Comments on: Goodbye Charlie Pedersen

By: Richard Hurst

Richard Hurst — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 22:06:51 +0000

unaha-closp: I just read your excellant comment:

“You Greens are in a similar position, requiring 5% of the vote. People will not vote for you if you ask them to make sacrifices, change their lifestyles or pay more. So you decide to load small sector of the population with a burden of being official “polluters�? - in this case farmers. It is a very good political ploy and is likely to gain you much more than 5% of the vote - I salute you on your anticipated electoral success.”

You have hit the nail right on the head and put into words what anyone who steps back and takes a good hard look at the Greens and their tactics can see. I can only echo Panda’s comment:

CLAP CLAP CLAP.

Please, Please, Please unaha-closp, please start a blog I want to read more of what you have to say!
Well done!

By: Sapient

Sapient — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 02:49:16 +0000

I also say that anything which depletes a national good for capital gain should be made to pay for that depletion so that ultimatly the nation does not loose out big time like it does currently.
Also, in my previous comment;by credits i mean carbon equvilency credits, so it includes most greenhouse gases and mustr be accounted for through their relative carbon equivlency in terms of radiative forcing.

By: Sapient

Sapient — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 02:45:30 +0000

I say we should impliment a carbon trading MARKET within new zealand with a base rate of zero with those who produce the credits being able to sell them and those who use them being obligated to purchase, the government could of course initialy use their kyoto allowance while the market starts up and then switch to using a fraction of the credits produced by new zealand land and sea reserves.
it would increase the price of nz goods and decrease nz ability to compete in the high carbon producing industries though. so, asmuch as i hate the idea of tariffs and subsidies, we place a carbon equalising tariff on imported goods from non carbon accounting countries and possibly do the reverse for exports, though since our trade deficit isint so much in high carbon producing imports it may cause a problem. but it equalises the nz market and along with other innititives such as a decreased income tax rate for R&D and increased educational grants for engineering, would help with the change to a high-tech, high-wage and low-carbon economy.

By: StephenR

StephenR — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 01:59:44 +0000

okay unaha-closp, it just usually means people can’t bear to say Labour, for some reason.

kiore1, right, as Fitzsimmons HAS said many a time, but the government needs money, and that’s a pretty easy and steady way of getting it. I wonder what sort of an effect reduced pollution would have on tax takes and thus govt spending - reduced pollution = worse social services?

By: kiore1

kiore1 — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 01:02:02 +0000

The Green party policy is to reduce income taxes at the lowest level, so this should satisfy both Sam and unaha-closp. Personally I think it is daft to tax work, which most of us think is good, but not pollution, which most of us think is bad.

By: unaha-closp

unaha-closp — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 01:00:18 +0000

Really, why not just say ‘Labour’.

Because it would be unfair to socialists. Labour is so poll driven they would cut relative social benefits to generational lows for a few votes.

By: StephenR

StephenR — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:29:30 +0000

The socialists will scream bloody murder

Really, why not just say ‘Labour’.

By: unaha-closp

unaha-closp — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:24:37 +0000

Sam Buchanan, Imitation, sincerity, all that. Putting a carbon consumption tax on imported and locally produced goods and using the money to buy carbon credits doesn’t seem such a bad idea, as long as the income taxation rates are reduced to cover food price increases. The socialists will scream bloody murder though, and the Kyoto Treaty might put a nix on it as it targets consumption and not production, so I can’t see it happening.

By: Sam Buchanan

Sam Buchanan — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:05:23 +0000

Putting a small tax on imported and locally produced food and using the money to make NZ farms more sustainable and improve the rural environment in general doesn’t seem such a bad idea, as long as the minimum wage and benefits increase to cover food price increases. The neo-liberals will scream bloody murder though, and the WTO might put a nix on it, so I can’t see it happening.

By: StephenR

StephenR — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:29:06 +0000

It’s great that they do all this Panda, but they aren’t doing it out of charity. Woohoo, I get to use an Adam Smith quote:

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”

They don’t give a toss about us - it is simply the most profitable way to use a particular resource - land. If flowers were profitable, they’d grow that. Money would still flow into the economy of course.