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)

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 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)

Because it will cost more in energy and resources burying CO2 than it would adapting to climate change.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

“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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)