treesoftomorrow Says:
May 18th, 2008 at 12:39 pm

what is your alternative to environmentalism with social factors?
……..
A political party can’t be purely environmental ,especially as it is humans who are the problem.
Perhaps I misunderstand where various Green Party ideas are coming from but a lot of it seems opposed to the sort of society I’m reasonably comfortable with … I represent a group who are doing ok but not rich* who feel a bit of resentment when (during times of full employment) we hear “beneficiaries this and beneficiaries that”. I also feel the Greens have dropped the ball (wanting to be welcoming and opened armed to immigrants and out active in the international sphere) as great changes swept over the country undermining the average citizen. The foxes have been allowed to mind the chicken coop. I don’t associate the Green party with the urban environment I see around me, (in fact I feel as though we are the enemy) and you won’t be happy until there’s “heaps of te reo” signs , name changes etc. Another thing is the knee jerk reaction to any police action… this appears to be a unique response from those who see society as the enemy rather than anything sensible.

If what we call the “left” are active and dominant in the green Party it would be helpful to know where they are coming from (their text books) rather than hiding behind the Charter. I tend to think that complex problems should be attacked carefully, with lots of eyes and with an open mind.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

It’s heavily taxed.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

BP: I should have said “heavily subsidised�. I’m aware solar is part subsidised.

Ahem, and oil is not heavily subsidised?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

no – u fail to notice phrases like – social justice, climate justice and environmental justice.

socialism failed to factor in environmental factors, and was very similar to capitalism – the USSR and USA had a lot of similarities in the cold war. so going back to some of the given ‘truths’ or whatever is rather needed.

is a ‘watermellon’ is a red green, what is someone who pretends to be green to get money? or support for a non sustainable company.

what is your alternative to environmentalism with social factors?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

# treesoftomorrow Says:
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]
…………………………………………………………
The big attraction is getting at capitalism by way of saving the environment.
The above post explains what motivates water melons…… don’t try to interpret the Green Charter, it is just an excuse.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

The storm doors do work well. Kiwis don’t know what they are.

My grandparents (Italian) used to have them….

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

The methods of achieving effective double glazing vary. Not all are equally costly and some methods may seem archaic.

I grew up with a house that had two sets of exterior windows fixtures. Every spring you hung the screens and had single glazing and opened windows and had no flies. Every Fall you hung the windows and had double glazing and a warm house.

That’s not all that g’dammed hard to do. It really really isn’t. I looked for a storm door here for a month or so and gave it up. I’ll have to build my own…

That’s a market failure. I don’t even have confidence that folks here know what a storm door is. I described it to a couple of people who SHOULD know and they couldn’t work out what it was or why I wanted one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_door

The southerly was pretty fierce that year too.

As for the cost. It depends on whether I have to build it myself or import if from the USA… or could get one here.

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Because more horse more bridlepaths transport system also failed because of the air pollution and biofuels problem.

Because we tried trains and trams but all they did was create urban sprawl.

The only transport system we haven’t tried is terraced housing right next to factories. After all, how many people do you see driving to work on Coronation Street?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

the other factor on co2 – is that a lot of coal is transported by train. so over all emissions would rise, also if trains are electric and some power came from huntly or a genesis gas station… its still fossil fuel based.

so what are trains being used for and what are the running on (diesel or coal fired power…?), just because something i train doesnt mean it is going to be low emissions..

———
on another point why are we following a failed transport system, of more cars more motorways..?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

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 rail. That means reducing the tonne/km by half. To do that would mean eliminating almost all line-haul trucks. It would not be able to reduce the tonnage rural trucks and city delivery trucks on local roads since they go where the rails don’t go. Linehaul trucks are generally the biggest trucks and have the load factors, ie they rarely carry oneway loads. Consequently reducing the tonne/km by half only reduces truck km by one-third. Since linehaul trucks operate on the most fuel efficient part of the roading network and have a superior tare/gross ratio compared with smaller trucks the reduction in fuel use and carbon emissions could be only one-quarter. A lot better than nothing but still only half of what the tonne/km reduction instinctively suggests.

The law of conservation of momentum also dictates that the reduction in casualties from cars crashing into trucks will only fall by a maximum of one-third because at typical open road closing speeds a relative mass ratio of 5 to 1 is all thats needed to produce a 99% probability of fatal injury to occupants of the smaller vehicle, ie 2 tonne car/10 tonne truck.

Personally I don’t have a problem with surface mail taking a week instead of a couple of days. Or stock truck drivers being replaced with drovers.

Gareth, Do you see any point in bringing back the trams (in the form of light rail) without first bringing back mixed use zoning? Today’s small factories don’t produce the amount of odours and smoke that inspired single use zoning in the first place. IMHO giving people the choice of living close enough to walk or cycle to work is at least as important as providing the choice of PT or cars.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

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.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

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…..

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

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.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

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.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

whoops substitute ‘Wellington’ for Auckland there.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

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!

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

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….

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

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.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

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.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“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)?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)