24 hours
The cliché goes that a lot can change in 24 hours, particularly in politics. Needless to say I haven’t read them myself, but some poor souls are wading through over 700 email responses that Jeanette has received in just the first 24 hours.
Ask, and you shall receive. It seems that Kiwis do have something to say about the Emissions Trading Scheme, and one theme that is constant, from both supporters and opponents, is a big thank you for asking. It is also becoming apparent that the ordinary punters, who know very little about the details (and don’t want to), do realise that it is a fine balancing act and that compromises will be needed all around. What is also clear from both sides is that most agree that doing something about climate change and our emissions is urgent.
I’m taking heart from this great result. keep the feedback coming. If you haven’t said your peace, feel free to do so at ets@greens.org.nz
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:14 pm
I can’t believe I’m quoting Chris Trotter:
“Chris goes on to ask where was this commitment to follow the people when they foisted the anti-smacking law on a populace that didn’t want it.”
And DPF says:
“It is a stunt, and I feel sorry for all the people who take the time to e-mail in their views on a decision that has already been made in substance, if not in form.”
Eh, Greens. What on earth are you doing?
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:15 pm
From the DimPost:
” Aren’t the Green MP’s supposed to be experts in this very area? Don’t they claim to know more about it than almost everyone in the country? And haven’t they specifically been elected on the basis of this expertise with the expectation that they can make informed decisions about environmental policy?
They’ve spent the last three years lecturing the country in a condescending manner to ‘buy kiwi made’ and not to smack your kids - but when it comes to the issue that is the raison d’etre for their party they’re little lost sheep.
As Paula points out this might just be a stunt, or a bargaining strategy. If that’s the case its a conspicuously stupid one.”
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Hmmmm, seems straightforward to me. Not belting kids is a no brainer. Deciding how the world will see New Zealand as an environmental leader, given the only proposal on the table is not good - thats a much harder choice. Its the old question - is something bad better than nothing at all. I think not, but I suspect there are others who disagree.
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:32 pm
>>Not belting kids is a no brainer.
Seems you are another one who can’t tell the difference between “kidnapping” and being “sent to their room”.
>>Deciding how the world will see New Zealand as an environmental leader
Who is truly STUPID enough to believe this? The world doesn’t know where NZ is, and they certainly do not look to NZ for leadership. They never have done.
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:33 pm
It seems that Kiwis do have something to say about the Emissions Trading Scheme, and one theme that is constant, from both supporters and opponents, is a big thank you for asking.
Which really sticks it to the anti-democrats like Trotter, who seem to think you shouldn’t ask on a genuinely frought decision.
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Frog (and Jeanette etc.) - is there any possibility of letting the public (i.e. me
know more about caps and the allocation process as they currently stand?
I couldn’t get any real idea about this from the press conference Jeanette held yesterday, and understand the confidentiality you’re being forced into, but any information you are able to release would be helpful in allowing the public to comment.
August 22nd, 2008 at 5:07 pm
It’s not a stunt, the Greens are the experts in the field and they genuinely do want to know how we all feel about this. What’s difficult to understand? D.Farrar and Trotter are deeply cynical people with axes to grind and quota to fill.
August 22nd, 2008 at 5:33 pm
I’ll second George’s queries. Caps and allocation are big issues which affect the effectiveness and fairness of the scheme respectively; it woul dbe nice to have more details.
August 22nd, 2008 at 5:36 pm
I can understand Ferrar talking such crap - its his job after all. Chris I don’t understand not seeing the huge difference in those two bills though, not to mention that the Greens have been negotiating publicly on this one for months. But then we are talking about Cruise Missile Trotter, who somehow managed to support the US bombing of Kosovo. He just loses it from time to time.
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:25 pm
The total has now broken 1100 emails!
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:14 pm
# BluePeter Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:14 pm
> “Chris goes on to ask where was this commitment to follow the people when they foisted the anti-smacking law on a populace that didn’t want it.�
The difference is that the policies the Green MPs were elected on included a commitment to repeal Section 59 if the got the chance. However, Green Party policy is not clear on just how many faults with emissions trading legislation it takes to make passing it worse than not passing it.
> And DPF says:
> “It is a stunt, and I feel sorry for all the people who take the time to e-mail in their views on a decision that has already been made in substance, if not in form.�
> Eh, Greens. What on earth are you doing?
Not what David Farrar claims they are doing. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about. I’m pretty certain this consultation is because the deal they’ve been able to negotiate is sufficiently borderline that the Green MPs are actually finding it difficult to work out whether it’s worth agreeing to or not.
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Frog
“The total has now broken 1100 emails”
Really?…and let me guess, they are all in favour of you supporting Labours ETS.
I can just see the press release now…”while the Greens have major reservations about the ETS as it is written we have bowed to the will of the people”
You really should stop treating the public like fools Frog, they did not buy your crap about two candidates “standing aside of their own free will” and they are not going to buy this.
Why don’t you just be honest for a change, why not issue a press release like this…………. “the Greens have major concerns about the ETS but we consider that to not pass the bill would be playing into the hands of the incoming National government, given that we are a party of the left and hope top form the next govt with Labour we have decided too support the ETS as it stands”
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Kahikitea -
nice analysis, but fundamentally, DPF has never had much of a grip, he’s just spinning away trying to get light on his own petty concerns.
I think you may have hit the button square-on, though, on why the consultation. There’s been a lot of discussion across the spectrum of green membership on this one, wherever two or three are gathered together, indeed.
Moderation of hard-line positions has been mooted. Especially with regard to the published letters-to-editors and suchlike, which give some idea of public opinion outside our close-affinity-community-of-interest (a risk factor for all policy development, but doubly so when a committed, conscientious green membership take months to make input to the development of something like policy around emissions trading/sustainable resource management).
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:29 pm
“Really?…and let me guess, they are all in favour of you supporting Labours ETS.”
Bad guess, big bro, Jeanette’s press release this morning said they were split, but don’t let the facts hold you back, just change your story now to say how obvious it is that the negative ones will just be ignored.
Very good evidence that the Greens haven’t decided whether to support the ETS is that even greens on this blog have taken completely opposite positions. Oh wait, Jeanette must have put us up to it, just part of her grand conspiracy against the public isn’t it, big bro.
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Just got a txt. 1350 emails!! That’s almost double the total since 4 pm.
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Valis Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:29 pm
> Bad guess, big bro, Jeanette’s press release this morning said they were split, but don’t let the facts hold you back, just change your story now to say how obvious it is that the negative ones will just be ignored.
why do you suppose that Big Bro would feel the need to change his prediction to fit in with something as trifling as facts?
August 23rd, 2008 at 12:27 am
Greenpeace is telling its supporters to email the greens so don’t get to excited about all those emails from a broad cross section of NZ societey.
What a disgrace our democracy is in, in this country.
The greens are flip flopping on the ETS and now they are blaming it on democratic process.
You need to ask NZ parents how we feel about your social medling, then you will get truly impressive results.
Please hold a social policy poll , I dare you.
August 23rd, 2008 at 7:05 am
hmm..!..the (incrementalist) greenpeace point of view..
..no surprises there..!
bah..!
“..http://whoar.co.nz/2008/greenpeace-weighs-in-with-the-incrementalis t-point-of-viewwellthey-wouldehand-could-these-herald-reporters-please -do-their-job-properly/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 23rd, 2008 at 7:06 am
frog..!..how come i can’t post a link..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 23rd, 2008 at 7:49 am
Valis
I do not need to suggest that negative responses will be ignored, Toad has already said that they will.
Do try and keep up.
August 23rd, 2008 at 7:52 am
and for those uncertain as to the urgencies around this issue..
..and as to whether the greens should campaign on a strong e.t.s..
..should perhaps read this..
http://whoar.co.nz/2008/new-greenland-ice-cracks-worry-scientists/
and if anyone has access to the greenpeace mailing list..
(being used/abused(?) to promote the ‘do as labour bids’ argument..)
..could they send them this story..
..y’know..!..for a bit of ‘balance’ against their incrementalist arguments/urgings of the greens..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 23rd, 2008 at 7:55 am
are you making things up again..?..b.b..?
..(and so earlyin the morning..!..)
..go and do something productive..!
..making up lies/propaganda..isn’t ‘productive’..
..(except to your ‘twisted’ agenda..eh..?
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 23rd, 2008 at 8:43 am
>>Just got a txt. 1350 emails!!
Insert any figure you like.
The so-called principled “green” party are now taking policy decision, on their core issue, from random email votes?
Tui, anyone…..
August 23rd, 2008 at 8:50 am
this should also be read by the ‘undecideists’..and the ‘incrementalists’..
(it’s quite ‘bracing’/mind-focussing..)
http://whoar.co.nz/2008/apocalypse-later-looking-back-at-2008-from-the -future/
“..We had had only a narrow window of opportunity to deal with climate change..
and the Bush”/(insert green/labour) “team..
..made sure to slam that window shut..”
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 23rd, 2008 at 8:53 am
Certainly very odd. I would’ve thought it’d be a ‘consult the members’ vote at the very most. I’d be a pretty pissed off member!
August 23rd, 2008 at 8:57 am
passing this legislation would be a total cop-out by the greens..
..and a cop-out impossible to ’sell’ to the rest of us..
..any incrementalist arguments would be shredded..
..how much more ‘evidence’ as to the urgency of all this do you need..?
(i must say..it is ‘interesting’ to be arguing alongside the rightwing nutbars against this bill going thru ..
..we are coming from the complete opposite directions..
..i say/argue the bill is nowhere good enough..
..they are climate-change deniers..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 23rd, 2008 at 8:59 am
“..# StephenR Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 8:53 am
Certainly very odd. I would’ve thought it’d be a ‘consult the members’ vote at the very most. I’d be a pretty pissed off member!..”
i disagree..
..this issue is too trans-ideological..
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 23rd, 2008 at 9:49 am
I’ll just quote my own email in case anyone is interested, which I have posted in full here. It’s not very long, I didn’t want to spend too long on it just in case this is a stunt. But if it is genuine I thought they better have some negative feedback:
http://sjdennis.wordpress.com/2008/08/22/email-to-greens-on-ets/
Quote:
“Best wishes making this decision. I know you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t, you’ll annoy half your supporters if you vote either way, so you’re in a rough situation on this one. Stick by what is best for the environment and the economy, and vote against it. Think practically rather than wondering which way would get you more votes (you’d never figure out which way would give you more votes anyway). That way you’ll make the best decision for the country.”
August 23rd, 2008 at 11:13 am
big bro said: I do not need to suggest that negative responses will be ignored, Toad has already said that they will. Do try and keep up.
I think it’s you who needs to try to keep up, big bro. Either that or you are deliberately misrepresenting my position. For the record, what I said (on Key wee-blog) was nothing of the sort. It was that feedback that comes from a denialist Owen McShane / Brian Leyland argument will be ignored, because that is inconsistent with Green policy and understanding of the science.
I certainly hope and trust “negative” responses will not be ignored because, in case you haven’t noticed, I, like you, do not think the Green Party should support the Government’s ETS. But for very different reasons.
My reasons for opposing it are:
August 23rd, 2008 at 12:12 pm
While I share your sentiments toad, I send the Greens the email message NOT to support the ETS for different reasons.
I think the ETS worldwide is a scam. Just google words like “carbon trading audits”, or “emmision trading profits” and see my two basic reasons for not liking the scheme.
1. There is no world wide auditing process. The credits you might buy may or may not exist. There is no validation service set up. There is no creditable governing body to audit fakes and charlatans.
2. People are lining up to make huge PROFITS from carbon trading. And we are not talking small profits but huge ticket clipping wealth transfer ($40B by 2010) options for the large corporates. Money ciollected from you and I and ending up where? To the benefit of whom?
If you think back to any financial bubble (stock market, housing, even tulips) then the ETS is heading for the same road.
And because off these issues, climate change will not be altered.
For these reasons alone (never mind if you are pro or anti global climate change) the Greens should not enter into the Labour proposed ETS.
Question for Russel,
What happened to the neutral taxation regime of increased taxation on carbon “bads” and reducing taxation on carbon “good”?
I thought this was going to be the Greens plank?
August 23rd, 2008 at 1:36 pm
“The so-called principled “greenâ€? party are now taking policy decision, on their core issue, from random email votes?”
Jeanette said nothing of the sort and you conveniently ignore the whole history of the ETS debate by trivialising this move. As others have pointed out, this is a very difficult decision and the Greens will be damned either way. Because these negotiations have been conducted quite publicly, it makes sense to go out before making the final decision. The emails will be read and considered, but so will many other factors. Someone mentioned member voices and these will feature prominently. There will be nothing random about it.
August 23rd, 2008 at 1:49 pm
1700 emails…
August 23rd, 2008 at 1:49 pm
And if most of the emails pointed in one or other direction, that went against the “other factors”? What then?
What a farce.
August 23rd, 2008 at 1:52 pm
>>1700 emails…
310,000 signatures.
August 23rd, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Impressive of course, but you forgot to mention that they took a bit longer to collect…
August 23rd, 2008 at 2:16 pm
And that the issue are not comparable.
August 23rd, 2008 at 2:18 pm
“And if most of the emails pointed in one or other direction, that went against the “other factorsâ€?? What then?”
Then an even harder decision of course, like you care. But that’s another straw man, as it clearly is not happening.
August 23rd, 2008 at 2:50 pm
It is great that the Greens are showing an interest in receiving feedback. I actually believe they may genuinely be trying to gauge the public mood.
That is very worthwhile because idealism gets you nowhere if it makes you continually poke your finger in someone elses eye.
August 23rd, 2008 at 3:12 pm
BluePeter - I think you’re reeling at the astonishing response and the open, consultative approach the Greens are taking. I smell sour grapes on your breath.
August 23rd, 2008 at 3:36 pm
greenfly..
..we could be more assured of that by promises to reveal the weightings of the feed-back..
..some dialogue/explanation from the green leadership..(here would do..)..
..on what/why the ‘issues’ are wouldn’t go amiss..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 23rd, 2008 at 3:39 pm
so toad..as you are a (self-claimed) ‘important person’ in the green party..
..how about making that happen..?
..that (needed) dialogue/explaination..
..otherwise you are asking for feedback from an uninformed auidience..
..eh..?
(i mean..better late than never..
..but shouldn’t that have already happened..?
..surely..?
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 23rd, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Why do the issues matter? Numbers would indicate a depth of feeling in these cases.
August 23rd, 2008 at 3:43 pm
that’s of course assuming that farrar is wrong..
..and that we aren’t just being played/spun/damage-controlled..
eh..?
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 23rd, 2008 at 3:45 pm
BP:
“>>1700 emails…
310,000 signatures.”
Absolutely right.
August 23rd, 2008 at 3:47 pm
phil - you are sounding very anxious. Can you cite the ‘original deal’ the Green MP’s set out re. the email-in? Did they indicate that they would be bound by the results? That they would supply a blow by blow commentary? The Green MP’s may well ‘reveal the weightings/provide dialogue/explain’, are you not patient enough to wait until the results are in? You’re pushing impatiently, why?
August 23rd, 2008 at 4:01 pm
the ‘why’ is because i fear we may be being played/spun/damage-controlled..
..t have a strong belief that the ‘right thing’ must be seen to be done..
..must be transparent..
..that they are not doing/being that..
..just increases my sense of ‘unease’..
..i mean..aren’t you surprised at the resounding silence since that call for emails..?
..no explainations of what is causing the problems with this legislation..
..this all makes me ‘anxious’..
..and has my ‘i’m being bullshi*tted to ‘ detectors going ballistic..
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 23rd, 2008 at 4:07 pm
” And that the issue are not comparable.
Why do the issues matter? Numbers would indicate a depth of feeling in these cases.”
StephenR, not disputing that, but that’s not why BP decided to juxtapose those two numbers. Several people have tried to compare the Greens clear cut position on the removal of the defense adults used to have to get off when being tried for beating children (ridiculously called the anti-smacking law) with their unsure position on the ETS, ignoring that they haven’t got all they want in negotiations and also how complex and far reaching the impact of the ETS will be. In other words apples and oranges and that the approach to each is rightly very different.
August 23rd, 2008 at 4:10 pm
just to clarify - ‘bullshi*tted to’ by Metiria, Jeanette, Russel, Keith, Sue and Sue? Phil?
August 23rd, 2008 at 4:12 pm
I don’t think I know enough about the proposed scheme to know whether the Greens should vote for it or not. For example, how are the initial quotas going to be allocated? Will the carbon credits automatically go to the current biggest emitters? will they go to the companies who gave the most generous donations to the government’s election campaign? There’s so much potential for corruption here that I want to know how that is being handled.
August 23rd, 2008 at 4:18 pm
phil - I think it is the substance of the feedback, ratehr than the numbers, that is important - i.e. the validity of the arguments as to why people think the Greens should vote either for or against it.
I say that from the same position you do - as one who opposes it. But a whole lot of feedback from people like big bro who say the Greens shouldn’t support the Bill on the basis that they don’t believe human activity influences the climate isn’t going to convince anyone one way or another in the Greens.
This is, effectively, a submission process - not an opinion poll. Pandering to public opinion is not the way the Greens make political decisions.
August 23rd, 2008 at 4:29 pm
yes..i understand that..
..of course the burblings of the rabid deniers is ignored/discounted..
..but the weighings after that could be illuminating..
..and why no dialogue/’conversation’ with us..?
and toad..aside from doing clarks’ bidding..
..what is the ‘urgency’ to passing this bill..
..a stronger bill three months later will more than make up for that three months..
..for the life of me..
..i’m finding it hard..aside from the (tired)/wrong.. ‘it’s better than nothing’ argument..
..to see why this ‘nowhere near as good as it should be’ legislation..
..should be passed..
..and why this ‘decision’is being presented in such a ‘do or die’/'immediate/’urgent’..manner..
..it just makes absolute sense to have this issue as one of the main ones of this election..
..let the different parties present their arguments/policies..
..and then let the voters decide..
..what’s not to like about that..?
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 23rd, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Shunda barunda:
“Greenpeace is telling its supporters to email the greens so don’t get to excited about all those emails from a broad cross section of NZ societey.”
Of course lobby groups will mobilise their members, but not all are pro ETS.
“The greens are flip flopping on the ETS and now they are blaming it on democratic process.”
The Greens haven’t made a decision, so can’t have flip flopped. And where on earth did to see them blaming anything on the democratic process?
“You need to ask NZ parents how we feel about your social medling, then you will get truly impressive results.”
Any government that passes laws can be accused of social meddling. You just prefer one type to another, as do most of us. I’m a parent too, so don’t make it sound like all parents naturally support your ideology.
“Please hold a social policy poll , I dare you.”
There have been plenty. Do you think Greens don’t know they are a minority?
August 23rd, 2008 at 4:45 pm
valis..shunda is a denier..trolling..
.ignore..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 23rd, 2008 at 4:52 pm
“..# greenfly Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 4:10 pm
just to clarify - ‘bullshi*tted to’ by Metiria, Jeanette, Russel, Keith, Sue and Sue? Phil?..”
would you prefer ’spun/damage-controlled to’..?
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 23rd, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Either way phil, I trust those people. That’s why I voted for them.
August 23rd, 2008 at 5:09 pm
i also voted for them..
i also know a culture of ‘incrementalism’/'don’t rock the boat!’ prevails..
..and i fear it is this culture that will win out..
..and lead to a disasterous decision..
..passing this legislation would be wrong for so many reasons..
..not least of which would be the losing of a potent/trans-ideological election plank..
..and leaving the greens open to (easy) attack as a sell-out/minion of clark/labour..
..so what if labour/clark get p*ssed off..?
..do they decide the decisions of/for the green party..?
..and anyway..they’ll get over it..!
but most importantly..
..passing legislation that excludes the biggest polluters/encourages them to just keep on with their polluting ways..
..cos’ the greens have given them a polluting bus-pass..
would be an environmental/ecological ‘crime’..
..of the highest order..
..and would be really really stoopid..!
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 23rd, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Greenfly,
Your naivety is amusing, but if you really think the Green powers-that-be are going to be told what to do by a bunch of e-mailers, then I have a bridge I’d like to sell you.
August 23rd, 2008 at 5:41 pm
>>And that the issue are not comparable.
Not in your mind, perhaps, but it is painfully obvious to everyone else.
August 23rd, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Valis
>>ridiculously called the anti-smacking law
Hoh ho. You best read your own parties press releases. Like this one:
greens.org.nz/node/12844
“Greens draw up their own anti-smacking bill……06 Oct 2003
Green Party Children’s Issues Spokesperson…Ms Bradford said today parents have used Section 59 to get away with, not only smacking their children, but also whacking them with bits of wood and other objects.”
August 23rd, 2008 at 5:48 pm
bluepeter is a denialist troll..
..best ignored..
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 23rd, 2008 at 6:22 pm
1800 and counting…
August 23rd, 2008 at 6:23 pm
BP: “Greens draw up their own anti-smacking bill……06 Oct 2003″
I admit I find the headline very odd, as I’ve never seen the Green Party use that term in that way.
“Green Party Children’s Issues Spokesperson…Ms Bradford said today parents have used Section 59 to get away with, not only smacking their children, but also whacking them with bits of wood and other objects.â€?
This makes it clear that the issue is not a smack, but a beating. The law used to allow an adult who was arrested and standing trial for beating a child with a piece of hose or wood, for instance, to get away with it. Even Shunda barunda eventually admitted that this wasn’t right. How about you?
August 23rd, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Given a National led government would change the legislation, what does it matter - in the terms of whether it is good for the country or not, as it is not going to happen whether passed now or not.
The Greens have two logical choices, only offer to pass the parts of the legislation they support, or more practically they should try and broker legislation which National and Labour can agree on, so this is not a political issue with changing policies across the electoral cycle.
August 23rd, 2008 at 7:02 pm
>>I admit I find the headline very odd, as I’ve never seen the Green Party use that term in that way.
Look no further than the Bradford press release collection. There are more….
No, Valis. The phrase “to get away with not only smacking their children”. And the headline is “Anti-Smacking bill”. The intent is obvious. The Greens then tried desperately to respin it and engage in historical revisionism when they experienced the massive backlash.
>>..best ignored..
Just like your blog, Phil.
August 23rd, 2008 at 7:04 pm
>>1800 and counting…
And people still doubt it is a media stunt. Why else would Frog report numbers and then claim its all about the quality of the arguments?
August 23rd, 2008 at 7:05 pm
As for the latest science on the “climate change issue” - New Scientist has an article (and an editorial) on it. Apparently an ocean effect is going to balance against any warming in the next decade (but this won’t delay the consequences of a rising warming trend impacting later). The ocean effect is also having its own climate change impacts.
August 23rd, 2008 at 7:16 pm
One has to agree the Greens have been quite religious in the cause of ending the use of violence in parenting. Interestingly those campaigning for the right of parents to resort to violence against children - get quite angry about losing the legal right to do such things and claim to be acting in accord with a biblical instruction to not spare the rod in disciplining children (an act of violence either committed for the parents convenience - to release some anger - or the child’s own good). A certain man called Jesus said that the words of anger were a form of violence and all violence was an act on murder (Sermon on the Mount) and that the children were the innocent ones and it would be the others (those with those rods I presume) who will be judged.
All those petition signers have been warned to leave the kids alone, for they will inherit the kingdom not those who will be judged for their violence. The Greens as usual are on the side of saints and angels.
August 23rd, 2008 at 7:28 pm
SPC Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 7:01 pm
> Given a National led government would change the legislation, what does it matter - in the terms of whether it is good for the country or not, as it is not going to happen whether passed now or not.
If National form a majority government after the election, and know what they want to change about the emissions trading scheme, they will change it. However, I think the Green MPs are working on the assumption that National don’t altogether know what they want to do. A National government would change the things they know they want to change, but it’s quite likely they would shy away from changing anything they’re not sure of. And there could be a lot they’re not sure of.
Also, either National or Labour is more likely to sneak in an exemption for industries that give them a lot of donations if they’re introducing the law, rather than blatantly make such a change to an already-passed law.
August 23rd, 2008 at 7:37 pm
>>the right of parents to resort to violence against children
Yet another one one can’t tell the difference between “kidnapping” and “timeout”.
August 23rd, 2008 at 7:44 pm
SPC, if you are going to start arguing from scripture on this one you’ll soon be shown wrong. For the benefit of readers, the Sermon on the Mount is in Matthew chapters 5-7, if you wish to read it you’ll quickly find SPC is clutching at straws.
In fact, SPC is completely contradicted by scripture:
Hebrews 12:5-7
“…“My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor be weary when reproved by him. For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives.â€? It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline?”
Note that the word translated “disciplines” can be translated as “educate, discipline, or instruct”, so would correspond to non-physical punishment. The work translated “chastises” can also be translated “flog” or “scourge” - physical punishment in other words.
So God Himself is referred to as using both non-physical and physical discipline, and this is described as what every father would be expected to do.
Us Christians don’t want permission to beat our children. But we do feel it is the parent’s decision whether they use physical punishment or not, not the decision of the state. Most people, whether Christian or not, know this instinctively and don’t need to quote scripture to back it up. But if we are going to quote scripture, it supports our view.
August 23rd, 2008 at 8:17 pm
bluepeter..p*ss off with your smacking-trolling..
..we are trying to discuss something quite important here..
..and you are just being a troll..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 23rd, 2008 at 8:19 pm
why don’t you go and play at kiwiblog..
..for some reason..it’s kinda morgue-like over there..
..but you could find lots of your sort there..
..go on..!
..on yer bike..!
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 23rd, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Get a job, Phil.
August 23rd, 2008 at 8:44 pm
philu’s behavioral problems are escalating to the point where the men in white coats will have to restrain until total detox is achieved.
August 23rd, 2008 at 9:28 pm
“No, Valis. The phrase “to get away with not only smacking their childrenâ€?. And the headline is “Anti-Smacking billâ€?. The intent is obvious. The Greens then tried desperately to respin it and engage in historical revisionism when they experienced the massive backlash.”
Well I can’t dispute what’s on the website, but that doesn’t change the fact that “Smacking a child is already an assault under section 194 of the Crimes Act 1961. It has been this way for over a century.”, since we’re quoting press releases. The effect of Sue’s bill was not to create a new offence, but to repeal a loophole used successfully to get people off for severe beatings.
If the referendum is successful and the govt takes notice, it won’t restore S59, it will amend S194, which the bill didn’t touch.
August 23rd, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Geore Monbiot sumed up this nicely in his most recent post:
“Runaway climate change is bearing down on us fast. We require a massive political and economic response to prevent it. Governments and corporations, whether we like it or not, currently control both money and power. Unless we manage to mobilise them, we stand a snowball’s chance in climate hell of stopping the collapse of the biosphere”.
August 23rd, 2008 at 9:42 pm
“>>1800 and counting…
And people still doubt it is a media stunt. Why else would Frog report numbers and then claim its all about the quality of the arguments?”
Did Frog claim a big response wouldn’t be significant in itself? Everything a politician does is at least partly to attract media coverage. That doesn’t mean its the only reason.
August 23rd, 2008 at 10:02 pm
kahikatea said: However, I think the Green MPs are working on the assumption that National don’t altogether know what they want to do.
Correct, and that is a scary thought. Either National don’t know what to do about climate change (scary) or they are have an agenda to do very little so won’t reveal their hand (even more scary).
A very good reason, I would say, to vote Green, rather than National, if you are pissed off with Labour.
August 23rd, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Toad, in case you hadn’t noticed National have released their climate change policy:
http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?ArticleId=28398
But it isn’t particularly promising, it hardly even mentions the environment, more here:
http://www.familyparty.org.nz/index/news/family-party-responds-to-nati onal-climate-change-policy
August 24th, 2008 at 3:26 am
Mr Dennis
I was stating the position of Jesus as “he is quoted” in the gospels, the other scripture you cite expresses the opinion of others (no I don’t believe the words of these men are the words of God, and those who beieve Jesus is of the Trinity have to give his words primacy).
Thus you can make no challenge to his words in the Sermon on the Mount, or on the innocence of the children some adults want the right to assert dominance over by force. This takes away their innocence and brings them into a cycle of power abuse and violence.
August 24th, 2008 at 3:35 am
kahikatea
IMO National will shy away from anything which costs them money (they have tax cuts to finance) - thus the better ideas, money for home energy use efficiency will probably go. If anyhting guides National, it will be what the Aussies do albeit a lite version.
My advice to Greens, is to try and broker a Labour National compromise based around something of the sort Oz is doing - albeit with improvements thrown into the mix and or timetable differences.
August 24th, 2008 at 5:49 am
whoar..!
even granny herald is urging the green party to stand up for us all..
..and fight for the enviroment..
http://whoar.co.nz/2008/herald-editorial-urges-the-greens-to-go-hard-o n-the-etsif-not-themwho/
(and i do have a ‘job’..bluepeter..
aside from having raised my (now 13 yr old ) son from birth..
i also run an on-line (daily) news-service..
..where i roam through the worlds’ ‘quality-media’..and i cherry-pick..
..and bring them to you..
..i usually start ‘work’ at arounf 5.00am..
..this morning was ‘early’ 4.30 am..
..and of course the results can be seen at whoar.co.nz..
(and psst..!..bluepeter..i have a ’sizeable audience’..in 104 countries..
..are you ‘there’ yet..?)
..(and..thanks for asking.!..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 24th, 2008 at 5:52 am
well..enough of ‘me’..
..and what do you ‘do’..?..sunshine..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 24th, 2008 at 6:06 am
here is the cynics’ point of view..
http://whoar.co.nz/2008/are-the-greens-seriously-seeking-feedbackor-is -this-just-a-publicity-stunt/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 24th, 2008 at 9:05 am
philu
>>i have a ’sizeable audience’..in 104 countries..
Sure you do.
google.com/insights/search/#cat=&q=whoar.co.nz&geo=&date=&clp=&cmpt=q
http://siteanalytics.compete.com/www.whoar.co.nz/?metric=uv
Which indicates to me a few hundred page views a day, if that.
Now try KiwiBlog:
siteanalytics.compete.com/kiwiblog.co.nz/?metric=uv
&
siteanalytics.compete.com/blog.greens.org.nz/?metric=uv
What do I do?
I have a few pies….one of which happens to be running web sites….
August 24th, 2008 at 9:13 am
yeah..heard of r.s.s..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 24th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Yes, Phil.
Estimating RSS subscribers, externally, is more difficult. It’s even difficult to estimate accurate numbers internally, as you need to compare numbers across each reader client.
But those numbers still aren’t looking good from where I sit, Phil. Not that there’s anything wrong with that - you’re in a niche area to start with, within a very crowded space.
But do you really want to continue this game with me?
August 24th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Mr Dennis said: Toad, in case you hadn’t noticed National have released their climate change policy
What I meant, Mr Dennis, is that when the Greens wanted to talk about speific detail with them, as part of the process of deciding what position to take on the Government’s ETS proposal, the Nats wouldn’t come to the party.
August 24th, 2008 at 9:32 am
and..go away..!
stop trolling..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 24th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Yawnies
August 24th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Settle down boys and stop comparing penises. We all hold you in equal esteem.
August 24th, 2008 at 9:42 am
btw..web-expert..
point me at a ‘better’/more interesting/wide-ranging local/international (daily) round-up of news..
..than whoar..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 24th, 2008 at 10:00 am
here is farrars’ latest claims..that the ‘fix’ is in..and that the feedbackers are just being played..
“.. I am so convinced they have already decided to back the scheme, despite their failure to get any meaningful concessions, that I was planning to offer $1,000 to someone willing to bet that they would decide not to back the ETS Bill.
Sadly however such a harmless little bet would land me in breach of the Gambling Act 2003, so I can’t do it.
But you would have lost that money to me should the Greens announce on Tuesday they will be backing the ETS Bill despite gaining no significant concessions..”
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 24th, 2008 at 10:07 am
>>..than whoar..
You cannot be serious……
August 24th, 2008 at 10:08 am
yep..!..
..don’t just fob-off/bullsh*t..!
..name them..!
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 24th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Here’s what I do.
I subscribe to the following feeds in a feed reader, and organise them into a folder entitled “New Zealand”.
Cactus Kate
KiwiBlog
Frog Blog
No Right Turn
Public Address
Lindsay Mitchell
Stuff Blogs
Liberty Scott
Insolent Prick
Stephen Franks
Not PC
NBR
Spare Room
I thus aggregate all their postings into one feed. At a glance, I can get a good feel for conversations across the political spectrum.
August 24th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Can you release my post, Frog.
August 24th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Here’s what I do.
I subscribe to the following feeds in a feed reader, and organise them into a folder entitled “New Zealand”.
Cactus Kate
KiwiBlog
Frog Blog
No Right Turn
Public Address
Lindsay Mitchell
Stuff Blogs
Liberty Scott
Insolent P^ick
Stephen Franks
Not PC
NBR
Spare Room
I thus aggregate all their postings into one feed. At a glance, I can get a good feel for conversations across the political spectrum.
August 24th, 2008 at 10:26 am
i am talking about one site you can go to that has as complete a (daily) international and local news/analysis round-up..
you have cited 13 different ones..for just local..
q.e.d..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 24th, 2008 at 10:32 am
>>i am talking about one site you can go to to
That’s sooo 1994
Why would I just go to one site, when I can just as easily scan 13 sites, or 20, or 100, on one aggregated, auto-updated page, and then dig down to any story that interests me?
The aggregated feed provides me with a) much more value and b) saves me time.
August 24th, 2008 at 10:40 am
jolly good..!
carry on..!
stop wasting everyones’ time..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 24th, 2008 at 10:50 am
If you think you’re managing to cover local and international on one site, you’re dreaming, and you clearly don’t understand the web. Such a mentality existed when the web first became available to a mass audience via Mozaic, and it was because there were few sites, and many readers.
Those days are looooonnng gone.
If that is your strategy, I’d suggest you find a different one. Pundits are a dime a dozen. There are literally millions of them - almost as many as there are readers. You’d have to have some pretty impressive inside information, and/or financing to be able to get any traction being a generalist these days. It’s even getting hard to do in the niches, with backing, and with insider knowledge.
Instead, you’d be better off picking one emerging niche topic and going into depth on it.
You’ll ignore my advice, of course. But take it from someone who sold a well-read tech blog a few years ago - the low hanging fruit in the blogsphere has all been plucked.
August 24th, 2008 at 10:56 am
What phil does sounds like more of a hobby than what anyone ‘does’ professionally. Advertising phil?
August 24th, 2008 at 10:57 am
bluepeter..
..so ‘a few years ago’..eh..?
..that niche-mantra..?
..the ‘who has the time’? problem sees the return of the ‘generalist’..
.a ‘personal-filter’ presenting an already sifted result..
..is what i do..
..any nicehe included/featured in that generalist collation is dark green/vegan/animal/hunan-rights..
..so no..
..i won’t take your ‘advice’..
..eh..?
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 24th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Back on thread please. I don’t really care about what Phil does in his spare time or that BP subscribes to RSS from Lindsay Mitchell (can’t see why anyone would bother) - but I do care about the Green response to the Government’s ETS, which is what this thread is meant to be about.
August 24th, 2008 at 11:12 am
>>so ‘a few years ago’..eh..?
Yep. And flew first class to Seattle to seal the deal.
>>he ‘who has the time’? problem
As I said, that problem has already been solved by feed readers.
>>.a ‘personal-filter’ presenting an already sifted result….is what i do..
Why would I want you as a personal filter? Serious question. I can’t see that you’re bringing anything new to the table, other than your opinion, and we all have one of those.
You need to understand scarcity, supply and demand.
>>.i won’t take your ‘advice’.
Fair enough.
>>What phil does sounds like more of a hobby
Clearly a hobby
August 24th, 2008 at 11:24 am
That in a nutshell is why it is foolish to vote in favour of the ETS. It will become a tool capable of sheeting home enormous hardship onto ordinary kiwis.
The Greens would never be forgiven.
Haven’t we already learnt that we should discourage the government from whacking us with big sticks?
Unless we can find positive ways to encourage individuals to change their environmental habits, we will never achieve long term gains through use of force.
The currency of the ETS will involve artificially-value-inflated pieces of paper moving from desk to desk; not real environmental change.
It will result in NZ land being sold off/tied up forever. We will lose control of our own country.
Big business/inside traders will win.
Ordinary kiwis will hurt.
August 24th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Jeanette; you have a real dilemma over this ETS issue. Whichever choice you make you will lose some current support/potential support.
All I can say is to put your faith in individuals to change their environmental impact for the better, rather than trusting govt policy to drive the shift.
Whichever way you vote, John Key is going to make your choice look stupid, so really, this is all about repositioning the Greens somehow to be effective as a National coalition partner in 6 years time. (They won’t need you till then)
I believe the Greens will lose a higher percentage of support if they come out on the side of wielding a strongarm.
In my view there is more to be gained by giving individual New Zealanders more time to find their own ways of handling the environmental issues.
We are really only just on the cusp of NZers waking up to the reality of change. Give them another few years, and lots of positive encouragement and that will be rewarded by more support for the Greens over the next two elections after this one.
Say no to ETS
August 24th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
In regards to the ETS, you should not support it, because it imposes high costs and achieves nothing.
You’re dreaming if you think New Zealanders are going to swallow these costs in this economic climate, let alone the costs you would really like to foist upon them. As I predicted some time ago, most people humour the green message when it doesn’t really affect them. They change a few light bulbs, they use a few less plastic bags, they feel self-righteous. But at the first signs of real pain, they’ll vote for an easier option, which is why your polls look the way they do.
You pretend you won the argument.
Most people in NZ haven’t yet started having the argument. .
August 24th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
so what is the ‘latest’..?
oh..green party-insider/toad..
..surely you haven’t just been sitting on that big green butt..
‘
..have you..?
..what’s the word around the (effluent-polluted) pond..?
..and are you that much of an ‘insider’ that you be in the loop..
..if this were just greenwash..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 24th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
All the advice to Greens to do nothing about climate change …
The problem for National, is that we have a bi-partisan policy of greater harmonisation of policy with Oz and they will have a policy on this. And all partners to Kyoto are expected to have a policy on this.
Does New Zealand really have a do nothing option?
I don’t like Kyoto, it does too little, it takes the wrong approach and it is unfair on some. But what can those who have signed up to it do afterwards?
In the case of agriculture, the issue is worldwide consumption levels not production (all one is doing is driving up first world production costs to reduce consumption of meat among the worlds first world poor or second world middle class). Grassland producers of meat are preferable to grain fed producers, but Kyoto does not distinguish between them. So first world (Kyoto signatories) countries exporting this food off theirgrassland are punished, but what may happen is an increase in grain fed production in other countries - countries which bear the cost of subsidising the cost of grain to their own poor.
Not only is this futile, it also results in harm to the worlds poor.
The same consequences occur in industiral production (but without the harm to the poor). First world countries which can afford cleaner power generation are transferring production to developing countries as part of global free trade. These countries are producing an increasing share of global consumption in ways which pollute the world environment more than ever before.
Kyoto is a ridiculous show of doing something when nothing is actually being done.
The only sensible options is carbon charging as part of both global free trade (for all) and within the Kyoto domestic economies. In return for the inclusion of trade partners, Kyoto countries funding cleaner energy production (loans and grants) for developing and third world economies (as well as investing in R and D for continual technology advances).
As for the ETS - the soundest course for Greens is to declare a willingness to broker a Labour-National bi-partisan consensus before or after the election. They could declare their support for help to householders to make their homes energy efficient and call for this to be done first (asap). This measure reduces pressure on energy supply and costs and is in our economic self interest (it’s a no brainer).
August 24th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
“As for the ETS - the soundest course for Greens is to declare a willingness to broker a Labour-National bi-partisan consensus before or after the election.”
SPC, I don’t know what to make of this. No offence, but this is incredibly naive, because such an idea would never work. National, after declaring they wanted to sit down and talk to the Greens about the ETS, wouldn’t do it, then refused to respond meaningfully to a letter from Jeanette by again saying “let’s talk”, and still have refused to do so. If they cared about the ETS as anything more than something to campaign on, they’d have engaged long ago. This will be one of the things the Greens will count strongly in favour of supporting the ETS. The Nats have left absolutely no doubt that there are no other options than what’s on the table now.
August 24th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Valis
Whether it would work, or not, is irrelevant, as it is the right thing for the country. And it is also the wisest course politically and an election is coming up. It should be a no brainer.
If National is seen as uninterested in a bi-partisan approach to this matter they will lose credibility with the electorate.
If National is not seen as having any real policy on this trans-Tasman and global issue they will lose credibility with the electorate.
Yet if all Greens do, is wring their hands and support ETS, then National will simply say they won’t support a bad deal (and they will gain support from all those who feel some threat from any cost impact) that causes harm to the economy in tough times - this will distract the public from the fact we will have to do something and National has not said what they would do.
And remember supporting something now (gaining a few concessions/winning a battle) means nothing, if one loses the election war and National repeals the legislation.
Greens should focus on their support for help to householders to make their homes energy efficient and call for this to be done first (asap). This measure reduces pressure on energy supply and costs and is in our economic self interest (it’s a no brainer). It is a vote winner. They should support Labour doing this before the election in place of support for the ETS. This move would place pressure on National to agree (reducing their ability to afford extra tax cuts).
August 24th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
My response:
Stand on your principles.
Summary: hold out for a better deal after the election. Â If you are genuinely prepared to deal with either side, the opportunity will be there to get a deal that is way better for the country and the environment than that currently on offer.
The longer version:
The Labour party see all negotiations as zero sum. Â Their viewpoint on the ETS is that we need to trade off this interest against that interest, and that we have things right when everyone is unhappy about equally. Â The problem is, someone who doesn’t believe in global warming being just as unhappy as someone who passionately believes it to be the largest issue facing mankind doesn’t really give us a happy medium.
If we are going to make major policy change to deal with warming, then that change needs to be effective. Â Making change, and accepting costs, and then achieving nothing, is not worthwhile. Â It makes the Greens look silly for saying the problem is important and then selling out.
Further, the ETS as it stands will be bad for NZ. Â The Green policy of a carbon tax is a far better option. Â It isn’t a zero sum game like the ETS is - a carbon tax (even one later replaced by an ETS) is better because:
 - it doesn’t create opportunity for international fraud
 - it doesn’t drive NZ industry offshore
 - it provides more certainty to genuine NZ businesses - those who aren’t interested in speculative profits
 - it provides little opportunity for windfall profits
 - it doesn’t lock in incumbents and incumbent technologies
In short, the carbon tax is far better policy. Â The ETS as it stands will achieve little, and NZers will be very unhappy at the costs it imposes. Â A carbon tax wouldn’t impose anything like the costs the currently proposed ETS would, but be far more effective. Â The time has come for the Greens to say that the position Labour have brought us to on the ETS is not a useful one, and you should pull support. Â You need to articulate to the public why a carbon tax is better - not purely in environmental and left wing terms, but in economic and business terms as well. Â It is better for everyone, it is a genuine win-win deal. Â The ETS will never be that.
Doing the deal now makes very little difference. Â If Labour win (somehow), they are even more likely to need the Greens. Â They will offer a better deal. Â If National win, John Key will be aiming for inclusiveness and getting the best policy - he is a first term prime minister and still cares about doing the right thing. Â The Green positions are well thought through and understood, and aren’t overly political (in the sense that he would find them to be unpalatable). Â The only reason the Labour party won’t acknowledge that is that they are desperate for a deal, and have to compromise with some very unprincipled parties to get that deal. Â
Just say no!!
August 24th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Valis,
“The Nats have left absolutely no doubt that there are no other options than what’s on the table now.”
Not so sure because my understanding from the Nats is that they will piggy back on the Australian scheme to ensure trans tasman unity.
Seems pretty smart to see what NZL’s biggest trading partner is planning surely?
August 24th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Gerrit, sure, but Labour has known for a while what the Aussie’s were up to and both Clark and Rudd say the schemes are compatible. No, if the Nats were serious, they wouldn’t be playing such games.
SPC, I didn’t mention, but Labour would also reject the idea. Both would just laugh at the Greens brokering anything between themselves. It might look good electorally to some for the Greens to take such a position, but it would have no practical effect. You’re belief that the Nat’s would look bad if they refused is misguided as well, imho.
Splitting the householder energy efficiency assistance from the rest sounds nice too, but this is one of the things the Greens have won for supporting the rest. Labour is not going to suddenly give it away for nothing.
August 24th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
valis..i don’t see how you could contend that clark would ‘undo’ the ‘householder energy efficiency assistance..
..in a fit of pique..
..and if they did..
..they would be just handing the greens another election-plank..
..i did posit earlier that the greens should campaign on those already conceeded benefits being the starting point for any post-election negotiations..
..the timing of this couldn’t be more fortuitous..
..the greens have all the cards..
..do they have the cojones to ‘play them’..?
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 24th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Valis
There is an election coming up.
The Greens can say that policy on this matter is part of our Kyoto Accord obligation and part of the trans-Tasman relationship and there should be multi-party consensus on this and on reated trade and defence/foreign policy. Then agree with ACT on favouring a carbon tax approach and otherwise on the economically advantageous and sustainable economy useful home energy efficiency investment.
This reassures the electorate about Greens being a responsible contributor to the process and their having better and more relevant policy solutions than the mainstream parties.
As for the other option, voting for the flawed ETS in a tragic compromise that will advantage National electorally and then be abandoned for something even worse in the year ahead (CER lite) …
PS Anything popular advocated by Greens becomes a Labour idea (rising minimum wage) - so it would be no surprise of Labour said me too on home energy efficiency in their own manifesto if the ETS did not go ahead.
National cannot match this withjout compromising their extra tax cuts etc.
August 24th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
OK, phil, I’ll break my own rule just once, but only because you may be misleading others.
The ETS means windfall profits for SOE power companies that are based on renewables when they sell their power at market rates. What would happen with this money has been a topic of some interest in the House and the Greens have said they want it recycled back into energy saving investments. I’m sure that’s where the money is coming from. So no ETS, no windfall profits, no fund for energy efficiency. So I never said Labour would “undo” it, ’cause it hasn’t been “done” yet and won’t be unless the ETS happens. And if this fund is sunk, Labour will be in a better position to campaign on it than the Greens will.
Sorry SPC, I just don’t think politics works the way you want. For one thing, it requires a media who pass on the messages you want the electorate to hear, and also requires an electorate that is listening. I’ve seen little evidence of either. I could be wrong of course, but we’ll just have to agree to disagree for now.
Good night and good luck.