think that, ideologically, he is of the canine persuasion. A dog who barks at passing cars is doing it out of pure principle : deep in his heart, he knows his barking isn’t actually going to change anything, but wah-wah-wah all the same. You can reason with him all you like, he won’t change his ideas, it’ll be back to wah-wah-wah two minutes later.
I have no desire to chain him up or anything. I just hope he doesn’t get run over by a truck.
December 9th, 2006 at 1:03 pm
Having had a quick look at the six bills I think they’re a pretty mixed bag.
The Government Vehicle bill is good as long as it makes exceptions for specialist vehicles such as paddy wagons and the like.
The Electricity Fixed charge bill looks good.
The Airline Emissions bill will make travel in NZ and to and from NZ significantly more expensive. The tourism trade will suffer the most, possibly meaning that West Coasters will become even more eager to cut down trees and dig up coal to replace the lost income from tourists.
The NZ Superfund bill will suceed only in lowering the value of the NZ super fund and therefore the superannuation provisions of many NZers.
The Public Transport Funding bill sets an arbitrary amount and won’t be good for road safety.
As for the Rail Electrification bill, that looks fine as long as the RMA is substantially altered so that developers will actually be able to build hydro and geothermal power plants. The RMA has been identified as the biggest block to low polluting renewable energy production. The period when the Greens have been involved in government has also been the period when the share of our energy production made up by renewables has dropped to 58% down from a peak of 87% in 1980. Unless the current regulatory regime is changed then the electricity required for the Rail Electrification bill will be generated by power plants burning coal.
December 9th, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Well said, eredwen!
December 10th, 2006 at 9:58 pm
big bruv….could you please bring me up to speed on ‘the fantastic work the greens have done on animal rights/welfare’…
‘cos i must have blinked..and missed it..eh..?
seriously..what..to your mind..have they done..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 10th, 2006 at 10:47 pm
The six bill pack are a fantastic start….. and for God’s sake, sending our money overseas on the global casino really worries me. If we are getting good returns at the present, just wait for the economic downturn. At the very least, it should be going into useful stuff in NZ, like rail, a NZ shipping line, insulation (800,000 houses without) that get guaranteed long term returns.
But as for more serious change …. we need You to be the New Actor … empowered by Contraction and convergence and personal carbon allowances
In the past few years, the scientific community has achieved a near-consensus that our energy profligate lifestyles are contributing to a process that threatens future life on earth. The Global Commons Institute has put forward a realistic framework to prevent this. Based on principles of precaution and equity, the policy of contraction and convergence appears to be commanding impressive support from the UK Government and in international circles. The Tyndall Foundation recently concluded an assessment of the equity, effectiveness and efficiency of “Domestic Tradable Quotas” with a summary report at:
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/research/theme2/summary_t3_22.shtml
Now that both National and Labour have moved towards stronger positions on climate concern, it is really urgent that we get the most effective economic instruments out in the public eye with full implementation in the near future.
Given that scientists have calculated that the capacity of the planet to absorb greenhouse gases without serious destabilisation of the climate is finite, could anyone reasonably support the proposition that the contraction should converge towards an unequal distribution? If that capacity is therefore divided by the world’s population, each person’s fair annual allocation of carbon dioxide emissions cannot be greater than about 1 tonne.
Clearly, it would be wholly impractical for us as individuals or for the economy to cope with an immediate reduction to the 1 tonne allowance, although it must be achieved as soon as possible. A year-on-year reduction will be needed. But given due warning of each future annual allowance, people can make changes to their home, transport arrangements, and general lifestyle at the least cost and in the way that suits them best. By including all personal transport and household energy use in the allowance, a large proportion of total emissions will be covered. Units of the allowance will be surrendered when gas and electricity bills are paid, petrol is purchased, and air tickets bought. The contribution made by the business, industry, commerce, and public sectors which produce our goods and services can be included at a later date within a wider allowance system.
A key feature of the proposal is buying and selling. Those who lead less energy intensive lives and who invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy are unlikely to use all their allowance. They will then not only be spending less on fuel but will also add to their income by selling their surplus units. The process will be a far more effective driver towards minimising the impact of climate change than attempting to encourage individuals to adopt green practices.
Carbon allowances will act as a parallel currency to real money as well as creating an ecologically virtuous circle. Individuals with low energy use-and therefore low emissions-will have a surplus to sell, while those maintaining high energy use will have to buy this surplus. But the cost of doing so will rise steadily in line with the reduction of the allowance because price will be determined by the availability of the surplus set against the demand for it. In effect, a conserver gains principle will complement the conventional polluter pays principle.
Where does the prime responsibility for the adoption of such a radical but essential transformation of society lie? Of course, only government can ensure that individuals are obliged to exercise their responsibilities in this way. Without action, we will be knowingly handing over a dying planet to the next generation.
It would work like this: The government would allocate to each adult an equal per capita share of the country’s emissions that are attributable directly to individuals. The remaining carbon emissions would be auctioned to government and business.
So what would happen if each person was financially responsible for his or her own emissions?
Firstly we would find out where our allowance was going: do we drive a big car? do we leave the lights on? If there was strong financial incentive and individual access to the market, one would see a rapid move away from wasteful to low-carbon lifestyles. People would look for low-carbon products and services to save on their emissions allocations. If there was demand for low-carbon products, entrepreneurs, in turn, would develop and produce them for the market.
For more detail go to
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/research/theme2/final_reports/t3_22.pdf
Paul B
December 11th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
I heard Dennis Dutton on Afternoons on RNZ. He spoke about how it was reported that the Ross Ice Shelf was in danger of colapsing and he poo -hooed that as alarmist. He then talked about how we are told that temperatures on the ___ Peninsula are rising. He however, checked temperatures over the rest of the continent were the same. Conclusion: scientists cherry pick data and therefore anthropomorphic climate change is in doubt.
Jim Moira only offered him a buiscuit with his cup of tea.
That’s twice (and I’m not listening all the time) I’ve heard DD getting air time, unchallenged on the issue.
JH
December 14th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
[…] Original post by frog Share and Enjoy:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. […]
December 19th, 2006 at 2:39 pm
Phil
The GP are the only party to actually have an animal welfare policy, and a dedicated spokesperson.
Sue Kedgley did a lot to convince the Regulations Review Committee to reject the layer hen code of (so-called) welfare. I know because I briefed her before hand and I was at the committee meetings. The government dictatorally overturned the committee’s recommendations, but that is hardly the GP’s fault.
The GP have two private members bills in the ballot. One will require vivisectors to be more open about their experiments and the number of animals being used, the other will abolish cage hens and pigs.
It is not exactly vegan revolution I know, but given that there are some conservative farming elements in the party, it is probably about as good as we will get for the moment. If you are concerned about animal welfare then you could ave joined the group formulating the new animal welfare policy.
Since animal agriculture is a higher contributor to climate change and other environmental destruction than cars, then it might make more sense to tax meat than transport.
kiore1
http://www.epf.org.nz