Killing kwila
Frog’s a teeny bit late on this one, but it’s still well worth a read if you’re so inclined.
The Greenpeace releases on the issue, along with the full report (available here) and Marie Leadbeater’s article from the Herald makes for some pretty devastating reading. They also go to remind us again why so many of these issues are so interconnected.  The problem of logging of engdangered timber crosses the full gamut - the dislocation and intimidation of indigenous people, the destruction of ancient rainforests and biodiversity, the knock on effect on climate change as these old growth forests are stripped bare, governmental and private industry corruption, and the effect on foresters and manufacturers who do attempt to use sustainably and legally logged timber and find their products unable to compete.Â
Quite a neat example of why it’s so inane when people tell us to butt out of social justice issues and stick to purely environmental ones - wouldn’t it be almost impossible to take the ‘green’ aspects in isolation?
Russel’s press release, which focuses on the money trail, is here.
April 22nd, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Is cheap wood from this kind of logging making NZ forestry relatively unprofitable? Is this ultimately a major reason why NZ plantation forest areas are being converted to other uses (like dairy)?
April 22nd, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Quite a neat example of why it’s so inane when the Green Party can’t draw a line between environmental issues, like the destruction of a nation’s ecosystem, and social issues, like section 59…
April 22nd, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Indeed Will - The number of riding crops purchased solely for physical discipline that have been made by Indonesian Hard Wood is truly staggering. It is only by banning smacking that we can diminish the demand, and thus save PNG forests.
I suspect too that many of those Indonesian Lumberjacks like to dress up in womens clothing and hang around in bars. By passing a civil union bill, we might have more of them ready to marry, settle down, put down their axes and move into interior design using renewable timber and recycled metals, thus saving the forests and yet providing jobs.
You reckon allowing teen prostitution is a sure fire way to save the forests?
But why is Russel calling on ANZ to withdraw services seen as more effective than asking the Government to ban or tax the import of PNG hardwood, and to consumers to boycott the purchase of wood products that do not identify point of origin?
Is this a message to the people of NZ that the government doesn’t listen, and the consumers don’t care, and it is up to the banks to provide the nation’s moral back-bone? Scary.
April 23rd, 2007 at 12:09 am
Zen I think your last paragraph sums it up , the government doesn`t listen,the consumers don`t care and I don`t think the banks do either.
These are the sort of products that should have prohibative tariffs on them,but that is not very fashionable is it? Another case where global capitalism is destroying the forrests wholesale.
We should have either protective tariffs or an international currency with a reasonable basic wage set in that currency. That could only be achieved when the International Labour Organisation is represented on to the WTO.
Will that be the day when pigs fly?
April 23rd, 2007 at 1:48 am
Tell you what Tigger : the Indonesian government itself is powerless to control the logging, it’s a little bit optimistic to expect the NZ government to achieve something.
The banks, on the other hand, are essential to trade. If they decided to stop making loans and guarantees to importers of illegally logged kwila, they might very well reduce or stop the traffic.
Drak : not only the ILO, but the future UN Environment agency should have regulatory powers on a par with those of the WTO. A ban on the trade in endangered species, and of wood from unsustainably logged forests, must necessarily override trade treaties, otherwise it’s toothless and pointless.
Will : OK, can you show us where the line should be drawn on the kwila question : which aspects are the Greens allowed to be interested in, and which are off limits, according to you? This should be fun.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:10 am
zen tiger has aspirations to do stand-up comedy..
i’ve tried telling him..eh..?
but he won’t listen/won’t be told…
his attempts set new benchmarks in ‘laboured’..eh..?
not so much a ‘light touch’..as a ‘heavy touch’..eh..?
and really..lacking any redeeming features..
(sigh..!..)
and it sorta ‘tires the eyes’ to even read it..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:18 am
and have i got some ammunition for you greenies..!
a psychology journal has reported on the results of a fascinating study into the connections between adult political beliefs…
and childhood personality traits…
all of which confirm the belief held by many of us that the big bruvs etc of this world..the rabid righties (male)….
are really just scared little boys..!
and buttoned-down ‘whitebreads’..
in virtually all aspects of their lives..
read..!..recognise..!..go heh-heh..!
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-20061222-00 0001&page=1
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:28 am
What about the left wingers, since (according to studies of identical twins) the degree to which a person is left or right wing (and religiousity) is largely(?) inherited? [compassionate “right thinking” unselfish..blah, blah???]
jh
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:11 am
Ah Phil, grand clutcher of straws. Your humour bypass is obviously a by-product of your left wing character trait. Or too much roughage. Given you haven’t progressed past “join the dots” … I’m suspicious … that you can’t actually see the big picture. But, sheer brilliance to weave in “tires the eyes” given your chosen writing style. Obviously, you are big on irony.
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:18 am
Phil, that’s a very interesting study, but it’s NO reason to think less of our more conservative friends. In fact in many ways it just explains things we always knew: those that appeal to tradition and authority have a deep-seated need for it in their lives. It’s doesn’t necessarily make them wrong or stupid, just as the fact that a more liberal person might have been more educated or travelled more makes them suggestable or naive in regards to liberal ideas.
April 23rd, 2007 at 12:02 pm
# alistair Says:
April 23rd, 2007 at 1:48 am
> Tell you what Tigger : the Indonesian government itself is powerless to control the logging, it’s a little bit optimistic to expect the NZ government to achieve something.
I disagree. The Indonesian government is powerless to control the logging because there are smuggling routes out of indonesia that they can’t control. These smuggling routes can depend on either avoiding officials or bribing them. There is much less potential for timber smuggling into New Zealand, so all the government needs to do is make it illegal to import the timber. It’s often quite defficult to prove that a given piece of timber is illegally logged, so what you need to do is require a clear paper trail to show where it comes from and that it is legally and sustainably logged, and ban the import of any timber that doesn’t have this paper trail.
Of course, banning foreign timber completely wouldn’t do our economy any harm (we do actually have our own timber), but banning things made from timber overseas would have a bigger impact, and requiring certification would actually help the world economy to develop certification systems.
April 23rd, 2007 at 1:06 pm
well for what its worth I thought Zen’s post was both humourous and easy to read. I definately found Zen’s writing style to be easier to read and comprehend than Phil’s ellipse filled rants.
But maybe Zen and I are a confederacy of dunces?
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:05 pm
ZenT, I thought I’d try a different tack on it by drawing attention to the role of ANZ like they’ve done in Oz. Govt should stop the import (and we have called for that before) but we’re trying to place pressure on numerous spots at once. mind you, got no media pick up so that didn’t work!
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:07 pm
yes..and you are known for your cracking sense of humour/ability to crack up a room..eh stuey..?
so you’d be a good judge..eh..?
and of course you would find pedestrian writing more to your style of reading…
and you just leave my ellipses alone..!
(elliptic ‘rants’..indeed..!..)
and just while it is ’swipe/bitch-time’..stuey..
i’ve gone another one for you..
(one i’ve been meaning to ask about for quite some time now..)
any chance of an upgrade/flash-up on the green website..?
it has been eight or so years..eh..?
if not more..?
things move on/improve..?
but not on the green party website it seems…
over to you..stuey..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:03 pm
OK getting back to the kwila problem, I get the impression that it`s rather like the drug `problem ‘ . If people are happy with their lives and don`t want to consume dope then there would be no underground to supply that demand,in the ideal world I might add.
The problem is best attacked from the consumer end. We can`t control the corruption in countries like Indonesia other than by our purchasing habits. And Kwila isn`t the only wood that is becoming rare, teak and mahogany fetch a very high price on the world market. Whilst ebony sad to say is almost extinct. I witnessed the demise of ebony when I was in the Islands in the eighties.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Oh I don’t know phil … perhaps you should feel honoured..?
“elipse-filled rants” are not credited to many on frogblog..
it sounds so exotic..!
What exactly is an “elipse filled rant”..?
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:05 pm
As I understand it, the dots “…” are an ellipsis.
I tend to enjoy Phil’s posts, and also enjoyed ZenT’s ones above. It’s clear that they are both intelligent and witty people.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:48 pm
(sheesh..!..)
can i speak for us both..?…we are blushing/delighted..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 24th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Why not Phil, why not! And thank you people for taking the comment in the light humour intended.
Back on topic, the request made to ANZ Bank is an interesting one. In principle, I agree that ANZ Bank should walk the talk, if they are specifically saying they are big on the environment etc.
I’m not sure how easy or effective it would be for ANZ Bank to ask a customer to take their business elsewhere. Is this potential for some kind of weird discriminatory lawsuit? And if the client just moves to Westpac, or BNZ, what then? What is the process for getting on a “banned list”? Do businesses buy off Greenpeace to stay off the list? Has there ever been a case of a Bank refusing an application to open an account? People do it over the counter - it doesn’t go off to Management for review does it?
ANZ Bank could take the approach of not approving any loans to such customers - deeming it a risk that the business will fail if the environmental protection laws or consumer action kicks in. That will likely do them a disproportionate amount of harm as all businesses suddenly wonder what the rules of the game may be tomorrow with them.
Perhaps far better would be to request ANZ put some money into a huge ongoing sponsorship for a project to help with preventative measures against such “trade” (in a generic sense). Then their client may choose to move their business elsewhere.
They could fund a third party campaign on the issue, fronted by the Greens, which would completely blow your election budget for the next 12 years if you get the changes you want to the electoral system. On the other hand, you may achieve one specific policy driven through by big business money. A dream come true perhaps?
Is this where the Green Party could call on all its members to bank with an “approved bank” - or would we find all banks have at least one suspect customer? Will/should pedophiles be denied accounts, ex convicts, companies that have had bad press, forestry companies in general, companies that use too much paper? Religious Organizations? The company that makes tasers? Diary Farmers? I think you are going to have a big list.
I think it’s getting a bit confusing. I reckon you could ferret out bad customers for all banks and demand they fire all of their customers.
Alternatively, call on the Greens to change banks (from ANZ) and if they work for the ANZ, ask them to resign…..? Who does the Green Party Bank with anyway? National? (I only wonder because they have such a nice Green background and a nice horse). Problem is, they are now owned by ANZ. Maybe you guys are KiwiBank? Do you need to change banks as a statement?
I think you need another approach.
April 24th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Dairy Farmers too (those diary farmers are very suss though)
April 24th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
ZenTiger asked: Who does the Green Party Bank with anyway?
Yes, it is indeed Kiwibank.
April 24th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Guess ZenTiger hasn’t been here
http://www.greens.org.nz/office/donate.htm
perfer SBS myself
April 24th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
What a good idea OnceBitten - putting the “donate” link up on frogblog. Why didn’t I think of that?
Even BB could make a donation, except he’d have to do it through the donate by post link, so he could write a long covering note to accompany it requiring that his donation go only to activities supporting the animal welfare policies and not to those combatting climate change that he thinks is driven by the “hard left” rather than by greenhouse gas emissions or promoting the social policies that he persists in calling social engineering.
April 24th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
I wasn’t very clear - I was suggesting also the general membership who bank with ANZ could change banks. However, I was curious on who the Green Party did bank with, so thanks for telling me.
You are correct OnceBitten, I have never considered providing funds to the Greens. Something to do with the social policies. Still, it’s probably a mutually satisfactory arrangement - the Greens would hardly want to be receiving the funds from an extreme right wing fanatic like myself. It would make them no better than ANZ taking the filthy lucre from loggers!
However, I do have a few charities and community projects I support with regular funds and occasional time. We all have a responsibility to participate in the affairs of the community and the country.
April 24th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
I am a “general member” and have been using kiwibank since I got here.
BJ
April 24th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
ZenTiger said: the Greens would hardly want to be receiving the funds from an extreme right wing fanatic like myself.
ZT - if it’s less than $1000 over one financial year, I’m sure the Greens would gratefully accept it. If it’s more than $1000, there are some processes that will be gone through to ensure there is no perception that you are using your money to unduly influence Green policy or public statements in the direction of your self-proclaimed right wing fanaticism.
There are no Hollow Men in the Green Party.
April 24th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Yeah, yeah, and ANZ only charge a monthly account keeping fees, so it’s all right then
April 24th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Tigger : I prefer that businesses have an ethical approach. If not, customers can exert pressure.
Russel’s approach is a naming/shaming thing. ANZ want to operate here, and wish to keep their current customers and attract new ones. If the customers are sensitive to environmental issues, and ANZ are engaged in “dirty” business, then they will prefer that the public do not know about it. If a few percent of ANZ’s clients wrote to their bank to say they are considering changing banks because of their unethical business, I would expect that the ANZ would react pretty promptly. For commercial reasons.
I’m not sure how easy or effective it would be for ANZ Bank to ask a customer to take their business elsewhere. Is this potential for some kind of weird discriminatory lawsuit?
That’s a new one on me : are people obliged to do business with each other? That would be an amusing lawsuit, and probably excellent advertising for the ANZ.
And if the client just moves to Westpac, or BNZ, what then?
Then you go through the naming/shaming cycle with them too.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Ah, an endless cycle of bullying. I’d rather we work out a way to smack the actual company doing the logging, but perhaps society is to blame, and hurting others is the way to alter the thinking of the logging company?
So why just the bank that holds the money, and not the shipping company that freights the wood, the power tools company that provides the chainsaws, the insurance company that provides the insurance, the government that allows the imports, the computer company supplying the computers, Microsoft for supplying the O/S (I just know Microsoft are involved - this is not the work of a penguin) the parents that didn’t teach their managing director ethics and the schools that failed to instill good ethical values in the present Board of Directors?
And why not get the company that supplies them the paper, and the logging company that chopped down the trees for that paper, that was then supplied to the PNG logging company?
I can just see it now:
Greens ask NZ logging company engaged in sustainable logging to cease and desist, as their product ultimately ends up in the hands of rival logging company.
We need to track them all down and call them to account. Then the logging company knows they can’t just change banks and get back to their chainsaws, they’ll have a huge list of people very unhappy with them.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Ah, an endless cycle of bullying.
Yeah, you’re pretty funny when you’re in satire mode, Tigger. The consumer as the big swaggering bully, and the ANZ as the poor snivelling victim…
You resist very strongly the idea that customers should exercise their moral judgement when choosing a bank… what are you afraid of exactly? I thought you were in favour of freedom?
You say higher up the thread : Perhaps far better would be to request ANZ put some money into a huge ongoing sponsorship for a project to help with preventative measures against such “trade� (in a generic sense). Then their client may choose to move their business elsewhere.
This is the equivalent of carbon offsetting, instead of GHG reduction… As an example, a bank could fund sex-slave trafficking, as long as they funded an orphanage too?
April 25th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Who is the victim again Alastair? ANZ for not playing your silly little games?
Remember, the original target was this logging company in PNG?
Customers are free to exercise their moral judgment when choosing a product - I do it all the time, and are in favour of it. That’s different than writing to the Bank and telling them to fire other customers. Especially if you don’t even bank with them.
Remember, the original target was this logging company in PNG?
But again, why just the bank? What about the Chainsaw Manufacturer etc.
See, it is bullying, even if you think the power of the consumer is pathetic. I don’t. So I’m wondering why you think bullying the ANZ (and then Westpac, and then BNZ) is somehow the right thing to do.
Ah, that’s right, it was to get at the logging company. But now, with your sex-slave offset rationale, you seem to be getting angrier at the bank for not acceding to your most reasonable requests.
To get at a logging company in PNG.
Here’s an idea - don’t buy the wood. Don’t import it.
Or start a very big list of companies you want to bully to get at the one that is beyond your control. Sounds like a typical socialist.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Boy, are you a banker or something Tigger? We certainly seem to have touched a nerve eh.
Remember, the original objective is to stop importing this endangered wood into New Zealand. I will not buy the wood, you can count on that. I would like it if the government banned its import, but they probably won’t because they might face a fine from the WTO : environmental considerations are not admissible, they constitute a pretext for protectionism, according to the shoddy trade treaties our government is party to.
If the chainsaw manufacturer was in NZ, it would be worth lobbying them… but they are probably Swedish.
Money is what makes commerce work, Tigger, as you very well know. If it became difficult for importers to obtain credit for ecologically or morally dubious goods, then that will have the effect of stimulating ethical and sustainable trade. Is that what you are afraid of?
As I don’t bank with the ANZ, I won’t be writing to them, because I wouldn’t expect them to pay much attention to my opinion. But I would certainly expect them to sit up and take notice if a lot of their clients object to the sort of business they are doing. If my cleaning lady were dirty and smelly, I’d try to find a diplomatic way of letting her know I had a problem with that, and I would certainly find another one if she made it clear that she wasn’t going to do anything about it. I guess that makes me a bully.
My example of offsetting was just to illustrate the vacuity of your original offset proposal. I don’t quite understand why the setting up of an environmental fund by the ANZ would cause their kwila-logging client to “choose to move their business elsewhere” — it must be some subtle convention of banking or business that I’m missing.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
One of my friends finances Asian investors who buy investment property in NZ. Curiously the ANZ will not finance individual Indonesians. Apparently this ban started when Aussie soldiers on peacekeeping duties in east timor were getting shot at by Indonesian soldiers (oops I mean “rebels”).Go figure.
April 26th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
No nerve touched at all Alistair. And not a banker. Indeed, I thought my point was really about why the Greens were specifically targeting the bank. Seems they are the ones that have a nerve touched.
Although, you seem to explain that as other related companies “probably” all overseas and out of your sphere of influence.
“Probably”.
Then you say: “If it became difficult for importers…”
So is the logging company also the importer in this case, or is there a glaring hole in your very small list of companies to “persuade”?
But all that is by the by - I said earlier that ANZ should walk the talk - and I haven’t changed my opinion on that, so I’m not disagreeing on that point, it was more to the Greens giving up on changing the government’s attitude and instead specifically chasing the ANZ Bank to get at the PNG logging company.
Is it to make themselves feel better, or do they think it will actually work?
At least is is clear that Labour don’t give a damn about the environment and the Indonesian Government don’t give a damn about protecting their resources.
Russel noted that his media release didn’t get the press coverage he hoped for. Why not call on all Greenies to drop their ANZ account, and all ANZ staff (especially Green ones) to strike/complain/quit in protest as well? I suspect that request might prove more sensational, and get a bit more column space. Especially since the first “request” appears to have had no impact.
And is the Tigger thing supposed to be an insult, or are you coming on to me?
April 26th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Money is what makes commerce work, Tigger, as you very well know.
If I was pedantic, I’d say it’s trade that makes commerce work. Money just represents the value of the trade.
April 27th, 2007 at 7:07 am
Sorry Tigger, I was thinking that the ANZ was funding the importer, in fact they are funding the logger. Which is even worse.
I call you Tigger because you are so bright-eyed, bushy-tailed and bouncy.
Try trading without money. Go on. If no bank will lend you money or facilitate your transactions, you can’t do commerce.
April 27th, 2007 at 10:00 am
That’s just so sweet Alistair! Except for the tail, you are pretty much spot on (providing I’ve had my morning coffee)
The trading without money thingee is called barter, and it happens all sorts of ways, and some are being actively explored as a possible alternative to banks. There is also the “cash economy” that can exist without the use of banks. Thus commerce can exist without money.
Obviously, money and the banks own the majority “market share” for facilitating trade, and the banks control it. Even worse, they can create it in higher ratios than they need to hold - the whole fiat currency thing. If we want to change the world, the money creation process is a good place to start.
But we are both being pendantic. It’s more fun being satirical (silly, if you will. It’s a bouncy Tigger thing). Thus, how do you like my next letter, available for use at no charge by the Greens:
Dear KiwiBank (or any other relevant bank)
It has come to our attention that you have a customer on your books that is acting unethically. This customer is engaged in supporting wholesale environmental damage. They are ignoring every single environmental principle, even though their mission statement and press releases say otherwise.
I urge you to drop them as a customer forthwith, or else risk losing customers such as myself and potentially up to 55% of your entire client base as they get in behind me.
We expect you to act ethically and stop supporting this customer.
They have ignored all requests to do their bit to prevent environmental damage. Admittedly, some of this damage is occurring in other countries, but they still have the ability to take some meaningful action.
I trust we will see a full page newspaper advertisement advising us of your commitment to only having ethical clients, and that this customer will be gone by lunchtime.
Yours Sincerely
Russel, and the entire Green Party.
PS: The customer is the NZ Government.
April 27th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
I would be very skepticle of ANZ`s (or any banks) claim of any such `ethical funding’ for any importer and especialy loggers. Yes they like to claim that they are so `ethical’ but be rest assured that they are only giving us the warm fuzzies. In fact the banks involvement in these issues are only problematic.
I agree with alistair`s statement that the UN Environment agency should be an authority above the WTO. Don`t forget that the WTO was once GATT in the nasty ninties and GATT came out of the Bretton Woods institutions of the UN. The problem here is that the above mentioned institutions were hijacked by the moniterists. The Hayakists, the School of Chicago, Round Tables etc,etc. Totaly subverting the original agenda of protecting the environment. Even worse the UN`s authority has been undermined by the U.S. `s illegal involvment in Iraq.
So the present situation as I see it is that global capitalist`s are calling the shots and you have to understand that first priority is the profit margin not envirenmental concerns. And until there is such authority above them we are going to get serious problem`s. As green activists we are in effect forced into acting into these limited perameters such as ;-
REFUSING TO BUY ILLEGAL HARDWOOD FROM INDONESIA (or any other developing country).
April 28th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Quite a neat example of why it’s so inane when people tell us to butt out of social justice issues and stick to purely environmental ones - wouldn’t it be almost impossible to take the ‘green’ aspects in isolation?
++++
You produce an example where that is correct and extrapolate to all the other aspects of Green Party social policy, that is inane.
jh