by Russel Norman
The cane toad (bufo marinus) was introduced into Australia in 1935 in an attempt to control the cane beetle in the cane fields of Queensland. It has now spread across Queensland and most of the Northern Territory killing vast amounts of native animals in the process when they eat the toads. Bufo marimus is a poisonous legacy of poor science, lack of concern for environmental outcomes, and short-term thinking.
And now John Howard is proposing a whole bunch of nuclear reactors in Australia and the ALP has loosened up its policy on uranium mining. The Australian Conservation Foundation has called nuclear power the “cane toad of energy options” because it will leave a dangerous and poisonous legacy for future generations just like bufo marinus. I agree with them. Climate change is an urgent problem but surely we should invest in renewable energy options not nuclear energy with all its problems.
This is what Jeanette said a couple of years ago and I think it still holds true:
The Green Party does not support the use of nuclear power because:
- There is still no safe and long term way to dispose of the waste. All the high level waste produced so far is in storage, and has to be constantly monitored and cooled. Low-level waste has been disposed of in developing countries where they can be persuaded to accept it for a small payment.
- Uranium mining, transport and processing is hazardous itself. Miners are exposed to radioactive materials; wastes are produced from mining and processing; transport risks spills sabotage and accidents.
- Uranium is a finite fuel which will not greatly outlast oil if it is used widely. Even at present rates of use economically accessible deposits are not expected to last beyond this century. NZ would be entirely dependent on imported fuel.
- Nuclear plants are very large and the NZ generation system is too small to provide sufficient backup for plants of this size. All generation plant needs to be shut down from time to time for maintenance or in an emergency. Shutting down a plant this size in our small system would impose huge strain on the system.
- A huge investment would be required in safety, radiation monitoring, transport vehicles, armed guards and other infrastructure, which we do not currently have. This would make nuclear power very expensive here.
- Nuclear power stations are prime targets for terrorists.
I would add that the timelines are too long – 15 to 20 years. We need to cut emissions sooner than that.
I suspect that what this is really all about is Howard hopes to use nuclear power as a wedge to split some of those with environmental concerns away from Labor and the Greens, just like he used race as a wedge to split off some of the traditional Labor working class vote. I’m not convinced it will work.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by Russel Norman on Sun, April 29th, 2007
Tags: environment
More posts by Russel Norman | more about Russel Norman
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Russel, never thought I would see you denigrating the mascot of your rugby league Origin State!
They’ll probably never get rid of the cane toad, and it is most likely to adapt to most of northern NSW as well as Qld & the NT.
But let’s learn from the lesson, Aussies – the environmentally disastrous legacy of nuclear power generation won’t go away any easier than the cane toad will – unless you choose to ship it somewhere else, which seems to be the Aussie solution to refugees. Making the problem someone elses is not the solution either.
C’mon Aussies, where the bloody hell are ya?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There’s a question that’s been bugging me for some time now. Would Green MPs ever play cane toad golf?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Green Party Animal Welfare Policy: Key Principle 1: “Animals should be treated with compassion and respect.”
I think the answer is obvious, Zippy. While eradication of an exotic pest is desirable, “cane toad golf” is neither compassionate, respectful, or effective as an eradication mechanism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
P.S. – This toad is of a different species from bufo marinus.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The environmental problems associated with nuclear energy are not as simple as might first be expected. Here are a few points:
1) Mining and enrichment of unranium is quite energy intensive, probably utilising substantial quantities of fossil fuels.
2) On the other hand, nuclear waste may not be as dangerous as predicted. For example, there have been far fewer cancer cases which can be directly attributed to radiation from Chernobyl than were predicted. This is because biological damage is not linearly related to radiation dose. Rather, biological organisms can quite safely be exposed to radiation up to a certain threshold, before major damage starts to occur. Therefore, long term exposure to low levels of radioactive waste from nuclear energy may not be as dangerous as expected.
3) Even if you are pro-nuclear, supplies of uranium are limited. Using current technology, nuclear energy could supply the world’s current energy “requirements” for only a few decades. What do you do after this … revert to coal?
4) Perhaps the biggest threat to the environment actually comes from the proliferation (and potential use) of nuclear weapons. Weapons grade fuel can (but not necessarily) be a by-product of a nuclear energy industry.
So is nuclear energy the way to go? Personally, I don’t think so, but then as with everything, the issues are a lot more complex than they appear at first sight.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hmmm. Wonder if Dubya will oppose Australia’s nuclear programme as vociferously as he has opposed Iran’s? Or is it just the “good guys” that can join the nuclear club?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Seems you have a choice between global warming or nuclear power plants. Heh.
Careful what you wish for….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Someone should tell Howard that there is a very large nuclear fusion reactor directly above him it`s called the SUN.
The solution is right under their noses, Australia has one of the sunniest, largest and hottest desserts in the world.
Large soler energy farms could be then utilised to charge hydrogen cells for the sustainable alternative to oil.
Not only that by means of precipitation salt water can be converted to fresh water by using solar energy.
Therefore the SOLUTIONS ALREADY EXIST, now how about the
POLITICAL WILL!!!!!!!!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
howard..the man who up untill five minutes ago was a climate-change denier..
leading the neo-luddites..(like pel)..
now wants to go gangbusters on the nuke..
isn’t that a surprise for everyone..?
as drakula said…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think your keyboard is a malfunctioning, surely you meant to type the Bufo marinus ? option. Sorry, it’s a biologist thing
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PEL
What makes you think we wished for either? Very odd post.
Thanks to Timo who has amply nailed down most of the argument. The only consideration I am at all uncertain of is whether item 3, the inadequacy of supply, was counting only the U235 supplies or whether it also added in the potential of Thorium reactors.
Not that it matters MUCH, because if we are pulling it out of the ground where there was only just so much in the first place, then it will just run out eventually.
The big Fusion reactor out there at 1 AU works just fine for me. Wonder if Johnnie boy ever forgets his hat at noon in Oz. He’d notice that reactor in a New York Second.
The short answer is that some nations are going to do it, and they will do it because there is going to be damned little in the way of choices available. Setting up sustainable systems and managing growth to fit within them is NOT the work of an afternoon. It is a long term project that nobody wants to start… except the Norwegians, the Swedes, the Germans, the Dutch…
and the Greens.
We really need to unelect some of these Bozos.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>What makes you think we wished for either? Very odd post.
It appears to me that if you to get serious about doing something about global warming, then you must get serious about building more nuclear power stations worldwide.
“Green Parties in Scandanevia have voted for replacing coal power with nuclear, for example”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PEL said: Green Parties in Scandanevia have voted for replacing coal power with nuclear, for example
Well, coal may be a marginally worse option than nuclear – I’m open to being convinced on that one. But why, Peter, are you trying to narrow the debate to one between the two WORST options?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think it’s an interesting questions. How are you going to power the planet and not increase C02.
Wind farms, solar etc are part of the answer. A very small part, but they won’t go anywhere near meeting demand.
What do you think China should do in terms of power generation?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil-u please tell me more about Howards `U’ turn. Maybe we should leave all the uranium for the Icaris project in the distant future where we could use it about one hundred million miles away from earth.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PEL
The answer has a couple of parts…
First part. You very likely can’t power the planet for the next 2-3 centuries using ANY of the techologies on offer here, clean or dirty. Burn the coal, and the planet floods, putting a fair few existing power facilities underwater, not to mention a lot of other useful things.
Second part. No matter what technology you choose you ULTIMATELY have to tell/induce/persuade people that 2 is enough children and let the population burden ease. Noting that this is deflationary of house pricing and a heck of a lot of other things as well.. just to tie this response to the original post.
Third part. The first two both are results of our being in a closed environment. We have NO appreciable access to anything not within about 25000 meters of the surface of the planet.
If you want solar power to be really effective you go out to geosync and build some orbital power stations and send that energy back home. If you want cheap hydrocarbons you send robotic scoopships to pick methane off the gas giants. It you want steel beams you smelt down some asteroid using solar energy and get enough for the next 200 years or more.
In the long run, even THAT is not completely “sustainable” as there is only so much methane on those gas giants and only so much ore in the asteroids. So much that I don’t worry about that problem and I am willing to let my 200 generations removed great grandchildren contemplate it…. it is still a FINITE resource, but my focus has to be on the next couple of centuries, peak oil and species survival without Cheap Access. Cause that wonderfully blind invisible hand can’t see that it’s cutting off its nose to spite its face when it removes CATS as having too long and speculative a payback. So it has been removed. At least unless the Chinese revive it.
Once off the planet however, there is the possibility of people moving out for further distant realms. The solar system however, is likely to be all the resources that we have access to for our planet earth. Taking care of it means taking control of our animal instinct to reproduce without thinking and make war on all those who happen to have a resource we’d like to consume.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Did you see Steven Hawking’s rather frightening proposal that having stuffed up this planet we should now move on to another one. The same colonialist thinking that got us into this mess. Of course “we” will not be moving anywhere. What Hawking means is that a few of the elite will be able to do some planet hopping, and treat the green men the way their ancestors treted the brown, red and black men, while the rest of us have to stay behind and clean up the mess.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad
Are you seriously arguing for Iran to have nuclear status?
Is you hatred of the yanks and the Israeli’s that great?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB said: Are you seriously arguing for Iran to have nuclear status?
No, I’m not. I’m arguing for no nation to have nuclear weapons, which includes the ones that already do disarming.
What I’m pointing out is that it is hypocritical for the US to say that Iran can’t enrich uranium to develop nuclear power, while making no comment at all about Australia deciding to do similar. Not that the latter will necessarily happen, because it looks from the polls like Deputy Dawg Johnnie is on the way out.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’d add the following problems with nuclear power:
- There is a small but finite chance that a nuclear power station will suffer a catastrophic accident that causes widespread injury and environmental damage. No other power station has this problem – even a failure of one of the Waikato dams would cause fairly limited damage.
- For this reason, no country with nuclear power stations requires the industry to carry insurance in the usual fashion. In the US, for instance, the Price-Anderson Act federalises the insurance of nuclear plants.
- Without this and other government subsidies, nuclear power is hopelessly uneconomic (even in large countries with many powerplants). The only commercial British nuclear power operator, British Energy, has had to be bailed out by the government.
Interestingly, the nuclear “power plant” was invented largely to cover for the huge scale of plutonium production for bombs. Calder Hall, the first allegedly commercial nuclear plant was primarily built to produce plutonium – the generation of energy was a mere adjunct to this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad
The abuse of Australia’s national leader is beneath you, I expect that kind of thing from some of the more rabid members of Frog but not from you.
Leaving that aside, Iran have stated that they want to “kill the infidels” and “wipe Israel off the planet”, I do not hear Australia talking like this.
Sane nations must be allowed to develop Nuclear power, the mad ones should rightly be told that they cannot.
And BTW…I would not be so cocky about the Aussie Labour party just yet, remember they voted to allow uranium mining at the weekend.
Nuclear power stations are coming to Aussie, best you get used to the idea.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>What Hawking means is that a few of the elite will be able to do some >>planet hopping, and treat the green men the way their ancestors treted the >>brown, red and black men, while the rest of us have to stay behind and >>clean up the mess.
Been reading Stark, by any chance?
What I Hawking means is that we have a single point of failure: the fact we’re trapped in one place. If the human race is to survive, it needs multiple bases.
Just like we’ve always done. If we’d stayed round the cave, it’s unlikely the human race would have survived and prospered.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
And the prize for pomposity goes to … (drum roll)… the pretentious, the
inimitable, big bruv ! ! !
for the following :
“Toad
The abuse of Australia’s national leader is beneath you, I expect that kind of thing from some of the more rabid members of Frog but not from you.”
Do tell us big bruv … your preseence on this blog is a “send up” isn’t it ?
(I mean, nobody actiually thinks the way you purport to do … Right ?)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB, I’m no fan of the Aussie Labor Party – just that after the lies Howard told about the Tempa and about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, he is not worthy of being Australia’s national leader.
The “wipe Israel off the planet” bit is all jingoistic rhetoric for consumption at home in Iran – they would never dare to attempt it, even if they had the military capacity, because the consequence would also be the wiping of Iran off the face of planet. It’s a bit like the lies about the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction – designed to drum up support at home for an aggressive foreign policy.
The only difference is that the US/UK/Australia actually did invade Iraq, while Iran will never invade Israel. The only nation to be wiped off the face of the planet so far this century is Iraq. Admittedly, the process isn’t quite complete yet, but the chances of a unified Iraqi nation state emerging from the Bush/Blair/Howard debacle are zero.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Wow BJ, I had a “Bladerunner moment” when I read your last post
“I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I’ve watched steel beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhausen Gate. All those moments will be lost…. in time….like tears….in the rain…. “
OK OK, so what Roy Batty really said was “sea beams”, but it was awfully science-fictionish all the same. Do you think we should develop a work force of Bladerunner-like androids to send off into space to build all this stuff for us?
But all joking aside, one thing is for sure, if we don’t agree on a plan of action real soon and get working on some seriously viable sustainable energy technologies then the end of that quote will be reading….
All those coastal properties will be lost…. in time….like tears….in the acid rain…. “
Excellent post BTW Drakula
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I support Toad all the way, which nation was it that droped the first nuclear divice? Don`t forget that the US still has 23,000 nuclear weapons outside it’s boarders alone! Yet it has the audacity to tell Iran and North Korea to clean up it’s act. Bloody hypocrytical ! Ask yourselves this question, who is really the global threat? Who is really the terrorist state?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
LOL eredwen, didn’t you know that big bruv is a national party android with a very small memory chip that only allows him to enter 20 different typed phrases into his keyboard and he was sent here to bore us to death.
He does a very good job of it sometimes too (((((yawn))))) but at least I never have to fret about being offline for a few weeks and miss something illuminating and original that he said.
Hey big bruv, what kind of animal lover are you that you never bothered commenting on the death of this baby Maui dolphin…
http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2007/04/24/mauis-morbidity/
…please do something useful for a change and go harass those filthy polluting Waikato farmers who’s effluent run-off killed this poor wee guy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yup Drakula (and Toad), there is something insidiously vulgar about the idea that the ONLY country in the world to actually use a nuclear bomb on a civilian population is the very same one that thinks it has the right to police the nuclear arsenals of the world. The word “hypocritical” doesn’t even begin to cover it. But don’t even get me started on that topic……………….
Toad, and the thing is that many of those speeches people quote about what “Iran said they are going to do to Israel” are poorly translated from farsi and do not actually mean what the majority of westerners think that he meant. I have some articles about that by some middle eastern language experts which I’ll rustle up for you and post on my website tomorrow.
Cheers,
Z
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
For all the solar fans, have you actually done some numbers on what a solar power system capable of powering an economy would cost? Hint: It’s outrageous.
Even Germany, whilst putting subsidised solar panels on rooftops, is building up to 26 huge new coal plants.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,472786,00.html
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/comment/article2470140.ece
The world needs better nuclear, and soon. The safety aspect is as good as any industry, the technology is 50 years proven, and the waste is small volume, contained, and subjectively better than coal emissions. With the new uranium mines in Aussie, there will be no problems with fuel supplies either.
If the Australians did successfully nuclear power, there would be a good case for NZ adopting a few power stations of the same design using the same technology (and hopefully the same long term storage repository).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hey UKK
reading that reference you provide gives some interesting background to the German energy companies plans,
1) the new coal plants are designed to replace older dirtier coal plants leading to an overall reduction in emissions.
2) the new coal plants will only supply 20% of German energy (so by your arguments one could say “coal is useless, it can’t provide all the energy” when clearly a mix of generating capability is needed)
3) the new coal plants are clearly being promoted by the energy companies on economic reasons, not because renewables cannot provide the energy. It seems that the energy companies want to “secure their dominant position on the German market for decades to come” by producing energy by a means that is cheap and high profit.
If the German govt implemented a carbon tax that disadvantaged coal and advantaged renewables then the economic situation would change and watch the German energy companies ditch the coal and embrace renewables same as NZ energy companies have done.
No-one in the Greens is saying that solar is the solution, only that solar water and space heating can provide part of the mix along with other conservation and renewable and non-renewable generation measures.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Zan
I did not comment because I did not see the piece in question, in actual fact I try and avoid reading stories about animal cruelty as it only results in me wanting to beat the snot out of the abuser.
I know you will not care but I take offense at your comment “what sort of animal rights lover are you”, my passion for animal rights is beyond question.
As I type this (and no doubt some of you will take great joy from my predicament) I am facing assault charges for attacking a man who was beating a puppy with a lump of wood, no doubt I will be found guilty but I will be more than happy to tell the Judge and anybody else who cares to listen that should I ever see the same thing happening again I will take the same course of action.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Eredewn
Lots of people think the way I do, have a look at the polls.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB said: I am facing assault charges for attacking a man who was beating a puppy with a lump of wood, no doubt I will be found guilty
Note necessarily, BB. Consider these two statutory provisions together:
Crimes Act 1961 – section 41:
41 Prevention of suicide or certain offences
Every one is justified in using such force as may be reasonably necessary in order to prevent the commission of suicide, or the commission of an offence which would be likely to cause immediate and serious injury to the person or property of any one, or in order to prevent any act being done which he believes, on reasonable grounds, would, if committed, amount to suicide or to any such offence.
Animal Welfare Act 1999 – section 28:
28 Wilful ill-treatment of animals
(1)A person commits an offence who wilfully ill-treats an animal in such a way that—
(a)The animal is permanently disabled; or
(b)The animal dies; or
(c)The pain or distress caused to the animal is so great that it is necessary to destroy the animal in order to end its suffering.
(2)A person who commits an offence against this section is liable on conviction on indictment,—
(a)In the case of an individual, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to a fine not exceeding $50,000 or to both; or
(b)In the case of a body corporate, to a fine not exceeding $250,000.
I would say that as long as you can convince the Court you had a reasonable belief that the puppy was the property of the person beating it or of somone else (the property aspect here is rather bizarre – the same should apply if it is stray or feral, but apparently doesn’t) and that the action was likely to cause the death or permanent injury to the puppy, you should have a reasonably strong defence.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad
Cheers, although I have a feeling that the court will not look upon his injuries as reasonable force (not something I am proud of)
I only hope my lawyer (what they charge is another crime) is as clued up as you.
Once again I thank you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hmmm – seems we might be back to that hoary old chestnut of “force that is reasonable in the circumstances” again BB. But even if it is what you and I might consider excessive, you might be lucky enough to get a jury similar to the one that acquitted in the section 59 “hosepipe” case.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad
I doubt it, that was in South Canterbury, what passes for normal in that neck of the woods would get most of us arrested!
I just cannot work out how they can assemble a jury anywhere in Canterbury, after all, they are all very closely related in that province.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB said: Eredewn Lots of people think the way I do, have a look at the polls.
Now here’s a challenge, BB. Go to this site http://www.politicalcompass.org/ and take the test. Then come back here and post your scores.
My bet is that you will score far more socially authoritarian and far more economically right wing than “lots of people”. Somewhere about as right wing as the ACT party but about as authoritarian as the Destiny Party would be my pick – in fact somewhere similar to where George W Bush scores on the political compass.
Just a pity no-one’s got round to doing one of these in 3D yet, having a Green-Brown axis as well as the Libertarian-Authoritarian and Left-Right ones.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bro :
I did not comment because I did not see the piece in question, in actual fact I try and avoid reading stories about animal cruelty as it only results in me wanting to beat the snot out of the abuser.
Yeah and it all gets a bit confusing if you think about who killed the dolphin eh? You’d have to beat the snot out of all the farmers who were merely exercising their property rights by polluting the Waikato River.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad
You obviously assume a lot about me that is totally incorrect, as far as that graph thingy goes I “scored” about the same as Angela Merkel.
I have to say that the questions were obviously framed by a left wing pinko, I mean who in their right mind would think that same sex couples should be able to adopt.
For the record I despise the destiny party but would defend their right to worship whatever or whoever they want, unlike many of the Greens I am not threatened by them at all.
You are right in one thing, the more I hear from John Key the more I am starting to take in interest in the ACT party, I really do hope that Dr Brash does come back and lead them into the next election, a Nat/Act govt would be a great thing for this country.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Alistair
I have no great love for farmers I can assure you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bro : I mean who in their right mind would think that same sex couples should be able to adopt.
Well anyone who doesn’t believe in social engineering, and government interference in family matters. Such as yourself. If you actually have principles, as opposed to mere prejudices.
Of course, the Greens respect the right for people to worship whatever they want. Whatever made you think otherwise? But we don’t support the right to oppress others by hiding behind a facade of religion.
As for Key : That’s encouraging… it reinforces my view that the Greens may be able to work with him.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh well Big Bruv, if I hurt your feelings about that then I truly am sorry.
And despite the fact that I am very passionate about non-violent conflict resolution, if there would be anything that would tip me over the edge to act out violently on another human being it would surely be the witnessing of violence or cruelty to a defenceless animal.
If anybody ever tried to harm my dearly beloved pets (well in truth it is me who is actually their pet human LOL) I believe I would certainly be capable of it. So I can assure you this is one predicament I would never gloat over you for.
I have to wonder though, would you show the same aggressive instincts to protect a young defenceless human child if you witnessed it being thumped by it’s “loving parent’?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It seems Big Bruv has adopted the only form of discrimination that is still legal – regionalism.
Or perhaps it is just the Auckland inferiority complex rearing it’s ugly head again. Big Bruv, the provinces were abolished in 1876, or hasn’t that news filtered through to Auckland yet? Any chance that Aucklanders will ever admit they haven’t been the biggest losers from the road fund? Aucklanders only lost 20% of the money they paid in, Waikato lost 26% and Canturbury 33%. According to Transit, Christchurch has more travel delay per km travelled than Auckland. Hamilton has enough in common with Christchurch that its congestion is probably nearly as bad as Christchurch.
Ok, Im an Aucklander living in Christchurch thus I have just insulted myself as much as any other Aucklander.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Zan
My apologies, I had assume you would have taken great joy from my predicament, I thank you for your support.
To answer you question, Yes I would deal with child ABUSE the same way, however I would not interfere nor comment about a light corrective smack being administered to a child, some of the kids I see on a daily basis could do with it.
Actually I have always been a defender of the under dog (no pun intended) or the weakling, I guess it comes from my childhood where I witnessed some shocking acts of violence toward kids (and adults) simply because they were easy targets.
If my Father and Grandfather taught me one thing it was to help the little guy and do what I could to stop bullying, sadly in a lot of cases the only thing that does stop a bully is to be given a dose of his own medicine.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kevyn
A Jafa I am NOT.
There are a few other groups of people it is perfectly legal (and positively encouraged by the left) to discriminate against, one is of course the Exclusive Brethren, the other group is Smokers and the last group (who suffer the greatest discrimination) are red blooded, middle aged, heterosexual white males.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hiya bruv,
Thanks for sharing that. Next to animal cruelty, the witnessing of bullying is probably the next most likely thing that would tip me over the edge in regards to assaulting another human being.
I was the victim of some very severe bullying as a child and it contributed to a very large degree towards an emotional breakdown I had as a teenager. But here’s some interesting food for thought…
The reason I was such an easy target for bullies is because I had had my spirit broken by a mother who made excessive use of physical punishment which would probably be considered perfectly reasonable by the majority of the pro-smacking brigade.
I learned that you are not allowed to speak up when you are being unfairly treated and that you are not allowed to stand up for yourself when you are being physically hurt by somebody who is bigger and stronger than yourself and that if you cried in pain that you would likely be hit again.
Many of the kids who bullied me at school, it turns out, were being regularly thumped at home by their own parents and it was kids like me who copped their wrath when they grew big enough to pass along the example that had been set for them to somebody smaller.
Violence begets violence. The interconnections are sometimes obvious and sometimes subtle, but they are definitely there and it’s a cycle we must all be willing to study and work together to break.
In all the cases I recall where a bully was thumped by somebody bigger than them, it just added to their rage and made them get sneakier about how they would pick on their next target.
And for all you know that bully might carry that rage around for years and finally find a vent for it on their spouse or their own kids.
And so the cycle goes…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Navashi – the cycle of violence isn’t quite so simplistic.
Kids who are beaten are much more likely than others to be violent as adults – but there are a great number (like yourself?) who will not be.
Kids who are hit including with objects but without causing injury have about an average likelihood of being violent as adults.
Kids who receive no physicial punishment have a lower probability of being violent adults, but some still are.
Kids who receive the occasional smack are the least likely to be violent as adults, but some still are.
NZ has a problem with people who can’t see a difference between a light smack and a beating.
And those people come from both extremes of the arguement
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BigBruv, There is a 4th group, the humble motorist. Is motorphobia replacing homophobia?
Note: I’m not referring to the well-established problems caused by motorvehicles and their infernal combustion engines but to the T.I.N.A. focus on traffic reduction as the only solution.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hey yeah guys, I often see red-blooded white males and motorists getting bullied, raped, discriminated against for employment and housing, hit with objects…
But seriously. Traffic jams are discrimination against motorists. Reducing traffic is good for motorists.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# big bruv Says:
> There are a few other groups of people it is perfectly legal (and positively encouraged by the left) to discriminate against, one is of course the Exclusive Brethren, the other group is Smokers and the last group (who suffer the greatest discrimination) are red blooded, middle aged, heterosexual white males.
Red-blooded, middle-aged, heterosexual white males? You mean like Trevor Mallard, Michael Cullen, Jim Anderton, Steve Maharey, Pete Hodgson, Mark Burton, Clayton Cosgrove, Rick Barker … half the government, in fact. Not to mention the mayors of Auckland, Waitakere, Manakau, Hamilton and Christchurch.
And if you’re going to count tobacco smokers as discriminated against, you would have to include marijuana smokers, ecstasy users and heroin addicts, who would surely count as more discriminated in that their habits are illegal everywhere in the country.
I agree that some criticism of the Exclusive Brethren has bordered on advocating discrimination, but no actual laws discriminating against them have been passed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# Kevyn Says:
> BigBruv, There is a 4th group, the humble motorist. Is motorphobia replacing homophobia?
> Note: I’m not referring to the well-established problems caused by motorvehicles and their infernal combustion engines but to the T.I.N.A. focus on traffic reduction as the only solution.
I think that traffic planning in this country discriminates against pedestrians far more often than it does against motorists. And I am a motorist. And a pedestrian. Just not at the same time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Delapsus Resurgam!
(Big Bruv: … the more I hear from John Key the more I am starting to take in interest in the ACT party, I really do hope that Dr Brash does come back and lead them…)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
where and when in NZ has traffic reduction been real policy? I am unaware of ANY traffic reduction iniatives, let alone ones that are so draconian as to justify complaints of discrimination.
You should try going to a European city where they truely have traffic reduction (e.g. both the design/layout of roads and road pricing initiatives) and then you’ll feel positively welcomed when you return.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Alistair – the emerging discrimination against motorists is more akin to the discrimination faced by Maori prior to the Treaty settlement process beginning. Does any other group in society pay a special law enforcement tax? Or face punishment before conviction with no right to seek compensation? Or pay for government propaganda blaming the bloodshed occurring on government roads on the users of the roads.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kahikatea – Bob Semple agreed with you. In 1947 he introduced motorways as the means to separate motorists and pedestrians in places such as Huntly and Otaki. Its a pity later politicians insisted on building all the motorways in big cities where they don’t achieve this objective.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
OK I get it Kev… you want parking and speeding tickets abolished. And you disagree that motorists cause road deaths.
Everyone’s entitled to their views, however strange. Why don’t you form a political party?
But calling “motorists” a “group” that are discriminated against, is a rather weird way of looking at reality. Nearly everyone is a motorist at some time. “Motorism” is a behaviour, not an identity. If you identify with other people because they drive cars like you, then you should probably get out more. Join a club perhaps.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Stuey, A little confusion seems to have crept in here.
The comment about discrimination was a general reference to BigBruv’s earlier comments. It is a fact that some basic human rights of motorists are being eroded or ignored, especially the right not to be deprived of life (by roading authorities amongst others) and the right of innocent until proved guilty (roadside impoundment is punishment before trial). What is happenning to motorists is the exact opposite of what is happening to homosexuals. A sane society shouldn’t be capable of correcting historic wrongs to one group whilst imposing new wrongs on another group.
The reference to TINA and traffic reduction was a badly worded attempt to avoid sounding like I was condemning all greens as motorphobic. Traffic reduction is definitely Green transport policy. (Perhaps somebody can provide Stuey with the link). Labour’s transport policy seems to be to use the transport fund to buy the support of coalition partners and reward Labour electorates, so their commitment to traffic reduction has simply been to increase funding for public transport. I suspect they see motorists as too much of a cash cow.
Christchucrh City has been following this policy for at least 15 years. Very little success on main roads but very good results on residential streets which really feel like they are beginning to belong to residents again. The point I really was trying to make originally is that even if an idea is good or partially good we should still be looking for even better ideas even if we have to look in unpleasant places or might have to admit we were wrong or stupid. We should never let an idealogy or prejudice stop us from looking at other ideas obectively. At least thats what Ive learnt being a systems analyst.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Alistair, I don’t know where you get the idea that I want to abolish traffic tickets unless you think that is how we pay for traffic law enforcement. That’s been a responsibility of the land transport fund since 1989.
Actually, it is the World Health Organisation that said this in their World Report On Road Traffic Injury Prevention (2004) which was the basis for the recent United Nations Global Road Safety Week.
Nearly everyone is a teenager or a child at some time yet they are a “group” discrminated against, sometimes for good reasons and sometimes not.
Car club or cycling club?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PS:- I mentioned punishment before conviction because this is what roadside confiscation is. Not a problem when its a drunk driver over the legal legal limit but a real problem in the so-called boy racer legislation which is entirely at the discretion of the officer and the law isn’t limited to boy racers or even to what most of us think of as boy racer behaviour (racing, donuts, etc.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No, I just had a wild guess about what you were on about when you say the car-using ethnic group “face punishment before conviction with no right to seek compensation”.
I see now that you consider that “roadside impoundment is punishment before trial”. I prefer to see it as protecting people from themselves, and from each other. A car is the most lethal weapon most of us ever use, and I don’t believe I have the right to use mine when it is, or I am, in a dangerous condition, for example.
If, on the other hand, you consider that the right of citizens to drive cars shall not be infringed, then we had better abolish speed limits, drink drive regulations etc. No point in having laws you’re not allowed to enforce.
But I do object to being told that I, as a motorist, am a victim of discrimination. Speak for yourself mate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Cross-post. OK, so you don’t actually object to roadside impoundment, only to the fact that according to you, it is abused. Unless you can make a case that it is abused in an absolutely random fashion, and therefore equally likely to affect absolutely any motorist, it’s hard to see how this could constitute discrimination against motorists.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Alistair, Ok, now that I have had a chance to do some research on motorism I can appreciate your view on discrimination against motorists.
The emerging discrimination against motorists is real, but only really bad when it is being used to deny an underlying cause, for instance blaming traffic growth on everything other than our love affair with quarter acre sections. Worldcarfree.net is an excellent source of (mostly) objective and authoritive information. Thanks for govong me the incnetive to look and learn.
In regard to your last post, this goes well beyond being a discrimination issue. It is fundamental to our system of justice that we have the right to a fair trial before being punished. The only exception to this is where our actions are an immediate threat to others. In this situation the Police and citizens must be permitted to intervene to prevent harm. The problem with the boy-racer law is the vagueness of the phrases “sustained loss of traction” and “exhibition of speed or acceleration” and the fact that a police officer will not be required to prove that the offence actually occurred until after the punishment has occurred. Because there are also demerit points involved some drivers have defended the charges and had them dismissed. The decision of the judges was different from that of the police officer and this is not at all unusual, in fact it is probably why we have seperate police and justice structures.
The only case reported in the media that I am aware of can be found at scoop.co.nz if you search google for “boy racer legislation” you’ll find it, and the parliamentary debate with Clayton Cosgrove’s introduction/explanation of the Bill. I find it is always useful to compare what was intended with what has actually happened if we don’t want to make the same mistakes again.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Regarding the original post on nuclear power stations, nonotechnologists are developing an alternative to nuclear and hydrogen fuels as solutions to climate change.
I have only been able to find 2 links.
The first is rather technical, and is on page 50 of the report.
http://www.ornl.gov/adm/ldrd/FY2006/LDRD_FY2006.pdf
The second is less technical
http://www.ornl.gov/info/news/pulse/pulse_v198_05.pdf
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)