You produce an example where that is correct and extrapolate to all the other aspects of Green Party social policy, that is inane.
jh

I agree with alistair`s statement that the UN Environment agency should be an authority above the WTO. Don`t forget that the WTO was once GATT in the nasty ninties and GATT came out of the Bretton Woods institutions of the UN. The problem here is that the above mentioned institutions were hijacked by the moniterists. The Hayakists, the School of Chicago, Round Tables etc,etc. Totaly subverting the original agenda of protecting the environment. Even worse the UN`s authority has been undermined by the U.S. `s illegal involvment in Iraq.

So the present situation as I see it is that global capitalist`s are calling the shots and you have to understand that first priority is the profit margin not envirenmental concerns. And until there is such authority above them we are going to get serious problem`s. As green activists we are in effect forced into acting into these limited perameters such as ;-
REFUSING TO BUY ILLEGAL HARDWOOD FROM INDONESIA (or any other developing country).

The trading without money thingee is called barter, and it happens all sorts of ways, and some are being actively explored as a possible alternative to banks. There is also the “cash economy” that can exist without the use of banks. Thus commerce can exist without money.

Obviously, money and the banks own the majority “market share” for facilitating trade, and the banks control it. Even worse, they can create it in higher ratios than they need to hold - the whole fiat currency thing. If we want to change the world, the money creation process is a good place to start.

But we are both being pendantic. It’s more fun being satirical (silly, if you will. It’s a bouncy Tigger thing). Thus, how do you like my next letter, available for use at no charge by the Greens:

Dear KiwiBank (or any other relevant bank)

It has come to our attention that you have a customer on your books that is acting unethically. This customer is engaged in supporting wholesale environmental damage. They are ignoring every single environmental principle, even though their mission statement and press releases say otherwise.

I urge you to drop them as a customer forthwith, or else risk losing customers such as myself and potentially up to 55% of your entire client base as they get in behind me.

We expect you to act ethically and stop supporting this customer.

They have ignored all requests to do their bit to prevent environmental damage. Admittedly, some of this damage is occurring in other countries, but they still have the ability to take some meaningful action.

I trust we will see a full page newspaper advertisement advising us of your commitment to only having ethical clients, and that this customer will be gone by lunchtime.

Yours Sincerely

Russel, and the entire Green Party.

PS: The customer is the NZ Government.

I call you Tigger because you are so bright-eyed, bushy-tailed and bouncy.

Try trading without money. Go on. If no bank will lend you money or facilitate your transactions, you can’t do commerce.

If I was pedantic, I’d say it’s trade that makes commerce work. Money just represents the value of the trade.

Although, you seem to explain that as other related companies “probably” all overseas and out of your sphere of influence.

“Probably”.

Then you say: “If it became difficult for importers…”

So is the logging company also the importer in this case, or is there a glaring hole in your very small list of companies to “persuade”?

But all that is by the by - I said earlier that ANZ should walk the talk - and I haven’t changed my opinion on that, so I’m not disagreeing on that point, it was more to the Greens giving up on changing the government’s attitude and instead specifically chasing the ANZ Bank to get at the PNG logging company.

Is it to make themselves feel better, or do they think it will actually work?

At least is is clear that Labour don’t give a damn about the environment and the Indonesian Government don’t give a damn about protecting their resources.

Russel noted that his media release didn’t get the press coverage he hoped for. Why not call on all Greenies to drop their ANZ account, and all ANZ staff (especially Green ones) to strike/complain/quit in protest as well? I suspect that request might prove more sensational, and get a bit more column space. Especially since the first “request” appears to have had no impact.

And is the Tigger thing supposed to be an insult, or are you coming on to me?

Remember, the original objective is to stop importing this endangered wood into New Zealand. I will not buy the wood, you can count on that. I would like it if the government banned its import, but they probably won’t because they might face a fine from the WTO : environmental considerations are not admissible, they constitute a pretext for protectionism, according to the shoddy trade treaties our government is party to.

If the chainsaw manufacturer was in NZ, it would be worth lobbying them… but they are probably Swedish.

Money is what makes commerce work, Tigger, as you very well know. If it became difficult for importers to obtain credit for ecologically or morally dubious goods, then that will have the effect of stimulating ethical and sustainable trade. Is that what you are afraid of?

As I don’t bank with the ANZ, I won’t be writing to them, because I wouldn’t expect them to pay much attention to my opinion. But I would certainly expect them to sit up and take notice if a lot of their clients object to the sort of business they are doing. If my cleaning lady were dirty and smelly, I’d try to find a diplomatic way of letting her know I had a problem with that, and I would certainly find another one if she made it clear that she wasn’t going to do anything about it. I guess that makes me a bully.

My example of offsetting was just to illustrate the vacuity of your original offset proposal. I don’t quite understand why the setting up of an environmental fund by the ANZ would cause their kwila-logging client to “choose to move their business elsewhere” — it must be some subtle convention of banking or business that I’m missing.

Remember, the original target was this logging company in PNG?

Customers are free to exercise their moral judgment when choosing a product - I do it all the time, and are in favour of it. That’s different than writing to the Bank and telling them to fire other customers. Especially if you don’t even bank with them.

Remember, the original target was this logging company in PNG?

But again, why just the bank? What about the Chainsaw Manufacturer etc.

See, it is bullying, even if you think the power of the consumer is pathetic. I don’t. So I’m wondering why you think bullying the ANZ (and then Westpac, and then BNZ) is somehow the right thing to do.

Ah, that’s right, it was to get at the logging company. But now, with your sex-slave offset rationale, you seem to be getting angrier at the bank for not acceding to your most reasonable requests.

To get at a logging company in PNG.

Here’s an idea - don’t buy the wood. Don’t import it.

Or start a very big list of companies you want to bully to get at the one that is beyond your control. Sounds like a typical socialist.

Yeah, you’re pretty funny when you’re in satire mode, Tigger. The consumer as the big swaggering bully, and the ANZ as the poor snivelling victim…

You resist very strongly the idea that customers should exercise their moral judgement when choosing a bank… what are you afraid of exactly? I thought you were in favour of freedom?

You say higher up the thread : Perhaps far better would be to request ANZ put some money into a huge ongoing sponsorship for a project to help with preventative measures against such “trade� (in a generic sense). Then their client may choose to move their business elsewhere.

This is the equivalent of carbon offsetting, instead of GHG reduction… As an example, a bank could fund sex-slave trafficking, as long as they funded an orphanage too?