by frog
No Right Turn has posted a couple of blogs in support of Jeanette’s Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill:
(Climate change: why we should use the RMA as well) yesterday and today…
“While the government supported the bill at its first reading, there’s no guarantee that they will support it any further. However, I think it would be a good idea to do so, for two reasons. Firstly, there is the need for an interim policy to limit emissions growth until their emissions trading scheme is fully implemented … Secondly, RMA controls would be a useful complement to emissions trading … For too long, New Zealand policymakers have approached the question of market instruments vs regulatory controls as if it was an “either / or” proposition. It’s not.”
Today Idiot/Savant noted that the Government announcement “banning new thermal generation for the next ten years” effectively limits emissions growth for the electricity sector, but that the RMA “would also apply to industrial emissions”. This is the reason why we still need Jeanette’s RMA Amendment Bill. The Bill goes beyond the thermal electricity sector, and would require consideration of Climate Change in consents for all stationary energy use (e.g. a coal-fired cement or dairy factory).
It’s still needed to help the Emissions Trading Scheme and the ban on new thermal electricty generation. A Select Committee considered Jeanette’s Bill today, and their decision will be made public soon. Will Labour and/or National support it?
Published in Environment & Resource Management by frog on Thu, October 11th, 2007
Tags: environment
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
No because the RMA is concerned with local impacts not global, and subject to a range of international agreement that local authorities have no role in. Frankly the ability of councils to do so consistently across 76 or so LGAs is also questionable.
Nice to see you being honest using the word ‘ban’ on thermal generation. Did not notice that in the material released.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Insider,
PM’s material says:
• Providing a clear message to state-owned electricity generators on the government’s view that there should not be a need for new baseload fossil fuel generation for the next ten years
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/Documents/Files/Energy%20Strategy%20HC%20DP %20Factsheet.pdf
Close enough to a ‘ban’ for me.
Share-holding Minister can direct an SOE to do or not do something.
On your first point, does Climate Change have no impact locally? It will and does affect erosion, rainfall, hazards, etc. As for local consistency, that’s what National Environmental Standards and Policy Statements are for. So far they have been slow coming. The Govt’s ‘ban’ on thermal gen is a virtual NPS for Climate Change reasons to prevent RMA consents.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It would be better to phase in a user pays system whereby developments within say 1/2 or 1 km of the coastline, on flood palins and cliffs etc had to fully insure their buildings AND LAND for full reparation of the environement and phase it into existing buildings and land owners over say 20 years. This insurance should also include leaky homes and other work malpractices so that the taxpayer or EQC never has to pick up the tab for the hyper rich, coastal and shoddy developers.
Then insurance policies would reflect the true cost to the country of these developments rather than a flat EQC type levy on poor old taxpayer working hard in the suburbs. It would become self policing, buyer beware and you could get rid of a lot of the RMA and other bureaucracies.
But we know the red greens will never support that dont we.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Meanwhile a judge in a UK court has ruled that there is NO scientific proof that climate change is man made and that Al Gore’s fictional documentary must not be shown in UK schools without the blatant lies and half truths being pointed out.
When will the world wake up to the biggest con job since Y2K?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Big Bro, Y2K doesnt even compare to this, this is several magnitudes above Y2K
And this bill now sets an incredibally dangerous precident. It could be illegal to ever cut down a single tree, as this will stop it completeing photosynthesis and thus contributing to global warming.
Sounds far out i know, but with the amount of people who already abuse the RMA to stop any sort of development anything is possible.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Typical tripe from Big Bro. Kevin – many Green members are not “red” – many such as myself are liberal, both economically and socially.
I support market mechanisms, so long as they can effectively price the negative externalities associated with the economic activity. In the case of global warming, the negative externalities may include damage to marine and alpine eco-systems, such as the Great Barrier Reef. An insurance levy would not provide an economic incentive to guard against this type of damage.
So, as a “liberal” green I support your proposed insurance levy to protect land-based assets. This measure on its own, however, is not sufficient to ameliorate the challenges posed by climate change.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I agree Stu but its a start in the right direction to curtail the activities that we in NZ CAN do something about – and are more immediate environmental concerns to an unpopulated country like NZ than our contribution to climate change – urban sprawl, rampant sale and export of our coastline and shoddy workmanship where the NZ answer is as always “oh dont worry the taxpayer will fork out for your hardship”. The reason it would curtail these activities is the massive cost of the insurance – include damage to the seabed due to runnoff if you like – but at least its a market solution, self policing to a major extent and reduces spending on bureaucracy – we need the money at the coalface for the environment, not for creative job creation schemes to hide the government’s ineptitude developing a 2ndaryclean leand green economy to completment the primary one we already have.
So if you are economically liberal and hopefully a believer that rationality can prevail you must barf when your MPs pontificate – why not come over to the light side and discuss the possibility of a centrist green party?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
yes big bro and Nick – it will be bigger than having a hit “mary had a little lamb” – “he he we got them to buy and sell thin air” – I can hear it on the UN cocktail circuit now!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kevin – I completely agree with the need to utilize economic resources at the coalface (nice pun).
IMO the political principles of The Green Party are essentially sound. In addition, the intellectual debate within the party is refreshingly open. For example, during the co-leadership selection process, Nandor Tanczos campaigned strongly on the theme “The Greens are not a left-wing party.” Many GP members, such as myself, align with this view and are working hard to change the perception of the Greens as a left-wing party.
Ultimately, the energy required to start a new political party is monumental. I think energies are better directed towards encouraging debate and development from within the current Green Party, rather than by throwing stones from the outside.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Footnote – I’d encourage everyone to join a political party and try and encourage constructive debate. If more people joined political parties and actually put forward their views, then I would expect their to be less dissatisfaction with NZ’s political process.
And with larger more diverse memberships, current political parties may develop a more constructive approach to representation …
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I do not know why people say that Y2K was a con job? obviously the world wasn’t going to end or anything but they did spend millions fixing the problem before it occurred, that way your next phone bill should of came out fine instead of charging you for 99 years or whatever would of happened.
As for a UK court ruling NO scientific proof, maybe because no one bothered to waste their time and turn up to show them any, because basically anyone who does not believe it probably doesn’t believe the worlds not flat.
I agree the RMA should most definitely consider CC it is very much local as it is global. As for the statement “government’s view that there should not be a need for new baseload fossil fuel generation for the next ten years”, barely means squat, they are only going to be in for another year anyway, they need to put it down in writing, make it harder for the next government to overturn.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
ekstatek,
>>Y2K was a con job
It was because we weren’t finding problems on a grand scale, yet every company wanted a compliance certificate. Take it from someone who was at the coal face – the Y2K problem was an ounce of truth, and a mountain of hype.
Much like global warming….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I agree with you joining political parties Stu. I prefer the bluegreens myself and will be working to keep National ture to its word and honest on green issues. To inspire trust the “the greens are not a left wing party” you would have to clean out almost all your MPs, Nandor included unless he whistles a different tune over crime victims rights in a hurry.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
kevin..do you have enough to form/field a football team yet..?
(how about ‘the bugs’..?..as a team name..?
when you get fifteen people..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
actually i’d like to copyright ‘bugs’..
as an aft moniker for the ‘blue-greens’..
everyone ok with that..?
phil(whoar.co.nz.)
(btw..are you listening to my new raio station yet..whoa rfm one..?
mmm..!!..whoar fm one..!..warm and toasty..!..)
i know hell will freeze over before the powers that be at frogblog would ever give me the hat-tip/’plug’..eh..?
so i am reduced to having to do it/pimp myself..
(funny..who they seem to think their ‘enemies’ are..eh..?..)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
‘aft moniker’..heh-heh..!..sorta fits..tho’..
make that ‘apt moniker’..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
q said: Share-holding Minister can direct an SOE to do or not do something.
It’s not quite as simple as that, q. Section 13 of the SOE Act does give the sharholding Ministers the power to direct. However, such a direction must have regard to Part 1 of the Act. This includes a primary requirement that the SOE be a successful business. While the definition of this in s 4 of the Act includes a requirement that the SOE exhibits a sense of social responsibility, it does not include a requirement that the SOE exhibit a senseof ecological responsibility. So a Ministerial direction to do so may well be held to be ultra vires the Minister’s powers. Perhaps this is something that needs to be address by an amendment to the Act.
Kevin said: I prefer the bluegreens myself and will be working to keep National ture (sic) to its word and honest on green issues.
You’ll have to do a lot more than keep them true to their word, Kevin. You’ll need to push them to change the words – ie to develop some policy that actually addresses climate change in a meaningful way. Pandering to the agricultural sector by giving it a blanket exemption for its greenhouse gas emissions does not. Not that I’m singling National out here – Labour are just as bad in that regard.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
q
but it is not just SOEs going to be affected and the toned down use of 6 or 7 words when 1 would do says they don;t want to use the word ban.
does Climate Change have local impact?
PErhaps, but it is unpredictable and highly controversial in its local impact and likely not directly identifiable to local sources. That is what makes it different.
As for NES, It is fine having concrete guidance like the thermals ban but the RMA involves weighting competing interests and I think that will be complex because you wouldn;t be able to prove injurious effect as CO2 is a colourless odourless and non toxic gas.
Anyway the ETS mitigates any CO2 effect so RMA arguably would not have to consider it. Methane would have other issues impacting its discharges ahead of climate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kevin said: To inspire trust the “the greens are not a left wing party? you would have to clean out almost all your MPs, Nandor included unless he whistles a different tune over crime victims rights in a hurry.
I’m not sure what a position on addressing crime has to do with whether someone is lef-wing or right-wing. Stalin was pretty tough on criminals, I seem to recall. I would have thought that the response to crime belonged more on the libertarian-authoritarian spectrum than the left-right one.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
RMA needs amending at local council level to make it easier for houses to be generating their own power via renewable sources (namely solar and wind), and at a national level, make it possible for houses to sell any excess power generated back to the national grid (nett metering) This is all very much part of the “securing energy” debate currently in the news, but it has been completely overlooked in the process. In Germany, property with solar power systems sell quicker than those without. It is a genuine selling feature. Why? Because the German government heavily subsidises solar installation and will buy back any excess power generated. This is not rocket science. Get with it NZ.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I notice Stuff today also sees the statement as ‘effectively a ban’:
*New fossil fuel plants banned for 10 years *
By VERNON SMALL – The Dominion Post | Friday, 12 October 2007
New coal and gas-fuelled power stations have effectively been banned for 10 years, leaving plans for a $500 million project near Auckland destined for the scrapheap. …
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4234505a10.html
Whether the ETS adequately mitigates GHG effects is yet to be seen because of the unanswered questions – we will judge that when the legislation is tabled, and the allocations in the stationery energy sector are made (one of the hardest decisions of the ETS).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
hey frogs..!
these are my archives..:
“..Categories:
comics (343)
General (269)
green things (2091)
guest columnists (12)
humour (1189)
health (1494)
international politics/culture/ stuff (7140)
music/ent/lit (2817)
nz politics/culture/stuff (4871)
op-ed (3650)
reviews (885)
that’s cool (249)
vegan stuff (444)
we recommend (1408)
whoar! (570)..”
now..in there you will note there are 2091 ‘green’ stories
and 444 vegan ones..
and how many tiimes have you linked/hat-tipped me/whoar..?
(all your own ‘calls’..?..or instructions/’hints’ from on-high..?..)
what sort of short-sighted/small-minded/miserablist bastards are you..?
and hey..!..point me to a ‘greener’ publication in this country..
than whoar..
eh..?
get with the feckin’ master-plan..!..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Boot, you highlight one of the biggest problems re housing – the tunnel vision of territorial local authorities that requires people to jump through all sorts of hoops to do anything that is ecologically sound but “different”.
Another one is the obsession of TLAs with sewerage reticulation. In most parts of the country it is nigh on impossible to get consent to build a house with a composting toilet, even though they are much more ecologically sound than reticulating and process sewage and would actually save the TLAs heaps of money if incorporated into new housing developments.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
or not..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kevin – not sure I see what you’re getting at in regards to Nandor’s attitude to crime victims.
In general, Green policy tries to balance the need for efficiency with the desire for equity. Water is an interesting example. Water is necessary for life and should be freely available up to certain quantities. However, it is also important to ensure water is used efficiently, to the benefit of both the environment and the economy.
Therefore, a “green” water pricing scheme is likely to implement two pricing mechanisms for water, based on both a flat fee (for the initial and necessary water units) and an incremental charge (for additional more discretionary units).
Such a pricing scheme could ensure equitable access to water while encouraging water efficiencies. National could do well if they learned how to spell “equitable”, while labor would likewise benefit from understanding the word “efficient”.
Only the Greens effectively balance both these desired outcomes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Stu, I agree with you on water Cheap or free for essontial water and a steep hike for non-essential use. But it must be universal – a two step pricing system, not a two teir one. Pricing petrol off the market but then subsidising the lower sociaoeconomic sector to buy it is similarly ridiculous as the greens rightly point out.
I try not to use the words equitabble, equity, disparity etc as they have become meaningless in our persistent drive towars equality of outcome.
Get Nandor to accept Garth McVicars challenge to front up to the victims rights meeting, and get the greens working on some policy and his speech and I he pulls it off I will personally kiss his boots. No seriously I would really appreciate it if he comes along and we all site down and try to solve the crime problem.
Toad – the Nats do have some good ideas if you can wade through their extensive discussion documents. But I am basically saying that without a stong vibrant economy you can kiss goodbye to your greeen ideals. With luddites like Sue kedgely on board and lefties like Locke and Bradford with no green credentials or credibility I fail to see how you can get a broad concensus from business and hard working people.
And did I not say we should phase in full user pays for the insurance to cover events from living in a high risk environment, like flood plains and coastal subdivisions – it would apply to farmers, rich, poor , everyone equally.
These are more pressing problems for NZ than climate change because it will suck the public money that is needed to estabilish a clean, lean, green hi tech hi efficiency economy. I can’t see any alternative to that if you want the goodies a first world country expects as well as a good environment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Two tier – that’s exactly the terminology I was looking for.
I’m fairly sure the Green Party already has well-developed policy in regards to victims’ rights – you may want to check out the policy section of the green website.
Nandor’s attendance, or otherwise, at victims’ rights meeting is something I cannot comment on. Garth McVicar can tend to shout his mouth of sometimes so maybe the two have fallen out?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
All those people who go on about “net metering?, careful what you wish for. There are a whole lot of strict obligations and compliance issues that go on electricity sellers that require some significant expense.
Also, while you might be paying 20c a unit for power you won’t get that – you’d be lucky to get 5c/kwh once all the lines and transmission and metering costs and profit margins are excluded. And you’ll be liable for tax as well. The economics of net metering change a lot when you look closely. Why else in Germany are they heavily subsidising it? A subsidy means someone else is paying for your convenience.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Seriously tho, if i wanted to cut down a tree after this bill was passed it would probly be banned.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It already is under many district plans Nick if it is over a certain height.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Meanwhile a judge in a UK court has ruled that there is NO scientific proof that climate change is man made”
Actually, according to the report I read in the “Herald”, the court ruled no such thing. The judge merely pointed out some errors in some of Gore’s claims, such as the speed of the melting ice cap in Greenland, and some field reports on polar bears.
Interestingly this week’s “new scientist” has an editorial on the claims by climate change skeptics that 500 scientists have rejected at least part of the theory that global warming is man made. In fact many of those scientists have been demanding that they be removed from the list because their views are being misrepresented, and they are only disagreeing on minor details, not the fact of global warming.
There is still much debate over for example how much influence sunspot activity has on global warming, how quickly the ice caps will melt, what the consequences are likely to be in the short and long term, and of course theres is much healthy debate on these details. But there are very few (if any) respectable scientists not in the pay of vested instersts who would say that human induced global warming is not happening.
So I wonder who it is that is really telling “blatant lies and half truths”.
http://www.epf.org.nz
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hi all
If you want to know about our position on victims rights, read my speech to the Victim Support conference today, here http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/speech11293.html
To know what the issue with Garth McVicar is, read my press releases here
http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/speech11293.html
http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/PR11291.html
http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/PR11289.html
sorry I know this is off topic but I thought I’d reply to Kevins comments on this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Nandor, I have no idea where you got your submissions from but none of them even rate! Support us by reducing the number of victims – reducing the number of murders back to the 18 between 1951 and 1957 HC was talking about – now that is support. Support is knowing it will never happen to anyone else. But as usual the politicians think it is about compo – because you manage to pay people to shut up. Comeon, support us by using the freedom of information act to tell us how much money the government uses secretly compensating people to keep their sorry b*tts out of the newspaper, and then how little they pay to victims of crime generally.
Dont go on about stopping executions in foreign lands until you have dealt with the 50-100 executions in NZ each year and the 1000s of life sentences the victims families are serving knowing that the the murderers are out amongst us again already.
However, I like some of what you say so I really hope a joint summit can come off next year with everyone cooperating to solve this problem. But the bottom line is I want a forward looking plan to reduce the number of victims, not another bureaucracy to help the victims assuming they will always be with us. I will send a detailed submission on your ACC comments to you. Cheers, Kevin
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Two step – one for the necessary and one for the waste. Not two teir – one for the “rich” and one for the “poor”. I dont trust governments to identify who are rich and who are poor any further than I can spit in my sleep.
At least we have a chance of identifying the waste and the non waste.
But why do you greens always support the government in applying punitive extra taxes – you should do it by giving tax breaks as encouragement – fiscially neutral or fiscally negative. use the surplus to encourage, not the tax to punish.
There I go giving away the newgreenz policies again….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There was a death penalty discussion on Kiwiblog….. I think it comes down to Can people score a Minus Value???????. Death penalty opponents use language which implies that there is a big envelope around humanity at all times and no one can stray beyond it. Helen Clark ought to plead for the Bali Bombers. >>>>>>>>>>> (I’m following the law and order sub thread here) the Greens have cast their die with the crims
Heard this interesting discussion this morning on RNZ
http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/mnr/new_strategy_criticised
National and Act will be walking a tight rope trying to criticise efforts to save the planet while not being seen to align with climate change deniers (which a lot of them are).. They will be fighting a rear guard action funded by their rich backers…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
phil u Says:
October 12th, 2007 at 9:04 am
kevin..do you have enough to form/field a football team yet..?
(how about ‘the bugs’..?..as a team name..?
when you get fifteen people..?
=======
The question is what are green issues (as generally perceived)?
What issues take priority?
What issues are open to debate.
It looks as though parties will be moving to a mid (green) ground and it will be a matter of how they deal with all the other things. I can’t see the far right having viable green policies as they believe in an infinitely expanding horizon… and “I can be as rich as I want and have as much as I want..”… Damage to the environment and resoucse depletion implies that that isn’t possible.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Parker Defends Strategy…
http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/mnr/parker_defends_strategy
Lik e or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
yes..’blue-green’ is intrinsically oxymoronic..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kevin – consider this question:
Assuming you wish to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which option would you choose:
1. Tax breaks for wind energy developments; or
2. Tax on greenhouse gas emissions
On the basis of your last post I’d guess you’d go for option 1. This option, however, is extremely inefficient because it picks wind energy as the silver bullet through which GG emissions are to be reduced.
Option 2, by contrast, allows the market to make decisions about the most efficient way to reduce GG emissions. The point is, tax breaks in most instances are selective and inefficient in comparison to pricing mechanisms.
The implementation of such taxes, however, does not mean the *overall* level of taxation is set to increase. The Greens income tax policy calls for the first $5000 of income to be tax free.
Unlike Labour, the Greens recognize hard work as something that should be encouraged through lower incomes taxes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
and..as regular readers of whoar will know..
..it is now clear that both the economic and environmental ‘perfect storms’ are heading our way..
(first local sign..that mortgagee sale of those 92 auckland apartments..)
we will have lots more of that..and soon..
yet most are still in denial..
(the business economics reporter wilson..citing the latest upward lurch of the ‘markets’..as proof the ‘credit-scare’ is over..
someone give that man a speights..!..)
and even most greens..are clinging to their ’soft landing’/bio-fue/prius/cylinder-wrapping sheet-anchors..
and we seem to be in a period like that in britain..just after the second world war was first declared..
the ‘phony war’..
where they knew it was happening/coming..
but the bombing/destruction/killing hadn’t actually started..
yet..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Philu, No blue green is not oxymoronic because you need a strong economy to pay for a good environment. If we become a nation of homoeopathists and basket weavers, as kedgely would have us become then you can kiss goodbye to a clean green environment. If we are rich we can do good in the world, if we are poor we can’t. So voters, you choose – for the last 15 years we’ve chosen the basket weaving option….
Stu Integrated policy is what we need not a series of isolated policies. Think outside the square. Trust and nurture clean lean green small business. No minute detailed policy – just tax breaks if it helps us move towards the clean green direction. Then you attract back the people we need.
But if all else fails we can dig up the phantom rich bastards eh JH and blame them, or try to divert criticism to the SST because we cant think of one single policy in isolation that could easily solve the crime problem and keep our prissy principles intact. But if you have an integrated long term plan those problems disappear. I think the public could almost swallow it – lord knows we’ve swallowed enough. its just the politicians egos holding us back. Like kedgly donging on the knowledge economy at every opportunity and Bradford checking our hands for calluses…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I dont see what is so hard about the concept of tax breaks for not emmiting greenhouse gases. But as I say I would prefer a more integrated policy incorporating the more important issues (becuase they are more pressing AND because we can do something about them).
My big three are (not necessarily in order:
1. Urban sprawl and coastal land sell-off (this is where I may come unstuck with National because they brought in the policy of exporting land when the baby boomers paniced, and the building industry is very powerful)
2. Packaging and rubbish
3. sustainable energy for the hi tech clean lean green economy we need to have a country whose governeance is based around putting the environment first.
I just can’s see how the left of centre can deal with these issues, but a broad centrist alliance with a centrist green party a big player, then its a possibility. But therre would have to be trust and no reneging and diving back to the left the day after the elections…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kevin, I have to agree with stu, tax breaks assume that governments can pick the best carbon reduction techniques better than the multitude of private sector players.
A quick review of some Canterbury products that have been developed without government assistance will illustrate the point.
Designline (Ashburton) have a hybrid bus in production, they are used on Auckland’s free CBD-Britomart link service.
Hamilton Jet provide the propulsion units for New Yorks newest ferries. If peak oil impacts car commuting very quickly then both these companies will be in huge demand to meet the rapid increase in PT demand. It’s easier for NY to add more ferries than to duplicate their subways. Ditto Rotterdam, Barcelona, et al.
Steelbro has over half the global market for self loading container traillers. When peak oil causes an abrupt shift in mode choice for inter-city freight transport there will be a huge increase in demand for these trailers as containers are the best way to handle multi modal inter-city freight that currently travels by semi-trailer.
Windflow developed their wind turbines and wind farms solely with private investor funds.
WhisperTech developed their domestic gas co-generation system without any government assistance. It is now being trialled in Europe, again without any tax breaks or subsidies either here or in the EU.
Levy a carbon tax to discourage carbon fuel consumption then use that tax revenue to provide superannuatants and housing corp with free energy efficiency improvements for their homes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Problem with carbon tax collecting is what to do with the taxes collected.
The current Greens supported Labour government loves to collect taxes but has trouble (to the tune of $8.5B) redistributing it, or even investing it in carbon saving ventures.
I’m for the blue – greens. I think Grubs is better, getting down and dirty – doing something positive.
At least we would channel the taxes collected into further carbon reduction processes.
Something the left leaning Greens seem incapable to agree to unless it is done by a hugely inefficient State department.
Private enterprise, as pointed out in Kevyn’s Canterbury post, has a vital place in this process. Because private enterprise has to put up its own money, it tends to be much more efficient at project completion and efficient running. If electrification of the Auckland rail network had been done on a PPP basis, they would most certainly have had at least the West Auckland line double tracked and electified.
Private enterprise would have straightened up the rails coming down the Greenlane hill so that trains could travel from Greenlane to Penrose at decent speed instead of crawling over to bumps.
PhilU, for someone like you who has had a go at the Alliance imports into the Greens, are now showing your true colours?
And if you think the apartment sale is bad news, PhilU. Take into consideration the number of businesses that have sold their property and leased it back.
While this is done in principal to free up capital for their shareholders to reinvest into the business, it does provide the ability to shut up shop very quickly and move manufacturing offshore.
As I will have to do if electricity supply to my leased factory space is threatened by local electricity supply problems.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
all state legislation should contain a basic and clear clause that considers climate change/the strict protection of our environment on all levels as a fundamental concept upon which to build. it’s that simple.
without question the RMA should consider climate change.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Levy a carbon tax to discourage carbon fuel consumption then use that tax revenue to provide superannuatants and housing corp with free energy efficiency improvements for their homes.”
Therein lies the problem – I would pour it back into pahsing in more clean green private industry and phasing out unsustainable industry where conservation is at risk. We all need help with our energy efficiency so make it universal. Dont spend any more of the money than is absolutely necessary on anything but changing our economy over to a green economy.
But punitive taxes on one thing (carbon) chosen out of our multitude of of non-greeness is just a hidden subsidy for our other industries, like our low wage subsidies we have at present – they need to be slowly pahsed out so everyone is competing on an even playing field. Anything else is too bureaucratic and too open to abuse and cronyism.
The RMA has failed and should be got rid of or overhaluled completely, as part of an integrated strategy to phase in our new 2ndary clean green economy. Two major problems are:
1. Its eccessive bureaucratic process where delays can run into years if not decades and lawyers make a killing
2. Devolution to the regions where decision making is poor and there there is extreme difficulty in getting the best people to stand and no interest in voting, as I have discovered in my campaigning for the ADHB election. Devolution means that local councils will agree to anything as long as there are big bucks in it for them, and cronyism and the audit trail are nigh on impossible to follow. Perhaps in the mean time there should be government appointees to the regional and council planning committees to ensure national interests come first and regional interests come second (Now I’m offside with the westcoaters and Owen McShane and the other “private property righters”)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sorry in my rant the main point may have been lost:
There really is only one thing to do with the tax revenue collected and that is helping those people in the ‘unsustainable” industries move into the sustainable industries with no personal lost to them. Then you get people who are prepared to cooperate with your policies instead of rsisting them every step of the way.
The idea of shining you light from on high on a few selected industries that toe your party line, as Kevyn seems to do, and to hell with the people in industreis we disapprove of is doomed to failure.
Take the fishing industry for example. If you wanted to impose proper marine reserves and protect the seamounts from bottom trawling properly the only people who would be compensated are the iwi. There should be no compensation but those whose businesses are threatened should be helped into another business in a no loss to them way, with the pooled taxes that are being collected to move to sustainability.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kevin, Actually I was attempting to do the exact opposite. There is too much breadth to economic and environmental problems and their solutions for the government to be able to pick the winners and losers. All the government can do is ensure that externalised costs are internalised, even if that means taxing or selling permits or ration coupons.
People who are prospering by raping the environment should not be assisted into different industries, where they will probably behave in exactly the same way. The magic of the free market is that when products are priced correctly consumers and capital will respond to those pricing signals. For every business that goes bust a new business is born. When governments try to protect jobs by protecting tired old industries they also prevent the creation of new jobs in vibrant new industries.
Good governance requires that the government ensure that the commons are not being exploited for private gain without the commoners being fully compensated for the loss of enjoyment of the commons.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kevin is a bit confused about the nature of the Green Party. I wonder if he has joined and been to meetings and conferences.
My big three are (not necessarily in order:
1. Urban sprawl and coastal land sell-off (this is where I may come unstuck with National because they brought in the policy of exporting land when the baby boomers paniced, and the building industry is very powerful)
2. Packaging and rubbish
3. sustainable energy for the hi tech clean lean green economy we need to have a country whose governeance is based around putting the environment first.
These are big issues in the Green Party. Granted not by consensus the most important, but they are high priorities for all of us.
And he says…
These are more pressing problems for NZ than climate change because it will suck the public money that is needed to estabilish a clean, lean, green hi tech hi efficiency economy. I can’t see any alternative to that if you want the goodies a first world country expects as well as a good environment.
Establishing a hi tech hi efficiency economy is what the Green Party is all about. That is partly the purpose of the GG taxes, to shift economic incentives away from the old low tech smoke stack inefficient industries and towards the hi tech modern efficient ones. (Keeping what was good with old technology).
W
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kevyn, we probably agree on a lot its just the difference between a carrot and a stick. But you cant say you are a free marketeer and then say you are going to put punitive taxes on industries you frown on and think are inefficient to drive them out of business and to hell with the people who work in them and then give all the money away to people living in state houses. If you were a free marketeer you would have to wait for peak oil to do that.
You say “There is too much breadth to economic and environmental problems and their solutions for the government to be able to pick the winners and losers.” and then you go on to say that you can choose them based on how dirty you think they are. It makes no sense at all.
bliss – then why do the greens always vote with the left? If you really are for a hi tech clean green economy cant you reign in Kedgely and the other alt lifestypers. you need to “unbundle” [is the trendy word] the nuclear power and arms debates so you can open the possibility for nuclear power. You need to assert in the stongest possible terms that the green party is not and never will be opposed to pastoral farming and that it will be the mainstay of our economy for the forseeable future and that the intermediate tier of clean green secondary industry is meant to compliment it, not replace it.
Without those basic assurances and actions you can ride the global warming wave but eventually the public will see through you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I don’t think blue-green is an oxymoron, but you would have to take out the notion that economic growth can continue forever and replace that with a notion of good growth (passive solar heated houses) and useless growth (waste and wasted oppurtunity) and the idea that the pursuit of wealth benefits everyone all the time (ie there has to be a distinction).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kevin, Are you aware that the government receives royalties from oil and gas and any other minerals extracted from beneath New Zealand and it’s territorial waters. Is this a tax on “dirty industries” or a responsible way of “selling” something that belongs to all New Zealanders? The airspace above New Zealand also belongs to all New Zealanders but we can’t send radio waves through it or fly through it without paying to use this common resource. Why then should we be able to burn oil or natural gas and deposit the by-products into this common airspace without compensating our fellow New Zealanders for this use we are making of this common resource?
At no point have I suggested that the government should favour any one industry over another, or punish any particular industry or group of industries. I have merely stated that industries and individuals that dispose of waste material in the air should be charged for the costs that that imposes on the commons, rather than being given it free as a subsidy.
I frown on industries that abuse the commons. And part of my job is to monitor a coal fired boiler so I am well aware of the potential repercussions of charging for air emmissions. But I am well aware of how inefficiently the steam is utilised in many of our processes. So the introduction of a reasonable royalty for the use of the nation’s airspace need not lead to redundancies or loss of business because the increased price of coal can be offset by tweaking the production systems.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh JH thanks for reminding me about that. My plank for the blue-greens would be ” security for all with zero growth”. Of course it is self evidently attainable when you think about it. You would have to phase it in with incentives like I mentioned above and make sure “no one was left behind as long as they are prepared to contribute” type approach. I would like to see an approach where we were growth negative but remained growth neutral by allowing immigration form countries in return for their growth neutral or growth negative policies.
Which of course brings me to the mother of all environmental problems – in fact it should have been on my list. It is human population growth. Nothing else matters in comparison. If the greens supported fighting for global population control on the same scale NZ has fought the Nuke issue they would get my vote no matter how left they were.
Kevyn, I very much doubt you are the libertarian you try to make out. You are talking about entirely different things and its horses for courses to steer the country in a particular direction. An extreme example of your approach would be to de-regulate everything but make the suppliers pay the full cost of harm eg de-regulate all prescription drugs but make the supplier and the user pay for their own medical treatment if used unwisely.
In one case you argue that people should pay the costs of waste disposal and that is what they do already – but you are not advocating extra levies to cover the clean up in 100 years time and you couldn’t trust a government to put that money aside anyway. With greenhouse gas emmsisions it is even more controversial because (a) “the science isnt settled” and (b) there is debate as to whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant (dirty). The balance of evidence is that there is human induced global worming so if it really is a problem the solution is to slowly shut it down – not to pay for being dirty and carry on rewardless. I’m sorry but the solution (free market) advocated by people who have never had a free market thought in their heads gets my alarm bells ringing that this is no solution at all. I would still rather use a carrot to change our ways than a cynical revenue collecting punishment.
Re paragraph 2 – there is at present no direct costs for disposing in your commons like there is for solid waste. (Perhaps that’s whats behind these ludicrous ideas of sequestering” CO2).
I think there must be a middle ground common sense solution, so I don’t absolutely disagree with you approach in para 3 but I’m still suspicious of the idea of being able to pay to pollute – either its bad or its not. And I’m suspicious that the greens would support, or at least not activly discourage labour from bringing in these taxes in a revenue positive way. With the government running at close to 50% GDP now we can’t stand any more of it and remain even slightly competitive, let alone develop clean lean green industry and attract our best people back home (or their equivalents).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Why is sequestering CO2 ludicrous?
CO2 has been trapped in our geothermal and natural gas fields for millennia. Granted it may not be a permanent solution, but it helps to reduce the peak CO2 concentrations in the air in the next few centuries until we can grow more trees and capture some of it again.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Because it will cost more in energy and resources burying CO2 than it would adapting to climate change.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kevin, I have never made out that I am a libertarian, for the verysimple reason that I am an anarchocapitalist. And yes, deregulate everything and make the suppliers/users pay for the damage is anarchocapitalism in a nutshell.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
But dont we need our ideals + workable solutions? Greens and you have two sets of principles both of which could work in an ideal world, I’m after answers that will work in the real world. Neither very strict government control or anarchocapitalism can for various reasons but the main one is we are part of a real world.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kevin, I can accept your last argument, with just one proviso. The real world is not the same as the physical world. Our understanding of the behaviour of the physical world is limited only by our knowledge of the properties of the physical world. Our understanding of the real world is distorted by a whole raft of psychological responses to knowledge.
Your real world may or may not be less idealised than mine or the greens. If your real world is shared by more people than mine or the greens then your solutions will be more workable simply because there will be greater agreement to make the solutions work. To that extent they will be more realistic solutions. Unfortunately the reality of the majority is predicated on resistance to change. Therefore changing the behaviour of the majority will mean changing their perception of reality or imposing a new reality on them. Changing behaviours is notoriously difficult and rarely occurs within a single generation unless there is a physical compulsion (such as an oil shock, depression, war, etc) or the change takes us down the path of least resistance by making our lives “easier” such as the shift from trams to cars, or the introduction of electricity. Electricity gave us so many labour saaving devices that we now spend half our lives working to pay for them. Not that we’ll ever admit it.
We don’t need our ideals + workable solutions. The two are mutually exclusive. My ideals preclude some workable solutions, so do the Greens, and I have no doubt so do yours. Unfortunately, so do the government’s. Or maybe Labour is too busy following focus groups to have any interest in leading the country anywhere other than into the next election. Whichever, they’re pretty much all mouth and no trousers when it comes to environmental solutions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)