Al Gore today
Well Jeanette and I went along and listened to Al. You can hear my interview about it on NatRad here. There wasn’t a lot that was new in it - mostly the same as in the movie - but he did update some of the info - eg apparently the antarctic ice core research data will be extended back beyond 650,000 years in the near future and it shows much the same picture of cycling CO2 and temperature, with CO2 staying below 290 ppm.
It was good that he got to deliver his presentation to a whole bunch of people with power to act - hey even John Key turned up and said he was impressed. It’s a pity that Key then said we have to “balance” economic growth and the environment - if we trash the climate system then all that economic growth in all those fabulous CBDs will be underwater. We can’t balance a bit more of an expansion in greenhouse emissions to get more GDP growth. It is non-negotiable that our emissions have to start heading downward fast (in NZ and collectively around the world). Of course Stern says that we can have both but we still need to put the environment first.
November 15th, 2006 at 7:43 am
When I read about glaciers melting, ice shelves breaking up and the tundra thawing, I am bemused as to why NZers are currently in a tizz over a waterfront playing field! Anyone for water polo? Joy.
November 15th, 2006 at 10:57 am
Nice one Joy!
November 15th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
Hey Joy - as I just posted on the comments re the stadium, looks like we could make good use of a waterfront holding pen for all the climate change refugees that will be coming here in the next few decades. We can just tow their boots and moor then next to the stadium where we can house them while we figure out where to put them all.
November 15th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
how about a floating waterfront stadium? it might have to be.
as for priorities…
on the night before the US election, one tv 6 oclock news programme led with the stadium..
on the day of the election, one of them led with an item on the drinking age.
November 16th, 2006 at 11:23 am
Russell
Of course we have to balance economic growth and the environment, anything else would be irresponsible, or are you suggesting that we put green issues before anything else in NZ including our economy?
November 16th, 2006 at 11:58 am
Hi big bruv,
I’m saying if we don’t take urgent steps to reduce our greenhouse emissions then it will result in massive economic, social and environmental destruction.
The balance concept is the wrong one to use at this juncture in our history as it suggests that we can balance economic growth resulting in some increase in greenhouse emissions against some more climate change. In fact we can’t. We have to start cutting our greenhouse emissions now. Any growth in GDP which causes an increase in GG emissions is going to drown us all.
The better concept to explore is decoupling - we need to decouple economic activity from carbon emissions. For those who are committed to the GDP growth paradigm (and obviously Greens are skeptics but I won’t get into that here) then you need to decouple GDP growth from GG growth because there is no rational option but a downward path in GG emissions (and this is the Stern Report framework).
cheers
November 16th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
Russel
Thanks for that, the decoupling suggestion is of course an admirable one but one that is also totally inoperable.
All we can do really well in NZ is grow grass, our economy is (unfortunately) still one that is based around the rural sector, the public of NZ will simply not put up with any major drop in our already third world standards just so we can feel good about GG emissions.
We just cannot afford to burden ourselves with extra taxes or charges while our competitors continue as they are, it is simply not good enough or responsible for any political party to indulge in scare mongering as a way of pushing their policies when the debate on Global Warming is still ongoing.
November 16th, 2006 at 1:05 pm
Big bruv says (and I reply):
“the public of NZ will simply not put up with any major drop in our already third world standards just so we can feel good about GG emissions.”
(I doubt that the people who live in the “third world” would agree with your assessment of Aotearoa/NZ’s status.)
“We just cannot afford to burden ourselves with extra taxes or charges while our competitors continue as they are … ”
(How much more can the inhabitants of this Planet “afford” … in the way of reckless distregard for the consequences of our/others’ actions? Where are you and your ilk planning to “relocate” when our nest here is more seriously fouled than it is already?)
This Planet is FINITE. Therefore human “growth” cannot be INFINITE.
Everyone MUST learn this lesson.
In this country we are fortunate enough to have the time to do that before the consequences are “dire” (or even “uncomfortable”). But we must get on with it!
November 16th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
eredwen
We send people to Australia for cancer treatment..is that not third world?
Our Telecommunications and roading systems are third world.
Our government steals money from us and legislates to legalise that theft….that is third world.
You state that the inhabitants of this planet need to do something about it, our efforts alone will make no difference at all, there seems to be a small sector here that is determined to penalise our primary producers so they can feel good about GG emissions, can you suggest how we (as a country) are supposed to make a $?…..and just what are we supposed to “get on with”?
And can you please explain (I am genuinely interested) in how the major GG producers are going to learn this lesson?
November 16th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
Therefore human “growth� cannot be INFINITE. Everyone MUST learn this lesson.
eredwen - so you would support the removal of explicit incentives to have large families?
November 16th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
Russel - Key said that we needed to balance the environment and economic growth, not an expansion of green house gases and economic growth.
Balancing growth and the environment is exactly what we should be aiming for; especially if this comes at the recognition that this process may involve the trimming of pollution emissions to provide that balance where there may currently be none.
November 16th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
Geez - ARE there explicit incentives to have large families? … or are there explicit supports in place to try to keep the children of large families from winding up uneducated, unfed, unclothed and unhoused? Not saying that the system works the way it’s supposed to, but you’ve put enough spin on that question to curve it right out of the strike zone.
BJ
November 16th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
BigBruv
Greenhouse Gas emissions are not the engine of commerce. They are the result of misuse of the engine of the automobile and the truck. They are the result of the misuse of energy already available to us, and if we deal with this problem properly the coming crunch that hits the rest of the oil consuming nations of the planet will in a large part miss our commerce completely.
In Plain Words? Plan Ahead.
BJ
November 16th, 2006 at 3:18 pm
iiq374 - this still proudly displayed on the Nat’s Bluegreens site at http://bluegreens.org.nz/2005Campaign/climatechange2005.pdf:
National’s policy on Climate Change is about ensuring New Zealand jobs and growth are not sacrificed on the basis of equivocal science or commitments that have New Zealand carrying an unfair share of the burden arising from climate change. National wants a more balanced approach that ensures New Zealand contributes constructively to a global response to climate change but not at the expense of jobs and growth.
New Zealand’s contribution is just 0.5% of emissions by developed countries. Our per capita emissions are half those of Australia and the United States. That is why National’s approach is about doing our fair share at a pace similar to our major trading partners.
Mind you, that would have been personally signed off by the Dunny Brush denier, rather than by Key, but it is the official position of the National Party.
November 16th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
I am sympathetic to the Greens, but I do have some questions.
I am interested in understanding *how* the Greens propose to get NZ from where we are now, to a more sustainable and still vibrant economy. As someone has said earlier today, it is all very well to talk about the problems. What we need is a real set of practical solutions for sustainable economic development.
I know that the Greens have all sorts of policies around transport, the environment etc which should tend to promote sustainability.
I’ve just had a look at the Greens’ economic policy as set out briefly on the website. It lists an eco-tax and research among other things, and trying to “expand” sustainable activities. While these things all sound good, what do they mean on the ground? The current govt has been trying to expand the solar water heating industry for some years now. People are doing research now. The Labour party also promoted an eco-tax (carbon tax). All this leaves me wondering what these Green policies really mean (although there is mention of the first $5000 of income becoming tax free under the policy).
I see that the Greens’ site also proposes a National Strategy on Sustainable Development. The govt already has a Sustainable Development Programme of Action - but seems long on words and short on action. On the ground it seems to be mostly about building more roads! (Somewhat oddly, I think that this activity was listed on a govt website recently in a list of the govt’s actions to address climate change.)
In view of the above … what assurance can the Greens give that the practical actions under a Green-led strategy would end up being much different from what is happening now? Have they worked out numbers? How would they propose to interact with Treasury thinking? Will we still get a market that tries to sell lots of energy intensive products that people don’t need, and will the Greens be waving a wet bus ticket at it?
November 16th, 2006 at 4:05 pm
ARE there explicit incentives to have large families?
Given that we have reward (refer psychological definition) systems in place for over extension of the familial unit - I would say yes.
It is whether the system *acts* as incentive, not whether its *intent* is as an incentive that is the issue there. Just as the American corn subsidies *intent* is to protect farmers from poverty but whose *effect* is to vastly increase the incidence of diabetics and obesity worldwide.
And given your stance towards *everyone* needing to learn the lesson that we cannot continue to grow unchecked surely large families placing the greatest strain on resources should be the first to learn this…
November 16th, 2006 at 4:05 pm
bjchip Says:
November 16th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
BigBruv
Greenhouse Gas emissions are not the engine of commerce. They are the result of misuse of the engine of the automobile and the truck. They are the result of the misuse of energy already available to us, and if we deal with this problem properly the coming crunch that hits the rest of the oil consuming nations of the planet will in a large part miss our commerce completely.
In Plain Words? Plan Ahead.
BJ
BJ.
I understand the points you make, can you please tell me what plans we need to make?
November 16th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
toad - this is actually perfectly in line with Russels original post that “our emissions have to start heading downward fast (in NZ and collectively around the world)”
The National stance just provides for more emphasis to be placed on the collective part of the statement.
November 16th, 2006 at 9:50 pm
you ask some great questions Prim.
on the subject of solar water heating, the Greens proposal is to kick start the industry with a massive pre-order which would allow the industry to plan ahead and invest in training with a guaranteed market. A proportion of the solar waters bought by the government would not go to public buildings but would be sold to homes and businesses and all the money would be recouped by the government after 5 years.
the labour party also floated a carbon tax proposal, but then ditched it after political pressure from the centre and right. But then it was an additional tax. The best bit about the Greens proposal is that the additional carbon taxes are offset by the partial wiping of income taxes, making the carbon taxes so much easier to sell to the public. And in true orwellian style, the new-look tough-on-climate-change national party are trying to gain political capital out of criticising labour for not introducing the carbon tax, when it was them that made Labour not introduce it.
Meanwhile some good Green resources for practical ideas that no one else is talking about are:
the Peak Oil Toolbox:
http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/other9099.html
(which frog blogged on) and
Turn Down The Heat
http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/PR9693.html
or see our Policy Highlights section:
http://www.greens.org.nz/election2005/policies.asp
or Policy Highlights site map:
http://www.greens.org.nz/election2005/policies-resources.asp
November 16th, 2006 at 11:06 pm
Yes iiq374, I agree that we have to work harder to couple the support with some form of disincentive to prevent people from simply relying on the state to pay up. Population control is part of the overall solution… but it is a very difficult problem because it involves the rights of individuals. A lot of people have been trying to work out a workable disincentive to the large family. So far the only place to actually implement one is China where the rights of the individual are far less important.
We have to come up with a better answer than that.
BJ
November 17th, 2006 at 2:56 am
I’m not convinced that, in the specific case of NZ, discouraging people from having children is a good plan at all.
At 4, 5, or 6 million, NZ has the potential to be fully sustainable ecologically, with a high standard of living. There are very few countries who are in such a favourable position. The trick is reducing the ecological footprint of each individual, and of the economy.
If people want to have children, that’s generally a good sign. It means (in the case where women have control over their fertility) that they live in a child-friendly environment. Which means a people-friendly environment.
As for government incentives, they need to be carefully examined, because they often have perverse effects. Paying single women to have children comes to mind.
But reducing natural population growth doesn’t seem like a good strategy to me. Does NZ want to find itself in the position of so many European countries, with not enough future productive workers to pay the pensions of its ageing population? That’s not a sustainable model.
Incentives. This loops back to Big Bro’s statement : I agree that businesses shouldn’t have to deal with a heavier tax burden in order to reduce environmental impacts, notably greenhouse gases. Reducing company tax rates while introducing resource taxes would be globally neutral for the tax base, and would reward those businesses who manage to produce more with lower environmental impact.
That’s how you get there from here. One step at a time.
November 17th, 2006 at 2:59 am
iq37.4 : The National stance just provides for more emphasis to be placed on the collective part of the statement.
Nah, the National stance is pure whinge : When everyone else has reduced their GHG emissions, we’ll reduce ours. It’s called booting for touch.
No different from Bush or Howard.
November 17th, 2006 at 6:47 am
because it involves the rights of individuals
BJ - this is only an issue because as a society we keep ignoring that rights should only be maintained with respect to their responsibilities.
My right to drive is coupled to my responsibility to drive responsibly; my right to participate in society is coupled to my adherence to societal law.
Similarly my right to procreate should be coupled to my responsibilities.
November 17th, 2006 at 8:24 am
Well said, Alistair!
And they still refer to “equivocal science”, so like Bush and Howard are still in denial.
The reasoning behind National’s policy seems to be: “There’s a bit of a public fuss about this. We don’t want to believe it, because it might cost our wealthy mates money, but we need to be seen to have a policy, so we’ll have one that has us do as much as Bush and Howard, because we know they’ll do sweet f.a. anyway.
November 17th, 2006 at 10:00 am
iiq374 - “Responsibility is something you take” but the problem is made complex, and I was alluding to that complexity, by the fact that as a society we also take a responsibility for the opportunities afforded the child.
I think that almost all of us would be happy to find a solution to this, but the society isn’t ignoring the problem. It is simply that the problem has more principles and more issues than just the parent’s lack of any sense of responsibility.
BJ
November 17th, 2006 at 10:17 am
Toad -
You sure their reasoning wasn’t more along the lines of “Well there’s no reason to cut your nose off to spite your face, especially when we’ve already got our necks stuck out on this one?”
Or of course they might have assessed the problem that what really is needed to solve this problem is all players to start recognising the issue - especially the biggest contributors not the smallest ones.
In particular where if the non-polluting players cripple their economies while the polluters do not then this will lead to an increase in total emissions as the polluters use their relative strength to capture increasing portions of the global economy.
November 17th, 2006 at 10:21 am
as a society we also take a responsibility for the opportunities afforded the child.
And this is the specific problem - we keep increasing the rights of the child and the parent while pushing all the responsibility onto “society”; the one nebulous place where increased responsibility has absolutely no effect.
Yes it is a complex issue however that does not excuse us for continuing to absolve those involved from any specific responsibility attached to the exercise of their rights.
November 17th, 2006 at 10:22 am
alistair Says:
November 17th, 2006 at 2:59 am
iq37.4 : The National stance just provides for more emphasis to be placed on the collective part of the statement.
Nah, the National stance is pure whinge : When everyone else has reduced their GHG emissions, we’ll reduce ours. It’s called booting for touch.
No different from Bush or Howard.
Alistair
Its called common bloody sense!…until somebody can convince me that any efforts we make will make one shred of difference I will continue to ask why we should burden ourselves with taxes and restrictions in a global market.
November 17th, 2006 at 10:25 am
Alistair - sorry just realised I had never replied to your post.
I was not talking about discouraging population growth - I was talking about removing the current artificial incentives to population growth that are creating a disproportionate drain on our ecology.
November 17th, 2006 at 10:41 am
iiq374 - My point however when I say that responsibility is something that is taken, is that it cannot be either given or forced. It HAS to be taken. This is something that we learn or not as children in the first place.
We would still support the children. How to separate that from supporting and even punishing the parents for what we regard as an irresponsible choice (to have more children than they can support), is the unsolved part of this problem. It is not a “right” given to the child… but as a society we have taken responsibility to provide equal opportunities and education to every child. Should we abjure that responsibility? What do you think would be the result?
I’d think this is resolved best by teaching individual responsibility, and working harder at teaching it, but it is not a problem that allows simple quick answers… which is apparently what you are seeking. What is your plan to force this responsibility on people. What is the alternative?
respectfully
BJ
November 17th, 2006 at 10:51 am
Big Bruv, it’s not about burdening ourselves with taxes and restrictions in the global market, and iiq374, it’s not about crippling our economy.
It’s about New Zealand taking some leadership.
It’s about substituting taxes on greenhouse emissions for taxes on production, rather than the additional carbon tax Labour was proposing before they capitulated to NZF and UF. . It’s about moving freight where practicable by rail and sea, rather than by truck and air. It’s about developing public transport infrastructure so that fewer people have to use private cars to get anywhere. It’s about moving land that is marginal for dairying back into forestry. It’s about wasting less energy and moving electricity generation from reliance on fossil fuels to reliance on sustainable sources such as wind.
It’s about showing the rest of the world that nations can do it without crippling their national economies.
The National Party position is a bit like the position of the nuclear powers on nuclear disarmament. No-one wants to go first and show you can disarm without being attacked, so we all sit around and watch more and more nations feel they have to acquire nuclear weapons as a deterrent against attack by those who already have them.
November 17th, 2006 at 10:52 am
the nats’ wording makes it clear that there will be no “balancing”, environmental concerns will be totally subordinate to economic growth.
as for the concept of balancing… let’s have an analogy.
if a man with a gun is chasing you, & showing every intention of shooting you, & you are also quite hungry, do you “balance” your two survival needs - escaping & eating, by stopping at a pie cart? after all, you recognize that there IS a balance there, without sustenance you can’t run as fast, but with a bullet in you, you won’t be having any more meals.
the only appropriate choice is to get the hell out of there, eating can wait until you have made good your escape.
the balance between global warming & economic growth is about at that point now - if we don’t stop & reverse global warming, we don’t know for sure that any society or economy will survive at all.
do i know for sure that the disaster will be of the worst possible magnitude?
no, but who is taking the worst gamble here? the one who says: “visibility is poor so we don’t know if there is a bend in the road, therefore full speed ahead - we wouldn’t want to waste time when the risk of crashing is unproven”
or the one who says “we don’t know for certain what is on the road ahead so let’s slow down”.
i agree overpopulation is a problem, & i appreciate the perspective offered by the person who pointed out that we deal with offenders by curtailing their rights. how would that work in the case of over-populators? forcible sterilization of anyone who has a third child?
i’m not impressed by arguments for populatioin growth. if we need to reproduce at above the replacement rate in order to provide for the elderly, then we’re still stuck with the problem of finite resources, infinite growth, & the world is done for. something needs to give - whether it is the lifestyle of pensioners, or the lifestyle of those who are taxed to support them, or both.
November 17th, 2006 at 11:11 am
Toad
So would you force people on to public transport?
November 17th, 2006 at 11:21 am
BJ -
A thought experiment from April in terms of responsibility:
http://iiq374.blogspot.com/2006/04/parental-responsibility.html
November 17th, 2006 at 11:23 am
Andrew - unfortunatly your car analogy missed out the current Green Party approach:
“we don’t know for certain what is on the road ahead so let’s put the car in reverse and go back the way we came”.
November 17th, 2006 at 11:27 am
I also actually have no issue with the analogy in general - I think it actually is quite apt.
However I would postulate that the reckless driver is the likes of China and current American leadership, whilst the cautious driver is the one balancing needs - hey we need to reach our destination at some point (don’t need to stop the car), but maybe we should reduce speed and drive to the conditions.
What the disagreement then is whether it should be 40 kph or 60
Which is what I was pointing out when I initially disputed the interpretation of the National position; I agree that “full steam ahead” ala U.S.A. is fool hardy - but I don’t believe that is what the Blues have stated. (and for the record I don’t support them either way…)
November 17th, 2006 at 11:27 am
big bruv said:
So would you force people on to public transport?
Big Bruv - I’m a Green, not a Stalinist. If public transport becomes available and affordable to more people (admitedly subsidised by the State, just as the roads we drive our cars on are), Adam Smith’s invisible hand will guide people on to it as the cost of running private motor vehicles increases.
But at the moment, people are forced into private motor vehicles because, even for many city-dwellers, there is no practicable public transport option.
November 17th, 2006 at 11:32 am
But at the moment, people are forced into private motor vehicles because, even for many city-dwellers, there is no practicable public transport option.
Admittedly that is also the fault of those same city-dwellers in some cases.
For example those that killed the Eastern Corridor proposal that included a train line because they wanted public transport options not a roadway.
And now have no chance of getting a train line in the forseeable future.
Idiots.
November 17th, 2006 at 12:32 pm
forget the reckless driver analogy & concentrate on the guy running away from the attacker.
the approach of “balancing” economic needs & environmental imperiatives is equivalent to stopping at the pie cart instead of running away from the attacker.
america’s approach is stopping at the pie cart & at the doughnut stand right next to it too.
either way, if you’re not running the hell away from the knife-weilding maniac, you’re going to be in big trouble.
November 17th, 2006 at 12:38 pm
Big Bruv - Refer to my earlier post where I said “Responsibility is something you take”. The absence of other’s sense of responsibility cannot absolve us of our own.
In addition to that consideration there is the problem of perception. We are, like it or not, “clean green New Zealand” in the eyes of a goodly portion of the planet. The example we set helps the cause in places like the USA even when the total emissions we can affect is a fractional percentage of the total. Somebody has to go first. Alistair was completely correct in his assessment of this attitude problem.
Finally, if the taxes and adjustments are “neutral” in that no additional taxes are pulled out of the economy, just adjustments made to the manner of application, The handicap would be assumed by people and businesses that continued to use the commons as though there were no cost to doing so. This would be different from the current situation, but there is no reason to consider that it would be worse for all businesses if total tax burdens do not rise. The only thing that could be said is that it will require changes of all businesses and the cost of making changes is never nil. There is however, no systematic bias in this that would make it worse for all businesses on an ongoing basis.
respectfully
BJ
November 17th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
I see that forcible sterilization is indeed in iiq374’s approach to irresponsible parenting.
In principle I am neutral, in practice I don’t think it can be implemented in any open democracy. It could work in Communist China. I see no means of making it happen in New Zealand and I re-iterate that “Responsibility is something you take”
It has to be taught early and the changes it eventually provides in the society will have to be waited for.
BJ
November 17th, 2006 at 12:56 pm
bj
Ok….so correct me if I am wrong here….the overall economy will not be taxed at a higher level (as if it could go any bloody higher) but you would tax those who contribute to GG emissions.
Given that this is going to hurt our primary producers how do you propose that we make a living?
I understand your argument and while I have certain sympathies with it would be economic suicide.
November 17th, 2006 at 1:03 pm
Unfortunately, I think that for many people the phrase “Responsibility is something you takeâ€? means “you and not me”!
BJ - you say that we will have to teach people and wait for changes…. but I thought you had previously expressed a view on another thread (a while back) that this sort of approach would take too long - hence your argument for CATS … I would argue that if it’s going to take that long, governments/legislatures would at some point need to take stronger measures. But this particular debate hinges on that “if” … ; perhaps no point discussing it ad infinitum.
November 17th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
Stuey -
Thank you for your reply above, but I don’t think it really answers my question. I know about many of the nice sounding policies - but are they actually going to happen, or is it nice sounding hot air that can never be implemented? That’s what I don’t know.
Has anyone had a hard look at numbers? When it comes to the crunch and Treasury asks how many millions of dollars things are going to cost to various sectors, and the media get hold of it, are the Greens going to end up backing down on key policies with red faces, or watering programmes down to the point where there is no recognisable difference with any other political party? ie. will the Greens be swamped out by the status quo.
That’s what I want to know. Nice sounding policies are all very nice - we have heard about those for years from Labour, but very little seems to have happened on the ground. Likewise - when it comes to the crunch, what would the Greens actually be able to deliver? To some extent this is similar to big bruv’s question:
>big bruv Says:
>November 17th, 2006 at 12:56 pm
>Given that this is going to hurt our primary producers how do you propose that we make a living?
Stuey, presumably the Greens want to move the economy towards sustainability without wreaking the kind of pain that Roger Douglas inflicted a long time ago … in that sense there must be a balance. Has someone in the Green party actually sat down and worked out the path for this to happen? The policy highlights (which I had already seen, thanks) don’t give this kind of reassurance - and I think that they need to! They need to be deliverable, and well supported.
November 17th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
Prim
What is CATS?
November 17th, 2006 at 1:26 pm
big bruv - as I understand it, BJ has used the acronym CATS to refer to access to space .. I do not currently recall what the “C” stands for.
November 17th, 2006 at 1:28 pm
Compulsory?…..lol
November 17th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
Actually BJ - it wasn’t forced, even in the hypothetical given it was left as a choice to the person.
Finally, if the taxes and adjustments are “neutral� in that no additional taxes are pulled out of the economy, just adjustments made to the manner of application, The handicap would be assumed by people and businesses that continued to use the commons as though there were no cost to doing so.
Interesting that you propose the ACT solution to the problem
November 17th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
forget the reckless driver analogy & concentrate on the guy running away from the attacker.
The problem with this one is I just don’t entirely agree with the analogy.
Maybe if we made the Pie cart a stream in the forest, and added that we’ve been running without water for 36 hours…
November 17th, 2006 at 2:06 pm
What are these current “artificial incentives” to have children?
I assume you are thinking of such things as Child Allowance, Domestic Purposes Benefit, Maternity Leave, differing Tax rates, eligibility for State Houses etc …
In (Charles) Dickensian London your ideas were in vogue! However, don’t forget that Aotearoa/NZ got a lot of its “good immigrant stock” from the poor and discarded of the industrialized Cities of the british Isles etc.
Don’t ever judge a book by its cover! (And always remember that books do have sequential chapters.)
My Paternal Great Grandfather was the illegitimate son of an illiterate factory worker from the slums of Leeds. He worked in the factories from the age of six, was educated in the “Sunday Schools” (became a personal friend of the playwright and author John Ruskin!) … emigrated to Auckland as a widower with his two adolescent chidren … and was one of the founders of the Auckland WEA etc … He was a commited Socialist and a great inspiration to my father as a child. His descendants are university educated, generally very community minded, and some are prominent in their chosen fields.
Unfortunately HE WAS AN EXCEPTION and as a female I sometimes think of the English woman who was my great great grandmother … how apallingly difficult her life must have been, and how much better things could have been had there been some state funded support for her and her son.
As far as I know (and I have worked in areas related to training people to care for children, help families in need etc) Benefits and Allowances did NOT arise from someone sitting down and saying “How do we encourage incompetent and dependent people to have more children? I know! We’ll give them a small amount of money to offset some of the costs they will incur and that will encourage them to go forth and multiply.” (Nor did we decide to sterilize all the men who have insufficient funds to support any pregnancy and child resultant from their sexual activity.)
Children born in this country are New Zealand citizens and it is in all our interests to make sure that they have the best starts possible. There are programmes of positve intervention (education, training, support systems etc) but we need to do more.
… and YES, as tax payers we all need to contribute.
November 17th, 2006 at 2:35 pm
Eredwen
Why is it my responsibility to pay for other peoples kids?, thanks to this government it is a big enough financial battle paying for my own.
Would it not be better to let us keep more of our own money through tax cuts and take care of our own children?
November 17th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
eredwen - you don’t seem to have actually read my comments, but seem to be basing it off the quick allusion that BJ made to a single point?
Straight off I did not advocate for a removal of these benefits, but that the rights for these should be more closely tied to their intrinsic responsibilities.
Children born in this country are New Zealand citizens and it is in all our interests to make sure that they have the best starts possible.
Absolutely agree - where we don’t seem to agree is that allowing the poorest sectors of our community to subject ever increasing numbers of children to poverty stricken situations is in their best interest - or is the best start possible to their life…
I have pointed out to many people, many times that intent is irrelevant. The safety pin was designed as a new catch for a flint lock rifle.
The USSR intended for Chernobyl to provide safe cheap power to the masses to improve their life.
November 17th, 2006 at 3:04 pm
Eredwen -
There is also the unfortunate situation that it has been shown multiple times recently that it actually *is* better for a childs outcomes to grow up in a working but financially struggling household (with the provision of education - but note that free education does not act as a propagation incentive), than a household which has more money but is based on benefits.
Also if that was truly your goal then why are the majority of these benefits not available to a self-employed person that is earning less than a beneficiary?
November 17th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
Those very children that you don’t want to pay for may be the peolpe whose tax dollars you will rely on to pay for all the expensive care you are likely to want in your old age.
It’s called “collective security”.
Besides, are you sure that your junior versions of Big Bruv won’t be “chips off the old block” and want to keep every cent they “earn” for themselves, rather than fork out for the shortfall in their “old man’s” funds in his dotage?? (JOKE … I hope!)
(My kids would be there to pay their share of your finacial needs however … They believe in “collective security”.)
November 17th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
Eredwen
If my kids have learnt one thing from me then I hope it is that nobody owes them anything in this life.
I have never left my future in the hands of this (or any) government, I have worked hard for everything I have and have made provision for my (hopefully) long retirement years, how I wish more Kiwis did the same instead of relying on ME to fund their lives.
I see nothing wrong with each looking after their own to be honest, if there was not such widespread abuse of the social welfare system in NZ then I might have a little more sympathy with those who CANNOT work, I sure as hell have no sympathy with those who WILL NOT work.
Oh…and as for the really expensive care i will need in later years….I am a smoker, I have been subsidising the heath system in NZ for years, if I did not have private health care I think I should receive priority given the extra tax I have paid over that time.
November 17th, 2006 at 3:48 pm
Eredwen - I also believe in the general principles of insurance.
However insurance systems will always fail their desired outcome where self-selection bias becomes too strong.
November 17th, 2006 at 4:24 pm
My previous post was not specifically addressed to iiq374… nor is this one.
Let’s get away from the “they” theories!
How much experience have the detractors here had with the intent, flexibility and application of the NZ Benefit system? …
I received the DPB for a short time as a “topup” to an inadequate part time income. I found the whole experience very supportive… (and while I was on the DPBt, another sole parent (father) and I were the only parents who volunteered to help on class trips at the local Primary School as all the others “were working” and therefore “far too busy”!)
This was “never going to happen to me”:
My marriage broke up just as I was returning to my (high-salaried, high pressure) work after a year’s maternity leave. My children’s father “shot thru to Australia”. I had a very nervous one year old who wouldn’t settle in her Child Care Centre and a five year old who had just been promoted up a class and was being seriously bullied at school. After a time of intense struggle, that I will never forget, I went to see Social Welfare and they were WONDERFUL.
The result of that meeting was: I resigned from my job but stayed on to teach my major classes as a part timer. The DPB augmented my now inadequate income, and was flexible as my other income waxed and wained, and the DSW was responsible for assessing and collecting “Liable Parent” contributions from the children’s father. That had no affect on my income.
A situation like this CAN happen in almost any family. (Note that you “it will never happen to me-ers”!)
My (now adult) daughter has a friend who sustained brain damage in a car accident … that “is never going to happen to any of us” either, is it ?
So much for theories and personal intentions …
November 17th, 2006 at 4:36 pm
“all those fabulous CBDs will be underwater.”
Where does the information that the Central Business Districts (CBD’s) are going to be underwater originate?
There appears to be a great deal of speculation on the proposed “White elephant” Stadium adjacent to the Auckland CBD where it is contemplated that it will be underwater and thus negating the reason for building it there. While I think this location for a stadium is inappropriate, the flooding aspect to the both the proposed stadium and the CBD is fanciful speculation.
If reference is made to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report, it states that the global mean sea level has increased at an average annual rate of 1mm to 2mm during the 20th century. On further investigation, it was based on port tide gauge records and is driven partly by the thermal expansion of sea-water in response to warming, partly by increases in ocean volume caused by ice-melting and perhaps partly by juvenile water addition. The historic rate of rise shows no sign of acceleration under “global warming”, and represents the late stage of natural post-glacial sea-level change.
With an increase in sea level at this rate and say a proposed stadium life of 200 years then the sea will rise over this time frame between 200mm and 400mm. With the playing field at wharf level and the present mean high water level at 2meters below wharf level the sea will still need to rise between 1.6 meters and 1.8 meters to flood the stadium. What a disappointment that we can’t use this as an excuse for not building our “White elephant”.
November 17th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
Yes, all sorts of unfortunate things can happen to the best of people. All sorts of evil cr*p goes on in many workplaces too - no doubt enough to put more than a few sane people off working to their fullest extent! I agree that we need some kind of welfare system to help unfortunate people.
As benign as the intention behind welfare may be, there will always be some side-effects and abuse. The key may be to design a system well to avoid undue negative effects. This leads one into specifics of individual programmes.
November 17th, 2006 at 4:50 pm
Eredwen
My deepest sympathies to your daughters friend, she of course is deserved of social welfare and nobody would deny her that however dramatising this debate is not going to get us anywhere.
I found the rest of your post interesting, I guess where you and I differ is that I do not feel it is my responsibility to fund you while you made the choice (all be it through difficult circumstances) to go on the DPB.
My idea of social welfare is for those who through no fault of their own cannot work, I am not and never will be sympathetic towards those who do not want to work.
November 17th, 2006 at 6:05 pm
Big Bruv - Cheap Access To Space.
Prim - The two are not incompatible, and we are talking about two different problems. CATS is a technical solution that gives temporary relief (for a long time, the Solar System is a big place) to the overall problem of global overpopulation. The personal responsibility meme has to do with people who are, and there is no genteel way to say this, having children they themselves cannot afford to support properly, thus creating a situation where the society must take care of them.
I feel real ambivalent about the solutions on offer at present. This usually suggests to me that there may be a better answer, not yet presented, but as yet I do not know what it is.
respectfully
BJ
November 17th, 2006 at 6:22 pm
1) Prim, whether or not we can deliver on our policies depends on how many MPs we have eh? I have no idea if anyone has done the numbers on them, but I doubt that anyone has done the numbers on any other parties policies either - in fact I contend that our policies are published in much deeper detail than any other parties policies. (prove me wrong!!!)
2) Bruvver big, why would the greens eco-tax policy hurt primary producers? They would experience a drop in income taxes and a rise in eco taxes the same as everyone else which should roughly balance. If you think this is not the case then explain why.
And of course those hypothetical primary producers would have the freedom to reduce their emissions and save money on their eco-taxes should they choose to do so.
I think that the Greens eco-tax policy also involves staged introduction and signaling of future plans, so that those primary producers would have the ability to plan ahead and choose to invest in low-carbon tech in advance of the law change if they want.
November 17th, 2006 at 7:08 pm
Big Bruv:
You obviously lucky enough to have never experienced the situation and the stress levels that I attempted to describe!
As a citizen who has worked and paid taxes for almost all of my adult life I have more than “paid my way” in this society. In addition, I have been active in the community in various unpaid roles (most requiring a skill level that would be costly if it had to be paid for). This is something that people who express similar views to yours are often unwilling to take on “because they are working”.
We dance to the beat of different drums.
Mine is a cooperative dance, yours a solo performance. Both depend on others to make the music …
eredwen
November 17th, 2006 at 9:34 pm
eredwen
While not wanting to get into a “my level of stress was greater than your level” argument I would respectively suggest it is a very dangerous thing to assume anything about somebody you do not know.
Just because i do not agree with you does not mean that I have not been in very similar situations, you say that you have paid taxes, would your situation not have been a lot more bearable if you were not paying as much tax?…could it have been that you would not have had to draw the DPB or go on any benefit at all if you had not paid as much tax?
And on the point of your community work, I commend you for doing so and note that you did this voluntarily, there are always people (from the left and the right) who are driven to help others in the community, I myself have done some of this work.
If I champion any cause at all it is the cause (apart from Animal rights) of personal responsibility, if there is one thing that this nation needs a huge dose of it is people taking responsibility for their own actions, we have a bloody army of social workers and govt departments who sole job it seems is to assure people in NZ that anything bad that happens to them is not their fault (even when it plainly is), these people have no hope or desire to improve themselves as they are constantly assured that they cannot change anything or better themselves as the system will not allow it and it is not their fault….meanwhile the cycle of generational welfare dependency and generational imprisonment continues.
You have to wonder why this government lets this situation continue unless it is simply to assure themselves of votes from those who are afraid they might be forced to work for a living.
November 18th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
BJ -
>bjchip Says:
>November 17th, 2006 at 6:05 pm
>Prim - The two are not incompatible, and we are talking about two >different problems.
As I understand it, the two issues (overpopulation and irresponsible child bearing) had been to some extent linked in the discussion above. They may in the long term be inextricably linked under some definition of responsibility that includes the planet.
Your preferred solution - from this and other threads - appears to be to teach responsibility. I think that has to be a component of any approach to these issues. Where we differ is that if teaching responsibility turns out to be insufficient, you would like cheap access to space … whereas I would argue that stronger Earth-based measures should be added to the teaching responsibility approach, well before humanity expands off the planet.
November 18th, 2006 at 3:12 pm
Eredwen - you would still have to agree that your situation was very different from that of the families that we were discussing earlier, and on an empirical basis as well.
I have to repeat again that none of us as far as I have seen have suggested removing a safety net system - what many of us have suggested is removing the current bait and trap and returning it to the safety net it is supposed to be.
As Big Bruv says - be very wary of assuming you know us or our pasts.
Both I and my wife have been involved in multiple community service organisations for over 12 years, on average giving up more than 10 hours a week. Of course we could and would do more - but it is hard paying off your first mortgage when 52% of your income is distributed elsewhere.
November 18th, 2006 at 10:32 pm
This is a great and noble goal. Mandating carbon reductions will soon mean the end of unnecessary highly carbon-intensive activities like holiday air travel, fossil-fuelled electricity generation, gas-fuelled heating, and of course all road-based transport, with its numerous externalities and negative effects on society at large.
Appalling high-carbon materials like concrete, steel, aluminium and of course any nasty oil based products must eventually be phased out in the transition to sustainable materials like hemp and stones.
I predict this *may* be unpopular with the uneducated masses, but once you show them the videos of thousands of dedicated politicians and staff who travel to climate conferences all over the world, they will surely come around.
November 19th, 2006 at 1:30 am
Actually Prim - I want Cheap Access To Space irrespective of any other thing that is accomplished. I don’t trust ANY other answer for the longest term, as the survival of the species depends on our getting some of our eggs out of the singular basket we call earth. I may in this, be taking a longer view than any person here.
IMAO the species needs both the lesson and the leap if it is to live long enough to learn.
respectfully
BJ
November 19th, 2006 at 1:50 am
uk_kiwi -
Hmmm… how much carbon is in concrete… and how does it get out of the concrete if it is in there. Steel is characterised by it’s carbon content, but it is part of the alloy. The steel has to rust away before it can release any. Aluminium does not contain any carbon. Oil based products will get more expensive as peak oil screws the overuse of plastics into an inflationary spiral, so we won’t ne worrying too much about that as there are marginal substitutes already available… just a little too expensive to compete with the cheap plastics we use now. Gas fueled heating is in a similar place as the plastics…. wood pellet fueled heating is growing in popularity as a result, and we’ve had roads for a lot longer than we’ve used gasoline. What makes you think we can’t work out an low carbon alternative to the gasoline powered IC engine? Or the 747?
Everything you mention has a perfectly feasible low or zero carbon replacement waiting in the wings.
The Green party is not a party of neo-luddites. There may be some individual Greens who would qualify, but they don’t define the party. Apparently they’re all you’re willing to see, but they don’t run the party.
Preconceptions and misconceptions…. those are things that Greens have to work harder to eliminate from the public mind and from public accounts.
respectfully
BJ
November 19th, 2006 at 11:06 am
BJ
heh don’t mind me I was just being a little facetious, it strikes me as slightly funny that Mr Gore and other leaders jet around the world to tell us we need to stop jetting around the world!
As for concrete & steel, they require vast amounts of coal and gas to make both products, aluminium is slightly better. And low carbon alternatives to petrol and aviation fuel would require some sort of massive breakthrough in biofuels or massive breakthroughs in nuclear fusion and energy storage technology.
Simply put, it’s a tall order to change the way the world runs…
November 19th, 2006 at 5:46 pm
uk_kiwi says:
“Simply put, it’s a tall order to change the way the world runs…”
Yes!
However, that must not be used (or be allowed to be used) as an excuse to delay, or not adequately implement what needs to be done.
Too many are saying “But why should I do this if others don’t?
and “I’m not going to do it until everyone else does”
… etc etc and (boring) etc!
We have our work cut out to persuade our “fellow travellers” on this Planet that everyone’s cooperation at all times will be needed for us to deal with this one!
November 20th, 2006 at 2:28 am
uk_kiwi - OK… understood. I get carried away myself sometimes. I’d question the amount of coal and gas “required” to make concrete and steel… both require significant amounts of energy, but not necessarily coal and gas. Those are what are used today…. yet another change to put in your tall order…
Note too, that renewable alternatives to aviation fuel aren’t that hard to create. Low carbon doesn’t mean no carbon is used, it only means that the carbon balance isn’t tweaked.
The tall order is to change, but the taller order is to continue as we are now…
Somebody has to start somewhere. We’re here.
respectfully
BJ
November 21st, 2006 at 1:25 pm
As I understand it, steelmaking uses coal in its chemical process - I think that this chemical process releases CO2.
Like uk_kiwi, it strikes me that a whole bunch of people who preach sustainability tend to jet and drive around a huge amount to get to all their talkfests. Even Al Gore’s movie shows him endlessly walking through airports, in limousines and helicopters. Sure the movie was supposed to be carbon neutral in the end, but surely Gore could be a role model? His movie could have tried to make teleconferencing look glamorous, instead of limousines.
On another point - how has NZ’s immigration policy been consistent with sustainability? I don’t see it myself. Govt seems to have been preaching sustainability while (with the other hand) trying to get large numbers of people to add to the human population here - requiring large numbers of houses, appliances, cars, commercial and industrial space - energy, resources, pollution etc. A case of govt saying all the right things while doing the opposite?
November 21st, 2006 at 10:33 pm
Prim - you are correct, it DOES use coal, actually in the form of coke which is a baked coal that burns hotter. There are processes which make “coke” from peat and from wood tar and there are several processes that reduce the amount of coke required, using other forms of energy to get to the roughly 2800 degrees needed to make iron and steel. Some of the carbon winds up inside the metal itself and it makes the steel harder but also more brittle…
My comment was directed at the necessity of using coal to create steel, but at the end of all of it, the quantity of carbon released in the manufacture of steel is not (I think) one we need to worry about unless the process used is quite primitive.
We’ll nail down the easy ones first in any case. This one is hard and the gain is small.
respectfully
BJ
November 22nd, 2006 at 12:34 am
Going back a few days :
iiq: I was not talking about discouraging population growth - I was talking about removing the current artificial incentives to population growth that are creating a disproportionate drain on our ecology.
In fact, social engineering is always with us. Different laws, combined with economic conditions, provide incentives and disincentives in various, sometimes unintended ways. It’s always good to recognise and discuss these effects.
You would need to enumerate the specific “artificial incentives” you want to remove.
If the current fecundity rate (2.1 children per woman) is too high for you, then you could try eliminating all tax advantages for having children (but in 2000, when I last lived in NZ, there were none, which I found rather shocking!), and eliminate any sort of subsidies for child care, for both client and care provider. This will make it more difficult for a woman to have children and return to work, which means that many women will choose (with regret) not to have children, or have fewer, or have them later. Well-off people will continue to have children of course. Some people who can’t afford it will persist in having them, this is an unintended side-effect and very regrettable, because it will increase poverty and hardship etc.
But it looks like you’ve got the answer to that problem :
My right to drive…
Similarly my right to procreate should be coupled to my responsibilities.
You’ve outed yourself as a big-time authoritarian, by putting these two rights on the same level. The right to procreate is an absolute right, not subject to licensing by government or society. Thankyouverymuch.
November 24th, 2006 at 9:24 am
You’ve outed yourself as a big-time authoritarian, by putting these two rights on the same level. The right to procreate is an absolute right, not subject to licensing by government or society.
No - I’ve outed myself as someone who believes the “absolute” right to procreate is coupled to the “absolute” responsibility to ensure the provision of an adequate life to that which is being created.
In particular you should not use your right to procreate to impinge on my right to provide for my own children.
November 24th, 2006 at 9:32 am
If the current fecundity rate (2.1 children per woman) is too high for you
No - the rate is about right; the issue from an ecological and societal perspective is where the concentration of the fecundity rate is situated.
This will make it more difficult for a woman to have children and return to work…Well-off people will continue to have children of course. Some people who can’t afford it will persist in having them, this is an unintended side-effect and very regrettable, because it will increase poverty and hardship etc.
Which is of course where the current statistics show you to be incorrect; in that we already have those effects occurring in a disproportionate manner. If you comprehended my posts on this subject above you would see that it is precisely the issue that “Well-off” people are not having children - while those in borderline poverty situations are having more. Given that this has a high correlation with the introduction of the distortions I allude to above (although the effects of WFF are yet to be statistically proven) I would see a restructure of these as being of paramount importance.
In fact the single best measure that I could see would be to allow the income of a family to be split across all family members for the purpose of taxation measurement.