by frog
Except for the funny accent and that fact that we’re not part of the EU, this could just as easily be a video to support our very own Green New Deal and Green Stimulus Package right here in New Zealand. If I were Irish, I know how I’d be voting this year!
Published in Environment & Resource Management by frog on Wed, June 3rd, 2009
Tags: dan boyle, deidre de burca, election, europe, green new deal, Ireland, jobs, political, vote
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Now that’s the sort of advertisement you needed, as opposed to the vacuous vote for me, celebrity driven nonsense you indulge in.
Then cost it out, and *show* why it makes *better* economic sense than the alternatives. If one aspect doesn’t, be honest and drop it.
THEN
People will listen to you.
Kiwi’s are rooted in practicality, not religion. The Greens here talk too much in religious mode.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
…although they blew it with that emotive crap at the end….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP’s right, that was WAY better than the NZ Greens’ ones. They’d have to be shorter than two minutes but. A variety of different ads would probably pay too, if possible.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Get hold of a copy of the Green New Deal and rejoice at the economic sense.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You missed a “non” off the front of sense there, to be sure….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So you have read it, BP? I seem to recall you asking for costed policy statements. It is a nonsense that more of these policies are not being adopted here in GodsZone, when they are being used around the world in other countries’ stimulus packages.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog – Blue’s response to your question must be ‘non’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Unfortunately BP, the stuff you label “emotive crap” is actually the only REAL reason anyone has for doing anything. All else is illusion and error.
Things with which you and BB seem all too familiar.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
A very clever advertisement and quite similar to what the NZ Green Party seem to be doing. I think the “Vote for your kids, vote green” message is a very clever one, as the Greens are the only party with a long-term vision.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Vote for your kids, vote green” message is a very clever one
It’s a dog that doesn’t run. When people vote, they vote with their back pocket, not their hearts. The emotional vote gets you, oh, around 7%. Every time. Look back to Values. Has your share of the vote increased since then? Barely. You know why?
The back pocket effect.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I do hear what you’re saying BP. The Greens were polling around 10% just before election day but only ended up with 7% of the actual vote – what happened? Perhaps the back-pocket effect is very primal, and people return to it when they’re in the voting booth.
However, the “jobs” reason to vote Greens does directly refer to the back-pocket issue. So covering all bases I suppose.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter is (mostly) right.
People want the vision stuff, they need the vision stuff, the children playing in nature. But they also want to be reassured that a vote for the Greens is a secure vote for health, education, a strong economy and economic security. It isn’t enough to simply say that the Greens will be part of a coalition with a Government. Do the Greens deserve to be sitting on 6.7%? No? Then why aren’t the other 93.3% voting that way?
Luckily, the Greens are moving in this direction in their public positioning. That’s why the Irish ad is so good.Things like the Green New Deal are absolutely necessary. We’ll get there.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Right Jarbury.
Did you see the series with Hugh Fernley Whittingstall about chicken farming? There was a woman who they engaged with, spent a lot of time with, had convinced her on an emotional level that free range was the way to go. She agreed with all of it. Swore to always buy free range. What happened? They caught her in the supermarket buying the “two for a fiver” chickens. Even when confronted, she felt guilty, but still bought them.
I think this is one particular area those on the right see more clearly than those on the left. It’s a question of incentives. Incentives are very powerful, especially when it has to do with spending your own money.
A vote, for most people, comes down to money (their own), not emotion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>the stuff you label “emotive crap” is actually the only REAL reason anyone has for doing anything.
Couldn’t disagree more, BJ. People respond to incentives.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Actually, it’s the opposite. The left knows this, and it is more often right-wingers who think that good intentions will save the world.
You can give everyone the information, and have them know what’s right, and want to do what is right, but it will continue unless you regulate the undesirable practice out of existence. (Using contextually appropriate forms – bans, taxes, subsidies, charges, limitations, quotas etc.).
It is why we agree (by voting for them) to be forced to pay taxes, rather than have a donation box.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>We’ll get there.
The Greens could be bigger than Labour. This, of all countries, will respond to the message of “clean, green kiwi”. It’s part of our identity. Every kiwi is inextricably bound to the land and sea.
Will they get there? It will be interesting to watch.
I suspect radical readjustment is needed. Can’t really see it with your current leadership, who are still far too red. New Zealanders won’t vote for a platform of reduced economic performance.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>The left knows this, and it is more often right-wingers who think that good intentions will save the world.
How weird you say that. I used to be left, I have a lot of left-leaning friends, and my experience is that “good intentions will save the world” (in a religious sense) is the the domain of the left.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP
I think we are talking about different levels of meaning here. I was making a philosophical observation. No real “incentive” exists that does not derive its ultimate power from the process of continuing life. It is a matter of perspective… and my old observation that Greens use longer time-horizons than just about anyone else is pertinent.
I too think Greens could be the “senior partner” with Labour on a smaller share of the government though, and I tend to agree with your suspicions about readjustments… the party has to grow out of its “don’t forget to smash the state” background if it is to actually be “the state”… but not about New Zealanders. I think economic performance is actually a little less important to them than their link to the country, but that IS a close call.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP, I get what you’re saying. There are a lot of flaky people on the left who seem to believe that idealism is sufficient. They annoy me.
But as far as approaches to legislation go, in my experience left parties are much more likely to interfere directly to prevent or change practices. Just witness the very typical example of the current debate on how to approach obesity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
georgedarroch – when approaching obesity, george, I suggest you do so very cautiously. It’s a beast of an issue that carries a lot of baggage (bloop, bloop).
I’m fascinated by the amount of air-time the issue gets over on Kiwiblog – almost a personal campaign to retain the right to be obese!
It contrasts starkly with the Nats plans to ban the use of cellphones while driving – ‘mustn’t deprive children of their right to chose obesity-causing foods at school, but must remove the choice from adults over whether they make a call while driving’ – I smell hypocrisy, even from this distant, placid pond.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly, absolutely. All sides in politics have various freedoms they value more than others, and consider either worth protecting or an minor loss for the gain of something more valuable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well, people do have a right to be obese. I think the right would argue that so long as you, personally, meet the costs associated with being obese i.e. possible increased medical care, then so be it.
The problem arises when we have a publicly funded health system.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter – do you think children as young as 5 ‘have the right to be obese’? or at least act unfettered in a manner that will lead to obesity?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>do you think children as young as 5 ‘have the right to be obese’?
I think their parents are fools. I have friends who feed their kids all manner of sugarry crap, and it shows. You know who they vote for? One Green, one Labour.
But what is the answer? They know it is wrong, but they still do it.
I think it has a lot to do with the molly-coddling of kids. They don’t get to run around, free, like we used to. The parents escort them everywhere, like some permananet entertainment committee. That and the decline of cooking and parental personal responsibility.
Quite a complex problem, huh.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Your answer Blue, wasn’t clear at all.
Here’s another question then. In general terms, if children of primary school age (for example) chose foods that cause obesity (on a daily basis), should some agency intervene and restrict the availability of such foods to those children?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What’s the point when the parents are feeding them garbage and carting them everywhere?
In other words, what is the true cause of obesity? Do you think personal responsibility might have something to do with it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The point is that if schools, for example, take responsibility for the foods that they offer to their students during the day, the amount of poor quality food that passes into their students stomachs will be reduced. Less junk in, less unhealthy fat deposited and tooth-destroying, attention sapping sugar injested.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Drop in the ocean. You’d have to demonstrate it would make significant difference. Easy to show – trial it in one or two schools, and monitor the results.
Most kids are not so obese that it is a serious health issue. Being overweight isn’t necessarily a health problem. The root of the obesity problem is personal responsibility, and that is where the solution lies.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There will be no solution to the problem of obesity while TimTams can be sold over the counter :-0
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Drop in the ocean does seem to be your catch-cry Blue. No significant gain to be made from expelling fatty/sugary foods from school canteens then? That’s your stand?
Your ‘trial it in one or two schools’ suggestion is laughable. Wait til you can measure signs of increasing obesity in the test children, signs that can be attributed to food eaten at school? Blue! You sound like a tobacco company spin doctor. Are you? Only now it’s junk food.
I see children lining up for tuck-shop food every day. I believe what I see. Those children aren’t rejecting the fatty/sugary stuff, on the contrary. If those foods weren’t there, they’d not be eating them. Personal responsibility? Takes me back to my original question (the one you couldn’t/wouldn’t answer)
do you think children as young as 5 ‘have the right to be obese’? or at least act unfettered in a manner that will lead to obesity?
so I guess, nothing gained from our discussion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly. Nacts proposals to crush boy racer’s cars and ban cellphones while driving suggests that they’re worried that NZ might still have an investigative journalist with the nouse to work out that the road toll is currently 50% greater than the target set in the Road Safety 2010 Strategy and they need to be seen to be doing something, no matter how ineffective. Of course, what they should really be doing is throwing billions at road of national disgrace instead of at roads of National importance.
The target is actaully 61 death per ton billion vkt, the same as Sweden in 1999. Thanks to high fuel prices the anticipated 50 billion km per year has not eventuated, according to MfE vkt has unlikely to even reach 45 billion vkt thus the original “media simple” target of ‘no more than 300 road deaths in 2010 has never been a realistic target, even when the government formally adopted the 61 death target in 2004.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly,
You’re assuming you know the cause of problem obesity (what they eat at school) and the solution (change what they eat at school). How do you *know* it?
Demonstrate the effectiveness of your theory using a trial.
Personally, I think you’re wrong. The problem is a lot more complex, it mostly happens from actions outside school, and the root cause is a lack of personal responsibility. Why do I think this? There were very few overweight people when I was at school, and our school tuckshop sold the most unhealthy food you could imagine.
>>so I guess, nothing gained from our discussion.
Your solution is to ban whatever you don’t like, without going to bothersome trouble of proving your theory.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kevyn – that sounds right. Crushing and banning – they’re great little headline grabbers and don’t stand up to scrutiny for more than a passing moment. The snake-eyed Stephen Joyce doesn’t look to me as though he is experienced enough in the portfolio to do anything effective, bar spin, something he is experienced at.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Blue
You’re assuming you know the cause of problem obesity (what they eat at school) No, I’m not.
The problem is a lot more complex, it mostly happens from actions outside school Yes
Demonstrate the effectiveness of your theory using a trial I responded to this point already. It is not a practical suggestion (see above)
Your solution is to ban whatever you don’t like No, it is not. You appear to want to to believe that this is the case and to brand me this way. It must suit you to do this somehow.
bothersome trouble of proving your theory.
A word Sapient used yesterday really sparked my interest – heuristics -
I hope it will be food for thought for you also Blue
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Your ‘trial it in one or two schools’ suggestion is laughable. Wait til you can measure signs of increasing obesity in the test children, signs that can be attributed to food eaten at school?
Sure. Or you tell me what test you’d use to demonstrate cause and effect. But I’m guessing you’re not interested in solving the problem, you’re most interested in “takin’ it to the people you don’t like” (fast food sellers)
>>If those foods weren’t there, they’d not be eating them.
Laughable. They’d do what we did. Go over the road to the fish and chip shop, buy it on the way to school, or on the way home. Even if you could control those aspects, if they’re being fed junk at home, you’ll be having, at best, marginal effect.
>>heuristics
Well, my experience based method is that what you feed kids at the tuck shop makes no difference to childhood obesity. The problem lies with the decisions made by the parents. Therefore, devote your limited time and resources to incentivising the parents.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP
>Demonstrate the effectiveness of your theory using a trial.
What is this High-school science? personally run an expensive research project before talking about anything?
>There were very few overweight people when I was at school, and our school tuckshop sold the most unhealthy food you could imagine.
Ohh yeah robust..
I guess the govt. should tell the police to stop fussing over druggies who deal in/around schools, after all, if kids took more personal responsibility it wouldnt be a problem -and anyway because most of the problem occurs at home it really isnt something schools should meddle with anyway?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Ohh yeah robust..
Didn’t say it was robust. It’s about as robust as Greenflys observations.
But I’m talking the truth, aren’t I? We didn’t have this problem (much) when we were at school? So what was the difference, hmmmm?
The problem I have with the “enforced healthy food” option – besides the fact it won’t solve the obesity problem – is the side-effect. It makes a lot of school tuck shops uneconomic. So the money the school would have got goes to the fast food vendors down the road instead.
>>I guess the govt. should tell the police to stop fussing over druggies
Last time I looked, it was illegal to deal drugs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Blue – don’t like the “enforced healthy food” option because students will Go over the road to the fish and chip shop, buy it on the way to school, or on the way home.
so you’d presumable not support teachers enforcing the use by students, of appropriate language (that is, students not swearing at school) because the students would swear on the to school, or the way home.
If not, why not?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
presumably … on the way to (careless editing, sorry)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP
>The problem I have with the “enforced healthy food” option
Yeah and while were at it lets stop the enforced ban on selling coffee to kids a school
> It makes a lot of school tuck shops uneconomic.
Oh sorry kids we cant stop selling you crap becuase we might hard the fat-sellers
>Last time I looked, it was illegal to deal drugs.
2nd last time I looked (i.e. before election) it was illegal to deal sugar at school -who knows maybe National’s next bright-idea might be to combat drug abuse by allowing drugs to be sold at school -thats their strategy with obesity
Sorry kids
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly, where did I suggest we shouldn’t teach kids healthy eating?
the bioneer,
What you’re doing is making a slight difference to the supply side, whilst doing nothing about the demand side. Because the demand hasn’t changed, you shift supply to vendors over whom you have no control. The consequence is the school loses both a level or control, and funds.
That’s all you achieve.
A better idea would be to let the school and parents decide what is best for their kids. What does the Green Charter say? Decisions will be made directly at the appropriate level by those affected.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP
>A better idea would be to let the school and parents decide what is best for their kids. What does the Green Charter say?
Great!
then you agree with the majority of parents and schools who WANT the fat-shops gone for good!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sure. If the parents and the school want only healthy food sold in the tuckshop, then that’s grand.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well the options here are a speculative nationwide ban, or an evaluation of several hundred or a thousand kids. How expensive could that be – not exactly the Large Hadron Collider is it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Blue – you respond to my question with… a question? For how long do you think anyone would want to discuss issues with you if you do that? It’s a cheap shot. Answer the questions as they come, please Mr Blue.
btw – ‘enforcing’ is not ‘teaching’
Bioneer – Kiaora koe mo te ‘glasshouse’ panui
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
StephenR – how long do you suppose your ‘evaluation’ might take? How much time will be lost while you sift through and argue over the data. Better to apply some commonsense, as with the Bioneers ‘coffee’ analogy. Should we do trials to determine whether coffee drinking at school really is disadvantageous to primary school children, or should we cut to the chase and use our brains?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly,
>>so you’d presumable not support teachers enforcing the use by students, of appropriate language (that is, students not swearing at school) because the students would swear on the to school, or the way home.
I do support teachers teaching appropriate use of the English language. Happy?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Should we do trials to determine whether coffee drinking at school really is disadvantageous to primary school
Shows you haven’t been listening.
Again:
What you’re doing is making a slight difference to the supply side, whilst doing nothing about the demand side. Because the demand hasn’t changed, you shift supply to vendors over whom you have no control. The consequence is the school loses both a level or control, and funds.
That’s all you achieve.
A better idea would be to let the school and parents decide what is best for their kids. What does the Green Charter say? Decisions will be made directly at the appropriate level by those affected.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Blue said: A better idea would be to let the school and parents decide what is best for their kids. What does the Green Charter say? Decisions will be made directly at the appropriate level by those affected.
The school? Blue, the school is an institution, like the Government. Why should they have powers to decide for children? Surely only the child should decide. Stretching it to give parents the power to decide when the child is in an institution too, don’t you think?
If you condone the school have power of decision, why not the government (that’s my question Blue, the ‘if school, why not government’ one)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I do support teachers teaching appropriate use of the English language. Happy?
No, not happy, because the question you answered isn’t the one I asked.
Teachers punish for swearing. Enforcing, that is, not teaching.
On another thread you argue that the only teaching/learning that you support is that with an measurable economic benefit and yet here you support the teaching of children not to swear. Have you done the trials that show that not swearing is economically beneficial. If not, how can you support the teaching of it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Surely only the child should decide
How silly. Should they decide if they should dive a car or not? How about going to school in the first place? They’re children, Fly, not adults.
>>if school why not government’ one
Because of the problems I outlined.
>>No, not happy, because the question you answered isn’t the one I asked.
Then perhaps you should not make me guess.
>>only teaching/learning that you support is that with an measurable economic benefit
Stick to the topic. You’re supposedly trying to solve an obesity problem.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter – I am on topic. You say you support ‘teaching’ as they way to improve ‘chosing behaviour’ at the tuckshops. You also say that you don’t support the teaching of subjects that have no economic benefit.
You challenge the role of tuck shop foods in obesity, saying that from your experience there is no connection. You also say children should not be given certain choices and that someone should make them on their behalf..but no, in the case of healthy food in schools, the government.
Your claims are contradictory, to put it mildly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I take it you’d be opposed to such evaluations to show how successful the ban would be too? That’s something else that hasn’t been mentioned here in this mildy-diverted thread – how would you measure success or failure?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So on one hand we have Greenfly’s ‘common sense’ and on the other BP’s ‘experience’ – they both sound nice, but neither have any empirical evidence to support either assertion…what to do, what to do.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
StephenR – off the top of your head and without the benefit of empirical evidence, what are your thoughts about letting children eat lollies at will, in class (I’d like you to consider two things; the opinions of the ‘dental technicians’ and those of the teachers, many of whom report the effects of sugar on learning and concentration in children who are consuming large amounts of sugar, negatively)
I wouldn’t oppose evaluations on the success or otherwise of how well restrictions on what is sold in school canteens, at all. When do we start?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>you don’t support the teaching of subjects that have no economic benefit.
Not so. One argument is to do with funding elective adult education, this argument has to do with solving a health issue for children.
>>saying that from your experience there is no connection
The existence of McDonalds doesn’t cause obesity. If it did, everyone who went to McDonalds would be obese. Obesity is caused by people who eat too much and exercise too little.
>>Your claims are contradictory, to put it mildly.
Your claims out of context – which you have a habit of doing – not mine.
>>but neither have any empirical evidence to support either assertion
Right, but I’m saying test it. Greenfly doesn’t like the idea of testing, because it would “waste time”. He thinks it is a waste of time because he’s presuming he knows the answer already.
It isn’t a waste of time. It is absoluelty needed, because if you’re going to try and solve a problem, you better make certain you’re putting your efforts where they will produce results. The opportunity cost is more obese children that you could have helped, but didn’t, because you jumped to conclusions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>without the benefit of empirical evidence
You’re making the assumption that by forcing schools to provide healthy options only, you control supply. That assumption is false. You shift supply outside the schools, because the problem is on the demand side.
The only way it can work is if you get the school and parents to buy in, which is why I say leave it up to the individual schools.
Remember to apply the Green charter, Fly. You can’t just ignore it when it suits you, else what’s the point of having it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As am I.
Thought this was about tuckshops? Green party marketing went out the window a while ago.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If it is essential that parents decide what their children should eat at school, rather than the school or the state deciding, perhaps they should make the lunches at home, themselves.
If school B.O.Ts are the best decision makers around the issue of healthy foods in school canteens, there would not have been the issue we are discussing (given that there is an issue of poor food being offered, which I believe there is).
If the tuckshop operators are the best decision makers etc. same as above (but for different reasons)
If children themselves are the best decision makers etc. there would be no problem, but, there is (given that even Blue suggests a programme of education to teach ‘jealthy choices’ is necessary.
My belief is that the Greens, with their decisive call for schools and tuckshops to provide only healthy options is the most effective method of ‘tipping the scales’ in favour of the children, the adults they will become and the taxpayers who are paying for the health system now and in the future.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Get bad food out of schools….it’s a no-brainer. Schools have a responsibility to remove hazards and food that is proven to be bad for you is hazardous. Unfortunately this may not solve the problem of obesity in our young but at least schools aren’t part of the problem.
Someone, somewhere has to care about what kids are eating and be proactive about ensuring they get the right food. That someone used to be mum (and often still is) but there is no doubt that with more families having both parents out working, providing a nourishing and healthy lunch for school is just not going to happen for some kids. It is easier for some people to flick their child money for lunch. How much money and the percentage of children who buy would be interesting stats to know.
Unfortunately a lot of this “lunch money” is spent at the local dairy on lollies or even slightly warm pies that are breakfast. A dairy within five minutes of a secondary school with twelve hundred kids probably does very well…..if you really want to see this problem 1st hand visit a dairy just before school and observe what goes on. Try and fix that!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)