Friday March 23rd, 2007. 1:13 pm by Peter Davis
It’s official: men are screwing the planet more than women are, but don’t worry, women can fix it thanks to a nifty new credit card which means you can be carbon-neutral as you shop - the more you spend, the less you cost the planet.
Posted in Environment & Resource Management | by Peter Davis | Fri, March 23rd, 2007 |
This entry was posted
on Friday, March 23rd, 2007 at 1:13 pm and is filed under Environment & Resource Management.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can email this article to a friend. Printable version of this article.
You can leave a response, but trackbacks are not allowed.
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Men screwing the planet? NO, surely not, I always thought they were the good guys. Lucky that women don’t have equal pay and equal power or we’d have to step up and take our share of the blame too instead of just being offered a new feel-good consumer eco-gimmick. My question is, if all western women took up the offer and got one of these cards, would they run out of places to plant trees?
Molly
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:29 pm
I reckon one or two of the “high maintenance” babes I used to see wandering around Southampton (Long Island) in the Summer could waste this planet and two more like it in an afternoon.
Frog… I gotta hand it to you, this is likely to start a MARVELOUS flamethrower party.
BJ
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Hehe good to have a lighter subject to debate, I seem to have killed that other Blogg. I wonder how carbon neutral they will be going shopping in their SUV’s and buying items made by heavy industries to take home in plastic bags though.
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Actually there is no causal relationship between being male and high carbon emissions. There is not even a causal relationship between high income and high emissions. The high income is simply an indicator for high consumption. A scrooge type who sticks all his (or her) money in a sack and gloats over it would not be using much carbon.
March 23rd, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Yeah, but it is always “BOY” racers
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:09 pm
I know a girl racer who would disagree with you…
March 24th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Hey Weka! (Care to introduce yourself? The ecosystem is diversifying here!)
Carbon-neutral man… Great subject! Have a look at this : No-impact man
A couple of bourgeois Manhattanites trying to live carbon-neutral for a year (and writing a book about it).
Found this blog through an article in the NY Times
A sour odor hovered oh-so-slightly in the air, the faint tang, not wholly unpleasant, that is the mark of the home composter. Isabella Beavan, age 2, staggered around the neo-Modern furniture — the Eames chairs, the brown velvet couch, the Lucite lamps and the steel cafe table upon which dinner was set — her silhouette greatly amplified by her organic cotton diapers in their enormous boiled-wool, snap-front cover.
A visitor avoided the bathroom because she knew she would find no toilet paper there.
Meanwhile, Joseph, the liveried elevator man who works nights in the building, drove his wood-paneled, 1920s-era vehicle up and down its chute, unconcerned that the couple in 9F had not used his services in four months.
March 26th, 2007 at 12:49 am
flamethrow alert -
given that I cut up my last credit card a while ago, and haven’t been tempted to get another one, I resist the suggestion that women *must* be slaves to shopping and over-consumption.
It’s an interesting marketing gimmick, but then so is teaching people how to do a monthly budget, so they have some clue why they keep whipping out the plastic when the salary runs out….
Of course, the popularity of household and personal debt is a marketing coup from the Banks and other finance institutions, who have created credit addiction so that they maximise their profit/account holder. Citizens who don’t get into debt are freeloading on the banking/eftpos service system, and banks don’t want that happening.
Boy racers, BTW, pale into insignificance beside the excessses of status-hungry alpha male property developers (Did anyone see the profile of Terry Serepios in the Sport pages of the Weekend Dompost? SERIOUSLY high-miantenance bloke there, no carbon-credits whatsoever!!!)
March 26th, 2007 at 7:28 am
Katie
The last paragraph of your post is confusing, I am left wondering if it is sport or property developers that you do not like.
Of course it could just be the usual left wing hatred of anybody who does well in life, can you please let me know which one it is.
March 26th, 2007 at 8:42 am
big bruv Says:
March 26th, 2007 at 7:28 am
Of course it could just be the usual left wing hatred of anybody who does well in life
00000000
The property developer mave have done well for himself but it doesn’t follow that he is benefitting the rest of society. Society is supposed to run by rules of good behaviour; if we go to a wedding we don’t rush into the marquee and run off with as much salmon and chicked as we can (for instance). Property developers drawdown everyones environment. Self interest is the driving force behind an efficient economy, but only under certain conditions.
jh
March 26th, 2007 at 8:45 am
JH
Could I translate that as your dislike of capitalism and Love of the communist system.
It is any wonder that I have a deep suspicion of the Greens true agenda?.
March 26th, 2007 at 8:59 am
No wonder at all - it’s called paranoia
March 26th, 2007 at 9:12 am
Not at all BB. The problem is that there are ridgidities and problems of information flow (an army of bull-shitters— sales staff, the government, the media) in an economy. At present the developed world runs on a “growth can continue forever” paradigm; the arguments that it can’t are very strong. Property developers are the equivalent of people who back their cars up to the marquee (at the wedding) and fill up the boot. When growth stops the game of musical chairs finishes and there will be (absolutely) permanent, rich and poor… Mr Property developer will sit pretty while a big hunk of the population starve. The people in Mr Property Developers houses will wonder why they have no garden, so much ashphalt and will look whistfully at solar efficient houses in magazines. When energy becomes scarce it will all look very obvious in hindsight. Mr property Developer will melt away into the community.
jh
March 26th, 2007 at 9:18 am
Kiwinuke
You may well be right, but given the Greens love of telling outright lies I would say it was well placed paranoia.
I just wish one of you would be brave enough to state what the Green parties true intentions are.
It is clear to me that you do not like anybody who succeeds in life, you also seem to have an endless line of excuses for those who want to bludge off the rest of us.
Everything I have heard here in the area of social policy amounts to new age communism, there are endless attacks on those who create wealth, all of these attacks are hidden behind the carbon footprint lie.
I once voted Green because I honestly believed you were going to do something about OUR environment, how wrong I was.
March 26th, 2007 at 9:29 am
Property has been developed since Adam was a cowboy. Either as a subsistance farmer burning the forest to plant a few corn stalk.
Or as a Bob Jones making profit from an expanding state sector needing office space.
Even the house you live in was at one stage developed by mankind. Either by Maori to grow food, or if still native bush, by settlers to farm. That farm being close to a town would have been zoned by the town planners as residential to enable growth. The farmer thus rated of his land took the money from the property developer (and retired to the Mount) who put in the streets, sewers, water, electricity and built the house for you to live in.
We are all guilty of dealing with or being a property developer.
Some are smart and make a bundle within the laws of the land. Others being not quite as smart, never use the equaty in their proporty to fend for themselves.
Off course there are those who never get on the ladder as they cannot afford a property in the location they wish to live (though they could afford one in Murapara). But that is a different story.
jh,
“Property developers drawdown everyones environment. Self interest is the driving force behind an efficient economy, but only under certain conditions.”
While they have you and me plus a growing government state sector as customers so they will develop what the customers require. While I agree that property developers have put up some butt ugly building (those cubes called a blocks of apartments viewable from the Newmarket Viaduct towards the Hauraki Gulf are a prime example), the power to control the developers lies firmly in the hands of our locally elected councils. But their firm hand is anything but. Hence they can give permission for developers to almost do as they please.
Your disgust at property developers should be aimed at the local body politician who rolls over and closes his eyes when a property developers comes calling.
Why the Manukau City council allows 300 sq metre sections for housing is a mystery to me. But the council allows it and the property developer puts up shonky homes that dont meet council rules (roof area to land ratio). And you and me buy these houses because there is no competion from reputable builders and property developers as the council wont zone more land for residential use.
March 26th, 2007 at 10:11 am
I just wish one of you would be brave enough to state what the Green parties true intentions are.
Why don’t you p*ss off with your lame whinging paranoid bulls*t, Little Big Bro you *rsehole.
AHHH I’ve been dying to say that for months! Feels good!
March 26th, 2007 at 10:20 am
Gerrit :
You’re quite right. Nature abhors a vacuum, and property developers are attracted to zoning changes like flies to the living daylights. And shonky planning, or non-planning, is responsible for the mess our cities, particularly Auckland, are. It’s the fault of both the local pollies and the national ones.
And it’s got to stop. In particular, zoning has to reflect the future, not the present. Because the market and the developers are not capable of seeing the world as it will be in 20 or 50 years, planning is required.
I would say that 300 sq m per household is actually far too big, if it’s anywhere near a public transport corridor. We need to learn to live in higher density communities closer to places of work, rather than in nice little houses in nice little sections further and further from anywhere.
March 26th, 2007 at 10:23 am
Gerrit Says:
the power to control the developers lies firmly in the hands of our locally elected councils. But their firm hand is anything but. Hence they can give permission for developers to almost do as they please.
———–
When councillors stand the newsapers never seem to delved deeply enough. It is 99% certain that developers put their people on council.
A while ago there was an article in the Press about contracts to maintain school buildings and corruption. The journalist commented that this isuuse didn’t seem to raise many eyebrows…. maybe we are punch drunk.
I wonder if we would be better off if our properties were owned by the state with a system as in the high country, or to put it another way, I don’t trust the “guiding hand”.
Maybe we could “help” the market if we counteracted the marketing behind the present develoments. Wheta Workshop were quick to do a mockup of the Stadium; why can’t Chch City Council do a mockup of various alternative housing developments?. At present they mainly assume business as usual (ie) low maitenace, handerkerchief garden, big garaging with cheap oil, get in the 4×4, and race along a deserted beach or remote mountaintop etc
Another issue is that the government do not monitor the erosion of the kiwi lifestyle. We are becoming strangled by denser living, concrete and cars. If you heat a frog slowly it will boil to death.
jh
March 26th, 2007 at 10:24 am
Earlier post censored used b*****ters/
jh
March 26th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Zonings change and there goes Joe Bloggs right to sun or view (without any compensation… ie Joe Bloggs sun is transferred to Mr Property Developer).
jh
March 26th, 2007 at 10:51 am
alistair
Are you afraid to tell the truth?
Come on man, be brave.
March 26th, 2007 at 11:00 am
big bruv Says:
March 26th, 2007 at 9:18 am
I just wish one of you would be brave enough to state what the Green parties true intentions are.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
There are a wide range of policy options between laisee-faire and communisism
jh
March 26th, 2007 at 11:02 am
Alistair
“We need to learn to live in higher density communities closer to places of work”
Would love to set up my machinery at home. Have enough room but somehow the whine of a 24000 rpm milling machine spindle cutting screaming tortured metal is not going to go down well with my neighbour who works nights.
You would need to legislate local councils to take over small tracts of residential housing and put in mini industrial estates. Within walking, biking distance. Not just the industrial estates but small shopping and recreational estates as well. The problem we have is local zoning spaces these out so far away that a car is a mandatory.
Would really like to walk to the local watering hole but council wont zone one in our older subdivision. The new Fletcher Housing subdivision (900 new houses) on the rest of the Wattle Downs peninsular has a school but no shops, no pub, no clubs, no entertainment. But it does have extensive (21K) tidal marine walk and reserves but the mangroves are blocking all access to the water.
When one tries to control mangrove growth the council forbids the destruction of this introduced weed (but that is another story).
So the direction has to come from local a government and if your assertions that the elected politicians are proprty developers stools then the Greens had better get standing at local levels to get real changes to how we live.
As one who grew up in tenament housing I’m not averse to it. Always wonder why we dont even have semi detatched housing so at least you can get a reasonable access to the back yard.
I think high rise housing though, unless properly policed, is a good idea. European experience would suggest people are not all that keen to live like that unless forced to.
jh,
“We are becoming strangled by denser living, concrete and cars” which is just the opposite of Alistirs opinion.
March 26th, 2007 at 11:05 am
JH
Just were do you draw the line at state ownership?
March 26th, 2007 at 11:08 am
“jh Says:
March 26th, 2007 at 11:00 am
big bruv Says:
March 26th, 2007 at 9:18 am
I just wish one of you would be brave enough to state what the Green parties true intentions are.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
There are a wide range of policy options between laisee-faire and communisism
jh”
And all of them involve the state running my life!…thanks but no thanks, if this is the true intention of the Green party then please be good enough to campaign on it.
March 26th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Gerrit:
“We are becoming strangled by denser living, concrete and cars� which is just the opposite of Alistirs opinion.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
By denser living I mean, the inferior infill variety.
BB
“And all of them involve the state running my life!…thanks but no thanks, if this is the true intention of the Green party then please be good enough to campaign on it.”
^^^^^^^^^^^
At present our life is run by a government which maintains full employment by globalising the NZ property market. Decisions about our community are made (largely) by greedy property developers who are motivated by the lowest common denominator. One of the underlying tenets of a benevolent society is that its institutions function for the benefit of the majority, at present individuals can exploit the system gaining far more wealth, power and influence than they should. A case in point Eamon Cleary.
Christchurchs motto is “A city founded in faith, rich in the fullfillment thereoff, and strong in the hope for the future“. Hagley Park was surveyed when there were about 500 people living here. Those people had Values, many of our present property developers (quite a few of them from off-shore) are just dirt-bags.
Developer Dolf DeRoss talks on his mentoring tapes about choosing a real estate agent who will find properties 30% below value…..>> scum,scum,….scum.
jh
March 26th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
# katie Says:
>Boy racers, BTW, pale into insignificance beside the excessses of status-hungry alpha male property developers (Did anyone see the profile of Terry Serepios in the Sport pages of the Weekend Dompost? SERIOUSLY high-miantenance bloke there, no carbon-credits whatsoever!!!)
Not all property developers are evil, though I agree that that particular one is. But that’s because his buildings are ugly and in many cases profit from being associated with the atmosphere of the area while giving nothing back to it and blighting it with ugly buildings.
The other big residential property developer working in the Te Aro area is a BIG contrast. Ian Cassels seems to understand to character of places like Cuba st, and develop buildings that add to the vibrancy of the area. Actually, I’m a bit disapponited with how some of them have turned out, but even if Left Bank has some ugly details, it’s still a great visionary development.
March 26th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
I think high rise housing though, unless properly policed, is a good idea. European experience would suggest people are not all that keen to live like that unless forced to.
I agree. What we need is medium-density. Check out what they are doing in Germany in places like Freiburg :
http://www.sustainability.murdoch.edu.au/publications/jscheurer/carfre e/frvaub-f.html
http://www.vauban.de/info/abstract.html
Typically three-storey buildings with six or nine apartments. Plenty of green space. Cars banished to the periphery (collective garages). Good public transport, obviously. Energy efficiency is a key goal.
March 27th, 2007 at 12:02 am
I think high rise housing though, unless properly policed, is a good idea. European experience would suggest people are not all that keen to live like that unless forced to.
I agree. What we need is medium-density. Check out what they are doing in Germany in places like Freiburg :
http://www.sustainability.murdoch.edu.au/publications/jscheurer/carfre e/frvaub-f.html
http://www.vauban.de/info/abstract.html
Typically three-storey buildings with six or nine apartments. Plenty of green space. Cars banished to the periphery (collective garages). Good public transport, obviously. Energy efficiency is a key goal.
March 27th, 2007 at 9:29 am
BB “And all of them involve the state running my life!…”
BB, if you are really serious about a ban on factory farming (and I think you are) then that will have to involve the state running your life and everyone elses lives. The state will be telling you, me and everyone else what sort of eggs we can buy and what sort of meat. And anyone trying to meet the demand for cheaper battery eggs or factory farmed meat will be punished to the full extent of the law. Now how can anyone describe that as anything other than the state running our lives.
You see, you need to be consistent. It seems you are quite willing to have the state run everyones’ life as long as they are running it in a way consistent with your own values, and preventing someone from doing what you think is wrong, but not when they are preventing you from doing something that other think is wrong. But if you believe that the state has a legitimate role in curtailing some activities, then you need to argue the case for each proposed activity the state wishes to control, not simply state that all control is wrong.
March 27th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Kiore1,
I don’t think some people are interested in consistency of view, or have a particular problem living with internally inconsistent or logically incompatible opinions.
Psychiatrists probably have a field day with this stuff - but it seems a very common part of human nature that the stronger our personal opinions are about an issue the less subject they are to logic or the rigour of consistency.
Anyone see Michael Laws on Campbell Live last night?
State “interference”" in the rights of parents is wrong, but state “intervention” in the clothing choices of gang members is right. The key distinction Laws drew between the two issues really came down to the strength of his feelings about each issue:
“I can see the difference mate, why can’t you?” said Laws.