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

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

‘cos i must have blinked..and missed it..eh..?

seriously..what..to your mind..have they done..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)

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.

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.

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

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