It isn’t the men in suits who “need” fifty pairs of shoes (and matching handbags) and who wouldn’t be seen dead in last weeks fashions and who absolutely have to have the latest exotic taste treats (no matter how many planets have to die in the process) because Vogue is to die for!

FoE seems to be forgetting the it is Janet & John Average-Voter who don’t want any laws forcing them to reduce their carbon emissions to 1990 levels. And telling Janet & John Average-Voter that they can salve their single brain cell consciences by blaming the men-in-suits is a surefire way of stopping any effective action being taken by the biggest offenders (en mass) until a law is passed forcing them to. Or more precisely, taking away the chattering classes choice about what they can buy.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Well clearly Bellamy is delusional and paranoid. There is no conspiracy keeping you off the air David, you’re just bad TV so no-one hires you.

I liked this comment: “The “sad fact” for David Bellamy is that competition for documentary commissions is intense, and the tenure of those who commission is often transient for the same reasons. Bellamy had a surprisingly long run, given his poor diction…but he was out-competed by a more televisually adept David.”

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Bellamy is rewriting history:

in 2002 Bellamy was claiming that he was banned from TV in 1997 because he stood for election against John Major:

“In some ways it was probably the most stupid thing I ever did because I’m sure that if I have been banned from television, that’s why. I used to be on Blue Peter and all those things, regularly, and it all, pffffft, stopped.”

Full story at Deltoid here

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

It’s not hard to guess, BB.

They’ll label him a denier (evil doer)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Slightly off topic but I wonder what the Greens have to say about the words of David Bellamy.

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/69623/BBC-shunned-me-for-denying-climate-change

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

eredwen

“THEN help the women to limit the sizes of their families!”

Men have no say in this then?

I agree that couples should not have more kids than they can afford and as such I am sure that you can see the logic behind the call from many of us to do away with the “breeding incentives” offered by way of the DPB.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

dragon

“I have told the Greens Leadership before this: the only reasonable way to address resource depletion and pollution democratically in such a short time is by large scale consensus to restrain our loins to 1 child per family for 100 years.”

They obviously listened to you Dragon, it was policy at the last election.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

dragon says: “I have told the Greens Leadership before this: the only reasonable way to address resource depletion and pollution democratically in such a short time is by large scale consensus to restrain our loins to 1 child per family for 100 years.”

I reply:

The Greens in general are well aware of the concept of Zero Population Growth, and as a group our own “replacement rate” is low.

However: The forced adoption of the practice you advocate would prove to be neither “reasonable” nor “democratic” and therefore counterproductive … especially in societies where infant and child mortality is high, and where a woman is valued only as the bearer of sons … and children are valued as potential carers of their elderly parents.

In summary: Concept: “On the ball” Solution: “Too simplistic”!

Start by educating the girls AND reducing -> eradicating infant mortality.
(In the process, help societies to be able to feed themselves etc without the need for lots of child labour. Make sure there are altenative ways of caring for the elderly … etc etc)

THEN help the women to limit the sizes of their families!

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I’m not so sure about the “treated” bit having recently paddled a canoe from Cambridge to Hamilton. We made a game of counting “Richard the Thirds” and came to a respectable figure by Hamilton. Of course there could have been many more but the dense green soup of cow poo prevents you seeing below a depth of about six inches. Clean green NZ? Yeah, right. Glad my vacinations were up to date!!!!

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Roman
10% of Auckland water comes from the Waikato River. This river contains the treated sewage of Hamilton and Cambridge, among others, and the effluent run off of thousands of dairy farms.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“Greengeek – if you live in Auckland and drink the tap water then you are drinking recycled waste water,”
Rubbish

http://www.watercare.co.nz/default,105.sm

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Good flick, but doomed by lack of leadership. Do WHAT????????????

I have told the Greens Leadership before this: the only reasonable way to address resource depletion and pollution democratically in such a short time is by large scale consensus to restrain our loins to 1 child per family for 100 years.

When the Greens finally decide this is the only reasonable way left, please cite my book ‘Numbers’, 2006, Universal Press, ISBN 158112-935-1.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Sorry for the silence – I was celebrating gaining another client for our sustainability consultancy.
Sapient – could you give me reputable references [books, journals etc.] for the assertion that “higher employment can only exist under certain ratios with the physical sector, in excess of those ratios the capitalistic system fails”
Sapient – Interface Carpets have a cradle to cradle system for their carpet tiles. It does work for non biological items – Braungart’s term is technical nutrients. Also if you’ve ever used an aluminium can in NZ then most of it will be recycled with no degradation.
Greengeek – if you live in Auckland and drink the tap water then you are drinking recycled waste water, a molecule or two might have even passed through my bladder.
Kahikatea – my point exactly – its not about space its about how we conserve the resources given us by nature.
Have fun everyone.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Sapient, You say that there is 113729 square kilometres in the North Island and, assuming two people per two metres, you can fit 113729000000 (113.729 billion) people into the North Island.

By a happy coincidence there is 6059 square kilometres in the Auckland region, enough space for the entire world’s current population. It just needs a big enough wall to keep them all from escaping

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Ron, Advocating public transport as a key solution to AGW makes as much sense as advocating straight, wide roads as the solution to the road toll. On the face of it both seem to be logical solutions, under rigorous scrutiny both are found to be seriously flawed concepts that produce only minimal benefits. Nevertheless the suits love PT because of it’s ever increasing financial subsidies, ie, government guaranteed profits. Especially for bus and LRT manufacturers.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Greenfly, likewise there are places in the Northth Island that you couldn’t, in all conscience, put real humans, eg. most of Auckland and bits of Wellington.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Would that be the same Friends of the Earth that demanded the genocidal DDT ban and more recently lobbied for biofuels which caused the price of basic foodstuffs in the poorest countries to skyrocket? Just how many more millions do they have to kill before they shut up?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

greenfly are you a closet Gorealeno?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

oh, NORTH Island. Careless reading by me.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

sapient – fine in theory, but there are places in the South Island that you couldn’t in all conscience, put people, eg. Gore.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)