Nat’s environment policy abdicates responsibility
It is becoming a bit of a mantra around here, calling the National Party to task for releasing empty rhetoric and having the audacity to call it ‘policy’. When are we going to find out what the Nats really think? Probably never.
The leaked draft of National’s Environment Policy, which Mallard is already beating up on, contains all the empty calories of a bottle of Pepsi Max. I guess it just mystifies me how having a policy point in an environment policy that talks about setting noise levels from car exhaust systems can be relevant to our future?
Russel has just hit out, now that the leaky boat that is the National Party caucus has finally washed up on our shores:
The Green Party agrees that New Zealand’s environment is being badly managed by the current Government. The question is: what does National plan to do to manage it better?
As yet, the National Party hasn’t seen fit to share with New Zealand their plans for solving the key issues of climate change, water quality, conservation and protecting our ocean,� Green Party Co-Leader Russel Norman says.
When the Green Party wrote to John Key for detail on what a National Party Emissions Trading Scheme would look like, we got a meaningless response.
The Greens challenge the assumption in National’s principle that ‘economic growth and environmental responsibility can and must go hand in hand’. What matters, is which parts of the economy grow.
How can continued growth in coal exports, dairy intensification, or motorways, for example, be environmentally responsible?
The Green Party are concerned that National’s focus on ‘empowering stakeholders’ is a smokescreen for abdicating responsibility for the environment and conservation.
Perish the thought that such a useless compilation ever becomes the policy of the New Zealand government.
September 5th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
The electorate is very unthinking in its desire for change. They didn’t like what Labour did in the ’80’s, so they voted the Nats in to do it to them even worse. The story will be the same on the environment if the Nats get in now. But now there’s more than one way to change the govt!
September 5th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
The BlueGreen advisory team seems to have sunk altogether, though they were supposed to have been responsible for the compilation of these policies (Environment and Conservation). Are they in disgrace? Has Guy Salmon been shafted again!? The BlueGreen Vision was shonky at the outset ( I went to the national launch where Nick Smith seemed strained to breaking point and Bill English said not a word. Eric Roy gloated over the possibilities for his hunting mates to call the shots on the national parks) Why do we hear so little of the ‘algae’ now? This should be their shining hour (had their document not leaked so badly)
September 5th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Its not the leak that hurt them. Its the documents themselves.
September 5th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
No, I take that back. Watching Key try to talk his way around three leaks in one week was pretty sad too.
September 6th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Does the DPB provide an incentive to have babies? Is the dpb linked to growing crime?
I’m not 100% sure but I think there could be a link. Or does it all go back to the economic reforms of Roger Douglass (as many in the Green Party believe).
September 6th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
“Does the DPB provide an incentive to have babies?”
YES.
“Is the dpb linked to growing crime?”
YES
“Or does it all go back to the economic reforms of Roger Douglass (as many in the Green Party believe).”
Of course not but then the left have to invent lies to demonize Sir Roger.
September 6th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Lol. Poor Sir Roger. How happy we are that he’s back.
September 6th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Valis
And he WILL be back, just watch NZ prosper.
September 6th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
As to our social environment.
The DPB facilitates divorce and also the separation of de facto couples.
We had a historic legacy from the days of 10% unemployment of women going onto the DPB from school - today with unemployment c20,000 this is not so - people leave school and make a minimum of $480 a week gross/$400 net in a job - on the DPB with a child to support its under $300.
The ones on the DPB now are women between jobs and between relationships. They are in this situation about 2 or 3 years on average. The total number itself is down but because anytime solo mothers are between jobs they go onto the DPB or between partners she goes onto thew DPB - there will always be an apparently high number “dependent” - but it’s not long in many cases and thus even where some stay on till the youngest child goes to school, the average time is only 2-3 years.
Todays facts dispel the DPB myths of old.
September 6th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
I once considered buying a small apartment in Auckland City as a crash pad etc.
My wife and I lived in a Central City apartment for many years but sold it in 1987.
However, I always stay overnight in such places to test them for acoustic standards etc. The apartment was OK but on Friday and Saturday night the noise of boy racers with their booming exhaust made me think I was in Paris when the German tanks rolled in to town. The noise of those exhausts strikes a note which is truly terrifying and full of menace. The noise when on for hours. The police would arrive with sirens blaring and the pseudo tanks would have time to clear out. The police would leave and they would start up again a short distance away. I gave up on the idea of living in the city.
There are now many forces driving people out of our inner cities and inner city suburbs - and these exhaust pipes are one of them. Overall, in most modern economies surveys show that noise is now a major determinant of the location decision.
So yes, exhaust pipes are an important part of the human environment. But they do not bother snails much. And many people don’t have any regard for the human environment. But equally, many do.
And without the Douglas reforms our soils and waterways would be a lot more polluted than they are now and most of the native bush regrowth in rural areas would not be taking place either. Every time I look across the Kaipara and see the erosion wounds healing I thank Sir Roger for getting rid of those hill country subsidies and SMPs.
September 6th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
The National Party are now just part of NZ’s Left, so I won’t concern myself with them. I have a question for the Green’s regarding this (damnable) ETS. I don’t have much time, so I shall simply copy and paste my post from another blog. The second paragraph contains my query, that is, do you realise an ETS will hasten the conversion of NZ farmland to dairy, even that land that is not suitable for dairying? (I’ll leave in my third paragraph, because frankly, I find the Greens offensive).
My comment:
… over the next five years you better eat all the lamb chops and beef steaks you can: the advent of an ETS in 2013, and as it is staged in through to 2018, will most probably mean the demise of both those industries - beef and sheep.
Indeed, here’s the same hoary old irony that always exists whereby the best way to promote what you don’t want is precisely, conversely, to ban it: probably the only viable rural industry producing enough cash to pay all the extra ETS taxes will be the dairy industry. I have nothing against the dairy industry, but it is obvious that some land types are best suited to lighter pastoral use, such as sheep and beef units, yet, an ETS could conceivably hasten the conversion of just about all NZ farm land to dairy.
Maniacal laughter.
Nonsense policies, offensive policies, such as promoted by the Greens should be something that sensible, freedom loving people grow out of as they mature, unfortunately the stultified brains produced by Nanny State has put an end to such growth, and in much the same manner as it is putting an end to economic growth.
September 6th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Maniacal laughter, alright. You’re full of it.
September 6th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
“Maniacal laughter, alright. You’re full of it.”
Actually he has made an interesting point worthy of an intelligent answer, how many greens are vegetarians?
September 6th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Answer the question Valis. I don’t have to read much in the media to know the dairy sector is somewhere between the number one and number ten evil on the Greens hitl-ist of productive sectors to be banned or destroyed - and with it our standard of living - so why is that party voting in a scheme which will probably lead to much of our remaining farm land converting to dairy use?
Argue why an ETS, in this instance, will not be achieving the opposite of what the Greens are trying to achieve.
September 6th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Already answered. You’re full of it.
September 6th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
What the Greens don’t tell the public is that the green Party supports Maori claims to the Foreshore and Seabed (among other things).
September 6th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Mark, with the political beliefs (and backgrounds) of some green mp’s, it is entirely possible that a colapse of the NZ economy,particularly agriculture, would be considered no bad thing.
It is this silent agenda that disturbs me the most about the greens, and they know not to talk about it, hense Valis’s enlightened response above.
September 6th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
or………..
to continue: an ethnically based environmental policy. The Green Party take the Treaty of Waitangi at its face value which guarantees undisturbed posession of forests and fisheries and tino rangitiratanga.
Here’s a good primer on Green thinking (note the recommended resources at the bottom)
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0808/S00393.htm
[talk about a hidden agenda Trev!]
September 6th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Neither of you have a clue what you’re talking about either, as the Greens have been very vocal for their support of Maori in this regard. The MPs stood on the steps of Parliament with a banner, for goodness sake, what’s hidden about that?
Specifically, what the Greens supported was the court ruling that said Maori had a right to take a case to court, the outcome of which was far from assured. Labour legislated their right of judicial review away, something you right-wingers would riot over if it happened to you.
Most Greens also do not feel threatened by Maori customary ownership either, but that is a different matter.
September 6th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Valis please explain how the greens see the anarchist beliefs of many of its supporters/politicians being compatible with the NZ economy in its present form.
September 6th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
All over the place tonight aren’t we. Your assumption is wrong. No don’t there are some Green supporters who hold some anarchist beliefs, but I can tell you that in my personal experience such has never come up in policy making. The Green Party is simply not an anarchist party. Having representation in Parliament and wanting to be part of govt should be a reasonable indication of this, but you no doubt believe we’re just working from the inside to bring it all down, right?
September 6th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
“but you no doubt believe we’re just working from the inside to bring it all down, right?”
That is EXACTLY what Sue Bradford said she was in parliament for!.
I sugest you get clued up on your own partys beliefs before making out I am some paranoid nutter.
Many of your politicians have anarchist beliefs, go read their profiles if you don’t believe me.
I don’t think asking for an explanation of how these beliefs fit into policy is un-reasonable under the circumstances.
September 6th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Valis Says:
Neither of you have a clue what you’re talking about either,
………………
1. The Green parties policy is that the indigenous version of the treaty is the correct one.
2. the treaty guarantees Tinorangitira tanga. The crowns role is limited govenorship.
3.The treaty was made when Europeans were heavily out numbered and so (naturally favoured Maori).
4. 1840: The British wanted a Treaty prior to colonisation and before being in a position of strength and the missionaries did they best they could.
5. Mass migration meant Europeans quickly outnumbered Maori.
6. Maori and European intermarried.
7. 2008: The Green Party says “a deal a deal”
…………………
By hidden agenda see the link below and tell me that that doesn’t mirror the thinking of []ue []radford, K[]th cLocke, Meturia Turie Catherine Dela;hunty, Joseph Stalin and the other prominent Greens.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0808/S00393.htm
BTW
Tariana Turia ( says that the “young people of her tribe got back 1.5% of what was taken” in her tribes recent settlement and that “no government cant expect settlements to be full and final if justice isn’t served.â€? So when is justice served and who decides?
September 6th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Shunda, would you care to post the links you’re referring to where Sue said she was working from within to replace Parliament with anarchy? Going to be now, but will read them when I can.
jh, I was referring to the charge of a hidden agenda. There are many Greens who would agree with the sentiments in that article and they’re certainly not hiding it.
“So when is justice served and who decides?”
Well, the victims should have a big say for sure. I believe Tari is reacting to those who think they can tick a box and make problems go away. Perhaps 1.5% will be enough, but does it give you great confidence? How low would you settle for?
Night.
September 7th, 2008 at 12:59 am
Valis
Sue Bradford said:
“There are three distinct ways to consciously create radical change,” says Sue Bradford. “One is to throw rocks at the system from the outside. One is to build peoples organisations within the shell of a malfunctioning system. The third way is to go inside and change the system from within.”
Seems to me valis, greens are about “radical change” yet perhaps the NZ public are not yet aware of how “radical”.
And lets be sure of one thing, we are not talking of “change” in a progresive sense, we are talking of “radical change” of a “malfunctioning system”.
Just what “system” would Sue like to change it to? because all I and everyone else (except the greens) knows is that it is radically different to the current “system”.
Curiously all references to these comments of Sue’s seem to have vanished off the net. They may be there somewhere perhaps, also all of the more “radical” info on Sue has vanished off Wikipedia as well.
So have the greens moderated some of their beliefs, or just prepared a more palatable image for the NZ public?
September 7th, 2008 at 6:22 am
Found the following summation of the 2005 election results and the Greens performance at http://www.geocities.com/communistworker/cs63.html
“The Greens’ failure is a blow to its ‘left’ faction, which is represented in parliament by left social democrats Keith Locke and Sue Bradford. Locke and Bradford are ex-Marxists who still look toward the working class as the bedrock of left-wing politics. Both have worked hard to identify the Greens with workers’ issues. By contrast, the right-wing faction led by Rod Donald finds its natural base in small business and the liberal middle class, sections of the population not usually attracted to policies like the extension of the right to strike and the lifting of the minimum wage. (A third Green faction, comprising members with a more ‘fundamentalist’ attitude to key environmental issues like genetic engineering, can be identified with Donald’s co-leader, Jeneatte Fitzsimmons.)
Donald and his supporters are likely to push for more and more compromises on ‘touchy’ issues like genetic engineering, the War of Terror, and industrial relations, in an effort to get the Greens into the secure coalition with Labour which they think is necessary for political survival.”
A summation I think quite correct and with the passing away of Rod Donald, the Greens have moved towards a much more marxist (state control) ideology.
Be interesting to read the communist workers opinion after this coming election.
And also from other “Rod Donald” factions of the Greens if they are comfortable with the ideological direction of the party.
September 7th, 2008 at 7:16 am
Mark Hubbard said: I have nothing against the dairy industry, but it is obvious that some land types are best suited to lighter pastoral use, such as sheep and beef units, yet, an ETS could conceivably hasten the conversion of just about all NZ farm land to dairy.
Mark, you are talking nonsense. The greenhouse emissions from the sheep and beef industries has actually reduced since 1990, so as long as it stays that way, those industries should have no Kyoto liability at all.
The incentive in an ETS is to actually encourage conversion from dairying to beef and sheep on land that is better suited to light pastoral use, or to forestry, which will be a big winner under an ETS, on land that is unsuatable for farming at all.
September 7th, 2008 at 7:43 am
toad,
Can you clear up a point for me?
If I own a bit of land that has previously been a dairy farm and convert this to a forest plantation.
Will I,as the land owner, own the carbon credits? Or will the government?
Because what I see happening is that high value dairying will be rated of the land to be replaced by low value forestry (after all everyone willbe planting trees so tha the lumber industry will be flooded with trees for sale.
And that the dairy industry will move from New Zealand to places like Chile, Paraguay and Brasil.
Net result is no significant change in global warming or climate change?
September 7th, 2008 at 8:10 am
Gerrit asks,
“If I own a bit of land that has previously been a dairy farm and convert this to a forest plantation.”
Who would do this, given the outlandish prices dairy farms now command?
You could only buy if dairying crashed.
Why would you convert to plantation forestry, knowing that,
“everyone will be planting trees so that the lumber industry will be flooded with trees for sale.” as you predict?
The dairy industry will move to Chile etc. regardless, as has been predicted for several years.
Net result? If you do something with your newly purchased land that reduces the amount of greenhouse gas emitted by it previously, there will be a reduction in global warming and a moderation in climate change. Grass roots action is the way foward.
September 7th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Shunda, just time for a quick note before sport with the kids.
As you’ve discovered, that Sue and the Greens want to change the system even radically is not hidden, nor would any such comments not be repeated now. What that change would be is also well documented in Green policy on line - some of it many would consider representing radical change, but its certainly isn’t anarchy.
“A summation I think quite correct and with the passing away of Rod Donald, the Greens have moved towards a much more marxist (state control) ideology.”
Gerrit, Green policy is developed and signed off by the membership. There has been no change in course since 2005. A new co-leader will of course will have their own style and specific areas of interest, but its a real mistake to conclude that its a very different party as a result.
September 7th, 2008 at 10:24 am
The problem is that the membership is thoroughly stacked.
September 7th, 2008 at 10:42 am
greenfly,
The price (value) of dairy land is due to the ROI (return on investment) one can gardner from that piece of land.
Now with carbon trading the value of that dairy land may actually increase substantially if planted in trees. It all depends on the carbon market.
If prices are high, then the value of the land where you can plant trees will go up accordingly.
Hence my question to toad,
Who owns the carbon credits.
if it is the land owner, then you will see dairy being replaced by trees if the carbon price justifies the conversion.
If the state then the land either remains in dairy and the price of the produce goes up for you and me (the land owner will simply pass the carbon costs to the consumer) or if converted to whatever will bring in the best price (bamboo shoots, maize, corn, sheep, cattle, wind farms, etc., etc., etc.) If the best price happens to be carbon credit forest. Then that will be what they will change to.
There is absolutely no reason for New Zealand dairy farmers to convert to anything that wont increase their ROI. After all they can continue to farm dairy cows and just pass the carbon charges through to the consumers.
Or if there is a better ROI in forestry then they will change.
Either or you will be paying more for your dairy produce. Plus fruit and vegies if the value derived from growing vegies on say Pukekohe hill is less then the market gardener would earn if he planted a forest.
And you need to get up to speed with the latest jargon.
It is no longer global warming but climate change. The earth has not warming for the last 50 years, in fact temperatures are now trending downwards (that should start another deneirs versus warmist debate!!!).
Not to ention that the high tide mark on my local boat ramp has not been rising for the last 50 years either. In fact I havent seen a spring, full moon tiode overlap the ramp for many a year.
Valis,
Agree that Green policy has to be signed of by members. Maybe the Greens membership has changed since the introduction of the left wing Allianc eleftovers and Rod Donald premature passing?
In the link provided in my previous comment, the communist workers berate Labour for its capitalistic position. In fact the only party in parliament in the eyes of the extreme left, to register anywhere near 5% are the Greens (Alliance only gets 0.07% of the vote).
From an environmental position the Greens have not been successful at all.
In my opinion and if you read Rodney Hides book you will find the ACT party has more understanding off, and environmental policies, then the Greens have on the environment.
Just a very different method to get those achieved.
September 7th, 2008 at 11:03 am
“There is absolutely no reason for New Zealand dairy farmers to convert to anything that wont increase their ROI. After all they can continue to farm dairy cows and just pass the carbon charges through to the consumers.”
Gotta love that sentiment Gerrit.
September 7th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Now with carbon trading the value of that dairy land may actually increase substantially if planted in trees. It all depends on the carbon market.
My God you lot frighten the bejeesus out of me. If you’re talking of market distorting taxes of this size, then our market will already have lost it’s ability to support any of us, other than perhaps a few Green MP’s in Parliament living off the last of our money. At the moment the forestry industry is of such a parlous state that when my farming clients are having their land valued, land with woodlots is being discounted due to the liability of the trees - that is, effectively market value of the land less cost of tree extraction. Now reverse that situation with a tax big enough to turn this around: what do you think milk and cheese now cost on your grocery bill? Hint, this is then an academic exercise, because you can’t afford them, none of us could.
Goodness me. Unbelievable.
Toady: I can copy and paste too
The problem is, Toad, your use of ’should’ implies a logic, and we are talking socalism. ETS penalites are paid per sheep unit equivalent, across all livestock. If you look at the article in the Farming Section of The Press two Friday’s ago, you will see the examples given were for beef units, and the forecast was that after the ETS is in, 83% of beef units will be uneconomic. I suspect that will be optimistic.
Again, on a pro-rata or relative basis, the only sector of the rural, livestock based industries, with the cashflow to withstand payment of ETS productivity penalties is the dairy sector - why will an ETS not lead to the rest of our sheep and beef land converting to dairy? And for that matter, deer also?
And then talking of the dairy sector, why try and cripple one of our very few successful industries with an artificial tax that will achieve nothing. Let me be clear on that: NOTHING.
September 7th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Greenfly,
Yes, but do you understand the sentiment?
September 7th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
I could be pragmatic self preservation, Gerrit, or it could be greed. I see the need for an change in world-view/ethics amongst those struggling with this decision.
September 7th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
It could be… etc
September 7th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Gerrit: can you ‘eat’ that sentiment?
September 7th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
there are a lot of edible things that are not dairy, don’t ruin the environment in their production and don’t contribute to climate change. Farmers (kaitiaki o te whenua etc stewards of the land, the true environmentalists) must surely have considered options beyond those that maximise the ROI alone, at the expense of other more ethically responsible measurements.
September 7th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
kaitiaki o te whenua etc stewards of the land, the true environmentalists
Sorry, but my knowledge of Maori is nil. But are these the guys (and girls) who burnt large tracts of native bush pursuing the Moa to extinction?
And you are ignoring the argument aphid: (and lets forget the freedom principle, Greens have no knowledge of that at all, determined as they are to create their slave state) - NZ’s strategic advantage is it’s farm land, temperate climate, and rural knowledgebase - so we throw all that away and really, no, I mean really, what do we replace it with. How do we feed ourselves? How do we live. We can’t all eat widgets, or live in scenic motels.
And you know what, the best stewards of the land I personally know of, especially the High Country, are farmers. For what point would it be for them to destroy the environment which is their living?? What? Your view is biased, wrong and dangerous.
September 7th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Aphid: from my last post, examples of large scale, ‘ethical’ rural based industries that a prosperous economy can be based upon?
And what’s unethical about milk?
September 7th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Oh, taking back my first paragraph: you were talking about farmers. Good.
Yes of course they have considered all options in their farming endeavours, with ROI only one (albeit vitally important) element in their decision making. And that is why we are where we are. Why do you not trust, therefore, the kaitiaki o te whenua? Why an ETS to drive them into the ground?
Again, to get back on track:
Examples of large scale, ‘ethical’ rural based industries that a prosperous economy can be based upon?
And what’s unethical about milk?
Please?
September 7th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Cracking on (wishing I’d not made my post three above now) … what I am saying is on the advent of an ETS, farmers might not have the luxury of farming products with lower ROI’s than dairy, such as sheep, beef, or deer, because the ETS will make livestock farming outside of dairy simply not possible due to the cost of the tax.
An ETS distorts the market completely, and thereby the rational decisions farmers otherwise make: and many farmers already view the ‘rational’ as lifestyle they can gain via sheep or beef, rather than just ROI of a dairy unit - these are the farmers the ETS will be pushing off the land.
Did you see Hicks on Agenda this morning? He summed the argument against this government bringing in this ETS so well. It will probably go up on TVNZ on demand, I recommend you try and view it.
September 7th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
mark..why don’t you pause..gather your thoughts..
..and then just not bother..
..eh..?
‘green slave state’..eh..?
woof..!..woof..!
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 7th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Mark,
The ETS may be a badly written peice of legislation, but there is nothing remotely artificial, in an economic sense, about the purchase of carbon-offsets. What is artificial is the current ability of the dairying industry to externalise the costs of production, all a trading schemme and various other environmental measures would accheive is removing the distortion in the market that that externalisation creates; and according to free market theory that would increase the vitality of the market.
Gerrit,
As I, fairly reguarly, remark; I am a member and am quite unhappy with the current dirretion of the party, driven by the irrational far-left which, unfortunatly, is in the majority.
September 7th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Phil.
Okay, I’ve considered: Sue Bradford, ergo, Green Slave State.
Sapient: agree wholly with sentiment of your last paragraph, although am wondering give your realistic view of this party, how you can still be a member? But, regardless;
The ETS may be a badly written peice of legislation
Therefore, please, do not back it for the sake of, as another Green has said, ‘doing something’. Lunacy. Because the bad effects will hit our economy, and our standard of living, directly. I put it to you, the parties that support this ETS, including National in their ETS, have at worst, no concern, at best, a reckless disregard, for the welfare of humans.
but there is nothing remotely artificial, in an economic sense, about the purchase of carbon-offsets. What is artificial is the current ability of the dairying industry to externalise the costs of production, all a trading schemme and various other environmental measures would accheive is removing the distortion in the market that that externalisation creates; and according to free market theory that would increase the vitality of the market.
That is just not true. To say this, you presuppose the problem of ‘climate change’, which many of us do not accept as fact, not remotely. When man has the ability to affect as little as 0.0003% of carbon in the atmosphere (I have a link to that somewhere, not on me), to thus place an artificial cost on carbon, and charge it on, is a nonsense. In other words, just another tax, a lethal one on production, no less. The ETS potentially represents the biggest distortion of a free market that we have seen in at least twenty years (my experience does not go beyond that). If the free market is distorted to this extent there will likely be radical consequences, and no Green has yet convinced me that you have tried to understand, much less quantify, these consequences. This is irresponsible. Indeed, the ultimate irresponsibility.
September 7th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Oh, Phil, note, above, I had the ability to say I read/understood something aphid wrote, wrong, then retract and correct from that position. Pity our political masters are not equipped with the same ability.
September 7th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Um, Sapient:
and according to free market theory that would increase the vitality of the market.
In addition to my other comments, you also make no allowance for the drag of the huge further bureaucracies required to administer this enormous, artificial, taxing endeavour. When NZ’s current level of bureaucracy is absolutely suffocating.
September 7th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
# Mark Hubbard Says:
September 7th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
“Sorry, but my knowledge of Maori is nil. But are these the guys (and girls) who burnt large tracts of native bush pursuing the Moa to extinction?”
http://dml.cmnh.org/2000Apr/msg00529.html
http://www.teara.govt.nz/EarthSeaAndSky/HarvestingTheSea/Sealing/1/en
“And you are ignoring the argument aphid: (and lets forget the freedom principle, Greens have no knowledge of that at all, determined as they are to create their slave state) - NZ’s strategic advantage is it’s farm land, temperate climate, and rural knowledgebase - so we throw all that away and really, no, I mean really, what do we replace it with. How do we feed ourselves? How do we live. We can’t all eat widgets, or live in scenic motels.”
………….
Tell that to the parties (all except NZ First) that give the thumbs up to the rationale behind our perceived need to increase the population. A few decades ago we had a much smaller population and most kiwis were content to potter in the backyard, fish or go to the beach. Farming was the “backbone of the country and a Kiwi wasn’t any onl foreign rent seeker.
“And you know what, the best stewards of the land I personally know of, especially the High Country, are farmers. For what point would it be for them to destroy the environment which is their living?? What? Your view is biased, wrong and dangerous.”
That brings to mind the farmers in the MacKenzie who see nothing special in the landscape and want to develop it. I think the “locked up” phrase was dug out.
September 7th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
should be:
and a Kiwi wasn’t any any old foreign rent seeker type.
September 7th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Mark,
how you can still be a member?
Well, it is the only party that even seems remotely genuine about environmental matters; that and Sue B’s comment about changing things from the inside does have a certain degree of validity, atleast on the inside I have some small say in policy and such.
I do not support the ETS as it stands as it provides negligable market incentives and abounds with the inefficencies of government administration, I have debated with toad on this forum several times over the matter, and have made my reasons for objection clear.
The beurocracy required to administer such a schemme does, as you say, have the potential to be quite overbearing and this has been a matter I have been concerned about, though with a properly implimented schemme the beurocracy could be kept to a minimum, particuarly with random audits, large fines for violation or forgery, and the price motive for both producers and consumers in the market to make sure that the others all play fair.
Some latter variants of social contract theory, such as that of which my views are closist, consider that land and resources belong to those which are able to utilise sufficent coercive force to protect that land and those resources, for the Nation of New Zealand that means that the soverignty over the land and resources of New Zealand belongs to the body conglomerate that utilises that coercive force; that is the conglomeration of individual new zealand citizens and residents throught the institution of government. Although this may seem irrelivant it means that all land and resources of new zealand belong to the members of the nation and any destruction or devaluation of those resources steals from the members of the nation, and as such the members, through the government, should be compensated, this means paying for water where commercial profit is made, paying for mineral extraction, and paying for polution; in doing so internalising previously externalised costs.
Under this same reasoning the atmosphere may be considered to be a joint common of all humanity, and any use of that common to make a profit in which doing so depletes the amount availible for other purposes should be offset by eaither replacing that value or paying for the value lost. When you release methane, carbon dioxide or other gasses you decrease the marginal utility, when you plant trees which sequester the carbon and return the balance the value is increased. So it is logical that to remove cost externalisation those which deplete the value of the joint commons should pay, at market rates, those whom restore the joint commons. And this applies so long as the atmosphere and the gasses which constitute it are of a finite volume, reguardless of the ratio of use to immediate supply. This does not rely on theories of climate change and is perfectly natural, though admitedly those whom write such legislation do so because of their perceptions of climate change rather than the aforementioned processes. I myself am not too worried about climate change, personally.
Sapient
September 7th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Sapient says
“Although this may seem irrelivant it means that all land and resources of new zealand belong to the members of the nation and any destruction or devaluation of those resources steals from the members of the nation, and as such the members, through the government, should be compensated, this means paying for water where commercial profit is made, paying for mineral extraction, and paying for polution; in doing so internalising previously externalised costs.”
And conversely if the people through their government said all land in private ownership may be farmed, grown forest on, have houses built on it, left to return to nature, grow cash crops, run a lama farm, etc. then by that reasoning is totally alowable.
That is good. The owners should have total freedom.
If the people decide that they should.
Have you ever run a company or been involved in running a company at the business end?
There is no such thing as internal costs and external costs. A cost is a cost. If you want to increase say a water charge for water that previously has been free, then that is still a cost to be borne by the purchaser and able to be passed onto the consumer.
It is a fairy tale that somehow you can charge for say water and that cost wont be passed onto the consumer.
It is like having an increase in the minimum wage. Make it as high as you like, add as many noughts as you can fit on the page, that cost will be passed on. Absolutely guarenteed.
Now you can use this mechanism to stop dairy farming but it will drive up the cost to the consumer for dairy products.
No question, absolutely guarenteed. Even if you eliminated dairying totally in New Zealand and imported all dairy products.
In my view the ETS will be totally inflationary.
September 7th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
The ETS will be inflationary.
I’ve yet to see the Labour/Green nutbar alliance show us the costs of their proposed action.
Cost benefit analysis. Please.
And why aren’t you being transparent to New Zealanders about what your feelgood ETS is going to cost them? How much will they be paying for butter? For meat? For milk?
We all know the benefit. Nothing. There is no benefit to the planet, whatsoever. Some idiots still maintain that by “doing our bit”, the world will look to us as a “leader” and follow our actions.
Lets let the world jump first, eh. No one follows New Zealand. Ever.
September 7th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
The fools want to pass the ETS so Helen can secure a United Nations job. Its so corrupt I feel sick. Happy birthday google.
September 7th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
BP
This is all about the “long game” for the hard left, for the people of NZ to really embrace socialism/communism it first has to be seen as the only alternative.
The only way they can usher in their ultimate goal is to destroy our economy, once we are well and truly stuffed then the socialists/communists can wade in as “save” us.
September 7th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Censorship now Frog?
September 7th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
You really have a short memory don’t you BB…
1) Lots of peoples posts get caught up in moderation for whatever reason, and you of all people should know all about that. Paranoid much?
2) Last time the economy was in the dumps, we got a lot of right-wing-ness, so would seem like a pretty risky strategy for advancing socialism on the parts of Key and Clark…and for that matter, McCain, soon to be PM David Cameron, and the French guy, all of whom are apparently non-socialist-ish.
September 7th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
I seriously worry about the longterm vision of any of our political masters.
Did anyone hear Helen Clark on National radio yesterday morning? She stated that her party was committed to “making NZ the best country in the world to do business in, the best country in the world for workers, the best country in the world to live in, with the best standard of living, and the best country in the world for tourists to visit”
When I look around me, I can’t for the life of me see how we are anywhere near any of those goals, except maybe the fact we have some nice scenery.
How realistic is it to believe that we can balance such competing goals? Madness, that’s what it is.
And how realistic is it to think that the ETS will bring about positive change without massive pain? Madness, that’s what it is.
September 7th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Gerrit, to answer quickly;
And in this case the peoples representitives have decided that such externalities should be paid for, and by exension of their support for such representitives the public agrees with the thought.
The ETS will be inflationary for some food products and deflationary for others, and even if it were inflationary for all food products that wouldint so much be a problem, we have far too much disposable income as it is; A fact that is attested to by the share number of people, primarily middle to lower class, who gamble, drink, smoke and consume expensive, calorie laden, fast food.
No such thing as internal and external costs? How is this so? Ever heard of scarcity? Any costs not born by the producer that are incured in the prodution process must be born by someone else, eg; society. furthermore, every utilisation of every drop of water has an opportunity cost and if that cost is not incured by the user then that cost is incured by the commons and other users there-of.
September 7th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
greengeek,
If you dont want to get influensa then sometimes the best thing to do is put up with the pain of getting the vaccine, eaither that or cut off all communication with the outside world, the question is which way is, ultimatly, more costly.
It will hurt when the dairy bubble bursts, just like it will when the housing bubble bursts, but the pain is only incured cause the bubble wxists in the first place.
September 7th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
“The problem is that the membership is thoroughly stacked.”
More conspiracy theories, jh. No one is encouraging certain types to join and discouraging others. And our policy has not lurched in any direction in recent years. It has been quite consistent since the ’90’s.
Gerrit,
“Agree that Green policy has to be signed of by members. Maybe the Greens membership has changed since the introduction of the left wing Allianc eleftovers and Rod Donald premature passing?”
See above.
“In the link provided in my previous comment, the communist workers berate Labour for its capitalistic position. In fact the only party in parliament in the eyes of the extreme left, to register anywhere near 5% are the Greens (Alliance only gets 0.07% of the vote).”
You over simplify things. The traditional left, whether extreme or not, and including the Alliance, usually dislike Greens, because of our emphasis on balancing environmental and social justice issues, and because we are not inherently against market mechanisms (we have a big problem with global corporate capitalism, but that doesn’t equate to being anti market). So placing the Greens at the far left of Parliament and therefore expecting anyone further left to support them is just not a sure bet. Its why Greens often argue that the two dimensional political spectrum just doesn’t capture what we’re about.
“From an environmental position the Greens have not been successful at all.”
This is very true for the first two terms of Parliament and not as true for the last one, where some progress has been made. Remember that there are other allies in Parliament for our social justice positions, while there are almost none supporting us on the environment. Labour has only started to change in the last few years due to public opinion finally coming around. Before that they were as bad as the Nats.
“In my opinion and if you read Rodney Hides book you will find the ACT party has more understanding off, and environmental policies, then the Greens have on the environment.”
Really, I can only laugh at this. They may talk about it a lot (not that I’ve noticed though), but if they have such an understanding, it sure hasn’t filtered through into their policy or voting record.
“Just a very different method to get those achieved.”
This can’t be true as ACT’s goals are VERY different. Climate change is the most obvious example, but there are many more.
September 7th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
How is dairy a “bubble”? The boom is based on real, tangible current demand for dairy products, unlike the bubbles of dot-com and housing, which were based on speculation that something of worth may turn up in the future sometime as a result of the initial invesment…
September 7th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
…IMHO, and as far as I know.
September 7th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Sapient,
“Any costs not born by the producer that are incured in the prodution process must be born by someone else, eg; society. furthermore, every utilisation of every drop of water has an opportunity cost and if that cost is not incured by the user then that cost is incured by the commons and other users there-of.”
I think we are talking at cross purposes. If you load say that water cost onto the user, then the user will simply add it onto the consumer. Semamtic to call it an external cost or internal. It is a cost.
Now if that water is not charged for then the resultant product (trees, dairy, lamas, goat, cabbages, tomatoes, etc.) will be cheaper.
So it does not matter if you charge for that water or not. If you dont charge then the cost and resale price will be cheaper, if you do then the cost and sell price will be dearer.
Here is an interesting situation for you. Rain falls on a farm. The farmer collects the water and stores it in a dam on his property (a common occurence). Who owns the water? The farmer or the people?
Sapient. What dairy bubble? There is an under supply of dairy protein worldwide. Hence New Zealand developing farms in Paraguay, Uruguay, Chile, Brasil, etc.
September 7th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Mark Hubbard - what you lack in imagination, Mark, you make up for with longwindedness! Your ‘cocky’ pronouncements on farming might cower those who haven’t farmed, but I’m not moved by your insistant style. Some of what you write is thought-provoking, but much is self important waffle. For example, you write,
“And you know what, the best stewards of the land I personally know of, especially the High Country, are farmers.”
For goodness sake man, who else lives there? There are precious few in the highcountry to challenge them for the title of ‘best steward’. What a nonsense statement! Further, if you cannot answer your own question,
“Examples of large scale, ‘ethical’ rural based industries that a prosperous economy can be based upon?”
then I suggest you sit yourself down and have a wee think. Is milk the be all and end all for you? Is that all you can envisage? I could offer dozens of viable alternatives to dairying as rural based industries that a prosperous etc. etc. without breaking into a sweat.
“And what’s unethical about milk?” You must surely know this is a nonsense question. Milk is a liquid, nothing more. The production of milk in New Zealand has major ethical questions hanging over it, not the least being the degradation on fragile landscapes, where dairying should never set hoof, another being the despoilation of rivers where dairying blossoms. Do I need to go on? Do you sense yet, that your questions are ill considered and shallow?
As for this,
“For what point would it be for them to destroy the environment which is their living?? What? Your view is biased, wrong and dangerous.”
I ask the very same question of you. What is the point of operating a land management system that is so poorly run that it needs massive imports to keep it going and loses vast quantities of its most valuable constituant, soil, to the air and to the sea through irresponsible practices like ploughing, stubble burning, application of herbicides and pesticides that destroy soil biota. Are you really thinking about these things Mark, or are you here to pimp for the dairy industry?
September 7th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
testing, probing..
my ‘dairy’ comment has flown off into the outer atmosphere! Anyone seen it?
September 7th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Gerrit - do you have an answer to your own question,
“Rain falls on a farm. The farmer collects the water and stores it in a dam on his property (a common occurence). Who owns the water? The farmer or the people?”
I would suggets that by collecting/stopping the passage of, the water, the dam builder has caused it to be lost to ‘downstream’ users (human, animal and plant) and is required to compensate in some way.
September 7th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Gerrit, bubble was not the correct word(as i said, it was a quick responce); more impending environmental catastrophy if land continues to be used in ways that destroy its future productivity and that of land surrounding it, and the waterways, etc, etc. My point being that with the cost externalisation it is profitable in the short term to farm in such damaging ways.
The cost is still born within the society/economy but not in the same way, it is still cost eternalisation; if it is born by the dairy farmer they pass it on to the supply through increasing the price of dairy goods, which makes dairying less compeditive and other food sources relativly more compeditive, though if it is externalised from the dairying industry society as a whole pays for it rather than just the parties which cause the damage and consume goods provided through such damage. It is just the same as subsidies, you can tax all food sales to generate money to subsidies one type of food if you so want, the consequence being an increase in general food prices while only the subsidied food becomes cheaper. It is better, in my opinion, to have those that consume the food pay for the costs of its prodution rather than society as a whole.
Thats a messy paragraph, but basicly, it is very much cost externalisation withn the industries and it mucks around with the price signals, it is no different than a subsidy.
September 8th, 2008 at 5:43 am
greenfly,
I do have an answer and that is that the farmers owns the water stored in his dam. I fell from the sky for free, he collected it therefore he may use it for the purpose he collect it.
However it is an interesting question which is the fundamental parabol that differentiates between socialism (or what Sapient calls the “common” good) and private enterprise.
You could relate the same question to other free resources such as sunshine, wind, tides, gravity, photosynthasis, etc. and their use for growing plants and animals, generating electricity, keeping people warm, etc.
You would suggest that the farmer has to pay for storing the free water for his own use. That could reasonably be argued to be true, however to do that you would need to also charge the other users further down stream.
So charging the farmer would also see you charge the electric power company (generating electricity by a hydro dam across the river) for the use of the water. Plus the anglers at the river mouth to catch fish.
Be interesting to hear where you would draw the line? And my later question to Sapient regarding how an economy would function if ALL free resources where charged for.
Sapient.
Every time I hear the imortal words “impending environmental catastrophy” I laugh. What catastrophy? Who said that the land and waterways will be destroyed for future use around it?
While currently we have a problem, the dairy industry is in fact working towards fixing it. Just read some of the farming web sites to see what is being done.
The problem I have with your arguments is that they are steeped in acadamia. (are you a university student studying social sciences?)
What you are saying is that society as an entity has costs required to keep it functioning ( the so called external cost for the farmer). That those costs should actually be allocated to and paid for by the farmer.
No problem in acadamic theory.
However in pratical and pragmatic terms we have a situation where a state department has to be created to measure, cost, bill, collect and redistribute those costs. A department that has running costs.
So not only are you loading those “external” costs onto the farmer, you are loading a compliance cost as well. And guess what?
He will pass those costs (a cost is a cost is a cost - external or internal) onto the consumer. What you have to do is convince the consumer that the extra they are paying for their dairy produce is worthwhile.
I like that thinking because at that point the market will decide. The consumer has the choice, higher prices or no dairy. And without the tax receipts from dairy exports the volume of tax able to be redistributed by government for something like public transport will be reduced.
So yes lets add ALL costs onto All industries and see how well as a society we fare.
Be an interesting acadamic subject for a PHD.
September 8th, 2008 at 7:33 am
Gerrit - my answer to your ‘dam’ question doesn’t suggest that the farmer be ‘charged’, but that he should ‘compensate in some way’ those downstream, affected by his actions. Imagine for example, if the dam was very big and the property adjacent, very sensitive to water loss (a mire, bog,wetland with rare plants etc.) The actions of the dam-building farmer will impact heavily on the neighbour, therefore the farmer has responsibilities. Water flows. You go on to say that ‘you could relate the same question to other free resources such as sunshine, wind, tides, gravity, photosynthasis, etc.”
I think you extrapolate too readily when in fact you haven’t attended to your original question adequately.
September 8th, 2008 at 7:39 am
Frog - could you look into the mysterious dissapearance of my comments of last night? I’m sure they’re somewhere in the pond. Cheers.
September 8th, 2008 at 8:05 am
Greenfly,
Well I have. The farmers own the water, in fact it does not matter if collected in a dam or a tank.
Now what you are on about is who has the RESPONSIBILTY of ensuring that the holding method security, overflow disposal, and down stream contamination are safe.
That is off cource the farmers. He has to ensure his runoff is clean and contaminant free.
Any damage done to others’ property can be redressed through the court system.
If that runoff cleanliness is not up to scratch (and there are any current measuring systems?) then the farmer need to clean up his operation. Just as any industrial complex such as a paper factory, freezing works or electricity generator has to do now.
So if you wanted to make farmers responsible stop the activist attitude and create a strategy to make this happen.
This rubbish about external costs have to be placed onto farmer is total acadamic rubbish.
It will not keep a waterway clean, just pass arbitory costs onto consumers that are not in actual fact doing anything to clean up effluent disposal or ensure water resources are fully utiliesed before they slip away into the ocean.
So strategically what would you do?
September 8th, 2008 at 8:06 am
Gerrit said:
“However it is an interesting question which is the fundamental parabol that differentiates between socialism (or what Sapient calls the “commonâ€? good) and private enterprise.
You could relate the same question to other free resources such as sunshine, wind, tides, gravity, photosynthasis, etc. and their use for growing plants and animals, generating electricity, keeping people warm, etc.
You would suggest that the farmer has to pay for storing the free water for his own use. That could reasonably be argued to be true, however to do that you would need to also charge the other users further down stream.
So charging the farmer would also see you charge the electric power company (generating electricity by a hydro dam across the river) for the use of the water. Plus the anglers at the river mouth to catch fish.
Be interesting to hear where you would draw the line? And my later question to Sapient regarding how an economy would function if ALL free resources where charged for.”
An appropriate line:
Providing the farmer returned the resource, in this case water, to the land in such a way that it was not tainted (by chemical fertilizers, toxins etc) and would not be detrimental to the surrounding environment (and people down-stream) he/she should be entitled to use what he/she has collected.
Instead of forcing for example the farmer, the hydro company or the trout fisherman to PAY for their use of the resource, they should be required to (and inherently understand their responsibility to) care for and maintain the resource for everyone. This would be far far more beneficial than charging and fining for any kind of resource exploitation without concern for maintaining resources and the environment.
Rights and responsibilities 101.
September 8th, 2008 at 8:33 am
Ash,
Totally agree, as I said in my previous post.
Next question will be measurement. How do you set a contaminant standard, who measures it and at what cost to whom.
Then how do you divide that cost on a shared water cource between two or more farms? Number of cows, the standard of effluent disposal plus fencing and flax planting next to the water course?
If you do a general charge (like Manukau Water do with their drink and waste water charges) then the incintive to clean up the operational farming procedures plus use less water will not be there. The cost will simply be passed onto the consumer.
September 8th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Gerrit - you precis of my comment by saying,
“Now what you are on about is who has the RESPONSIBILTY of ensuring that the holding method security, overflow disposal, and down stream contamination are safe.”
but this is not in fact what I am saying. I’m pointing to the interference of a system (rain falls, flows through various landscapes). It’s the stopping of the flow that concerns me.
You say this,
“I do have an answer and that is that the farmers owns the water stored in his dam. I (sic) fell from the sky for free, he collected it therefore he may use it for the purpose he collect it.”
If you refer, not to rain, but perhaps, kereru, you would say,
“I do have an answer and that is that the farmers owns the (kereru). They fell from the sky for free, he captured them therefore he may use them for the purpose he collect it.”
My point is, rain is free, but should it be? Ownership isn’t automatically conferred simply because something ‘fell’ into your land. (see ‘kereru)
September 8th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Not sure what you are trying to say greenfly,
I dont speak maori so dont know what a “kereru” is or represents.
But feel free to go ahead and charge for rainfall. Be an interesting PHD for someone on how that would work, how would one pay, how much and to whom.
But why stop at rain. How about sunshine? Maybe moonlight? What about wind? and tides?
If I build a solar panel on my roof and my neighbours trees grow so that it blocks the sunlight. Can I charge him for taking my sunlight?
See once you start charging for water in the form of rainfall, where do you draw the line?
September 8th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Gerrit - you are not following my argument. I’m not promoting ‘paying’ for anything at all. It seems to be the point you want to feature, so I’ll leave you to it. Kereru are ‘wood pigeon’. What part of the country are you from?
“If I build a solar panel on my roof and my neighbour’s trees grow so that it blocks the sunlight. Can I charge him for taking my sunlight?”
I hope you are ‘building’ a solar panel for your roof. If your neighbour’s trees cast a shadow over your project, you ought to: have considered that before you began, have a relationship with him/her that allows you to discuss the problem and find a solution, etc. Be flexible with your thinking. Your willingness to charge all and sundry for this and that is worrying. Btw there is provision to require your neighbours to allow free passage of sunlight onto your place. Simple solutions are best.
“What about wind?” you ask. How would you feel if your neighbour erected a turbine directly upwind of yours? As with water, there are consequences/ramifications that have to be considered. Just because it landed on your property, doesn’t automatically mean it’s yours.
September 8th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Gerrit - your lack of familiarity with even simple Maori words is a concern to me. How can you hope to understand local concepts without having the subtlety of language needed. What about ‘mana whenua’. How do you factor that concept into your thinking? English simply doesn’t have the subtlety and the ‘grounding’ for many concepts that are central to land management in our fair isles.
Kia tupato e hoa! He tangata tinihanga au!
September 8th, 2008 at 10:41 am
greenfly
Why is anybodies “lack of familiarity with Maori” a concern to you?
September 8th, 2008 at 10:44 am
greenfly,
Ignorance is bliss!
Looking forward to your PHD on resource mangement and ownership.
Funny thing about communal ownership.
Go to Whale Bay, just south of Raglans’ surf beach and have a look at the corrugated iron gate blocking bech access plus the barb wire down to below the high tide mark.
Red the signs about tribal refrigeration on the barb wire and then talk to me about things Maori and ownership.
September 8th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Gerrit,
I agree with Ash’s sympathies here.
In answer to your academia question; yes.
Water in the form of a river is essentially a ‘common good’, though it is increasingly becoming less so, and as such any use of that good is a cost to a latter user. Water in the form of rain is more or less a ‘public good’ however and is rather non-excludable and non-rivalrous the use there-of, so long as it is returned to the soil in a non-poluted form, does not deprive another of its use as it would otherwise, in most cases, spend a great amount fo time making its way to the water table.
Sunshine and moonlight are also non excludable and non-rivalrous and can not realisticly be expected to be paid for.
Im sure there would be some way to approximate effluent run off, etc by taking the number of cows and locations of farming and then taking the various measures into account. Though, I would be rather interested to see it dertermined by case-law; while im on that subject, yuck, common law systems.
Its been a long time since ive been accused of being a socialist, normally im called a right-wing ideologue, i dont know if I should be complemented or offended. Hmmmm.
September 8th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Sapient,
There is no such thing as “common” good, it is a myth.
Presuming by “common” you mean ALL?
See what is for the “common” good for Auckland electricity users is not for the”common” good of the Waikato people having to look at ugly power pylons marching actross their vista, nor for the Kaukapaka residents faced with an electric power station in their back yard.
This myth about “common” good needs to be explored in your phd.
What is one person “common” good (speedway at the springs) is anothers “no” good
September 8th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Gerrit,
Sorry, I assumed you recognized the terminology since you seem quite literate with economic functioning.
By common, I refer more the idea of the ‘commons’, you know, like the “tradgity of the commons”. Its a type of good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_good_(economics)
Ergh, Wikipedia *cringe*.
September 8th, 2008 at 11:04 am
I can see my response is yet to appear, probally due to the link.
A common good is a form of good that for all intensive purposes is non-excludable and is rivalrous. Common refers to the idea of a ‘commons’, kind of like a community garden of sorts, except more wide ranging in terms of resources. It is the meathod of allocation that gives rise to the “tradgity of the commons”.
September 8th, 2008 at 11:07 am
besides im more of a ‘lesser evil’ or ‘greatist good’ kind of guy than a ‘common good’ kind of guy, the common good never gets anywhere.
September 8th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Author: Valis
Comment:
“The problem is that the membership is thoroughly stacked.”
………………
IE how many greens would approve of Sue Bradford etc,etc. Meaning this factor would be a major put off to membership.
September 8th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
# big bro Says:
September 8th, 2008 at 10:41 am
greenfly
Why is anybodies “lack of familiarity with Maori� a concern to you?
big bro - reread my post to Gerrit - it explains why and to clarify, I mean te reo, taha and tikanga Maori.
September 8th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
greenfly
The remainder of your post is mostly written in a Language that I do not understand, it would help if you used English.
September 8th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
big bro - things on the Maori ’side’ - language and custom/meaning. I’m saying it’s difficult to grasp some concepts for which there is no word in English, but for which there is in another language. Some Maori ideas, eg. kaitiakitanga (kinda like ‘guardianship’ but with different conotations) don’t translate easily and yet are used often in the same fields we are discussing. It’s a bit like the use of technichnical or philosophical terms some of the posters here have been using. Those who aren’t familiar with them are at a disadvantage.
September 8th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
I do concede that if one does not understand a foreign tongue then you are at some disadvantage however I still fail to see why that would be a “concern” for you.
Would it not be better to use a language that we all understand if we are going to appreciate what the real issues are?
September 8th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
I agree with you big bro and won’t muddy the waters with a foreign language
unless it’s impossible to avoid (I might have to use a place name for example).
My concern is for clarity of expression, that’s all.
September 8th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
“Author: Valis
Comment:
“The problem is that the membership is thoroughly stacked.�
………………
IE how many greens would approve of Sue Bradford etc,etc. Meaning this factor would be a major put off to membership.”
jh, I didn’t say that. I think it was you. I love your twisted logic though. Of course people who don’t like Sue might not join. That’s a far cry from “the membership is thoroughly stacked”. Sue joined the Greens in ‘99, long after social justice was a core principle. That came first, Sue second - see how that works?
September 8th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
greenfly,
you could quite easily have written ‘kerepu - native wood pidgeons’ but it is OK now I have learned something.
Here in the depths of South Auckland we dont see any native wood pidgeons. However we did have a visit from a pair of Tuis. Bird life here on the shores of the Manukau is maily aquatic with grey herons, swallows, kingfishers, sea gulls, shags, etc. Biggest event is the gathering of godwits before their migration to Siberia. Massive sight. In the garden we have wax eyes and doves plus the odd rosella as well.
In fact the native birds are very few and far between. Did hear the morepork a couple of nights ago.
If you go to Warkworth you will hear the call of the Kookabarro. Escaped from Kaawau island and now ready to multiply north and south.
Last thing we need is more fish catchers. Should be an open season on shags and kookabaro’s so that fish stocks are maintained for the people.
September 8th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Gerrit - thanks for the bird report - it’s very interesting to get a picture of where other commenters live and the things that go on around them. You’ve an eye for the birds, I can see. Many people are quite unaware. I’m beside an estuary and see alot of those birds you mention. Shame about the ‘Kookabarro’. Magpies are bad enough. Not pushing the ‘Maori name’ thing, but your kingfishers are called kotare - I only mention it because there is a tiny bay just below where I live with that name because the kingfishers nest in the clay banks there. The ‘open season on shags’ issue is a hot one down here. Trout fishermen at logger heads with twig-and-tweeters
There are a lot of things that need to be done to maintain fish stocks for the people. You have my absolute support on that. Tell me what you think of this:
“Save the whitebait - practise catch and release”