by frog
Showerheads and regulations have been getting a lot of airtime recently, with Nick Smith and his mates making hay with a bit of misinformation and a lot of fake moral outrage. In short, there is no regulation requiring high-efficiency shower heads of 6 litres/min in new homes. This is a patently false statement. At the risk of sounding like Winston Peters, the media has failed to do its job and allowed Smith and Co. to turn this into a media circus where half naked female models and buff blokes are shown complaining about getting conditioner out of their hair, rather than investigating the facts.
Hereś the proposed DBH calculator to be used to see if your proposed NEW, LARGE dwelling complies with the new energy efficiency standard for hot water. (No BluePeter, this does not apply to your retrofit, although your retrofit cannot make the efficiency worse than it was before you started. However, you do not have to meet the new code.) This calculator allows for a bewildering choice of technologies and combinations in putting a hot water system together. Only in the absolute worst case, when the hot water cylinder is the most inefficient type, would you need a 6 litre/min shower head. No plumber worth his salt would be doing it that way in any case, so the point is almost moot.
Where we come unstuck, and where Smith and Co. have done a real good job of misinformation, is with the Acceptable Solution. Acceptable Solutions are the lazy manś way of complying to the H1 Building Code. They offer a worst case, rule of thumb guide for those who either cannot or will not use the free calculator. Here is the proposed Acceptable Solution document that DBH is consulting on and which has been falsely called a regulation. Section 5.2 is for the lazy man who cannot be bothered using the calculator. For this reason, the compliance table uses the worst case data from the calculator and says – Beat that! Itś this worst case scenario that Smith and Co. are erroneously calling the new nanny state regulation.
Here are some facts to digest:
80% of all hot water used in homes goes for showers
Out of approximately 1.6 million homes in NZ, 460,000 have high pressure water systems.
This means that 71% of existing homes already have a low-flow shower! (And they are not complaining either.)
If just a third of the high pressure systems in NZ were to switch to a high efficiency shower head of between 6 and 9 litres/min, they would each save on average 1500 kWhs per year, or about $300. They would also collectively save enough power each year to run the entire city of Nelson for that same year. This is not small peanuts. And we don’t need to go to 6 litre/min shower heads to do it!
Published in Environment & Resource Management by frog on Mon, October 13th, 2008
Tags: efficiency, energy, head, nanny, Nick Smith, regulation, shower, state
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Thats a very confusing post, if 71% of homes already comply why the hell are we wasting more tax payers money on a non issue?
And as far as nanny state goes, Kiwi blog reports they are effectively banning christmas crackers!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda – Itś not about existing homes. Itś about NEW, LARGE homes.They are the only ones that are being asked to comply. Here it is an issue because the trend now is for massive and inefficient hot water systems.
My point was that 71% of people currently have moderate flow shower heads and are not complaining, so this really is a non-issue manufactured for the benefit of an election campaign! And by the way, nobody is banning anything!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Here it is an issue because the trend now is for massive and inefficient hot water systems”
What exactly are people putting in these new homes? Is it some sort of hot water, water feature or something? seriously what are people putting in these homes?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog
I must congratulate you on your ability to smudge an issue, you do it almost as well as Winston.
Now can you answer this simple question; I plan to build another home next year, will I be able to have the shower of MY choice or will you and Labour tell me what my water pressure will be?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
From the post:
“In short, there is no regulation requiring high-efficiency shower heads of 6 litres/min in new homes.”
What part of that is smudged?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So I can use whatever shower I want and have whatever water flow I choose?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
no, big bro, you’ll still be bound by the range of showerheads available and commonsense (you’ll not be advised to install something likely to scald you or anyone else using your shower). As to your water pressure – isn’t that regulated already, by your local council through the management of the reticulation system? Are you railing against that nannyish regulation (or have you accepted that there is good reason behind some regulation?)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Please guys, don’t confuse “pressure” with “flow rate” – it makes my head hurt.
Thanks
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis & Greenfly
If there are no regulations or what the Greens are proposing is not going to change anything why are so many people getting upset?
The Greens are just as duplicitous as Labour, you are masters at smudging the issue but the reality is that the Greens DO want to tell us how much water we can us and they DO want to run our lives.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
perhaps big bro, they are being spun an inflamatory line of misinformation and hype? Conceivable? Seems to be par for the course when most Green ideas hit the public arena. Wonder who’s doing it?
I’m presuming, big bro, because of your antipathy to anyone wanting to run your life other than yourself, that you don’t want to run mine? Are you happy then for me to wander the legal paper roads of our rural lands?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB
People are upset because they WANT to be upset. It isn’t about us, it is about you-lot who are projecting some attitude on us. We have a principle about appropriate decision making. This differs from the principle of never making a decision that might cost business money that National adheres to, and the principle of… hmmm… sorry, as near as I can tell Labour has no principles at all
All in all, I think we do a lot better on the honesty front than the majors.
Nor have we ANY interest in running your life BB. Not a single one of us is at all interested in solving YOUR problems. The planet we share is one thing, but the rest of it? No way. No need. No motivation.
What we want are fair election processes and a fair break for Mother Nature and future generations. I fail to see how this is so threatening unless you’ve got a stake in an unethical/unfair practice of some sort.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“If there are no regulations or what the Greens are proposing is not going to change anything why are so many people getting upset?”
You may have noticed there’s an election on? Some people will say anything to get power. Why are so many getting upset? How about the duplicitous Nick Smith and an enabling media. Either could have found the truth quite easily. Is Nick stupid, or lying for political gain? (I asked this when he did the same thing with the ETS, but got no answer. Being stupid or lying seems a bit of a pattern with Nick.) Would the media rather have a juicy nanny state story or a boring story about how the building code is changing to encourage more efficient hot water systems? Not nearly as fun as a conspiracy theory is it.
“The Greens are just as duplicitous as Labour, you are masters at smudging the issue but the reality is that the Greens DO want to tell us how much water we can us and they DO want to run our lives.”
If you’ve already decided that and this whole conversation is just a charade, then why do we have to put up with you?
Btw, not that it matters, but this wasn’t a Green initiative, but a government one.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
big bro – you probably missed it, but I had a real question for you on another thread. I’ll paste it here. Cheers.
big bro – I have a genuine question if you would care to look at it;
the party that you do support (whatever that party might be) doesn’t support or promote the kind of animal welfare you want to see (I’m suppposing this, I don’t know for sure).
Why not? What is is about their philosophy that has them ignoring the welfare of animals? If they can do that, then aren’t you anxious about the other policies they hold? The Greens must surely be easily the best of the bunch as far as that issue is concerned. Does it give you pause for thought and make you wonder at other green policies in light of their view on animals and the broader planetary welfare issues they promote? Do you think, as I do, that the manner in which a party/community/individual regards the wellbeing of animals reflects the way they are likely to treat humans as well?
It’s a hell of a convoluted question big bro. I’d appreciate it if you were to have a go at it.
greenfly
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bjchip
“People are upset because they WANT to be upset. It isn’t about us, it is about you-lot who are projecting some attitude on us. We have a principle about appropriate decision making.”
Wow that statement could equally read like this:
The greens are upset because they WANT to be upset. It isn’t about us, it is about you-lot who are projecting some attitude on us. We have a principle about appropriate decision making.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well having spent another long time playing with the calculator the basic message is if you want a violent shower you need to heat your water with wood pellets.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Wow that statement could equally read like this:”
um, it could also be rewritten: “monkeys are purple”. what is your point?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly
Wander where ever you wish, should you stumble onto private land and have the manners to ask if you may use my property as access to some other place then you will always be granted that wish.
If not then I have three very large and very obedient dogs who have a thing about “uninvited “guests”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ
Does that mean you are all for telling me what water flow/pressure I can have in MY home?
Let me guess, this nanny state control is all in the name of the environment.
Why not go the whole hog and just tell us that socialism/communism is in the best interest of the planet.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Of course, the best solution for shower water heating remains a storage tank heated by electricity, and that is exactly where renewables such as wind can make an impact.
This twaddle about electricity for Nelson is just Greenwash from the Green party.
We need lots of excess generation and a smart demand management system that can match on a second by second basis the excess electricity to the demand. A 21st century solution, not going back to heating water with flames and lugging bags of pellets around in trucks, or worse still, in the boots of cars.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
thanks big bro – I will and I promise I will keep to the legal public paper roads. They are easy enough to locate on a map and a gps will keep me sweet. Do you know where on your land, the paper roads go?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly
I had missed that question, I will do my best to answer it, you may have to excuse the lack of smudging and “Greenspeak” but I do tend to speak my mind.
“the party that you do support”
I support an ACT/National Government
“(whatever that party might be) doesn’t support or promote the kind of animal welfare you want to see (I’m suppposing this, I don’t know for sure).Why not?”
No idea, but I did raise this when I was a National party member (and conference delegate) and my question was met with blank looks, you know as well as I do that the Nat’s are not going to do anything about it.
“What is is about their philosophy that has them ignoring the welfare of animals?”
Greed and ignorance I would suspect.
“If they can do that, then aren’t you anxious about the other policies they hold?”
No.
“The Greens must surely be easily the best of the bunch as far as that issue is concerned”
Why do you say that?, until now the Greens have made a lot of noise about animal welfare but they have not done a single thing despite having this corrupt govt by the short and curly’s for the last three years.
“Does it give you pause for thought and make you wonder at other green policies in light of their view on animals and the broader planetary welfare issues they promote?”
No, because all the other policies are nothing more than socialism in drag
“Do you think, as I do, that the manner in which a party/community/individual regards the wellbeing of animals reflects the way they are likely to treat humans as well?”
Not at all, I judge people by the way they treat their animals, take dogs as an example, there is not one single dog that is born vicious, they only become that way at the hands of humans.
Humans become vicious because they want to, we shoot vicious dogs when it is not their fault yet we let out vicious low life humans when they are the ones who should be shot.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
big bro – my question re. animal welfare doesn’t interest you?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly
Look up!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hang on!,
These regulations decide the flow rate of your shower based on the size of your house and number of bedrooms, this is total warped,
i.e you have a gas instant system if your house is 3bedroom (150sqm you only have 6l/m
what does this achieve? If there is a policy to promote small houses then it should be explicit not done in an underhanded way such as this.
One thing that this document will do is kill off is ppl putting the washing machine/ dryer in the garage as this means that the entire garage gets used in the square meterage calculations, if you don’t have any plumbing in your garage you can discount it from the footprint,
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
brilliant reply thanks big bro. I’m a little confused near the end where it seems that you do see a connection between the way someone treats animals and the way they treat their fellow man, but, for all that, you were pretty clear. You are right, the Greens have made a lot of noise about animal welfare, where other parties have been stonily silent, but I would suggest that those in the green ranks have been active on a community level, where their party of choice has been ‘hamstrung’ to use an unfortunate term.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hmm: double post as the first one got screwed up
Hang on!,
These regulations decide the flow rate of your shower based on the size of your house and number of bedrooms, this is totally warped,
i.e you have a gas instant system if your house is 3bedroom (<150sqm) you are only allowed 7.5 l/m , but if you have more than 4 bedrooms you get only 6l/m
what does this achieve? If there is a policy to promote small houses then it should be explicit not done in an underhanded way such as this.
One thing that this document will do is kill off is ppl putting the washing machine/ dryer in the garage as this means that the entire garage gets used in the square meterage calculations, if you don’t have any plumbing in your garage you can discount it from the footprint,
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Nice logic. The Greens mere 6 MPs out of 120 are the only ones that care about animal welfare (http://www.greens.org.nz/node/20051), and the only party to have a policy and spokesperson to boot, but its our fault nothing has been done. There’s just no pleasing some people. But I forget, its just a ruse, as we’re all communist nutters that want to control the world. Buahaha-oh f*ck it. You guys get what you deserve.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Welly
It’s called Greenspeak.
You deny nanny state is interfering and smile while you are doing it, there are enough dumb kiwi’s who look at Jeannette when she is smiling and say to themselves “that nice lady would not tell lies now would she”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly
The Greens have done as much for animal welfare as every other party, i.e NOTHING.
The Greens are good at making a lot of noise but thats about it, the Greens cannot claim the morale high ground on this issue.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Welly, BB – First of all, there is nothing in the new DBH proposals that is from the Greens. The Ministry has figured this out all by themselves. Jeanette became involved via her role as Spokesperson for energy efficiency.
Welly – this is not about house size in any way. It is about how efficiently we heat our water.
BB – this is in no way about flow rates. It is not about water efficiency. It is about energy efficiency. Restricting flow rates is the lazy manś way of being energy efficient. You would be welcome to any flow rate or pressure that you desire, as long as you heat your water in an efficient manner, because that is what the new hot water standard is all about.
By the way, it is not the Greens who are smudging the issue, but rather Nick Smith and Co. Youve got to hand it to them getting all this media attention with one simple lie about the new standard!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Wow that statement could equally read like this:”
um, it could also be rewritten: “monkeys are purple”. what is your point?”
The greens believe they have knowledge that the rest of us should consider, and we probably should to some extent. People listen to what greens have to say and on this environmental platform, and then a whole lot of policy remarkably similar to so many tried and failed socialist ideals becomes apparent.
People question this policy and the greens get up in arms about it as if they are hard done by.
The greens are the ones trying to change the status quo, so how can they bitch and moan when people are reluctant to accept them?, especially when there is nothing new about the socialist crap that comes attached to the environmental message.
True liberty has been severly erroded in this country in the past 10 years, we have the biggest govt ever and still rapidly expanding, with a poulation that is getting dumber by the second.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>a poulation that is getting dumber by the second.
And that’s just how our political elite like it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>you have a gas instant system if your house is 3bedroom (150sqm you only have 6l/m
Not if you have a plumbers manual…..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bluepeter – is your forest sustainably managed and or native? It would be very interesting to hear from you ways in which you manage your forest and earn that title ‘greener than most greens’. I don’t doubt for a moment that it is true and would very much like to hear about it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
> a poulation that is getting dumber by the second.
Given the way the blogosphere explodes with righteous indignation whenever anyone proposes doing anything about the poor efficiency of our houses, I’d say the population’s also forgotten to take its prescription medication.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
righteous indignation – bulls-eye XYY
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>is your forest sustainably managed and or native?
The big one is planted in Pinus Radiata. It’s in the Tangahoe Valley.
We have another native one, which is quite small. Surrounds our bach.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP – I planted thousands of pinus radiata in the hills around Nelson and found the managment of those operations very damaging to the environment; exposed soils eroding, poorly designed roads cut across fragile faces, streams ruined by silting and overheating through lack of shade trees. No riparian margins left at all, destruction of previous native ‘cover’ and copious amounts of herbicide used. Are you practicing sustainable methods in your radiata forest? Hope yours isn’t like the ones I worked in!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Given the way the blogosphere explodes with righteous indignation whenever anyone proposes doing anything about the poor efficiency of our houses, I’d say the population’s also forgotten to take its prescription medication.”
See, this is where you guys lose the plot. You assume cause someone questions some of the greens more stupid policy, they are opposed to common sense or are mentally ill.
It is because psuedo greenies have taken the moral high ground on every thing from the war in Iraq, to diciplining children that cause’s these public reactions. You are effectively insuring the wider population is being vacinated against environmentalism because of the behavior of radicals in the movement.
I know a lot of people who are making their homes more energy efficient for common sense reasons, they certainly don’t need some self righteous greenie telling them to do it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly
And what’s the alternative use for that land? Dairy? How about alternative use for the money? A Ferrari?
Don’t you think you’re getting just a little precious when you consider a forest not green?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Welly – this is not about house size in any way. It is about how efficiently we heat our water.
If that is the case Frog then why do the flow rates change based upon the a) the size of the house or number of bedrooms,
you get a higher flow rate if you house is less than 150 sq m and 3 bedrooms or less,
have a read of 2.2.1 and 2.2.2
1. Paragraph 5.2.1 only applies to housing that is less
than 150 m2 in size and has 3 bedrooms or less.
2. Paragraph 5.2.2 applies to housing of any size, with
any number of bedrooms.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Perhaps I can ask this question again and see if one of you Greenies will give me an honest answer.
When (or if) I do build my new home (which may well be in Aussie given the way this election looks like going) can I have the following;
1 The water pressure and flow rate that I WANT or will I be restricted by nanny state?
2 Will I be able to heat that water the way I WANT or will I have to do it the way somebody from nanny state wants me to do it.
If you are honest I suspect the answer to those two questions is no and no.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis
“Nice logic. The Greens mere 6 MPs out of 120 are the only ones that care about animal welfare”
It did not seem to be a problem when you rammed through the anti smacking legislation, or the ridiculous waste minimisation legislation or the abject failure that is “buy kiwi made” campaign.
You Greens are really good at hiding behind the numbers when you want to avoid something, a lack of MP’s did not stop your social engineering projects did it.
The fact is that you COULD have done something about it but it was not something that you cared enough about, like all political parties you cynically use people to get their votes then hide behind the lack of numbers rubbish.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Not dairy BP – it’s far too steep! Curiously, I do consider a forest green, though there are degrees of ‘green-ness’. I suppose one that is hauling carbon in from the atmosphere and keeping it sequestered would have to be well up my list, but there is much to said for a native forest and the diverse flora and fauna within. I really do have reservations about the style of plantation managment I saw then. The bottom line for me is the soil. Is it improving/increasing as a result of the forester’s activities or is it being depleted. Soil is where the real treasure lies. Do you think your managment is doing that? Improving the soil? Hope so. As for ‘an alternative use for the money’, is a Ferrari the only other choice for you? You’ve not said whether you are managing your block sustainably and to me it is really important.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
good point big bro – if the repeal of section 59, a private member’s bill, was so successfully passed, then a private members bill from a Green MP on animal rights of some kind would be expected. I wonder if there has been such a thing?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda said…
See, this is where you guys lose the plot. You assume cause someone questions some of the greens more stupid policy, they are opposed to common sense or are mentally ill.
Didn’t you that accuse the population of mass stupidity just a couple of posts back?
The people who should take their meds are the subset foaming at the mouth over this, posting invective with a generous sprinkle of make-stuff-up so that it sounds as scary as possible. (“Well I hear that the government will force us to dispose of our old shower heads — at gunpoint, mind — into the fiery pit of Mount Doom.”)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Didn’t you that accuse the population of mass stupidity just a couple of posts back?”
There’s a difference between calling people stupid and a government dumbing people down.
The left are in love with all the tactics that appeal to an emotive shallow response in people. The section 59 debate was a classic, make out that parents want the right to beat and thrash their kids, that evil fundamentalists from america were behind opposition, I mean seriously what a load of emotive crap.
Teaching people to think for themselves is not a trait a socialist society encourages and the Labour/Greens are doing a fantastic job of that little piece of engineering.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Nice logic. The Greens mere 6 MPs out of 120 are the only ones that care about animal welfare
“It did not seem to be a problem when you rammed through the anti smacking legislation, or the ridiculous waste minimisation legislation or the abject failure that is “buy kiwi made” campaign.”
No sh*t Sherlock. You must not have a clue about how Parliament works. The repeal of the s59 loophole that you seem so in favour of, that enabled adults arrested for assault against children to get away with their violence, plus the waste minimisation bill, were Member’s bills for which there was no agreement for support from ANY party in the House, not even Labour. To say we rammed them through is beyond stupid. Both were supported by an overwhelming majority of the House, including the National party, all of whom came to their positions on their own via the select committee process where public submissions were heard. Buy Kiwi Made was not even legislation so was not rammed through the House either.
“You Greens are really good at hiding behind the numbers when you want to avoid something, a lack of MP’s did not stop your social engineering projects did it.”
It would seem bleeding obvious that a small number of MPs would not be a hindrance when there is wide support for a piece of legislation. And when there isn’t enough support, guess what? The bill doesn’t pass. As we haven’t yet managed to take over the world, we don’t get to choose what bills National and others will support. Oh what a day that will be. In the meantime, we’ve had some go through and even more go down in a screaming heap. You’ll have to figure out yourself why National was so keen on our “social engineering projects”
“The fact is that you COULD have done something about it but it was not something that you cared enough about, ”
I’ve never claimed this was our top priority, but even if it was, like it or not, there is nothing that we could have done up till now to guarantee passage of a particular piece of legislation. Even if it had been part of the cooperation agreement with Labour, that would not bind any of their support parties, so passage would still depend on what others decided to do. The only way to guarantee things is if say, Greens+Labour was a majority on its own, in which case it could easily be done and your talk of ramming things through would amount to more than b*llsh*t.
“like all political parties you cynically use people to get their votes then hide behind the lack of numbers rubbish.”
We’ve had some successes and even more failures. But a case can easily be made that we have delivered as much for our constituency as any other small party, particularly as we haven’t been part of keeping Labour in power via confidence and supply for the past six years. (For you bright sparks that think we’re lying about there being ways to work with a National government beyond coalition, there’s a clue.)
“good point big bro – if the repeal of section 59, a private member’s bill, was so successfully passed, then a private members bill from a Green MP on animal rights of some kind would be expected. I wonder if there has been such a thing?”
I don’t know greenfly, though it wouldn’t surprise me at all as Sue K is passionate about animal welfare. But remember that member’s bills get pulled randomly, so you can have a bill in the ballot for a very long time without it reaching the House. Even the govt does not control this process.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
shunda – go on then, give us an example of how a government of your choice would do the opposite of ‘dumbing people down’. Would it, for example, allow people to choose who they marry, regardless of gender, would it allow its people to chose whatever ‘recreational substance’ they desire, even though it might harm their health or would your government be prescriptive and dictatorial?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda
There’s a difference between calling people stupid and a government dumbing people down.
Maybe, but you made no such qualification in your original post.
The left are in love with all the tactics that appeal to an emotive shallow response in people.
You can expand that to “politicians of all stripes”, and add a whole heap of other professions (lawyers, advertisers, entertainers…). It’s certainly not a trait exclusive to one political wing.
But back to my original point: of all the things I might choose to wind myself up about and use cuss words, proposed legislation about new houses needing a certain type of shower head (or lagging or…) wouldn’t be in my top 100, or even my top 1000. More like 1073.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly, I can say with all honesty that I am unsure that banning ANYTHING is a good idea.
If you want a religious reference Paul said something like “everything is permissable but not everything is beneficial”
He also said creating laws that ban things tends to encourage an undue desire in people to do the very thing that is illegal, so from a biblical perspective you could build a powerful argument to liberalise many laws.
“Would it, for example, allow people to choose who they marry, regardless of gender”
I personally believe the institution of marriage that I am part of is an ancient tradition between a man and a woman.
Personally I see it as an important part of expressing my heterosexuality, and the commitment of a male and a female to live together and raise a family.
I see marriage like an old beautifully ornate building in the middle of town that a group of people want to knock down and build a nice new, pre-cast concrete slab modern archetectually designed replacement.
I like old buildings.
If someone wants a new building , go build it somewhere else, we had this place first.
Other than that I don’t see the design,positioning or colour of that building any of my business, just don’t knock mine down to build it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“But back to my original point: of all the things I might choose to wind myself up about and use cuss words, proposed legislation about new houses needing a certain type of shower head (or lagging or…) wouldn’t be in my top 100, or even my top 1000. More like 1073.”
Back to my original point:
PEOPLE ARE SICK AND TIRED OF BEING TOLD WHAT TO DO BY A BUNCH OF BOSSY SOCIALISTS.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes shundra – I appreciate your view but, again I ask, how would the government of you’re choice manage these things. You are quick to decry this ‘left wing’ government for the decisions they make, so what would yours do?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“The left are in love with all the tactics that appeal to an emotive shallow response in people.”
The right would never do that would they. Nick Smith falls over himself so quickly to scream “nanny state” that he doesn’t even care what the topic is, let alone whether what he is saying is true.
“If someone wants a new building , go build it somewhere else, we had this place first.
Other than that I don’t see the design,positioning or colour of that building any of my business, just don’t knock mine down to build it.”
I love this. Freedom for all, but not near me please. You just want to ban a different set of things. Even though no one is trying to make you do anything different, just celebrate their own relationship. That is really pretty pathetic from someone who complains they’re being told what to do and not do.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda said…
PEOPLE ARE SICK AND TIRED OF BEING TOLD WHAT TO DO BY A BUNCH OF BOSSY SOCIALISTS.
Yeah me too. They can prise my high-flow shower head out of my cold, wet, prune-like hands.
Did using all caps make it feel better?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I love this. Freedom for all, but not near me please. You just want to ban a different set of things. Even though no one is trying to make you do anything different, just celebrate their own relationship. That is really pretty pathetic from someone who complains they’re being told what to do and not do”
So expressing my heterosexuality is not valid, unless I allow homosexuals to be part of that expression?
RIGHTY HO THEN!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You can express you’re heterosexuality from a jungle jim in the middle of your bedroom for all I care. We weren’t talking about your freedom to show you’re a man. I expressly said “Even though no one is trying to make you do anything different..” And that’s the point. YOU are the one who would prevent someone else from expressing their commitment in the manner of their choosing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Yes shundra – I appreciate your view but, again I ask, how would the government of you’re choice manage these things. You are quick to decry this ‘left wing’ government for the decisions they make, so what would yours do”
I hear what you are saying greenfly.
Personally I think there is a serious lack of real leadership in NZ at the moment.
I am almost convinced I will be voting national at the moment, but by no means do I agree with everything they or there “core” voters believe in.
I think J. Key may have the ability to manage the financial storm comming better than Helen, I also think he may be a good leader and I found the article the Herald ran very interesting, he would appear to be a “genuine” centre right politician.
Basically I think NZ as been listing to far to the left, and is taking on water, we need a bit of balancing to stabilise the ship and I hope national can do it.
Whether we end up going to far to the other side, who knows, but they certainly won’t do that in three years.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“And that’s the point. YOU are the one who would prevent someone else from expressing their commitment in the manner of their choosing.”
No I am not, I am asking not to be stuffed in the closet so someone else can come out.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Freedom”, Sharunda!
I blogged about the different interpretations of that term on g.blog a while ago, together with a wonderful music video from many years ago that I think sums it up particularly well.
Do take a look and a listen!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“No I am not, I am asking not to be stuffed in the closet so someone else can come out.”
“go build it somewhere else” were your words. You don’t have to change you’re life a jot, you’re trying to prevent someone else from living the way they want to.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If I believe that “marriage” is an expression of heterosexuality how on earth can it accomodate homosexuality?
I am not opposed to gay rights that legally recognise the relationship they have at all, infact the gay community already have all the same rights that I do.
So now that the human rights are equal, why should I have to surrender my heterosexual tradition to gay rights activists?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“you’re trying to prevent someone else from living the way they want to.”
Yes, I am, just cause someone wants someone elses tradition dosen’t mean they can take it cause its their “human right”.
The implication is that a relationship between a man and a woman is nothing special, I think it is and will defend my human rights to retain something I see as important.
Why would you be opposed to that?
Make two traditions and call it diversity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Freedom”, Sharunda!
I blogged about the different interpretations of that term on g.blog a while ago, together with a wonderful music video from many years ago that I think sums it up particularly well.
Do take a look and a listen”
Yes toad great video, I am indeed an evil bigot fundmentalist nutter, all cause I won’t submit to a minority of a minority group that want to fundamentally change the definition of the majority.
One day I will get it ,don’t give up on me guys!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“The implication is that a relationship between a man and a woman is nothing special, I think it is and will defend my human rights to retain something I see as important.
Why would you be opposed to that?
Make two traditions and call it diversity.”
Really? Its what they call it that matters? I’m surprised that its the word that makes such a difference in it being special for you. I thought you were objecting to civil unions too. I thought it might be formal recognition of the relationship itself that might induce you to limit their freedom. But to me the point is that it doesn’t need to affect your marriage. I’ve been married for 20+ years and can’t imagine feeling threatened by what someone next door calls their relationship, but that’s just me I guess.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I thought it might be formal recognition of the relationship itself that might induce you to limit their freedom.”
Nope, I just think the current thing we call marriage should be a heterosexual thing, I like the idea that a relationship between a man and a woman can have a special recognition and place in society. Its nothing against the gay community I just don’t see why they need to be a part of it, the relationships are different enough to deserve separate definitions.
Civil unions don’t really bother me, infact I don’t see why 2 best friends can’t make a legal commitment to share their lives together, why limit it to a sexual relationship?
I also know alot of gay people are not even slightly interested in marriage as are many straight people. Some people prefer civil unions to marriage cause they don’t agree with the tradition of marriage, which is fine, but they still have the same rights as a married couple.
Seriously, what is wrong with marriage staying a heterosexual thing? To me it just seems like a bunch of radical gay activists being intollerant, the human rights have been achieved why do they want the tradition?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
big bro asked…
Perhaps I can ask this question again and see if one of you Greenies will give me an honest answer.
When (or if) I do build my new home (which may well be in Aussie given the way this election looks like going) can I have the following;
1 The water pressure and flow rate that I WANT or will I be restricted by nanny state?
2 Will I be able to heat that water the way I WANT or will I have to do it the way somebody from nanny state wants me to do it.
The answers to both questions is yes.
This whole debate is due to not recognising the difference between guidelines and rules or regulations .
A simple example. In 1997 the government repealed the 1930′s law on setting urban speed limits put preserved the existing 50kmh speed limit until such time that a road controlling chose to review a speed limit. New and reviewed speed limits had to be set in accordance with LTSA’s Guidelines for Setting Speed Limits. This shower bizzo is similar except nobody is compelled to follow the guidelines. In 2003 the LTSA finally convinced the government to repeal the 50kmh speed limit and make the guideline a “rule”. Local authorities were given two year to comply. Although the 50kmh limit is still predominant, the new rule finally gave us the risk-based speed limit system the the Department of Transport had recommended to Parliament in 1930. It just took 70 years to get the collective intergenerational political psyche to admit that it had made a fatal mistake.
Yeah, you might want to worry where this going to lead in the fullness of time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Could someone from the Greens explain what you intend to do here:
“Celebrating Aotearoa
The Green Party will honour Tiriti o Waitangi to unite all our people and work to build a diverse Aotearoa where everyone thrives”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Some Background:
“The Green Party, through its Charter and its constitution, acknowledges the indigenous language version of Te Tiriti as the legitimate text of an agreement that described the rights and responsibilities of hapu and the Crown, and which:
1. gave the Crown the right to kawanatanga,
2. confirmed the chiefs’ tino rangatiratanga,
3. gave Mäori the individual rights of British people, and
4. confirmed their religious, spiritual and customary rights.
first steps towards healing the physical, mental, emotional and spiritual effects of colonisation on our society. ”
“The Meaning of Tino Rangatiratanga
The word rangatiratanga comes form the word rangatira which is most often translated as chief. Rangatiratanga which refers to chieftainship, approximates to oversight, responsibility, authority, control, sovereignty. It is a word used in the Lord’s prayer for kingdom, which is a word very close in meaning to sovereignty. The word tino is an intensive or superlative, meaning variously: very, full, total, absolute. So tino rangatiratanga approximates to total control, complete responsibility, full authority, absolute sovereignty.
The term tino rangatiratanga was used in the Declaration of Independence of 1835 which recognised Nu Tireni (New Zealand) to be a sovereign and independent nation where power and authority rested with the rangatira. The English version of that declaration stated that “all sovereign power and authority resided entirely and exclusively” in the rangatira.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi of 1840 also used the term tino rangatiratanga with the promise that it would be guaranteed to Maori. In the words of the English translation of the Maori version of the Treaty, the Queen agreed to the rangatira and the iwi retaining full chieftainship (tino rangatiratanga) of their lands, their villages and all their taonga including the Maori way of life.
Rangatiratanga and Kawanatanga
The Maori version of the Treaty of Waitangi clearly confirmed tino rangatiratanga or Maori sovereignty over all things Maori (Article 2). It granted to the Crown, kawanatanga, a word which is a transliteration of the word governorship (Article 1). Maori would have been in no doubt as to the meaning of rangatiratanga and, on the basis of its being guaranteed in the Treaty, willing to sign it. In 1840 Maori had no desire and no need to give away their tino rangatiratanga. What they gave to the Crown was limited power, to control new settlers. That power was kawanatanga. In retaining tino rangatiratanga it was clear to Maori that their ability to control their own destiny was not diminished. In granting kawanatanga they saw that they would benefit from limited controlled immigration and the introduction of new technology (Article 3) of the Treaty did not make Maori into British subjects. It recognised the continuing right of Maori to enjoy their own laws, customs and lifestyle, just as British citizens enjoyed their own. This was reinforced in (Article 4)(unwritten) which stated that the Governor would protect Maori ritenga or custom. “
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kevyn – give me a break. If the state did mandate exactly how to build your house, like it did back in the eighties, you would whinge madly about the nanny state. This process, where minimum performance standards are set but specific technologies are not prescribed, came out of the reforms of the eighties and is the political consensus on how to do things. There is no dark conspiracy here. Your only other two choices are no building code at all or back to the prescriptive code of the past.
You and BB are just whinging for itś own sake. Get over it. Make a submission. (This is a consultation process, after all.) If you dont like it, shut up and make a submission with a better idea!
And stop laying this at the Greenś feet. We are not the government and we did not develop this performance standard. In fact, we are making a submission ourselves to try and improve what they have built.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Make a submission
Like they every get listened to.
If you lot won’t listen to the New Zealand Human Rights Commission and the Law Society, what chances has Joe Citizen got?
The only chance they’ll get is in four weeks time, and I hope my fellow citizens use it to send a clear message.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog
Please stop it!
“Make a submission”, what a complete waste of time.
The Greens will not listen, they do not give a toss what the public think or want. You guys have a breathtaking arrogance and belief that you know how to run our lives better than we do.
The facts are that you ARE telling me that I MUST use less water and that I cannot have the water pressure or flow that I chose, you are also telling me that I must heat MY water in the way that YOU want me to do so.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I see the day not too far in the future BB, when you will have an allocation of carbon-producing energy to use as you wish, and it won’t be enough to support your hypothetical half hour 50 litre shower habit, so if you also want to drive and heat your home, you will either need to install a solar water system, use 100% renewable electricity, or buy extra energy allocations from someone who uses much less carbon-producing energy than you.
Does that sound fair?
And please don’t tell frog to stop it – it’s his blog and he can say what he likes – or should that be “she”?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
pingpong
Will “the day” also include our kids singing daily songs of praise to our great leaders Clark and Bradford?
Will “the day” also include the one party state and yearly state visits from those other enlightened world leaders Chavez and Castro?
Will “the day” also see laws implemented that ban criticism of the govt……oh, wait a minute..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Off topic
The good news is that the Bali bombers are soon to he shot.
Now if we could only find a way to do the same to William Bell and Graham Burton
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Seriously, what is wrong with marriage staying a heterosexual thing? To me it just seems like a bunch of radical gay activists being intollerant, the human rights have been achieved why do they want the tradition?”
Just that it seems a sham to give them all the same rights and then invent another name. When the civil union bill passed this was a big criticism from those that said marriage should be something special. Obviously, this compromise was made. I just think we should call a spade a spade, but I agree its not a big thing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
shunda – you’ve yet to say one thing that ‘your’ government would do (not something that you would do personally). We were discussing the prescriptiveness of governments (in light of your dislike for the present one) and the manner in which the government you would choose would manage affairs of the country, without being regulatory or nannyish. What, for example, would they do about sex education in schools, food in tuck shops, advertising during children’s viewing times? Put up your ideal government then tell us what they would dictate on issues like these. Please.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The ideal government is a very small government that stays out of the way.
They should focus on their core responsibilities: ensuring markets can happen, protecting private property rights, and maintaining law and order.
Everything else is up to the people.
I accept they might have roles in other areas, but I’d take that on a case by case basis, and that role might be temporary.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
big bro Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 7:46 am
> Off topic
> The good news is that the Bali bombers are soon to he shot.
I’ve never understood how the death penalty is supposed to be an effective deterrent to a group of people who celebrate martyrdom and believe they are going to go straight to heaven and get seventy two young virgins each.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# Shunda barunda Says:
October 13th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
> No I am not, I am asking not to be stuffed in the closet so someone else can come out.
well then your request can be easily met, as nobody is proposing that you should be stuffed into the closet.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
kahikatea
Do you think that a good dose of restorative justice might be best for these poor murdering terrorists instead of the bullet?
So the Greens are not only soft on crime but they are soft on terrorism as well it seems.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
big bro Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
> kahikatea
> Do you think that a good dose of restorative justice might be best for these poor murdering terrorists instead of the bullet?
No, I think life in prison would be the best punishment. Seems to me it’s the only one that’s likely to deter copycats.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Anatomy of a crisis
The left proposes trivial restrictions upon the use of incandescent light bulbs and high flow showers. The right screams for its freedoms, and wails against nanny state. The left’s tacit message for these spoilt brats of the regime is that they will only be asked for a token sacrifice. The right’s response is to refuse even the slightest infringement upon its right to act howsoever it pleases.
As real privations start to grip, the working classes will be unimpressed by those who tabled these trivial proposals, and outraged by those who so arrogantly rejected them. Left and right are playing out the role of Charles XVI and Marie Antoinette, either merely tinkering with the machinery of a discredited regime, or else blithely oblivious to the looming catastrophe. Token measures will have no substantive impact upon the evolving social and environmental crisis, but the self-indulgent attitude which underlies the rejection of such measures will bring the regime to the abyss.
http://www.republican.co.nz
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Big bro needs to have unrestricted hot water -if he stinks as much as his perverse and stupid arguements. Good luck in Aussie Big bro -you won’t be noticed – they already got snakes!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog, Seems you were deceived by a missing end to the italicised quote from BB, a possibly confusing example and, consequently, a misinterpretable closing sentence.
big bro asked…
Perhaps I can ask this question again and see if one of you Greenies will give me an honest answer.
When (or if) I do build my new home (which may well be in Aussie given the way this election looks like going) can I have the following;
1 The water pressure and flow rate that I WANT or will I be restricted by nanny state?
2 Will I be able to heat that water the way I WANT or will I have to do it the way somebody from nanny state wants me to do it.
The answers to both questions is yes.
This whole debate is due to not recognising the difference between guidelines and rules or regulations .
I’ll clarify the example:
In 1930 a Dept of Transport study of coroners reports identified “driving to fast for the nature, condition and use of the highway and amount of traffic a driver should expect to encounter” as a leading cause of fatal car crashes. Further investigation revealed limited visibility of these factors, especially child pedestrian traffic, as the underlying cause in many of these speed related crashes so the Dept proposed a system of speed limits based on hazard assessment. Parliament responded by introducing a blanket speed limit for municipal roads and streets. Totally not what the expert evidence demanded. It took politicians 70+ years to fix that mistake without publicly admitting that a mistake had ever been made. The guidelines issued in 1997 failed because the previous mandatory law was perpetuated. It was only when the guideline replaced that mandatory law as a new mandatory law that most local authorities actually spent the money needed to review their urban speed limits. A good example in support of your argument that prescriptive laws are rarely the best way to go but a rather poor example of the difference between guidelines and rules. But then, road safety is about protecting people from violence from complete strangers so it is an area where laws are a legitimate government response. Energy efficiency mainly addresses self-inflicted deaths rather killing others so it is not an area where the government has moral authority to legislate, except for spec-builders and landlords who are inflicting loss of life on others. Although that could be adressed through existing contract law.
This is a technical issue. There shouldn’t be any submissions or consultation. The politicians should do what the technocrats tell them to do instead of compromising with popular opinion. Thats how we ended up with blanket speed limits. Fortunately the public wasn’t directly consulted about the new speed limit system. Democracy really does prove the old adage “too many cooks spoil the broth”.
To clarify my original last sentence:
Yeah, you might want to worry where this going to lead in the fullness of time. That’s when not making early and easy changes to prepare for peak oil and AGW will demand a “crisis” response from governments.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Is it true the Greens are now wanting to interfere in our kitchens
With no double ovens, 2 burners on stoves and more
Surely this latest rumour isn’t true?
I stole these questions from KB, they should be answered.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)