Wednesday May 14th, 2008. 4:16 pm by frog
One of the Green Party’s high ranking new candidates may be a new face to many. Luckily 26 year old Gareth Hughes already has a very significant internet presence so it’s easy to research a lot about him. As well as the ubiquitous Vote Gareth website he is the blogger behind Climate Kiwi, Global Young Greens and WE Aotearoa. His facebook pages suggest he’s a popular and busy sort of bloke.Â
He’s a Cuba Street resident who Wellingtonians will have seen around a lot doing things like saving trolley buses, the Overlander train and the Johnsonville line from closure. They may not recognise him yet though because he is often in disguise.  Â
Posted in Campaign | by frog | Wed, May 14th, 2008 |
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, May 14th, 2008 at 4:16 pm and is filed under Campaign.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can email this article to a friend. Printable version of this article.
You can leave a response, but trackbacks are not allowed.
May 14th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Full of ideas and hot air.
May 14th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
“I am a keen, passionate and smart 26 year old.”
Modest, too…..
May 14th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
frog said: They may not recognise him yet though because he is often in disguise.
Our very own Secret Agent Man, but definitely not this one!!! (Sorry, it’s one of my favourite music videos ever)!
May 14th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Hot air, full of ideas…modest…and…
And will hopefully show all these old farts who are glued to their seats and enjoying their baubles that there are young people out there who are not into binging, boy racing and looking like Paris Hilton clones!
I think it would be great to have a proportional amount of young people in parliament and give these young people a voice!
He has my vote!!! For at least a term or a max of two…and then like all MP’s should, get moved on to new areas of experiences…because being an MP in my books is not a profession, its a service to the country and i think non of these pro’s should be there, but move on…after a max of two terms, so they do not get terribly attached to the baubles and power…
May 14th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
yeah…we really need a bunch of air head young people running the country don’t we.
May 14th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
What are you scared of? The memory of your own air head? Or that they might challenge “the status quo” of the dominance of power of the ‘ruling’ generation?
Besides people are legally allowed to vote at 18, are you saying they should vote their ‘parents’ or ‘grand parents’ in?
It’s so easy to make one line statements with no substance and no argument…
May 14th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Greed
The answer to your first question is yes!
Young people are stupid enough to think that they have all the answers, when in reality life teaches you most of what you need to know, at the age of 26 “life” has a lot more to teach this young man.
What can he really contribute?, a youthful love of socialism he may have but the stats would suggest that he will be come a conservative by the time he is 40, let the young chap get a job for a while (hell he could even get a real job which would be a rarity for one from the left) he needs to learn about life and then come into the house.
It is bad enough being told how to raise my kids by a woman who has been arrested 70 times or a woman who has no kids of her own without being told how to live my life by a snotty nosed kid who does not have an idea what it is like in the real world.
And please….all that 1960 crap about the “ruling generation”, I am sure you can do better that that.
May 14th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
bb, your generalisations truly disgust me. Quit the age discrimination - it only shows up your ignorance.
May 14th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
BB: I went the other way. I grew up in a staunchly National Party voting family.
My mother, at 86, is still a Nat member (despite my best efforts to persuade her otherwise - she did vote Social Credit once back in the 80s and Green in 1999 because she was pissed off re particular issues), but she has voted National on a “tribal” basis in every other election since she reached voting age.
My second cousin is a former Nat Cabinet Minister, and most of my family are and always have been Nat supporters. But I joined the Values Party in my teens because I could see how moribund a Nat/Lab political future would be, and have never looked back!
By and large, older people (and I’m in my 50s now) follow their habits and can’t move on.
Young people, like Gareth, and me a few decades ago now, can move on. Gareth admits to having been a boy racer, but then looking at the bigger picture saw the error of his ways.
How many over-60s do you ever see suddenly accepting that beating their kids was not a good idea, or that it’s cool and adds to the diversity of our society for people to be gay, or to for us have innovative and entrepreneurial Chinese immigrants is a great idea?
May 14th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
>>What are you scared of? The memory of your own air head?
At 27? Absolutely.
>>might challenge “the status quo�
Bless.
Still, I’m sure it will play well with the yuff base. However, the idea of this old codger being “led” by a 27 year old socialist sounds like the beginning of a joke.
All the best lad….
May 14th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Well why let them vote then at 18? Is that what democracy is about? You can not have it all your way… total economical liberism on one hand but no democratic rights for anyone under 40? Very interesting argument! Please enlighten me on people who have proven themself in the real world? What is the real world? To make a lot of money? Or is it to do somthing one beliefs in? One of my children is 18 this week, she is my step daughter and lost her dad when she was 8 years old. She is very mature and has a lot more clue about right and wrong then a lot of adults at 40 I can think of. She is going to do law at Uni and has worked since she is 14 years old waitressing, baby sitting, retailing…after school and in her holidays. I would rather see her being the PM then a greedy, money obsessed foreign exchange money shifter named Key.
‘1960 crap’ is not a very founded argument and actally quite rude. But that statement says somthing about your maturity, so in that sense you dismissing your own arguments,in a way…
May 14th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
greed n power: sounds like you step-daughter has a chance of being a very influential Green MP in 10-15 years time.
Your post reminds me very much of what I know of Metiria Turei’s youthful years.
May 14th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
From Gareth’s speech:
>>There’s no such thing as double-glazing in most of the country, and few solar hot water heating systems. The public has no idea about what they should be doing, due to a lack of education.
It isn’t a lack of education. It is a question of cost vs benefit. If these items were subsidised, you’d get take-up. Tomorrow.
One of the problems in yuff not understanding home ownership, methinks
May 14th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
BB
Sorry, forgot to address my last contribution it was for you, I suppose that was obvious?
May 14th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
PS: I should have said “heavily subsidised”. I’m aware solar is part subsidised.
May 14th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
On the right to hit or smack your children…Please correct me if I am wrong. Are the countries with anti smacking legislation the ones with the lowest occurance of violent crime?
If I hit my child is that how I teach respect? Or is it teaching, hitting is ok!
If I respect my child is that teaching it to respect itself and others?
May 14th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Can someone please enlighten me what yuff means?
May 14th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
It must mean socialists, green hipees who do not smack their children to gain respect?
May 14th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
yuff = youth, with a Nu Zulund accent
May 14th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Ahh…so the issue is now back at Comrade Bradford’s social engineering anti family bill is it?
All I am saying is that IMHO this chap does not have enough life experience to be one of the law makers in NZ.
His point (as noted by BP) about solar heating is a case in point, youthful exuberance is all well and good but I doubt he really understands how hard it is for many kiwi’s just to pay the mortgage without shelling out a few thousand for the currently fashionable solar heating.
With statements such as that he only shows his ingornace…..mind you, I suppose he is another in the “yes” camp for legalised drugs.
May 14th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
BluePeter Says:
May 14th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
yuff = youth, with a Nu Zulund accent
ha ha ha..brilliant
May 14th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
me thinks blue peter has never met gareth and blue peter is an old bigot, he will likely vote national in the coming election, me thinks he also never volunteers and loves to talk about all the things he owns…
is me right?
———————-
BluePeter Says:
May 14th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
From Gareth’s speech:
>>There’s no such thing as double-glazing in most of the country, and few solar hot water heating systems. The public has no idea about what they should be doing, due to a lack of education.
It isn’t a lack of education. It is a question of cost vs benefit. If these items were subsidised, you’d get take-up. Tomorrow.
One of the problems in yuff not understanding home ownership, methinks
May 14th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Toad
You went the other way????????
What on earth went wrong?…lol
May 14th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
BluePeter
Me thinks that these chaps have run out of ideas as we seem to be at the stage where the labels are now being attached…biggot..etc.
Why is it that the left always have to frame the debate?
May 14th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
why is that everytime someone says something you dont like you call them left? sounds like you cant debate one on one
May 14th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
how about excluding labels and talking about issues BB?
can you do that???
May 14th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
a little less cliche and prejudice and a little more research, and talk about opinion as what it is,
opinion, not gospel.
May 14th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
trees
No, but I read his speech. Did you?
I thought I’d bring up one aspect. Perhaps I’m doing him an injustice, but it sounded to me that he misunderstood the problem.
Double-glazing is indeed a good idea, but it is also a costly one. When I looked into it, the numbers don’t work when it comes to retrofitting. There is a high capital cost, limited added value, and the lowered power cost takes considerable time to provide a return. The numbers make even less sense on rentals, as the benefit goes to the tenant, not the landlord.
That is my understanding of the situation, and I am not alone in this view.
May 14th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
trees
Yes….trouble is for some bloody reason all of my outstanding contributions end up in bloody moderation….grrrrrrrrrr
May 14th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
“Since you have invited me here I thought I’d tell you a little bit about the Green Party. At our bedrock is accepting Te Tiriti o Waitangi as the founding document of Aotearoa; and recognising Maori as Tangata Whenua. We have four core principles:
…………………………………..
Define tangata whenua.
==========================
Social Responsibility:
Unlimited material growth is impossible. Therefore the key to social responsibility is the just distribution of social and natural resources, both locally and globally.
……………………
This statement always gets me, but I’m not sure exactly what it is:
just distribution is the key to social responsibility.. sounds like someone goes around and gives stuff out? What about when one lot have 6 kids as they were doing in Rwanda? All things need to be equal….. what if they choose a crappy political system like North Korea?
We are achieving a “just distribution” at the moment by pursuing free trade policies in a highly interconnected over populated world: the masses in China are becoming slighlty richer and everythings going up in price.
=====================
Appropriate Decision-making:
For the implementation of ecological wisdom and social responsibility, decisions will be made directly at the appropriate level by those affected.
——————-
The residents versus the speedway????????
========================
You could argue we’ve been a force in NZ politics since 1972 with the Values Party but it has been since MMP and breaking the links with the Alliance Party that we’ve come into our own.
——————-
Not many people want to get into the Alliance boat as it seems to be dismasted. The Green boat has some wind behind it but may be getting to the point of Peak Support? maybe if the greens tried harder to explain the Charter?
May 14th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
BB, people on your side frequently use the terms “watermellon” and’”pinko”, so let’s not let the pot define the colour (or more technically, the hue) of the kettle!
BP: We have to frame the debate on frogblog, because otherwise neo-cons like you would do that for us!
I contribute on Farrar’s Kiwiblog, just as you do here. And I suspect the way I feel about the framing of the debate on kiwiblog is just as you do on frogblog.
Get real! This is politics, and robust debate (but not racism, sexism and homophobia) is welcomed.
May 14th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
i read gareth’s speech some time back and was rather impressed. yound labour seemed in a rather similar position to you… stunned or unable to grasp it.
perhaps you are doing him an injustice
———–
No, but I read his speech. Did you?
I thought I’d bring up one aspect. Perhaps I’m doing him an injustice, but it sounded to me that he misunderstood the problem.
Double-glazing is indeed a good idea, but it is also a costly one. When I looked into it, the numbers don’t work when it comes to retrofitting. There is a high capital cost, limited added value, and the lowered power cost takes considerable time to provide a return. The numbers make even less sense on rentals, as the benefit goes to the tenant, not the landlord.
That is my understanding of the situation, and I am not alone in this view.
May 14th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
i think BB should stand as a labour candidate - i wonder which number he would be? (you are a he, aii?)
May 14th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
I think it is awesome that the Green Party has a young committed candidate and has put him well up the list. It really says that the Greens are prepared to give young people a fair go instead of saying wait your turn - I am going to screw as much out of the system for me and my generation first.
May 14th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
I suppose I am lucky to live in a house I designed and build with double glazing!
My power bill is below $150 a months in the winter…with a wall of double glassing (charging the floors on sunny days) facing the pacific ocean with a northern orientation…yessss
What about tax incentives for double glassing, and all other measures to decrease fossil fuel consumption? Instead of tax cuts and more spending on flat screen TV’s and such like, as the majority of Kiwi’s are addicted to, to spend their (borrowed) money on. Kiwi consumerism is part of the problem and the unwillingness to set priorities. So the young man has got it right after all education is needed!
May 14th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Toad,
I don’t call people bigots. Or neo-cons, whatever that means in New Zealand.
I do admit to some good-natured jousting, but it’s all good fun, eh. One must not take oneself too seriously. Perhaps young Gareth will learn to do likewise, in time.
Meanwhile, I simply suggest he revists his curious views on double glazing before he attempts to take this line with a room full of voters who own property.
Mind you, I’d pay good money to see it…..
May 14th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
“At our bedrock is accepting Te Tiriti o Waitangi as the founding document of Aotearoa; and recognising Maori as Tangata Whenua.”
Didn’t I read something about cults and accepting a ridiculous idea as the key to belonging……… all truth is relative??????
May 14th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
how can u say gareth is taking himself too seriously when he is dressed as ronald mc donald taking the piss BP?
you would may good money for a lot of stupid things BTW - but not for double glazing eh?
b*****
May 14th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Young people are just as relevant in New Zealand as mature adults. They must abide by the laws of the land, which affect them and their lives as much as the next person. It is wrong to say that they should not be involved in the making of those laws or any other part of the political process. All who are affected by it should be entitled to influence it.
May 14th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Trees,
I certainly hope he continues the practice of dressing up as a clown if he gets into parliament. It would at least be an honest portrayal of a politician.
How do you know what I spend my money on? I understand the benefits of double glazing. I like double glazing. But as I’ve said, the numbers do not make financial sense for my house. It is cheaper to run my central heating and pay the power bill.
However, I will gladly install double glazing if the government sweetens the deal.
May 14th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
also young people of today have to live thru the consequences of policies made at current.
they have to live thru whatever carbon and climate policies national and labour make.
they will inherit whatever if left to them.
May 14th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
to our lovely lefty lovers BT AND BB
What about tax incentives for double glassing, and all other measures to decrease fossil fuel consumption? Instead of tax cuts and more spending on flat screen TV’s and such like the majority of Kiwi’s are addicted to spend their (borrowed) money on. Kiwi consumerism is big part of the problem and the unwillingness to set priorities.
May 14th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
So the young man has got it right after all, education is needed! not more flashy imported goods!
May 14th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
BP said Toad, I don’t call people bigots. Or neo-cons, whatever that means in New Zealand.
BP, I will use that terminology when people are so entrenched in an ideological position that they cannot accept evidence that refutes their position.
The classic example had to be the late Norman Jones, during the homosexual law reform debate, who stated “I don’t care about the statistics, the bottom line here is that I don’t like poofters”, or something similar.
That is pure bigotry, an I don’t think we should be afraid of using the term when it is appropriate.
I do, however, agree that we should refrain from using it as an attack option against people with a different position on the political spectrum but have not said or done anything that is actually bigoted in the sense I have expressed above.
So it is all okay, BP. As a Green I love you, because you are not a bigot.
[oops, sorry, taking the piss again, but just in one of those moods tonight - please forgive me].
May 14th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
greed
Sweeten the deal with sufficient tax rebates to make the numbers work, and I’ll install it tomorrow. Might save the need to build more power generation facilities, eh.
As I say, it’s not a matter of education. It’s the numbers.
May 14th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
For your info
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 11:45 AM
Subject: FW: FW: Fuel Prices - Worth a Read …
THIS IS NOT THE ‘DON’T BUY’ PETROL FOR ONE DAY, BUT IT WILL SHOW YOU HOW WE CAN GET PETROL BACK DOWN TO $1.00 PER Litre….hopefully
This was originally sent by a retired Coca Cola executive. If you are tired of the gas prices going up AND they will continue to rise this winter, take time to read this PLEASE.
Phillip Hollsworth offered this good idea.
This makes MUCH MORE SENSE than the ‘don’t buy petrol on a certain day’ campaign that was going around last April or May!
It’s worth your consideration. Join the resistance!!!!Â
We are going to hit $ 2.00 a litre and it might go higher!! Want petrol prices to come down?
We need to take some intelligent, united action. The oil companies just laughed at that because they knew we wouldn’t continue to ‘hurt’ ourselves by refusing to buy petrol.
It was more of an inconvenience to us than it was a problem for them.
BUT, whoever thought of this idea, has come up with a plan that can Really work. Please read on and join with us!
By now you’re probably thinking petrol priced at about $1.50 is super cheap. Me too! It is currently $1.80Â for regular unleaded.
Now that the oil companies and the OPEC nations have conditioned us to think that the cost of a gallon of gas is CHEAP at $1.50, we need to take aggressive action to teach them that BUYERS control the marketplace…not sellers.
With the price of gasoline going up more each day, we consumers need to take action.
The only way we are going to see the price of petrol come down is if we hit someone in the pocketbook by not purchasing their petrol! And, we can do that WITHOUT hurting ourselves.
How? Since we all rely on our cars, we can’t just stop buying petrol.
But we CAN have an impact on petrol prices if we all a CT together to force a price war.
Here’s the idea: For the rest of this year, DON’T purchase ANY petrol from the two biggest global petroleum companies,
Â
ExxonMobil and Shell.
If they are not selling any petrol, they will be inclined to reduce their prices. If they reduce their prices, the other companies will have to follow suit.
But to have an impact, we need to reach literally millions of Mobil and Shell petrol buyers. It’s really simple to do! Now, don’t wimp out on me at this point…keep reading and I’ll explain how simple it is to reach millions of people!!
I am sending this note to 20 people. If each of us s end it to at least ten more (20 x 10 = 200) .. And those 200 send it to at least ten more (200 x 10 = 2000 … and so on, by the time the message reaches the sixth group of people, we will have reached over TWO MILLION consumers.
If those three million get excited and pass this on to ten friends each, then 20 million people will have been contacted!
If it goes one level further, you guessed it….. TWO HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE!!!
Again, all you have to do is send this to 10 people. That’s all!
How long would all that take? If each of us sends this e-mail out to ten more people within one day of receipt, all in. I suggest that we not buy from Mobil and Shell  UNTIL 200 MILLION people could conceivably be contacted within the next 8 days!!!
I’ll bet you didn’t think you and I had that much potential, did you!
Acting together we can make a difference.
If this makes sense to you, please pass this message o THEY LOWER THEIR PRICES TO BELOW THE $1.50 RANGE AND KEEP THEM DOWN. THIS CAN REALLY WORK.
Â
Simple - send the message along to other and do not buy petrol from Mobil and Shell.
Â
Good nite from Greed n PowerÂ
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.15/1426 - Release Date: 10/05/2008 11:12 a.m.
Transit New Zealand - A transport system that builds a better New Zealand.
This electronic mail message together with any attachments is privileged.
If you are not the intended recipient:
- Do not copy, disclose or use the contents in any way.
- Please let us know by return e-mail immediately, then destroy this message.
Transit New Zealand is not responsible for any changes made to this
message and/or any attachments after sending by Transit New Zealand.
Thank you.
————————————————————————
Attention:
This e-mail (and attachments) is confidential and may be legally privileged.
————————————————————————
May 14th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
>>so entrenched in an ideological position that they cannot accept evidence that refutes their position
The left never suffer from this, of course
May 14th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
again you have to slam the ‘left’ to defend your actions.
and of course the left can be as dogmatic and fixed position as any other dogma/ideology etc.
May 14th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Oh, do lighten up.
World ’tis a silly place….
May 14th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
translation: please stop pointing out how u use ‘leftist’ as an insult ment to silence open debate.
May 14th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
i think it is some people behavious that is silly - not the world
May 14th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
ps carbon news has this:
————–
Most Kiwis believe big emitters running the climate change show
Monday 12 May 08 9:00am
Most New Zealanders think that big greenhouse-gas emitters are calling the shots on the country’s climate change policy, and a Labour-Green coalition is seen as the best combination to manage change, according to a new poll.
A whopping 70 per cent of respondents in the ShapeNZ poll policies say that large businesses with high emissions have the most influence on the Government’s climate change policies, well ahead of the 53 per cent who think that environmental groups hold sway………
May 15th, 2008 at 12:58 am
LOLZ! Go Gareth!
May 15th, 2008 at 2:00 am
greed n power, loved your comedy peice. Like Exxon and Shell will sell petrol at a loss to regain market share! It aint Exxon and Shell that control crude prices, much as they’d like to.
May 15th, 2008 at 6:59 am
Trees
You suggest that the people of NZ “need” to modify their behaviour re climate change, well for that to happen first you have to convince them that climate change is indeed real (an easy task I fear) and then convince them that our efforts can make any difference at all (a near impossible task)
What you suggest will only happen if you FORCE the people of NZ to change their way to do that you must have a mandate, so far the people of NZ have not given you that mandate.
The Greens have already pushed the people of NZ once with the anti family section 59 amendment, if you feel (in the words of Sir Humphrey Appelby) “courageous” enough to try it again then I would suggest that the future of the Green party is not looking that rosy.
Toad
“Pinko” is not a term I would use to describe anybody here at Frogblog (if I have it would have been in the past and I apologise) however watermelon is a fair term to use for some of the members of your party, IMHO it is the term that best describes the new co leader, it is not a term I use as a form of abuse or ridicule.
As for the Norman Jones comment, while you may not like gays being described in that fashion there is no law against it, it will take many generations before all the people of NZ are totally accepting of the gay lifestyle, some of us are accepting that people can and should live how they like but there are still others who are against it and that is their right.
May 15th, 2008 at 7:57 am
Trees
>>silence open debate.
Like calling someone a bigot, you mean?
May 15th, 2008 at 8:32 am
I am not talking about forcing people to act on climate change, some would argue that change is needed, and the longer it is delayed the more dire things will get.
i am talking about people getting together and acting, because government won’t do it for us. as recent events have shown - they will buckle to large vested intrests is farming angri buisness, energy companies and the largest companies that operate in this country.
government will not force change, it will try to appease peoples fears and manipulate those fears to do things like get votes, increase taxation and distract them from taking control of their own lives and working on solutions.
helen clark is clear (so is john key) that they want a ‘clean and green’ brand, the substance is not their concern.
james hansen has a very different take on the issues, i agree with him, not people who are only concerned in our imediate financial situation.
climate change action will cost, not acting will cost. its better to invest now, not in some non defined future (2011.. also happens to be an election year)… delay is not something i believe we can afford to do.
———
You suggest that the people of NZ “need� to modify their behaviour re climate change, well for that to happen first you have to convince them that climate change is indeed real (an easy task I fear) and then convince them that our efforts can make any difference at all (a near impossible task)
————
PS if those rightwingers actually want to learn about ‘watermellons’ read about the socialist (eco socialist) current in the UK greens or read the ‘capitalism nature socialism’ magazine or read the Australian ‘green left weekly’ magazine.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Trees
” am talking about people getting together and acting”
“Act” all you like, however until you have the majority of people supporting you then any actions you do take will be against the wishes of the vast majority of Kiwi’s.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:38 am
http://www.greenleft.org.au Green Left - Australia’s radical weekly newspaper
http://www.cnsjournal.org/ CAPITALISM NATURE SOCIALISM
also read about Derrick Wall from the Uk greens -
Derek Wall is a British politician and current Principal Speaker of the Green Party of England and Wales as well as an environmental and social activist, academic and writer whose work concentrates on eco-socialism and the relationship between Marxism and the environment. Wall is also a Zen-practitioner and keeps a regular blog.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Wall
Wall stresses the importance of combining electoral politics and non-violent direct action to affect change. Babylon and Beyond focuses heavily on unique and creative expressions of anti-capitalist economics and protest, and Wall tells protestors “to keep making noise”[5]. He has cultivated ties with African-American and Afro-Caribbean Green activists and takes a strong interest in the controversial Pennsylvania-based African-American organisation MOVE. From 1995, he helped develop a British-based campaign to free US death row prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal[2].
Eco-socialism, Green socialism or Socialist ecology is an ideology merging aspects of Marxism, socialism, Green politics, ecology and the anti-globalization movement. Eco-socialists generally believe that the expansion of the capitalist system is the cause of social exclusion, poverty and environmental degradation through globalization and imperialism, under the supervision of repressive states and transstatal structures; they advocate the non-violent dismantling of capitalism and the state, focusing on collective ownership of the means of production by freely associated producers and restoration of the Commons.[1]
May 15th, 2008 at 8:38 am
this is derricks blog
http://another-green-world.blogspot.com/
Another Green World
Derek Wall is the Principal Male Speaker of the Green Party of England and Wales. “How to be green? Many people have asked us this important question. It’s really very simple and requires no expert knowledge or complex skills. Here’s the answer. Consume less. Share more. Enjoy life.” Penny Kemp and Derek Wall This blog promotes anti-capitalism, green politics, direct action, practical lifestyle change, Venezuela/Cuba and a touch of Zen. Ecosocialism or muerte!
May 15th, 2008 at 8:40 am
that is not true.
the vast majority os kiwi’s im sure want nz to be more sustainable and want to act on climate chaange - if you have evidence of otherwise (stats) please provide
May 15th, 2008 at 8:40 am
Could I pause everyone’s ranting for a second here.
How priceless is that image - Ronald McDonald getting arrested!
May 15th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Oh and for the off topic post above about petrol prices.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:42 am
>>I am not talking about forcing people to act on climate change
Yes you are.
>>i am talking about people getting together and acting
Nothing is stopping you. Understand if we don’t care to join in.
>>government will not force change
Implying you do want them to force change…
>>manipulate those fears to do things like get votes
Like the more extreme side of the green movement does with AGW, you mean?
>>climate change action will cost
How much, and what will it achieve?
>>not acting will cost
How much? Quantify. If we tax x dollars, the world temperature will decrease by ?
>>its better to invest now, not in some non defined future
Why? If you’re wrong in your calculation, it could be a monumental waste of money. And present an opportunity cost i.e. we could have spent that money on insulating our homes, building sufficient energy infrastructure, subsidizing electric cars, etc….
>>delay is not something i believe we can afford to do
“Believe” being a telling word…
May 15th, 2008 at 8:45 am
>>if you have evidence of otherwise (stats) please provide
I do. Greens hover around 5%, meaning 95% of voters might pay lip service to the idea, but they don’t really want action that will make their lives more difficult.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:49 am
no - the media and the two twin main parties (lab nats) - have a low priority on environmental issues (hence no climate policy from national till just before the election).
therefore they play down concerns and instead talk about youth, low and order and the economy.
a lot of people care about environmental issues and are concerned about climate change. they often dont know what to do about it beyond the small things (personal choices, recycling etc).
greens have more than 5% support. GE issus grew bigger than 5% of the country.
the reality is that buisness is rallying hard to force in a weak ETS, and trying to convince govt and people that this is in our, not their best interest.
climate change effects us all.
not acting will make their lives more difficult.
BP - have you read the stern report???
May 15th, 2008 at 8:49 am
care to go into more detail?
>>manipulate those fears to do things like get votes
Like the more extreme side of the green movement does with AGW, you mean?
May 15th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Age, activism enthusiasm may be good qualities but what’s most important is the way (potential) politicians can critically think through issues and engage others in the process. Gareth looks like just another of the Bradford mold. There seem to be a large cluster in the Green Party whose ideas are so way out there that they are stuck preaching to the converted and being active behind the scenes.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:51 am
are you a climate skeptic
and do you are about anything beyond you imediate financial surroundings?
————–
>>its better to invest now, not in some non defined future
Why? If you’re wrong in your calculation, it could be a monumental waste of money. And present an opportunity cost i.e. we could have spent that money on insulating our homes, building sufficient energy infrastructure, subsidizing electric cars, etc….
>>delay is not something i believe we can afford to do
“Believe� being a telling word…
——————————-
year belief - its a crazy word aye?
i believe in something — you have a point right?
May 15th, 2008 at 8:53 am
gareth is active in the public, you however are inactive and reactive.
sue bradford is one person.
have you ever been involved in activism JH? is so what? and what was your experience?
———-
jh Says:
May 15th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Age, activism enthusiasm may be good qualities but what’s most important is the way (potential) politicians can critically think through issues and engage others in the process. Gareth looks like just another of the Bradford mold. There seem to be a large cluster in the Green Party whose ideas are so way out there that they are stuck preaching to the converted and being active behind the scenes.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Here’s Whale Oil’s contribution to the debate.
May 15th, 2008 at 9:09 am
What a nutty thread…
jh, you have a problem with Gareth’s activism? At the other end of the scale we have John Key not even remembering what his opinion was of the Springbok tour of 1981. I know I prefer someone who gives a damn about the world (obviously Key has some opinions now, but at the age of 26 he was probably pretty insular)
May 15th, 2008 at 9:10 am
do i really want to read that…
May 15th, 2008 at 9:21 am
>>two twin main parties (lab nats) - have a low priority on environmental issues
And why do you think that is? Think focus groups.
>>a lot of people care about environmental issues
Yes, me included.
>>greens have more than 5% support
Even if they had ten percent, you understand my point, yes? If most people are as concerned about it as you make out, you’d get most of the votes. But you don’t….
>>have you read the Stren Report.
I’ve read the summary. I enjoyed this reaction: “Richard Tol, an environmental economist and lead author (amongst a total of over 450 lead authors) for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said that “If a student of mine were to hand in this report as a Masters thesis, perhaps if I were in a good mood I would give him a ‘D’ for diligence; but more likely I would give him an ‘F’ for fail.”
>>care to go into more detail?
Anyone who has ever quoted Al Gore.
>>are you a climate skeptic
No. I know for a fact we have a climate.
>>do you are about anything beyond you imediate financial surroundings?
I don’t understand the question.
May 15th, 2008 at 9:51 am
didnt go into detail, so it was you assumption.
—
are you a global warming denier?
——-
>>are you a climate skeptic
No. I know for a fact we have a climate.
————————————————– the question is what effect are you having on the climate - not wether we have one. dont worry - the flat earth society would always accept you —— flatearthersnz.blogspot.com
May 15th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Trees
I am not the one wanting to cripple the NZ economy, however if it is proof that you want then perhaps the fact that the Greens only just made the 5% threshold last time might suggest that I am right.
Remember you are the one who wants to change things therefore you need to provide the evidence and the proof that the vast majority want change.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:04 am
>>are you a global warming denier
Now, the problem with that question is that it is leading. It assumes that AGW is occurring, and then forces me to admit to being “a denialist”.
I think you’d be more suited to the flat earth society than I. Your position appears to be based on faith, not reason, because the jury is still out of AGW and even more so on the likely effects.
That is the truth, Ruth.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:22 am
congratulations on having the guts to admit you are a climate skeptic.
if you want a job - contact exxon mobil or the heartland institute.
————-
http://www.exxonsecrets.org
May 15th, 2008 at 10:27 am
no the jury is not out, a minority - laregely funded by vested interest lobby groups and oil money - peddle the myth that there is scientific uncertainty.
———–
ps - national will be having some announcements soon:
At last, Nats to tell us where they stand on the ETS
Today 9:00am
John KeyNational will break its silence on Sunday on where it stands on the Government’s emissions trading scheme.
“(National Party leader) John Key is giving a key speech on Sunday around were National sits on the ETS now that all the submissions have been heard,� the party’s climate change spokesman, Nick Smith, told Carbon News today.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:28 am
what influences GWD’s? heres one theory
Eventually I came to think there are three major reasons [for climate-change skepticism].
One is catastrophe overload. The end of the world has been going to come several times, and we’re all still here. So it’s: ‘Wake me up when the real end of the world is coming.’
Then there’s: ‘If this were really as bad as you say, I would feel it by now. There’d be water lapping at my first-floor windows.’ The problem is that the climate operates on a very long time lag, so if you wait until there’s water lapping at your first-floor windows, you can be sure there’s going to be water lapping at your second-floor windows. I don’t think the message has gotten out: changes 30 or 40 years from now are already inevitable. There is warming in the pipeline already.
And then there is this question of what to do. People don’t like to confront problems they don’t have a clear answer to. And the answers here—to the extent there are answers—are very, very complicated. They’re very hard. We know what causes people to be overweight, and we can’t even stop that! And with global warming it’s not as simple as ‘eat less, lose weight.’ It’s ‘do a million things.’ As the mayor of Burlington, Vt., said to me, there’s not one thing we have to do; there are hundreds and hundreds of things we have to do. And we have to do them on a global scale.
So that’s pretty daunting to people. It’s very much easier to pretend the problem doesn’t exist.”
May 15th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Your position appears to be based on faith, not reason, because the jury is still out of AGW and even more so on the likely effects.
In some strange parallel world, perhaps. On this one, the evidence for the fact of global warming is overwhelming, and mankind’s fingerprints are all over it.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Trees
“no the jury is not out, a minority - laregely funded by vested interest lobby groups and oil money - peddle the myth that there is scientific uncertainty”
Telling blatant lies is not going to help your cause, nobody I know is funded by oil money and they all think that climate change is a con peddled by those who see it as a vehicle to crush capitalism.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Good morning
Trees/ BT /BB
Is the point if climate change takes place really that relevant?
Protecting NZ environment and turning the export/import deficit around is all I want. The contribution to climate change will follow, if it does indeed exist.
My point is and I am looking across from Sumner to Christchurch City just now and like most days in the winter I CAN NOT SEE THE CITY ! SMOG IS REAL! RIGHT HERE IN FRONT OF MY NOSE! Old and vunerable young people die every year by the hundreds of SMOG and that is only one issue!
This whole discussion is a farce, there are enough environmental issues right in front of our nose and the economical “outfall” . The longer Kiwi’s choose to spend their money on consumer goods and not on becoming independent and reduce impact on the environment the more this society will become americanised and loose its identity and its wealth (in real terms).
May 15th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Good Morning GNP
May 15th, 2008 at 10:51 am
>>congratulations on having the guts to admit you are a climate skeptic.
You might want to return to school and retake a class in comprehension.
I could dumb it down further for you, but I’m afraid I’d drift into a coma…
>>peddle the myth that there is scientific uncertainty.
But there is scientific uncertainty, and lying about it won’t change that fact.
>>It’s very much easier to pretend the problem doesn’t exist.�
You could turn that analysis back on believers. They may have a doomsday f*t*ish? A thing for end of the world scenarios? They may be frightened? The sublimated desire to wash away all this humanity? An urge to control? An urge to tax?
I certainly find some green thinking to be misanthropic….humans bad, earth mother good.
Here is my issue with it: the jury is still out. And even if it is true, which it might be, we still don’t know what effect it will have. The cure might be worse than the cold…
May 15th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Simon Upton was 23 when he was elected and a Cabinet Minister at 29. Mike Moore was also 23 when he was elected. Deborah Morris was 26. Marilyn Waring was 22.
New Zealand has elected people younger than Gareth into Parliament from across the political spectrum before and, lo, civilisation has not ended.
May 15th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
my favourate skeptic line is: “James Hansen is a bought-by-Kerry communist and his models were fabricated to promote his statist schemes.”
—–
you are in the game of peddling that there is uncertainty.
would ignoring a cold make it go away?
————-
logical science (website) has this:
Here is a list of arguments commonly used by people who are critical of the consensus on climate change. This list will grow over time. All of these arguments have been used by professional climate change critics or reporters who are covering the topic of climate change
——————
“The scientific consensus was wrong about flat earth so how can we trust them now?”
“We can’t predict the weather, so how can we predict the climate?”
“There are scientists that think climate change is not real!”
“The clouds will save us from global warming.”
“Ha! Look at 2006! Where are the hurricanes!??!!”
“Carbon trading is worthless. Kyoto is a scam. It wouldn’t do anything anyway.”
“Scientists are creating a scare to get grant money.”
“The Greenland Ice is expanding!”
“The Hockey Stick is broken. Michael Mann refuses to release his code & data.”
“Atmospheric CO2 levels could NOT have changed global temperatures if the temperature changes occurred FIRST”
“Climate models don’t work. They don’t even ‘predict’ the past.”
“The climate scientists want to make us poor peasants.”
“The warming is natural, the sun & cosmic rays that are heating the earth.”
‘The CO2 readings are wrong and the correct data is being suppressed.’ (Coming Soon)
“James Hansen is a bought-by-Kerry communist and his models were fabricated to promote his statist schemes.”
“The ice core records are unreliable.” (Coming Soon)
“The warming is all from the urban heat island effect.”
“The CO2 will fertilize the plants and increase food production.”
“Water vapor is far more important of a greenhouse gas.”
“Why should I care? It’s only a few degrees this century.” (Coming Soon)
“Stop canonizing others who are in the majority simply because there are more of them.” (Coming Soon)
“Scientists edited satellite data to make it fit the data.” (Coming Soon)
“Why are you pointing out the oil money? Lets ignore the government funded scientists!” (Coming Soon)
“The real consensus is being suppressed.” (Coming Soon)
“The climate scientists want to make us poor peasants.” (Coming Soon)
“There is global warming on Mars!” (Coming Soon)
“The warming and the CO2 will be good for the plants and life in general.” (Coming Soon)
“CO2 was higher in the past and life survived.”
“60 scientists signed an anti-Kyoto letter!” (Coming Soon)
May 15th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
I am talking about organisations such as the climate science coalition ansd heartland foundation
http://www.exxonsecrets.org
“no the jury is not out, a minority - laregely funded by vested interest lobby groups and oil money - peddle the myth that there is scientific uncertainty�
Telling blatant lies is not going to help your cause, nobody I know is funded by oil money and they all think that climate change is a con peddled by those who see it as a vehicle to crush capitalism.
======= i never accused you of having mates on exxon’s payroll
——————–
http://www.exxonsecrets.org -
Documenting Exxon-Mobil’s funding of climate change skeptics.
60/Sixty Plus Association
Accuracy in Academia
Accuracy in Media
Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty
Africa Fighting Malaria
Air Quality Standards Coalition
ALEC - American Legislative Exchange Council
Alexis de Tocqueville Institution
Alliance for Climate Strategies
American Coal Foundation
American Conservative Union Foundation
American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research
American Council on Science and Health
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
American Enterprise Institute-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies
American Friends of the Institute for Economic Affairs
American Petroleum Institute
American Policy Center
American Recreation Coalition
American Spectator Foundation
Americans for Tax Reform
Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy
Arizona State University Office of Cimatology
Aspen Institute
Association of Concerned Taxpayers
Atlantic Legal Foundation
Atlas Economic Research Foundation
Blue Ribbon Coalition
Capital Legal Foundation
Capital Research Center and Greenwatch
Cato Institute
Center for American and International Law
Center for Environmental Education Research
Center for Security Policy
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise
Center for the New West
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Centre for the New Europe
CFACT - Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
Chemical Education Foundation
Citizens for A Sound Economy and CSE Educational Foundation
Citizens for the Environment and CFE Action Fund
Clean Water Industry Coalition
Climate Research Journal
Communications Institute
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Congress of Racial Equality
Consumer Alert
Cooler Heads Coalition
Council for Solid Waste Solutions
DCI Group
Defenders of Property Rights
Earthwatch Institute
ECO or Environmental Conservation Organization
European Enterprise Institute
ExxonMobil Corporation
Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies
Fraser Institute
FREE - Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment
Free Enterprise Action Institute
Free Enterprise Education Institute
Frontiers of Freedom Institute and Foundation
George C. Marshall Institute
George Mason University, Law and Economics Center
Global Climate Coalition
Great Plains Legal Foundation
Greening Earth Society
Harvard Center for Risk Analysis
Heartland Institute
Heritage Foundation
Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University
Hudson Institute
Illinois Policy Institute
Independent Commission on Environmental Education
Independent Institute
Institute for Biospheric Research
Institute for Energy Research
Institute for Regulatory Science
Institute for Senior Studies
Institute for the Study of Earth and Man
Institute of Humane Studies, George Mason University
Interfaith Stewardship Alliance
International Climate Science Coalition
International Council for Capital Formation
International Policy Network - North America
International Republican Institute
James Madison Institute
Junkscience.com
Landmark Legal Foundation
Lexington Institute
Lindenwood University
Mackinac Center
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research
Media Institute
Media Research Center
Mercatus Center, George Mason University
Mountain States Legal Foundation
National Association of Neighborhoods
National Black Chamber of Commerce
National Center for Policy Analysis
National Center for Public Policy Research
National Council for Environmental Balance
National Environmental Policy Institute
National Legal Center for the Public Interest
National Mining Association
National Policy Forum
National Wetlands Coalition
National Wilderness Institute
New England Legal Foundation
New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
Pacific Legal Foundation
Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy
Peabody Energy
PERC - Property and Environment Research Center, formerly Political Economy Research Center
Public Interest Watch
Reason Foundation
Reason Public Policy Institute
Science and Environmental Policy Project
Seniors Coalition
Shook, Hardy and Bacon LLP
Small Business Survival Committee
Southeastern Legal Foundation
Stanford University GCEP
Statistical Assessment Service (STATS)
Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station
Texas Public Policy Foundation
The Advancement of Sound Science Center, Inc.
The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition
The Justice Foundation (formerly Texas Justice Foundation)
The Locke Institute
United for Jobs
University of Oklahoma Foundation, Inc.
US Russia Business Council
Virginia Institute for Public Policy
Washington Legal Foundation
Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy
Western Fuels
World Affairs Councils of America
World Climate Report
May 15th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Tell you a story.
I used to work in the UK, on Y2K. There was so much work, we could not keep up with it. The press was all over this story, and talking up doomsday scenarios, day in, day out. For three years. Many are still online: tinyurl.com/544fcw ; tinyurl.com/4t273r
But you know what?
We weren’t finding problems.
There were minor issues here and there, but nothing that would lead to catastrophic failure. But we kept selling hand over fist because demand was escalating.
Why?
People had huge budgets allocated to “deal with the problem”, which they then used to upgrade their IT infrastructure. They got new toys. They were happy to buy into the myth, and the government/public were more than happy to hand over the cash. The industry was flush with loot.
So, the industry would talk it up to reporters, who were more than happy to talk it up further, as it sold more papers.
The scaremongering was getting so absolutely ridiculous, it was no longer funny.
Friends asked what I’d be doing on New Years Eve.
“Out drinking”, I replied.
“Aren’t you worried about the computer systems shutting down? Th electricity going off? Chaos?”, they said.
“Nope. Nothing will happen”.
And it didn’t. There was a grain of truth in there, and there were some issues, but the propaganda went off the scale.
The moral of the story is:
be careful who you listen to. And - most importantly - follow the money.
May 15th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
bp
Green thinking being misanthropic? Why then a concern for the survival of future generation versus kapitalistic greed raping the environment for what? Another gadget or a new car? A bit more power, another house in the portfolio?
How much money is enough, in the hand of a view captains of the financial univers? Where is the ethic? EVEN the catholic church has caught up with it (and yes, look who is talking) and declared greed a mortal sin…lol
May 15th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
I know Gareth. He is one of the most intellegent people I know (and for the record, I know quite a few pretty smart people, both young and old), also he very humble and modest (in the literal sense, not the sarcastic term used earlier), and he is age is an asset. At 26 he is more prepared than most 50 year olds to know how important standing up for the environment is, and how vital it is to work toward a positive climate outcome. If there were more young people like him around, I would feel a lot better about the future of this country. And this world. Well done Gareth, good on you. You have my support, and my vote.
May 15th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Does anyone else think he is pretty cute?
May 15th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
I couldn’t give a toss what the Catholic Church has to say. Are you going to advocate their views on contraception as well?
>>kapitalistic greed raping
Oh for crying out loud, greed is relative. Why haven’t you sold all your possessions and gone to live on a commune, hmmm?
May 15th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Greed
What is your answer then?…a socialist state with a one party system?
I think that might have been tried before.
May 15th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
bp
It is an ethical point of discussion…for me it is not about socialism or one party bollocks… its about
The right of an individual to amass possessions in relationship to the responsibility to the community that the individual ‘draws’ these possessions from…In my books, that is out of balance. It is largely due to the fact that a lot of people teach their children that greed is something to aspire to, not social responsibility. And yes I suppose its very hard to get this point across to you guys, being stuck in your categorised thinking processes…
May 15th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
frogblog sure has been getting a lot louder lately
May 15th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
And once again, define “greed”. Do you believe in personal possessions? Why?
I put it to you that we’re all on a continuum, so your definition can only ever be subjective.
Why do you think I’m not socially responsible, or don’t value social responsibility? I pay my taxes. I give to charity. I save a lot more than I spend. I intend to give the whole lot away before I die in particular, I’ll be insisting my forestry land is never developed. An ongoing gift of nature to the community and to the animals and birds who live within.
How about you?
May 15th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
I think if one looks at the paper/article Gareth aka BuccolicOldSirHenry linked to, one would see the effects of warming NOW, as opposed to all that Y2K stuff.
May 15th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Greed
The only responsibility I have is to my family and my pets, if I am in a position to help others then I will but my first priority is to my own.
Why on earth should I be FORCED to pay for other peoples kids or “help” them with their problems?
Why is this such a hard thing for you to accept?, what is it about personal responsibility that you find so difficult to understand?
May 15th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Hey slow down….assuming does not help to find common ground…
I own a free hold house I have savings and did run a great company in toursim…and I am just as much responsible for some of the ills in this world as the next person. I am not pointing the finger! OK! I am doing just my bit just like you. Forcing people to help, yes! I would cap incomes at say 2 million a year. Yes! I would force responsiblility on faceless corperation raping the land…yes, but I am not an old commy from way back, dreaming about the return of Lenin or Mao…the scandinavian system would be maybe something to consider…No I do not want to take grand dads hart earned and pass it on to some burocrates!!!
Not all Greens are communists…ok…I would say there are non…
May 15th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
‘cap incomes’??! Maybe you should think your posts through a bit, rather than using the ‘train of thought’ approach.
May 15th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
S R
Tell me more about that, train of thought…I am curious
May 15th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
bugger, I meant ’stream of consciousness’
May 15th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream_of_consciousness_writing
May 15th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
greed n power
Well I’d recommend we look at the conditions that concentrates money and power in the hands of the wealthy, rather than expecting government (which i institution that is responsible for the problem in the first place) to be the solution.
I mean just look at the United States. The development of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913 , which gave private banks the de jure monopoly over the CREATION (not loan) of credit and money has resulted in the current economic crisis AND the potential for those responsible to buy up infrastructure critical to transport, trade and enterprise and for its new owners to dictate the price of use for years to come and will bring Thomas Jefferson’s greatest fear to reality.
“… if the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks…will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered…. Thomas Jefferson.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57717
May 15th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
sleepy
Ever thought that those who do have the money (if not the power) worked bloody hard for it?
May 15th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
bb
Like in the case of Rothschild and co?
May 15th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
thinking these ‘communist’ thoughts again (can not help myself, lol) : the stats on happiness and wealth, wealthy people are encouraging environmental destruction and are not happier for it…so what is point to amass huge wealth in the first place? Is it creative to wreck the planet in order to have more useless stuff or live decadent life styles…
May 15th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
So please those people promoting the kapitalist nirwana, tell me what is life about?
May 15th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
BB,
And pigs fly!
Theres plenty of working poor that work bloody hard too and they’re the ones struggling to make ends meet.
May 15th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
To come back to the young Gareth…I think he has purpose, meaning, and love for the people and the world he lives in, a quality I have trouble noticing in most mature, self important, power greedy politicians in da house…
And I hope he will give them a run for their money by pulling a great big mirror out of his pocket to show them how lost they really are!
May 15th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Sleepy
Get a grip!
That’s how most start out, if you are indeed one of the hard working poor (as I was) and you have some personal responsibility and a goal/dream then you WILL be rewarded.
I have no time for those who suggest that the “system” is designed to keep people down, what “hard working poor” need is encouragement and mentoring, they do not need bloody meddling socialists telling them that the only way they can improve themselves is by way of handouts from government.
May 15th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
As far as I can tell, no one is saying that will ‘improve’ them, it is more a way to help cope, pay for the kids’ clothes, etc..
May 15th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Jumping in now the water’s well on the way to boiling - whew!
Back on-point:
Gareth would have to be one of the most ethically committed young men I have met in the past 8 years of campaigning around green issues (not to say anything bad about others who I’ve worked with, BTW, in case anyone’s counting!)
It has always been a pleasure to work with him, he’s a natural people-person, and has a huge compassion for environmental and social justice issues.
I’ve been priviledged to know his partner, and to watch them together become caring and committed parents of their first child.
I’m mildly amused by how far off reality some of these comments are, from people who obviously neither know him, nor care how inaccurate their perceptions are.
As someone who’s had to back-peddle on activism lately, I consider myself very lucky that there are talented and able young greens like Gareth (and several others…) who are prepared to step up and take more responsible positions, and inject some fresh energy into the national campaign.
Good luck Gareth - and I know you’ll be putting in as much effort as any 2 or 3 other people might individually!
May 15th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Katie, unfortunately that tends to be the way of the blogosphere. I’ve happened to see him talk a few times in Wellington and he seemed fairly articulate and well spoken, so could do a lot worse!
As for BP’s comment about home ownership re: “The public has no idea about what they should be doing, due to a lack of education.”, maybe people aren’t thinking rationally/long term - there are all sorts of long-term savings and health benefits to those measures, but people often won’t/can’t think that far ahead. Or perhaps they are spending the money on investments and getting rich, hell if i know.
May 15th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
>>people aren’t thinking rationally/long term
The numbers don’t work.
In our case, it was cheaper, and warmer, to install central heating and pay the power bill.
If the Greens made a little more effort to understand incentives, rather than lecturing us and saying we have “no idea….”
May 15th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
StephenR Says:
May 15th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
> maybe people aren’t thinking rationally/long term - there are all sorts of long-term savings and health benefits to those measures, but people often won’t/can’t think that far ahead.
it may also be due to the fact that we have the highest interest rates in the OECD. High interest rates make spending money now for savings later less attractive than it would otherwise be (because the savings later have to be correspondingly greater for it to break even).
May 15th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
might as well contine this on the 21,000 homes thread http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2008/05/15/21000-warmer-state-home s/#comments
May 15th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
yes
May 16th, 2008 at 7:10 am
The Gareth here.
It has been interesting to read all the posts here. I just wanted to say, if anyone has any questions for me, about me, or about my motivation for standing – post ‘em here, and I’ll answer them.
I was really anxious (and honestly) a little scared putting my hand up to stand as a candidate this election – politicians aren’t the most respected…or trusted people in our society, and for a mid-twenty year-old, not the coolest either.
Still, I’m stoked to be standing as a Green and think it’s important that young people take an interest in politics. And also take a stand.
May 16th, 2008 at 7:53 am
Good morning Gareth
Great to hear from you! Q. Have you got support? To do a role like that you will need a view solid people to support you…practically and emotionally…Do you know any PR managers? Councelors? other MP’ with a support net work in place?
All the best and keep your vision…
May 16th, 2008 at 8:08 am
# StephenR Says:
jh, you have a problem with Gareth’s activism? At the other end of the scale we have John Key not even remembering what his opinion was of the Springbok tour of 1981. I know I prefer someone who gives a damn about the world (obviously Key has some opinions now, but at the age of 26 he was probably pretty insular)
………………………………..
No I read the links and saw “worked on S59″ etc and I thought here’s another convert to the Green Party religion. There are a lot of people who believe we have lost our way but that doesn’t mean we agree with the policies you’d expect from a party with Sue Bradford, Keith Locke, Metiria Turie as its MP’s. It must be hard for any moderates to get on with the incumbents.
May 16th, 2008 at 8:21 am
Good morning Gareth:
Are there any Green Party Policies you don’t agree with?
May 16th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Good morning.
Do I have support: Yip, I have a great team: a PR manager, media advisor, counsellor, personal vegetarian chef…all rolled into my wife, Meghan, The supermum!
To get to your real question though - the Greens are a close bunch and there’s plenty of support. I know all the MPs and they are a great bunch of supportive people.
Any policies I don’t agree with: If there were, this wouldn’t be the forum to vent about them. The Greens have a robust and member-run policy process and I’m happy with the consensus-based-wisdom our members come up with.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Good morning Gareth.
If the environmental cost of using rail is lower than the alternatives, would this be a good reason to advocate the use of rail? Is the opposite also true?
May 16th, 2008 at 9:27 am
I’m not sure that was the kind of question Gareth was offering to answer…
May 16th, 2008 at 10:11 am
tut-tut
May 16th, 2008 at 11:25 am
The environmental costs of using rail are lower than alternatives so it is a good thing to advocate.
However, I get your question - what if scientists developed a super-low-environmental footprint car - should we then sack the rail workers, sell off the tracks again, run down the infrastructure in favour of the eco-car?
Well I don’t think so, because that would be a short-sighted and narrow decision. Greens don’t encourage rail, just because of its savings of GHGs; but because of the environmental savings; the energy savings and foreign exchange savings; it reduces particulates that saves lives; it is also because it helps free up our roads from truck/freight congestion; and because it is vital infrastructure. This is what Greens bring to the debate - a holistic framework.
The challenge for Aotearoa is now that we own the tracks and trains - what are we going to do with it? Are we going keep it as is, a second rate, slow and unpopular system or really invest in it and modernise it - make it faster, more frequent and greener (run on renewable electricity)? I hope we pick the later, because come 2011 when all those tourists arrive from overseas they are going to are going to look around and ask’ where are the trains?’ “Because I saw the ad and I heard NZ was clean and green,” and that your Prime Minister was a “Champion of the Environment”.
Recent stats from the UK show that rail travel is now as high as it was 50 years ago.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:31 am
I don’t think anyone whose posted has it in for Gareth, but when you join one group people will scrutinise the thinking behind that.
I feel that the present admin are stuffing up a good idea because they are dominated by a group who are around the corner and out of sight.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Really glad you’re posting here Gareth - of course when you mention renewables, inevitably the question of ‘what about building more dams?’ comes up, as well as ‘wind doesn’t cut it!’…
May 16th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Yeah I know: “the charter is our road map through all issues”.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:43 am
“The challenge for Aotearoa is now that we own the tracks and trains”
Gareth do you favor an official name change (ie drop Aotearoa/NZ)?
May 16th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Thanks Gareth.
Here is the data from the Ministry of Transports Cost and Charges Study
Environmental costs per net tonne km in NZ$
Wellington-Auckland rail NZ$0.008, road NZ$0.006
Napier-Gisborne rail NZ$0.002, road NZ$0.002
Kinleith-Tauranga rail NZ$0.001, road NZ$0.004
On certain routes (Well-Auck), the environmental cost is lower for road than for rail. Therefore, would it be sensible to promote road for these journeys?
>>a holistic framework
You argument for rail is that the overall cost is lower. What if the overall cost was higher? And/or on selected routes?
>>where are the trains
Not something I’ve ever asked when I’m a tourist, but each to his own.
My question is more like: what is the best way to get x? If the answer is “train”, I take it. But if the answer is “car”, I’d be annoyed to be forced onto a high priced train, simply because someone in charge had an irrational dislike of cars.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Yip, I favour a name change and more broadly, I favour using Te Reo heaps more in lots of different areas.
For a start I’d love just to change our island’s names - I think its a bit too boringly descriptive - we have a ‘north’ one and a ’south’ one.
I’d prefer Te Ika a Maui, for NI and Te Waipounamu for SI.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
I agree with Gareth about changing the name of the North and South Island. I remember being overseas a few years ago, and telling someone about NZ, and they laughed when I talked about the N and S Islands. I didn’t get why until they asked me if it was a joke, and what the proper names for the islands were. But other than embarassment, changing the name would better acknowledge the original names of the land, and not the uncreative labelling of a foreign white guy.
And Blue Peter - what were the indicators and parameters for the “environmental costs” of rail vs car? Where can this data be found, out of interest??
I have had a couple of overseas friends lament the state (and cost) of our train network. To think - Lyon to Paris in two hours, which is roughly the same distance as Wellington to, I guess, Rotorua. If only we had the forward thinking to improve our rail network to be even half that great….
May 16th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Well you should note that France and the UK have *much* higher population densities, making rail travel more economical over there (I assume). i.e. the government has spent money on infrastructure that could take say, 20 trains per day, but as it stands, it probably only makes sense to send a one or two a day between Rotorua and Auckland, if that!
May 16th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
whoops substitute ‘Wellington’ for Auckland there.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Speaking very generally young people can indeed be naive and could do with more life experience. And speaking generally older people can likewise be bigoted and set in their ways.
On the other hand, young people have drive, enthusiasm and idealism, and older people have wisdom and experience.
Which shows we need a good mixture of both in our elected parliamentarians. It is what diversity is all about, gaining the advantages from peoples’ different strengths.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
J.A. Prufrock
>>Where can this data be found
Ministry of Transports Cost and Charges Study.
The point is also a general one. If rail does carry a higher cost, in all respects, on various routes, then backing rail over road becomes religion, not a rational decision.
As Gareth says: “The environmental costs of using rail are lower than alternatives so it is a good thing to advocate”. Therefore, the converse must be true. “The environmental costs of rail are higher than alternatives so it is a poor thing to advocate”.
I would expect Gareth, should he become a representative, to make the smart decision, based on sound data. Anything else wouldn’t be…well…smart, would it?
>>Lyon to Paris
Population density, suitable tunnels and gauge, and suitable terrain.
Rail is also heavily subsidised. New Zealand has different conditions, therefore direct comparisons are of little use.
May 16th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Some things are BIGGER than politics ….and
Gareth Says:
May 16th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Yip, I favour a name change [NZ] and more broadly, I favour using Te Reo heaps more in lots of different areas.
………………
if you Greens get your way your gonna get busy on us…..
May 16th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Gareth Says:
May 16th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Yip, I favour a name change and more broadly, I favour using Te Reo heaps more in lots of different areas.
> For a start I’d love just to change our island’s names - I think its a bit too boringly descriptive - we have a ‘north’ one and a ’south’ one.
> I’d prefer Te Ika a Maui, for NI and Te Waipounamu for SI.
Te Waipounamu is a good name. But I’m sceptical about Te Ika a Maui - it means ‘the fish of Maui’. With the deep layers of metaphor that are common in Maori there’s nothing wrong with that, but I think many non maori-speakers would find the idea of living on a fish somewhat peculiar. Aotearoa was originally a Maori name for the North Island, and it would serve that purpose better than Te Ika a Maui. And some of my friends in Otago and South Canterbury get miffed being told they live in Aotearoa, when they don’t.
May 17th, 2008 at 2:49 am
One big problem with making rail effective in this country is that trains don’t like tight curves or steep gradient. To avoid that with our often rugged terrain means extensive use of tunnels and viaducts. These are very carbon intensive structures. That is something we have to think very carefully about. I don’t have a problem with Sue’s Bill that sets a timetable to electrify the busiest portions of the rail network apart from the Christchurch-Picton not being on the list and the timeframe being a bit lengthy in a world of peaking oil. To the best of my knowledge the carbon emitted making the electric cables and locomotives would probably be less than a years worth of emissions from the current diesel electric locos.
Howver we shouldn’t exagerate the co2 or crash reductions that would occur if half the freight carried by truck was transferred to rai