Oz and Kyoto
So Australia Day is tomorrow. But when it comes to climate change and greenhouse emissions there’s not much to celebrate. Australia has refused to ratify Kyoto and is instead undermining it with the AP6 initiative (with US, Japan, Korea, India and China).
Under Kyoto there are effectively binding reduction targets. If you go over your target then you have to buy carbon credits on the international market. Hence it creates a financial incentive to meet your targets and puts an international price on greenhouse emissions.
With the AP6 there is no binding reduction targets, but a set of voluntary measures. While some of those voluntary measures are good, they won’t result in a reduction in emissions.
AP6 is basically a competitor to Kyoto because it establishes an internationally “legitimate” system of “addressing” climate change that has no economic cost. Unfortunately it doesn’t reduce emissions. An ABARE study done for the AP6 predicted that the AP6 approach, under the most optimisitic scenario including carbon capture and storage, could reduce global emissions by 23% from business as usual in 2050. But this would mean more than a doubling of emissions (8 to 17 Gt CO2). A doubling of emissions would be a very bad climate change outcome.
Australia needs to stop undermining Kyoto. Kyoto has it problems, the targets are way too low and big polluters like India and China have no targets at all, but we need to improve it not undermine it with AP6 which will only make things worse.
As an addendum, I should say, to be absolutely clear, that I am talking about the Australian federal government, not the Australian people. A November 2006 Newspoll found 75% of Australians want the federal government to sign up to Kyoto.
January 25th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
cd whoever is looking after frogblog please tell me what happened to the comments i sent here yesterday….
they never showed..(even ‘test’ ones like the above…)
and there certainly were no censorious content in them..
phil
January 25th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Phil
At least one message of mine went in the bit-bucket as well. You are not alone.
BJ
January 25th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Hi Phil and bjchip. We had a bit of a spam invasion, so I boosted the comments protection settings up a notch. maybe the great frog in the sky swallowed some of your comments as a sacred offering?
(…data management error sounds too dull…)
January 25th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Australia, India, China, Japan and US all opt out of Kyoto.
Meanwhile back on the farm, l’il ol’ NZ is going to economically strap itself in order to satisfy ideology and give an “example” for the rest of the world to follow.
Don’t look back guys ’cause there’s no-one of significance behind!
In any other field of endeavor such behaviour would be called crass stupidity. Some strangely think it’s noble. Maybe it’s both.
January 25th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Greg, India and China were never obliged or invited to opt in.
Your stance has been discussed ad nauseam here and elsewhere. It’s not constructive arguing with positional responses - it gets nobody anywhere.
Lets not go there.
January 25th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Mikeymike
“Your stance has been discussed ad nauseam here and elsewhere. It’s not constructive arguing with positional responses - it gets nobody anywhere.
Lets not go there”
Has “constructive arguing” given way to passive agreement now?..why rae you afraid of opinions that differ from yours?
January 25th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Since when did an incorrect statement count as an opinion?
Saying that developing countries (exempt from the framework of the treaty) have “opted out” is wrong, especially when they’ve ratified the protocol. As, of course, has Japan.
Look behind you and you’ll find two-thirds of the world’s population, but I’m sure Greg didn’t mean to imply that the US and Australia are the only significant places on the planet.
January 25th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
mikeymike:
the total futility of arguing the science should now be clear for all here to see in the international political environment.
What really matters is the politics - and with the countries that have ‘opted out” noted above, if you think that ANYTHING we do here in NZ will make any difference you also probably think Adam was a cowboy.
So continue on in your ideological dream if you want.
But don’t stuff this country in your pursuit. Please.
January 25th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
big bruv:
You ask:
“Has “constructive arguingâ€? given way to passive agreement now?..why (are) you afraid of opinions that differ from yours?”
Not speaking for mikeymike, but from my experience as one who has waded through the seemingly endless “discussions” that you advocate, I would say not “afraid”, just bored !
Your use of repetitive argument is not “constructive”.
In fact it is almost invariably useless as a means of persuading people to change their minds, as it tends to have the opposite affect! When it is delivered with “oneup” and “put down” behaviours (your “question” above is an example of a regular “technique” of yours) it becomes plain “bad manners”.
No “hearts and minds” won here big bruv!
January 25th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Russel - I agree with your analysis of Australia and Kyoto, that there’s not much to celebrate.
Conversely, PM Howard’s announcement on water today appears to be a genuinely big and decisive move. It should serve as an example to New Zealand of the need to swiftly make bold and far-sighted moves on becoming a ‘low carbon’ economy and eliminating our need for foreign oil.
Peter
http://www.kotare.typepad.com/thestrategist/
January 25th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Greg Spark said:
“So continue on in your ideological dream if you want.
But don’t stuff this country in your pursuit. Please.”
I understand (and share) your concerns about the Politics as being a real concern …
For the international political environment to change we (members of the entire human race) will need to better understand the problems. This requires better informed citizens and the realisation that the situation will require the cooperation of every individual, every group of people, every country and every region on the Planet.
It is a “big ask” but the information must be disseminated, and cooperation rather than just looking after ourselves at the expense of others (a hard mindset to change!), MUST get around.
Maybe the idea of a threat from “out there” rather than from each other
will focus our collective minds … historically it has been the thing that has been likely to do so!
Meanwhile don’t be too afraid of the Green Party of Aotearoa “stuffing this country”. We would be the MOST unlikely group to do that!
Your concerns make me wonder if you have read back through http://www.greens.org.nz on this topic?
January 25th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Greg, on the Kyoto/AGW issue the notion of national borders is redundant (ie aGw). This is slowly being acknowledged by political leaders and a consensus is building. A means of getting past the economic inertia (caused largely by antional interests of course) is also being advanced - slowly - as the business case for change emerges.
China acknowledge that they have a ways to go. So its not a cut and dried population issue. Its a case of addressing “business as usual” and sharing technologies and initiatives. The CDM is part of that, and larger scale utility solutions are becoming more common in developing countries as a result of “opening markets” (whether anyone likes what that entails or not).
The political aspect is indeed interesting and as you say it is “what really matters”. Bush firmly (re)planted his foot in the “technology camp” with his state of the nation address yesterday - there is at least acknowledgement and sound rhetoric for the environment.
I was heartened by the address if only to hear him talk about actual initiatives - effectively breaking down AGW into some key cause activities rather than bang on about accept/deny sceince/economics polemics.
January 25th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Greg
“Business” cannot be followed by the words “as usual”. That is what you fear and you fear that it will cost us. Change often does. Change that is forced on you from outside is usually still more expensive.
The question is what the cost IS, and this is rather loosely defined by you as “too expensive” and “wasteful” and by us as “investment in the future”. Striking a balance that satisfies both sides is an important part of the political process and it would be nice it something like that were going on, but it isn’t. Fuel we don’t burn is a gift to our children… fuel we burn can’t be replaced or “un” burned.
Right now, New Zealand has done less to address its CO2 emissions than it needs to do. It has done less than any of us imagined it would do. The government totally stuffed the Carbon taxes and the Carbon credits and has done lip service to the collective butts of the business community in the service of keeping the “as usual” tail in control of the dog,
What I have read here, and it comes from several voices now, is an urgent demand that New Zealand publicly and immediately repudiate Kyoto. That Greens should agree to this. Maybe I am misreading this, but my impression is of a concerted and urgent attack with motivations I am not sure are all that clear.
I am wondering… WHY is this so important NOW? There’s no bills due for years yet. There’s a penalty assessed for failure, and no guarantee of success but what we have here is a complete failure to try and there IS a guarantee of failure that comes of that.
As for who is following, it is mostly people, not governments. Governments seldom represent their populations as well as they represent their business interests, and so we see popular support but little movement yet.
However, if we were to follow the urging of the naysayers here and capitulate I can guarantee that the immediate destructive political influence on the Green movement internationally would be far easier to see. Leading is easier if the path is downwards. There is a peculiar flavour to the arguments presented. Reminds me of EB pamphlets. Greens aren’t against business , what we want is for business to take into account the cost of the use of the commons.
Spending money in New Zealand to help with energy efficiency, insulation, renewable energy etc, is an economic stimulus and is not wasted. Greens generally urge an adaptive course, not the destruction of businesses.
The tail however, has to go.
respectfully
BJ
This doesn’t necessarily do anything to the economy.
January 26th, 2007 at 8:53 am
There’s a dimmer switch inside the sun that causes its brightness to rise and fall on timescales of around 100,000 years - exactly the same period as between ice ages on Earth. So says a physicist who has created a computer model of our star’s core.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19325884.500?DCMP= NLC-nletter&nsref=mg19325884.500
January 26th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Back on topic, its interesting to see that 75% of aussies want their govt to sign up, equally interesting to see that the poll was “commissioned by a coalition of green groups”. 75% may well not be that high.
Regardless the number will probably be significantly more than 50%. “Consumers” around the world generally want to see businesses doing more. The problem is that they often dont back sentiment with action.
The same could be said for govt - all sentiment no action. As I said above, it’s good to see Bush come up with something of a plan… Bolting horses and all.
January 26th, 2007 at 10:34 am
mikeymike Says:
January 26th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Back on topic,
————-
Actually I was wondering if it will have much affect on the GW debate.
JH
January 26th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Fair enough jh, they’ve tried to model solar variation but (as your article suggests) even assessing a proxy impact is problematic. But as Greg said above, there’s a “total futility… [in] arguing the science”.
Leave it to the scientists - one labelling the “claims as “utterly implausible”", another with “there is no lack of…[feedback] mechanisms.” It’s not my game (nor yours I assume).
Rather than hanging out for them to test the oscillation on red dwarfs, i suggest we watch Red Dwarf instead. A hell of a lot more interesting for the lay person…
January 26th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
So where exactly will we be buying these credits from and how much will they cost, given that maybe only one or two countries will be anywhere near achieving their kyoto targets by 2012? How much support do you think Kyoto will have once these bills start rolling in (think fart tax for an idea)
Does it raise the prospect that we COuld we be seeing ‘peak carbon’ and carbon conflicts in our lifetimes as fewer and fewer credits are fought over by more and more kyoto breachers. Will Jeanette be forecasting $200 a tonne for carbon by Xmas?
NO BLOOD FOR CARBON, I say
January 26th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
“businesses doing more”
Evil business, again, eh. I guess it is always easier to point fingers at someone else. My business doesn’t produce much in the way of output, and I own trees.
However, loading business up with yet more government compliance costs will result in the following:
-more NZ business going under, meaning higher unemployment
-increased costs being passed on to the consumer. In effect, lower wages.
…which will then result in a real and measurable increase in suffering here.
And what for? Reducing carbon output by a level that is meaningless on a global scale.
So which is the more ethical position?
January 26th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
chrissie hynde was interviewed on bfm today…
and she was very matter-of-fact about the environment/climate-change….
saying we are ‘f*cked’…
that it ‘..is too late..’…
(and we are just going to have to ride out the consequences of our actions/willfull neglect..)
and that all we can really do is change ourselves…
(i agree…
go vegan..!….
she did..!..)
btw…her upcoming gigs will be well worth catching..
she won’t be one of those sad old tribute-bands-to-themselves we sometimes see..
and speaking of ‘ripping-gigs’..
.did anyone else see ‘the twilight singers’..?..
.whoar..!…eh..?..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
January 26th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
PeterExitsLeft
I haven’t seen a word here about “Businesses doing more”. I’d like to know where you took that from, cause I don’t think one of the Greens here said it. Perhaps it was another thread?
If we did NOT say it, I’d like to know why you think we did… or why you want to think we did.
respectfully
BJ
January 27th, 2007 at 1:03 am
jh :
Interesting article, thanks for the link. It’s often said that we should be starting to head towards the next ice age, but I’ve never seen a plausible explanation of the forcings that would take us in that direction — that looks like a plausible candidate.
Indeed, on a time scale of a few thousand years, such a cycle can make a difference to temperatures, which would perhaps be starting to trend downwards… all else being equal.. But on the time scale of the climate change we are currently experiencing, it’s just background noise, it doesn’t register… it’s a couple of orders of magnitude weaker.
So, in summary, if it turns out to be true, it adds to our understanding of past ice ages, but it doesn’t get us off the hook with respect to AGW.
January 27th, 2007 at 1:16 am
Insider : So where exactly will we be buying these credits from and how much will they cost
Excellent questions. The conventional wisdom is that credits will be bought from Russia and eastern European countries whose industrial base has contracted since the reference period, lowering CO2 production and giving them surplus credits… I would expect Japan to run a healthy surplus too, they have been exemplary in reducing emissions.
How much will they cost? If, as you suggest, there are few countries in surplus, they would logically be pretty expensive. Which would cause people to realise that it makes better business sense to reduce emissions than buy credits… which would drive the price down. Funny, isn’t it? Hey, it’s sort of like… market forces! Supply and demand!
Does it raise the prospect that we COuld we be seeing ‘peak carbon’ and carbon conflicts in our lifetimes as fewer and fewer credits are fought over by more and more kyoto breachers.
That’s pretty far-fetched. In fact, such a system of trading in intangibles requires a peaceful, stable international environment. If they were really in a fix, countries would default on their Kyoto obligations like they sometimes default on debts (it’s only money after all). I don’t know of any wars fought over debts.
Much more likely is the prospect of actual resource wars, over tangible energy sources (like the black sticky stuff that comes out of the ground, not to put too fine a point on it). The likelihood of such wars becomes much greater, of course, if we can’t get our sh*t together in co-operating on reducing energy consumption and emissions…
Which model of international relations do you prefer, Insider? Multilateral negotiations, or the Bush method?
January 27th, 2007 at 7:31 am
MikeyMike
Don’t believe a word of it.
Twenty-Five of the last Thirty-Five speeches since the Arab Oil Embargo have asserted plans to wean the USA from the Arab teat.
Ain’t happened yet.
Basically he’s saying a very little bit about efficiency and a lot about using technology to create more biofuels… and he’s pushing specific dollars into that while pushing very vague goals with respect to efficiency.
The farmers love him. Corn is up 50% and rising.
Analyzing the realities:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/25/AR2007 012501547.html
(Registration Required)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/23/AR2007 012301562.html?sub=AR
Food prices in the USA have nowhere to go but up anyway, but when a bigger bite is taken there the the housing market will be starved. The catastrophe in the making is easily foreseeable and will be blamed on all manner of things, but the real culprit is the guy who made the speech. Incurious George.
No mistake left unmade.
respectfully
BJ
January 27th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Peter (and BJ)
In saying “businesses doing more” I was simply pointing to some survey results. Some analysis. My statement explicitly referred to consumer inertia - far from slagging biz. I suggest you do some background reading (as prompted). You’ll find that I see the biz and consumer responses being mutually beneficial.
In an earlier comment on this post I refer to the business case. Biz has a grand opportunity here. There may be more compliance oligation, but that may well apply to all of us eventually. If biz is prepared to account for “standard” costs - like wages, raw materials, marketing, etc, then why should the carbon/envir. cost not be accounted for?
This is far from a rort on business Peter. It’s a shift to a new way of going about biz. You’re doing yourself a disservice by sticking your head in the sand - read some backgrounders - find the opportunities for yours.
January 27th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
BJ
Yes, the speech had the typical rhetoric. Comments on this post are handy.
Significantly though, the speech contained actual targets for “progress”, and thereby a means for the Dems to challenge Rep policies next time round. The stakes will be higher next time - action will be more pressing.
Further, the guy used the phrase “global climate change”. This is progress.
Your man across the ditch is also making some progress - albeit directed at issues where the need is immediate. And a “post Kyoto” meeting of developing and “developed” nations happened during the week.
We’re not toast yet.
January 28th, 2007 at 11:31 am
BJ Chip:
If you search on that text, in this thread, you will find it in a post above mine.
January 28th, 2007 at 11:52 am
MikeyMike
Compliance is another name for increased operating expenditure.
If that increased operating expenditure doesn’t result in increased productivity, then risk increases. The consequences of that are real: increased unemployment, higher prices, lowered standard of living. Lowered standards of living hit the poor the hardest.
If all countries face the same compliance cost, then the risk to the individual business is mitigated to a certain extent.
Hence my reasoning that we should NOT be leading on Kyoto. If we’re to participate at all, we should be waiting for those who will make the most difference to jump first.
However, I agree that we should be making initiatives here so that we are less dependent on oil. Let’s be more strategic. We should not be loading up New Zealanders with artificial, ineffective carbon emission compliance costs.
May as well just tack on a “stupid tax” for all the good it will achieve…
January 28th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Yes Peter…
I acknowledge that compliance generally increases costs. The carbon tax was originally pitched as a tax shifting mechanism. ie. a pigovian tax that is countered by reduced tax elsewhere and thereby incentivising carbon responsible business.
Regardless, the extra cost (if you insist it is that) is synonomous with gaining the ability to control the cost to the environment. You’ll probably find that overall cost to society falls. The old argument: you cant manage what you dont measure. And no, I’m not being facetious.
“If all countries face the same compliance cost, then the risk to the individual business is mitigated to a certain extent.” Two points:
1. The carbon cost would be applied across the NZ economy (by my reckoning) - therefore each NZ biz trading within NZ (the vast majority of NZ biz) is not disadvantaged.
2. It would not be difficult to smooth the impact for exporters/those trading abroad by way of a tax refund system (or similar). This comment on another NZ blog explains it well I believe.
January 28th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Hmnmm
Peter… I figured it out when MikeyMike answered. My note to that effect SHOULD have followed his answer and probably would have but was swallowed. He didn’t use it the way you asserted though, and in the subsequent posts you can clearly understand that neither he NOR I are “anti-business” in the sense of wanting to load them with extra costs and no compensating benefits.
Business as usual is what cannot work. Just remember, the invisible hand is a HAND, it has no brain, no eyes, no foresight. It reacts perfectly to what it can feel. AGW and the related problems have a 30-50 year lag from the cause to the damaging effect. That’s built in.
Like putting your hand in a bucket of dioxins, you don’t feel the damage, but it kills you 10-20 years later. That’s what we’re doing now. Only it’s mostly our kids who will suffer.
So we get some arrangement that moves the effect forward. Make that dioxin hot, so the hand knows it’s not to go into it.
Reasoning by analogy is always suspect, but I am trying hard to make sure that this is understood. Greens are not about hurting business, they are about NOT hurting the future.
As for NZ leading. We wouldn’t be. Other countries are working at this as well. I still have a general question about this unseemly urgency that we should abandon the attempt before we actually try to do anything at all. Why?
BJ
January 29th, 2007 at 7:30 am
>>they are about NOT hurting the future.
Perhaps, but their methods might do just that.
>>Why?
Because our emission levels are insignificant and Kyoto may cost us billions in terms of compliance, which makes our produce more expensive.
IF that is the case, then Kyoto may cause us more harm than if we (NZ) don’t participate.
>>the invisible hand is a HAND
If the US does nothing, then it doesn’t matter how green NZ gets.
January 29th, 2007 at 11:10 am
PeterExitsLeft
We’ve been over the question of US responsibility vs OUR responsibility often enough. I think we’re not going to get anywhere going over it again. Responsibility is something you take and it is clear from your posts, from the stance of the Shrub, from the positions of National and the repetition ad-nauseum of that argument… that Responsibility is something that “the right” is only willing to talk about other people taking. Period.
I do not give a rats rear end about what the USA does first. Our responsibility is OURS, not someone elses. If either of my kids comes back to me with an argument like that they get some time in solitary to think over the consequences of NOT taking responsibility.
You are correct in the physical effect. We can’t do it by ourselves. Everyone has to do it together.
However… if we DON’T do anything at al (which is what we’re doing…. not a blessed thing) we are both guaranteeing failure and setting a wonderfully negative example for all the other kids on the global playground. Will they follow if we set a good one? Maybe, maybe not. They will surely follow a bad example though… do you have kids?
We can guarantee failure. No such guarantee exists for success, but you continually bring up the billions of dollars that failure MIGHT cost us… without comparative measure of the billions that failing to try at all could cost us. Penalties we don’t incur for years and may not incur if we are at all clever… imagined penalties which you are so terrified of but which are a LOT more negotiable than the effects of another 50 million tons of CO2 going into the air each and every day.
WHY is this abandonment of Kyoto so damned important to the right right now?
respectfully
BJ
January 29th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
So anyone who doesn’t support New Zealands participation in Kyoto is being irresponsible?
I am being responsible. I prefer that limited resources are spent on things that make a difference, like education and health.
New Zealands involvement in Kyoto is purely symbolic. We could meet all the Kyoto targets, or miss them all, and it wouldn’t make the slightest bit of difference in terms of influencing global warming.
We may make *some* difference in convincing others if we’re on board. I accept that.
If its going to impact negatively in other areas, then we need to think long and hard about the opportunity costs vs the likely level of influence we can bring to the table.
If we bring little or no measurable influence, then can’t you see the opportunity costs, and how they could be very damaging?
January 29th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
PS: Presenting a reasoned argument isn’t something I’d lock my kids in solitary for, no.
January 29th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Someone who argues for not trying to meet our Kyoto obligations is being irresponsible, Yes.
Someone who argues for abandoning the treaty without ever trying is being irresponsible. Yes.
Someone who keeps pointing at the other guys and saying “but they’re not trying yet” is being irresponsible. Yes.
Someone who sends money overseas instead of trying is being irresponsible. Yes.
What happens if we try and fail in some measure is something to be addressed THEN and in the measure to which we fail IF AND WHEN that happens.
A desire to start doing nothing now in a pro-active way IS IMAO irresponsible.
How hard should we try? Harder than we are.
respectfully
BJ
January 29th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
BJ
Someone who thinks that New Zealand should cripple itself by adhering to Kyoto simply to make SOME people in NZ feel good is irresponsible.
Someone who argues that our contribution toward reducing emissions is going to have an effect on global emissions is delusional.
Someone who points out the blindingly obvious re other (much larger) nations non participation in Kyoto is being totally responsible and realistic.
How hard should we try?..unless all nations face the same burden (here read taxes) then not at all.
January 29th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
BJ,
As I suspected - now confirmed in my mind - Green arguments on Kyoto boil down to fundamentalist religious belief, and are beyond reason.
I am responsible. I refuse to let people tax us into oblivion with no measureable result.
The path we should take lies elsewhere. It is better NZ concentrate on energy independence, not emissions.
Wrong battle.
January 29th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Frog or Russ.
Can we have a thread about Sue Bradford’s comments re making people work for the unemployment benefit.
This is something that needs to be discussed if only to correct the usual number of half truths she insists on making whenever a topic such as this is debated in the media.
January 29th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
pel, bb, et al:
You have repeated your arguments for “leaving change to others” and doing nothing yourselves “because they are bigger polluters”, over and over again, on this and previous threads.
I (we) understand what you are saying! However, Greens see things from a different perspective and various people have explained this.
For one last time:
I was brought up to take responsibility for my own actions and not leave that responsibility to others … In this case, each of us has contributed to the problem and each of us should take personal responsibility for reversing that contribution (at least).
(I have an added incentive as my adult children are seriously thinking that they should not have children because of the increasingly dire outlook for these children’s potential lifetimes.
Monetary advantage doesn’t come into it for me. This is our Planet too and I will do everthing I can to help … and will work hard to ensure that our country does the same.
I’m wondering how aware you are of the potential seriousness of the situation? (”When the mechanisms of global warming PLUS global dimming take their toll, your “money” could well become meaningless!)
End of conversation on this topic for me!
January 30th, 2007 at 12:13 am
Just a reminder that tourism is New Zealand’s biggest employer (?). People in the tourist industry depend on fossil fuels for their livelihoods. Jobs mean existence for large numbers of people. Someone needs to invent “the pedal bus�
I’ve often thought that there is something unsound about growth and the way we are distanced from a basic sustaining family farm. I feel that in the modern industrial world we are on the Titanic with too few lifeboats (family farms).
JH
January 30th, 2007 at 12:32 am
PeterExitsLeft and Big Bruv
The two of you know better. In not a single post have I proposed taxing New Zealand or NZ Business “into oblivion” or indeed a single additional centavo.
So your assertion is false. The conclusions you draw as a result are false.
The insults you offer as a result of your conclusions are meaningless.
I have been pretty clear. You have taken it on yourselves to claim some other position for me. You’ve worked very hard to embed this error in the thread. You repeat the party line *(which party?)* with rigorous precision, no matter how false it is in reality. Greens have no interest in destroying NZ, destroying NZ business or sending NZ money overseas. Why must we repeat this? Again? Again? Again?
Arguing with people who cannot accept what was said as what was said is annoying. Arguing with people who ignore everything but what they imagine was said is fruitless.
Yes, it would be good if we could all agree and start together. We can’t. We’re stupid naked apes with childish dispositions and nuclear weapons and we want it all NOW dammitall. So someone has grow a spine and go first. If nobody does then armageddon may well come early and your precious money and precious businesses will be worth precious little.
Would that I didn’t have to draw conclusions aboiut you.
BJ
January 30th, 2007 at 1:49 am
I wonder, are Big Bro and PeterExists the sort of people who chuck their Coke cans and cigarette packets out of the car window, on the basis that the roadside is already littered? You’d sure think so from reading their comments.
I’d just about bet that they aren’t like that, though. I reckon they are even capable of participating in, or organising, roadside clean-ups, and of educating and shaming people into stopping such irresponsible behaviour.
They just haven’t quite clicked yet that it’s the same thing with global warming.
January 30th, 2007 at 7:54 am
big bruv Says:
January 29th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Frog or Russ.
Can we have a thread about Sue Bradford’s comments re making people work for the unemployment benefit.
This is something that needs to be discussed if only to correct the usual number of half truths she insists on making whenever a topic such as this is debated in the media.
—————————————————————–
Good to see Peter Sharples distancing good Maori from bad Maori (gangs and the Kahuis) rather than attributing blame to someone/something else. He is ahead of Sue Bradford on that score. She claimed the Kahuis were a product of the system.
JH
January 30th, 2007 at 9:15 am
BJ (and others)
I find it a bit rich that you claim I have “embedded” an error in this thread given that you are so quick to accuse me (and others) of things I have not said let alone done.
I am left wondering why you take offense at my posts perhaps I am closer to the truth than you like.
My conclusions come from this, it is a statement of fact that our efforts to reduce overall carbon emissions will not make an ounce of difference in the global “battle”, that part is unarguable.
From that I start to wonder why is it that many Greens are so keen to push this barrow, many suspect that a lot of Green policy has been hi jacked by the extreme left (Sue Bradford and the like) and carbon emissions are simply a way of dressing up MORE tax’s aimed at the evil left wing policy of redistribution of wealth and to create a racially divided New Zealand.
As I have said before, I would give my party vote to the Greens if they stuck with Green issues (hell I would vote Green for life in they managed to introduce legislation that resulted in animal abusers ending up in prison) however I cannot and will not vote for a party who has a hidden hard left agenda.
January 30th, 2007 at 10:34 am
I agree with big bruv. Animal welfare, clean rivers, and more trees. Less Bradfords and communism.
alistair,
A peasant overlooks a group of druids making human sacrifices on an altar. The sacrifices are to appease the sun gods.
“Mad ***kers”, the peasant says to herself.
Meanwhile, the Romans invade Wales…
January 30th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Big Bro,
You have a fundamental misunderstanding about what the Green Party in this country, and the Green movement on this particular planet, are all about.
If you want to start a right-wing environmentalist animal welfare party, then please go ahead. PeterExists will vote for you.
Only, you can’t call it “the Greens”, because that name is already taken.
January 30th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
46. alistair Says:
January 30th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Big Bro,
You have a fundamental misunderstanding about what the Green Party in this country, and the Green movement on this particular planet, are all about.
———————————————————————
That’s because all the emphasis is put on “green” and the rest is nebulous.
——————————————————————————–
If you want to start a right-wing environmentalist animal welfare party, then please go ahead. PeterExists will vote for you.
Only, you can’t call it “the Greens�, because that name is already taken.
—————————————-
If the Greens aren’t a middle of the road, mainstream party, the name “Green” should be qualified to give people a clear choice (eg “Red Greens”). That would be the honest thing to do.
The type of thinking seems to be parralleled here:
http://www.greenleft.org.au/index.htm
jh
January 30th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
alistair
I think you might be right, I also think that many people in NZ are also suffering from this misunderstanding, many of us thought that the Greens stood for the environment and environmental issues.
I will let you into a little secret, at the first MMP election I actually gave my party vote to the greens as I was under the impression they stood for Green issues and were going to pressure the govt into cleaning up our waterways and the like.
How wrong I was, perhaps you and Sue Bradford could take your own advice and set up the communist party, at least that way those of us with Green sympathies could then support the party safe in the knowledge that communists and those pushing racial separatism were not heavily involved in the party.
January 30th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Big Bruv - they’re going to think we’re the same person, but so did I!
How interesting…..
These days, I’m annoyed about the Green-stained trojan horse. Thankfully, the Nats appear to have spotted my demographic, and I suspect it is quite a large one.
January 30th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Peter
I seriously doubt that anybody would think that you and I are the same person, after all you sound like an intelligent chap where as I am simply an uneducated man from the wrong side of the tracks who CHOSE not to let my upbringing be an excuse for failure despite the legions of do gooder left wing tossers who kept telling me that it was OK to be an under achiever.
I have never lost my admiration for the so called “battler” and I want a government that helps those people get a leg up, what i do not want (be it in a red or green disguise) is for those people to be told that they have a right to expect me to pay for them to cruise through life doing nothing.
As for the Nats….hell, on this we may differ, I am not keen on “Labour lite” and may start thinking that the Act party is the one for me if Key continues to fight Klarke for the so called middle ground, I have made comments on this site about the activities and actions of Sue Bradford, now for those who have missed what I have said I do not like the woman, she represents everything that is wrong with socialism,… HOWEVER at least you know where you stand with her, I cannot say the same thing about Key.
January 30th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
very well said alistair
PEL, bb, jh :
Obviously you still don’t understand the concept of “Green” as used by the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand and other Green Parties and Green Movements in the World. (NZ Values Party was formed in the early 1970’s)
Recently other groups in AotearoaNZ are claiming a “green” label as a descriptor:
The Labour Party apparently has had “red green” branches for some years now, and recently I’ve heard talk of “blue greens” among National supporters.
However the Greens (with a capital G) have an overall philosophy that comes from a different base. That is why, to observers, we may appear to be “right” on some matters and “left” on others.
We arrive at our positions from a different philosophy and perspective than the traditional “Right” and “Left” (names which were derived from the seating arrangements of Parties in a different Parliament on a different part of the Planet in a different Century!)
If you are really interested I suggest you do some quick but serious reading starting here:
http://www.greens.org.nz/about/charter.htm
This document is the basis of all Green policies.
Then follow down the links on the right hand side of that page and you’ll get a quick sketch of who we are, and where (and how) our policies and ideas are developed.
So sorry guys. We are very aware that we live on a finite Planet and we won’t be modifying our policies to suit your ideas of how the “human world” should work separately from that !
January 30th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Bro :
That “Greenleft” thing is a bunch of superannuated Aussie Trots. They applied a coat of green paint because nobody is interested in Lenin and Trotsky any more. They are not affiliated with the Australian Green Party in any way.
You got any other strawmen I can knock down for you?
———————-
It’s a funny thing Bro, you claim to be interested in environmental issues and you claim the Greens aren’t, yet you’ve been moaning and groaning because we’re trying to do something about global warming…
Hey maybe you’re the one with a hidden agenda?
January 30th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
alistair
Tell me when I have ever said that the Greens are not interested in environmental issues, that type of slander is beneath you.
I accept that I have said that I do not believe in the global warming theory, I am sure that even you would deny me the right to hold that opinion, however I will continue to “moan and groan” about policy specifically designed to harm or destroy the New Zealand economy.
January 30th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Eredwen
I have read that before, as I have already said on this site there are parts of it that I agree with and parts that are (IMHO) plainly ridiculous (the greens are not alone in that when it comes to policy)
I think it might have already asked you if it was possible to be a green party supported without buying into the entire package as there is no way i could support a lot of the green party social policy and their policy with regard to Maori.
On Environmental policy I am almost in total agreement with the Greens (leaving aside the global warming issue) perhaps I should join the party and try and change it from the inside.
January 30th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
eredwen Says:
January 30th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
If you are really interested I suggest you do some quick but serious reading starting here:
http://www.greens.org.nz/about/charter.htm
This document is the basis of all Green policies.
———————————————————————–
Eredwen, as a previous lecturer in communications, do you genuinely believe that the Green Charter is an adequate “basis for all Green policies”?
jh
January 30th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
bb:
In all honesty, I believe it would be better for you to stay with whatever Party you are “willing to buy into the entire package” of … and get them keen on animal rights!
What you see as “left wing” social policies are just one logical step from the acceptance that “resources are finite” with some ideas about what “a society” is (and the needs/rights of vulnerable people within it.)
I suspect that you would have no chance of effecting radical changes in Green Policy from the inside. Greens work at local levels right through to National level (in both directions) using a consensus system, and the idea of getting everybody “with you” on an issue, especially one like Global Warming and its ramifications (where the bulk of expert opinion from all around the Planet differs from yours) is just not realistic!
Also, judging by your demenor on frogblog, a change in the way in which you tend to relate to people you disagree with would be essential.
best wishes
eredwen
January 30th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
eredwen - it’s true, I don’t.
However, I think that confusion has more to do with the way the Green Party markets itself, and that confusion is rather widespread, even amongst some Green voters. My Green-voting acquaintances seemed to think it was all about the environment, too, and were rather surprised to find they’d been voting for a lot of far-left socialist style policy. Stangely, the Green marketing machine doesn’t shout these aspects from the rooftops. Can’t think why
Perhaps the Greens could make these aspects a lot clearer in their marketing in future so we’re all much better informed.
>>finite Planet
Population is decreasing in the West. The perfectly natural reaction to the escalating cost of resources.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
eredwen
Your post only highlights the fact that in reality we are not that far apart.
Of course resources are finite the only area we differ upon here is the issue of stealing from me to fund those who DO NOT want to work, I agree that we need to look after the most vulnerable in our society and i want to see them receive MORE from the state, I also want the bludgers (of which there are thousands) to receive NOTHING from the state.
I am concerned that you suggest I could not change Green policy from within, does this mean that the Greens are a collection of people with closed minds?..or is this another example of the hidden agenda showing through, surely in a democracy I would be given the chance to speak and my views heard.
As for my demeanor, I have been abused on this site for my views, as far as i can remember I have not abused anybody unless they had a crack at me, I understand that I am a guest here and as a past green voter I believe I have a right to make my point, funnily enough some of your fellow greens would seek to deny me that right
January 30th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
jh: I’ll play your little game (once!)
Yes, The Green Charter is the “basis”, as in
“foundation or support for something” or “the main or determining principle or ingredient” etc (Concise Oxford 1990)
However, I particularly like
“A thing on which anything is constructed and by which its construction or operation is determined.” (New Shorter Oxford 1993)
Material for discussion or development can be brought into this framework, or moved out from it.
The Greens are possibly unique in Aotearoa/NZ in that we all have input (or the chance for input) into new policies and policy changes at their various stages.
January 30th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
pel says:
“My Green-voting acquaintances seemed to think it was all about the environment, too, and were rather surprised to find they’d been voting for a lot of far-left socialist style policy. Stangely, the Green marketing machine doesn’t shout these aspects from the rooftops. Can’t think why.”
1. At a core level, our policies ARE about the environment.
2. We disseminate information about Green Policies as we can afford it, meanwhile all our policies are available for scrutiny on the user-friendly Green Website.
3. “Marketing” is not a word that I’d associate with the Greens! (apart from “farmers markets” and other such wholesome ventures!)
So please do forgive us for not advertising to the world that we are some sort of covert “lefty commie etc extremists” who want to impoverish the rich by stealth and give to the undeserving poor!
The fact that you seem to have missed is that the whole Green emphasis WAS and IS on the environment and how to live within it, WITHOUT destroying it. Our social policies are consistent with these aims (as our Charter says).
So please forgive me if NOW that the emphasis has changed to how to SAVE the environment that, it seems, we humans have already destroyed, I move on to spending my time doing something more worthwhile.
Which brings me to the question: Why are you here?
January 30th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
eredwen Says:
January 30th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
jh: I’ll play your little game (once!)
Yes, The Green Charter is the “basis�, as in
“foundation or support for something� or “the main or determining principle or ingredient� etc (Concise Oxford 1990)
————————————————————
Except that your average Kiwi environmentalist could read the Green Charter and come up with a more moderate set of policies.
The Charter isn’t a train on a track, but an all terain suv… (well not quite).
—————————————————
The Greens are possibly unique in Aotearoa/NZ in that we all have input (or the chance for input) into new policies and policy changes at their various stages.
—————————————————————————
Except that one could feel like a Jew at a Nazi Party meeting (due to the extreme views of the encumbents).
jh
January 30th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
>>Why are you here?
I enjoy the debate.
It helps me clarify my position, and brings up angles I hadn’t considered before. I am glad to say I’m learning something. I like kiwiblog, too.
Why are you here?
>>Marketing� is not a word that I’d associate with the Greens!
Perhaps, but the Greens are framed in a very clever way. I don’t think that just happened by accident. The website is probably one of the best NZ political websites - very well thought out, and user friendly.
I honestly did think the Green Party was all about the environment up until a few years ago. However, the more The Greens have been in the news on other issues has led me to dig deeper.
I don’t think I’ve been rude to anyone? I’ve been honest about what I think. Contrarian positions help fuel the debate?
January 30th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
PeterExitsLeft, BB
I see you are turning the thread in a new direction.
BB, I do lump the two of you together since you make similar arguments, but I do not confuse your styles.
Neither of you quite connect the dots that force environmental limits to growth to match some left-leaning policies that have entirely different roots. The result of that forcing (and it is real) and the resultant antipathy that it provides to “conservative” potential members, keeps them away much as it keeps you away. We do not however, hide our positions…
You’ve repeated the canard that the Greens will create and support “policy specifically designed to harm or destroy the New Zealand economy” PEL used different words but promoted the same untruth.
You know damned well that this is untrue. Neither by design nor by accident. You’ve been told EXACTLY how it is untrue.
Yet you continue to repeat it and repeat it and repeat it and repeat it and repeat it and repeat it and repeat it…
Strangely enough, it still isn’t true.
BJ
January 31st, 2007 at 12:23 am
Peter, Bro, jh :
The main thrust of your arguments is that the Greens are wrong to associate environmentalism with a predominantly left-wing orientation on issues which you see as unconnected with the environment.
(I’m lumping you three together for the sake of argument, I apologise in advance if I mis-characterise your views).
Firstly, we Greens would argue that *everything* is connected… every political issue is also an environmental issue.
Secondly, look around. You seem to be yearning after a party that would promote environmental issues from a right-wing philosophical base. Why do you think this never succeeds? Neither in NZ (there have been a couple of attempts) nor in any other country. They never gain any traction, because it just doesn’t hang together philosophically or politically.
Think it through : you’d like better treatment for animals, you’d like more efforts for nature conservation… But you’d like lower taxes, less government, fewer restrictions on what a landowner can do with his back block… right? So how can that possibly work?
And the show-stopper : You are either incapable of accepting that people are changing the planet’s climate for the worse, or you are incapable of accepting any changes or restrictions that might mitigate the damage. Fundamentally, this refusal is ideologically based. The air you breathe is free, right? It belongs to no-one. I’ve got a right to pollute it, no-one can stop me. I’m caricaturing, sure, but that’s the fundamental reason why a right-wing environmentalist position is untenable.
Sure, in an ideal world, people would co-operate voluntarily, but in the real world you need to provide all sorts of incentives and constraints if you want the good stuff to happen.
Footnote to Bro : you can stop calling me a Communist if you want to keep the conversation polite. Likewise, jh, talk about Jews and Nazis is completely out of order.
January 31st, 2007 at 9:06 am
>>Firstly, we Greens would argue that *everything* is connected… every political issue is also an environmental issue.
Right. However, the Greens seem quick to place themselves on the left side of the argument regardless.
For example, I believe that private land ownership is central to conservation and the environment on the basis that if you own something, you tend to look after it. Johann Norberg, a Swedish economist, points out that developed capitalist nations have higher environmental standards because they are richer and can afford them. Air quality in London today is the cleanest since records began in 1585. The environment in London, a capitalist mecca, is getting better, not worse.
Whilst capitalism has its downsides, I think the (humanist?) right and the environment are closely linked. So how can I support far-left Green-ery?
>>Secondly, look around
I think the rise and rise of David Cameron shows that the environment and the right do gell quite nicely. The environment, whilst traditionally a left wing issue, has now become a mainstream issue.
>>I’ve got a right to pollute it, no-one can stop me
Not really. I accept that humans will always do some damage. Finding an acceptable level is the trick.
January 31st, 2007 at 9:38 am
since you metion “private land ownership” (peter) i’ll repeat a comment I made afew moments ago on another post:
—
I saw Last Resort at the Paramount in Wgtn last night. An exceptionally enlightening look at the dynamics involved in setting up the new Overseas Investment Office and its impact on land ownership in NZ. The doco used one Mahia development as an example of how maori have been systematically ejected from large tracts of traditional land.
Go see the movie. Last night in Wellie tonight. Seasons in Dunedin and ChCh commence Feb. See their site for details. Take a look at the trailer, and a news report.
—
“finding an acceptable level [of damage] is the trick” indeed peter, what strikes me is that the the traditional aotearoa ownership ethic clashes with the industrial function of land (whether it be farming, factories, etc). ever since the loss of the big birds, maori have built inherent sustainable resource management practices. this is not the case with the divide and rule western european ethic.
when land functions for the individual (by way of ownership), if not controlled there’s a tendancy toward individual benefit only. unfortunately there is a need to regulate so that land can continue to be of some benefit to the wider community (as alaister mentions). the impact of dairy farming on the commons is a strong case in point. as is (obviously) use of the atmosphere.
January 31st, 2007 at 9:46 am
PeterExitsLeft - why do you keep repeating the fallacy that the Greens are “far-left”.
Look through the policy, and try and find some examples of where the Greens are advocating nationalisation. You’ll be hard pressed to find any. Personally, I think some natural monopolies like the electricity industry and the railways should be re-nationalised, but Green policy does not go even that far. And the Greens strongly opposed the biggest nationalisation of recent times - Labour’s Foreshore and Seabed Act.
Sure, the Greens advocate introducing eco-taxes - but not increased overall taxation. The eco-taxes a Green Government will introduce will be offset by reductions in personal income tax. Hardly a far-left policy.
The Greens do favour stronger regulation - but only where the market and private ownership has demonstrably failed to be environmentally and socially responsible. Again, not far-left - just common sense if we want a future for the planet and its people.
And look at all the work Sue Bradford is doing to support New Zealand manufaturing through the Buy Kiwi Made scheme. Would Phil O’Reilly, Business New Zealand and capitalist manufacturers be buying into this if it were far-left?
January 31st, 2007 at 10:01 am
>>why do you keep repeating the fallacy that the Greens are “far-left�.
Because when I say the Greens are right-wing, it just sounds silly
>>Buy Kiwi Made scheme
Oh, don’t get me started on that! A titanic waste of money. If NZ producers can’t compete, then either lift their game, or do something else.
I run a NZ business. What we need is lower taxation and less compliance, not misguided state-funded marketing campaigns from people who know nothing about business.
January 31st, 2007 at 10:14 am
>>maori have built inherent sustainable resource management practices. this is not the case with the divide and rule western european ethic.
Oh, please. What was The Maori Fisheries Commission stance on a whale sanctuary in the South Pacific?
And Maori were no better, or no worse, than Europeans at a similar level of development. They slashed and burned, just like everyone else, until they discovered farming.
January 31st, 2007 at 1:08 pm
>
Peter, you seem to know Green policy better than I do. Where does it say we are in favour of confiscating private land?
This “far left” thing is your own strawman. The Greens are not a right-wing party, I’ll grant you that. Maybe it’s just that anything to the left of ACT is “far left” to you?
As for David Cameron, and the greening of the Tories : the poor buggers have been out of power for about a century; Tony Blair, a centre-right politician, has stolen their base; they will try frankly anything to get their bums back on the comfy ministerial chairs.
January 31st, 2007 at 1:22 pm
alistair
Interestingly enough it seems that Tony Blair has fallen into the same trap as our corrupt Labour govt, while our lot STEAL money from the tax payer to win elections it seems that Tony has been promising honors for cash.
It is a common thing about hard left political parties in as much as after a while they consider that ANY means justify the outcome, this of course is the natural evolution of any socialist regime as evidenced by Chris Trotters piece late last year in the Sunday papers.
January 31st, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Big Bruv: Labour under Blair a hard left party? Ha ha ha! On any left-right spectrum analysis I’ve seen, Blair’s Government is further to the right than any British Government in the last 50 years, Thatcher’s excepted.
January 31st, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Toad
Well OK..perhaps I was a little economical with the facts in that post (lets call it a SueB) but the point is still the same.
The left will use any means to remain in power, it does not matter how to them as they have a amazing ability to rationalize even the worst crime as “what was needed”
I am sure that even you will admit that the UK Labour party have not done bad by following right wing policies.
January 31st, 2007 at 5:15 pm
>>Where does it say we are in favour of confiscating private land?
Where did I say confiscating land was Green policy?
January 31st, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Peter said :
>
The implication is clear : according to Peter, the Greens are against private land ownership. You should keep better track of your strawmen Pete, that one took on a life of its own.
In any case, it’s very clear where you are coming from (”you” the gang of three, alleged environmentalists of the right) : the Greens are a “far left” party, just like Blair’s Labour! I think we can drop this thread now guys…
January 31st, 2007 at 9:25 pm
alistair
Please do not attribute statements such as that to me.
I have NEVER said that the Greens are against private land ownership, I know it is easy to label all those who differ from you with the same tag but in this case you are dead wrong.
All that does it show a weakness in your argument and an unwillingness to debate the issues.
January 31st, 2007 at 10:52 pm
alistair
I didn’t say the Greens are against private land ownership.
The point I wanted to make was this: the right and the environment aren’t mutually exclusive, as had been suggested.
January 31st, 2007 at 11:35 pm
Bro : “Please do not attribute statements such as that to me.”
Beg your pardon Bro? I never did. It was Peter who made that silly allegation, although he now seems to have withdrawn it.
Unless you and Peter are actually the same person? I’m confused now.
But, if you wish to prove that the right and the environment aren’t mutually exclusive, you should found (or even find) a political party to prove it, instead of pestering the Greens for being predominantly centre-left.
January 31st, 2007 at 11:41 pm
>>why do you keep repeating the fallacy that the Greens are “far-left�.
Because when I say the Greens are right-wing, it just sounds silly
Good one… I like it… but what if we’re really neither? I ask because for most Greens this is true. I pointed out above too, that there is actually a reason for the leftwards tilt.
If the majority are on the left, people who are on the right will feel uncomfortable with the situation. I am going to be very interested to see how National reconciles limits to growth, which are a necessary logical extension of a closed-environmen, with National’s pro-business and pro-growth opinions. I am curious how you might reconcile the two. The “growth is good” issue appears because of the way Capitalism is practiced, not because of any fundamental flaw in it when it is done properly. However, we have Fiat currencies, rampant inflation of the worlds reserve currency and resulting problems for people and the future all over the planet. The way it is practiced, growth is not even optional… it is required… as is the inflation.
The problem is that this CANNOT work indefinitely.
So it is not unusual for Greens to appear to be aligned with anti-business forces but for strictly ecological reasons. For most conservatives this makes Green a bad colour choice.
The self-selection for certain liberal positions drives conservatives elsewhere and further distills things.
respectfully
BJ