by frog
In the final installment of the video series on Enviroschools, Catherine explains the success and disappointment of losing the funding in the parliamentary general debate. She also released an audio podcast this week that is highly recommended listening.
“Picture this: a Dunedin 10-year-old develops a cost-benefit analysis of solar power versus wind power as energy sources for his school…
Published in Environment & Resource Management by frog on Sat, June 27th, 2009
Tags: Catherine Delahunty, Education, environment, Enviroschools
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
“She also released an audio podcast this week that is highly recommended listening.”
yeah right and keith’s thoughts too.
However the Arch druid really is worth a read:
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2009/06/thermodynamic-economy.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes, yes, we get it. Any green program is an obvious good, therefore tax payers should continue to borrow from their kids to fund it.
Good on Key for reigning back the unsustainable largess of the Clark years.
PS: If a “teach children the wonders of the free market” program was to be cut from schools, the Greens would be howling about that, too? My guess is that such a program would show a higher economic return to society than having kids play with worms.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Peter – Key is only reining back those things that suit his (and his mates) ideology. The number of ‘green’ programmes that have been cut is notable. The Greens aren’t ‘howling’, though it suits you to use emotive descriptions like that, (similar to your ‘having kids play with worms’ comment – do you think you are funny?).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So why does Delahunty insist on asking essentially the same question over and over again?
You want the enviro-course in there because it suits your ideology, so criticising the government for (maybe) exercising their ideology is a bit rich (I think it’s got more to do with cutting costs).
In any case, New Zealanders chose National’s ideology, not yours, and you foolishly tied your rope to Labour pre-election.
So what do you expect?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
We want the Enviro course in there for a number of reasons, not the least being that it engages students in learning that leads to independent thinking and action taking with a focus on developing sustainability in the school resulting in reductions in operational costs for the school an improvement in student health through an increase in outdoor activities and the consumption of fresh, healthy food amongst a range of other things. Your comment that it’s about’
‘having kids play with worms’ shows that you haven’t got a clue about the programme. Catherine would doubtless have to repeat herself over and over when trying to speak with you, as she did with the equally out-of-touch Key. I would ask Key the same question. Over and over. He’d not get it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>it engages students in learning that leads to independent thinking
Fluff. So do other activities, and no one is saying you can’t teach environmental courses in schools.
The rest sounds like truthiness to me. Show the cost/benefits (the real numbers, not the numbers you pull out of your a**) then contrast them with other activities.
For example, could we achieve the same positive outcomes for less money?
>>have to repeat herself over and over when trying to speak with you
Is that because she, like you, has problems listening?
All I’m hearing is ideology, wrapped in some feel-good fuzzy truthiness. The underlying message being “give us other people’s money”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Fluff? You dismiss ‘learning that leads to independent thinking’
Nanny Statist are you?
I don’t doubt Peter, that ‘ideology’ is all you are hearing – that’s all you ever seem to hear!
Your ignorance of the Enviroschools programme alll but excludes you from intelligent discussion on the matter, as you are demonstrating here. Go and do some research. Come back when you know what you are talking about.
I do (know the details/practice and ‘ideology’ of Enviroschools. I’ve been implementing them, on the ground, for years.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m saying your argument is fluff, which it is.
My ideology, mad and extremist I know, is that New Zealand can’t go on borrowing to spend. That means that a lot of state spending must be cut. That means that some of your pet programs will go. You should have thought about that when we pointed out that Labours spending was unsustainable.
I’m guessing you’re a “trained facilitator”……
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
And still you know nothing about the programme you dismiss.
‘No one is saying you can’t teach environmental courses in schools’
Not had much experience in the education world either Peter? I’m surprised that you broached the topic at all!
Let’s see .. teachers of Maths.. no one is saying you can’t teach your subject, only we’re cutting funding for your text books and Professional Development
because we need to cut State spending. Any questions? No? Dismissed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You’re dismissed, Greenfly, if you can’t tell the difference between the fundamentals of education and a fluff course.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m an educationalist Peter, I reckon I can. Growing your own food is pretty fundamental. Conserving your soil, likewise. ‘Party Central’ – fundamental? That’s a Fail.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly, you appear to have missed the “fundamentals of the free market” course when you were going through the education system, so I’ll educate you.
If your programme has clear, measurable benefits, then:
1. Phone up the school
2. Ask to come and present to the school board
3. Demonstrate the clear value you provide (lower operating costs? What school wouldn’t go for that!)
4. Sign ‘em up
5. Repeat
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Peter – did that to the letter. Presented to the BOT, described the value to the school, even described savings that could be made re. drinking water through collection from the roof of the Assembly hall and heating through pupil built passive heating systems in classrooms along with a range of other proposals. They did sign up. The selling point for them was that the facilitation was to be funded through the Regional Council and Enviroschools Trust. This meant the school didn’t have to compromise any of its core programme funding in the establishment years. That funding is now wiped. Schools will be less easily sold on the idea.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“compromise any of its core programme funding”
You realise that’s the same argument Key is making?
>>Schools will be less easily sold on the idea.
But if it provides all the benefits you describe, then why do they need to consider a subsidy? Shouldn’t an environmental program be strong enough to stand on its own merits?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP
You’re all wet on this one mate. The kids LEARN from this stuff. That of course, is the one thing that the right wing wants to prevent, just as they gutted the schools in the USA.
I think that was so they could have more ignorant cannon-fodder and less understanding of just WHY some people are losing their houses so that the guys from Goldman-Sacks-New-York can have their bonuses at taxpayers expense.
The problem is that “truth has a well-known liberal bias” so teaching kids how to find it is very dangerous to the right-wing (I won’t say conservative, as that has always had honorable followers). The highjacking of the movement by a far less honorable mob has led to some really nasty consequences.
So we DO have to balance the budget. That actually means we have to do something different from what National is doing now and different from what Labour did when it was running the show. Greens have an agenda that includes REAL financial responsibility.
Which isn’t to say that people with lots of money and property under the current system will like the changes, but that isn’t the question. The question is whether we would be planning to borrow from the future to fund the present. That, I submit, is not a hallmark of GREEN politics. Not with respect to money. Not with respect to the planet itself.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kids learn from a lot of things.
>>That of course, is the one thing that the right wing wants to prevent
Oh, FFS.
>>Greens have an agenda that includes REAL financial responsibility.
Laughable. If the Greens got anywhere near the Finance portfolio, many of us earners would be off to Australia. And the farmers to Argentina.
>>So we DO have to balance the budget.
The only sensible thing you’ve said. John Key is doing just that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Peter – your sneer is wearing thin.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So if we don’t have a state-subsidised green inspired playtime, the country is doomed?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sorry BP… most of that observation has to do with what has happened in the USA. It HAS happened in the USA. It was part of their agenda when they created the contract on America, and they justified it much as you do, by complaining that the budget needed to be balanced.
Then when they obtained power they raped the budget.
It can’t be accidental as they’re serial rapists with respect to the budget.
Nothing in this country leads me to regard them with any less suspicion, though I am pleased that they elected a leader here who is capable of coherent thought and complete sentences.
You regard it as laughable that we would expect the country to pay TODAY for a hamburger today? I note that neither Labour nor National have done all that well on this count. I really don’t think they WANT to… I think that they got worried that the banks would make a fuss and that’s the ONLY reason they did anything.
Greens would do it because it is the right thing to do.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Doomed? You’re over-egging Peter. Still keeping up the sneering, emotional language though – on ya!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Current expenditure isn’t sustainable.
Some of it must, therefore, be cut.
Some of those cuts may affect some of your pet projects.
That’s the state of the world right now. The golden weather won’t return for a few years. When it does, I’m all for a wide variety of childhood education choices.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Quite right Peter – we’ll just have to suck it up. Luckily, the Prime Minister is leading by example, making large cuts to his own office and portfoilio. Three cheers for Honest John!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes greenfly, those bluddy toursists comming here, spending their money, what do they think we are? a charity or something!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yeah Shunda, a pox on their fancy-pants ways but let’s give the cycleway a rousing cheer! Hoorah! Talk about value for money! A mere $50 million and look what we get for that!
Sweet Fanny Adams!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If we invest in measures to make cycling more attractive there is tremendous potential to increase our earnings from cycle tourists
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I duno greenfly, there are plans for a coastal pathway in my town and I think it will be a fantastic asset for tourists and locals. Good for promoting a healthy lifestyle too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There’s a really nice piece of flat ground, away from the road, that would be just perfect for a cycle track the length of the country.
Just rip up the railways. It’s only worth a fraction of what Labour paid for it – what a total waste of hundreds of millions of taxpayers money. The tunnels and bridges are already there, and it’s pretty much flat from Invercargill to Auckland.
Instead of losing even more money from the railways, we could make money from the cycle track.
Rip up the track.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>cycleway
The difference is that it is easy for the cycleway to return $50 million…..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Cycleway is an abject failure. More’s the pity, as many greens cycle and most likely prefer to holiday in a way that impacts minimally on the environment. The reions and districts may well take the up the idea and develop or expand their own cycleways, but it hardly needed a Government Decree for that to happen. Peter will no doubt agree that those regions would be wrong to ask for any of the $50 million for their own projects. They must present their case to the community, show that there will be economic benefits and get on with it. No Government handouts, as for those driving the Enviroschools programme.
So where will the $50 million go? Private cycleway, I’m guessing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly “The Cycleway is an abject failure”
Amazing that you can announce something is an abject failure before it exists.
Even more amazing that you can describe it an abject failure even before the planning is done.
It comes back to hatred of Key having a higher priority than anything else.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>The Cycleway is an abject failure.
Good lord. Greens arguing against cycling. Oh that’s right – National suggested it.
It hasn’t even started yet, and you’re calling it a failure.
>>They must present their case to the community, show that there will be economic benefits and get on with it. No Government handouts, as for those driving the Enviroschools programme. No where will the $50 million go? Private cycleway, I’m guessing.
One is a straight cost, the other an investment. You couldn’t even get schools to take it up with out a subsidy, which just goes to show the costs exceeded the benefits.
Tourism is New Zealands biggest earner, and it is an industry that has been shamefully neglected by Labour. Structural investment in tourism benefits everyone except rabid greenies against tourism. And they can go swing.
You want your pet projects funded? Then New Zealand needs to make more money. I take it Key has run the numbers, and 50m is not a great deal in terms of tourism spend. A return would be easy to show, and achieve.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I take it Key has run the numbers
Kazango!
Better than a cup of coffee!
One is a straight cost, the other an investment.
Let’s see Peter… educational programmes are not investments…
Just let me ruminate on your idea for a moment…
long enough… bzzzzzzzzzt!
I’m sorry. Go to the bottom of the class Peter.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly,
You’re pretending that if we don’t fund your pet course, then kids won’t be educated. They will.
>>I’m sorry. Go to the bottom of the class Peter.
You clearly missed economics classes. Were you out playing in the trees at the time? Did you happen to notice there wasn’t any money growing on them?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photons – Key trumpeted the Cycleway as a job creation scheme – remember where the idea was spawned? There is a clear need for new jobs and plenty of them now , not once the ‘recession’ has passed. None have resulted. Plenty of time has passed. It’s a time of spending cuts. Look at whwere the cuts have been made. English was adamant the Cycleway wouldn’t get the money. key over-rode his Finance Minister, humiliating him. No cycleway still. No jobs. Abject failure.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly
You are against the cycleway when it is being proposed by John Key.
“If we invest in measures to make cycling more attractive there is tremendous potential to increase our earnings from cycle tourists”
Did you think it was going to be an “abject failure” when it was being proposed by Rod Donald?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Peter – you’re pretending that if we don’t fund Key’s ridiculous cycleway idea, no tourists will come.
Stay at the back of the class and do not adjust your conical hat!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>you’re pretending that if we don’t fund Key’s ridiculous cycleway idea, no tourists will come.
No, I’m saying that one form of spending makes much more sense than another. The return is far greater, and that return may fund your pet project in future.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Stay at the back of the class and do not adjust your conical hat!
It’s not surprising you’re a teacher….
Not used to your students talking back, huh.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photons – let’s be clear. I’m not against any cycleway. I’m critical of Key’s imaginary cycleway and the way it has failed to do what it was heralded as going to do. It was proposed as a way to provide jobs. None. It has been given funding priority over real projects. ‘It’ doesn’t exist. ‘It’ is showing no signs of progress at all. ‘It’ is a failure. Had Rod Donald been able to grab $50 million from the taxpayer as Key has done, ( even against the advice of the Finance Minister) he’d have made a success of it. Key has squandered the opportunity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly, you’re missing some info. First, the cycleway does have Green Party support and is one of the items we’re formally cooperating on under the MoU with National. Kevin Hague has been involved and I believe is happy with the input he’s had. Second, the funding starts 1 July, which is why no ground has been broken yet. Planning has been occurring though and the initial routes will be announced sometime soon I expect. You’ll hear more from Kevin when it does.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Peter – I apologise for my snarky behaviour and retract my barbs and pull in my horns at the same time. Your points are valid and I enjoy hearing them.
I’m a ‘sometimes’ teacher btw. Mostly, I’m employed in other spheres.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly Powned!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>I apologise for my snarky behaviour and retract my barbs
Apology accepted.
Perhaps the powned comment was a little out of order….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly –
Funding was only passed in the budget last month.
Of course it doesn’t exist yet .
We’re in the early planning stages, the money has only just been allocated and ” Key has squandered the opportunity.”
So it’s a good idea when Rod wanted it – bad idea BECAUSE Key wants it.
Why don’t you just shorten all your posts to
“I hate Key”
When you break down your reasonaing – that’s all thet’s left.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oops! Thanks Frog and thank goodness for the Greens. Perhaps now we will see some real progress. Photons and Peter, Key deserves enormous credit for recognising where the real value is here – with the ‘party that cycles’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Peter – ‘powned’ is fine, I was winging it for fun.
Photons – your ‘greenfly hates Key’ tune is wrong. I don’t rate him and find him insubstantial, but beyond that, nothing. The best value he has for me is when I find someone who adores him. Sitting ducks.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Just grounding the debate again: the Green Party has been strongly supporting the National Cycleway Project, and it is one of the specific topics that we are formally working with National on. Actually a national network of cycling routes has been Green Party policy for a long time, so it was a welcome surprise when the idea also emerged from the Jobs Summit.
Of course some cycling advocates will be skeptical about the project. The highlight on tourism, for example, can be frustrating for people who have been struggling to get improved commuter cycling amenities. Some of the talk of a “concrete ribbon” early on, was anathema to those of us who prefer fat tyre touring. Those who have become experts in track building may be looking askance at some of the confident expressions of how easy it would be to construct track.
Nonetheless, most cycling organisations seem ready to add their support to a network along the lines of the National Cycle Network in the UK (which has just reached the point of having an average one million users per day – congratulations! – half of them walkers, in fact). This combines off-road and on-road routes and tracks, in urban and rural areas, allowing someone to ride safely to work or school, go out for a family ride for a few hours at the weekend, spend a few days doing an iconic local ride, or join up rides to travel the length of the country (as I have done).
Speaking as a cycle tourist, my very worst days have been traveling in or out of cities and across urban areas generally. Development of the National Cycleway Project will occur over an extended timeframe, and should meet the needs of cycle commuters, mountain bikers, cycle tourists, and tourists who want to cycle.
I have been particularly impressed by the widespread local enthusiasm right around the country for new cycling projects. As a long-time cycling advocate, it’s the first time I have seen this happen and I find it very exciting. Maybe this could be a big step towards the kind of cycling culture Greens have advocated for years.
Probably won’t create large numbers of jobs for the construction phases (though any would be good, right?) but it will be very important for local economies, and local jobs, in exactly the way that the Otago Central Rail Trail has delivered. One of our Green priorities is sustainable local communities, and the cycleway project will be invaluable in achieving this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Or we might hear from Kevin even sooner
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenflys words used for Keys cycleway
“abject failure”,
“squandered”,
“failed”,
“imaginary”,
“Key’s ridiculous cycleway idea”
Five minutes late you think it’s a good idea.
But the idea hasn’t changed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Central Otago Rail Trail Generates $7m -see
http://www.odt.co.nz/the-regions/central-otago/61432/survey-shows-rail-trail-generates-7m-locally
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Crossed in the ether Frog!
Perhaps I could also add my appreciation of Shunda’s praise for the Coastal Pathway project in Greymouth. Thanks Shunda. I chaired the Trust through its initial phases, and we had a really enthusiastic response from local people for a cycle track that would keep tourists in town for a bit longer but also provide a safe recreational and commuting bike route into town. This enthusiasm is now being experienced right around the country as people turn their minds to figuring out how they could use cycling routes in their own areas.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kevin – that is excellent to hear. More a project to benefit cyclists, than a boost to the job market (my point to my fellow debaters) but never the less a positive development. Of greatest interest to me is the ‘buy in’ you describe from cycle groups and individuals. That bodes really well for other ‘programmes’, like the relocalisation or transition initiatives that are developing around the country. If a ‘flagship’ project becomes successfull because of the sum of its smaller parts, as it looks as though the cycleway project will, then these ‘green’ programmes to make our communities more resiliant should flourish in the same way. I did a good deal of cycle touring throughout the South Island some years ago and look foward very much to a proliferation of accessible tracks. I’m looking foward also to reading about the Cycleways Project in our newspapers sometime soon!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photons – the idea has changed significantly, I would argue. Key’s original procalimation of ‘One Cycleway to Rule them All’ has sensibly transformed into a series of cycleways, but never the less, the most significant and encouraging development of all is the close involvement of the Green Party. What a stroke of genius to call on the experts in the field.
Peter – now that the Cycleway is a ‘pet project’ of the Greens, I guess Key will cancel the funding
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly, I don’t know why you’re trying to paint me as someone like yourself – someone who only appears to think that good ideas come from one party.
I couldn’t care less who thought of it. The point is National are doing it, and your Labour mates who you fought so long to keep in power did not.
We should be investing a lot more than we do in tourism infrastructure.
National aren’t doing enough, but at least Key is heading in the right direction.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Excellent point BluePeter.
What an impediment to the country when so many people think because an idea is from National is is automatically good (or bad) and ideas from The Greens are automatically loony left (of fantastic).
I don’t know any party in NZ that doesn’t have at least some good ideas, and at least some pretty stupid ones.
The country would benefit from a lot more pragmatisim rather than the wasteful effort trying to drag down positive ideas for the country, simply because they come from the “wrong” person – that’s like a cancer to NZ’s progress.
And we have seen a few glimpses of pragmatism lately – like greens and national with the cycleway, with insulation, and National gave Pita Sharples the job on Minister of Maori affiars – pre-election that would have seemed impossible.
It would be good to see a lot more of this instead of the usual put down of an idea from national, or labour, or whoever – not because of the idea, but because of who suggested it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Peter – I don’t know why you’re trying to paint me
, but I enjoy big-noting the Greens for theirs, just as you enjoy demeaning them for having ideas that you don’t agree with. Hence our ‘clashes’ 
I’m teasing. Now you do know.
I do believe that ‘other parties’ have good ideas (though Act seem entirely bereft
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There have been several articles in the Marlborough Express about the various West Coast and upper South Island cycleway projects awaiting a share of this $50 million funding. Are other regions moving this quickly too or are these regions moving so quickly simply because they already get the highest cycling scores in the MoT’s household travel survey?
Perhaps Kevin could provide his thoughts on why the West Coast tops those rankings, especially for child cyclists. I can’t recall ever seeing cyclelanes in any West Coast towns, in fact there aren’t any in Marlborough towns either. My personal bit of positive thinking is that these “backward” areas don’t have frightening amounts of traffic and parents aren’t afraid to let their kids play in the streets and walk or cycle to school. Although my personal experience of Blenheim drivers is that they have near zero awareness of pedestrians except in the shopping precinct. But then they don’t seem to be much good at seeing other cars on the roads either
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)