by Russel Norman
Some interesting environment proposals from ‘conservative’ French president Nicolas Sarkozy. The NZ National Party is so far away away from being blue-green party when you compare it to Sarkozy. Even the NZ Labour party is behind some of Sarkozy’s proposals:
Oct 25 (Reuters) -
French President Nicolas Sarkozy unveiled proposals on Thursday aimed at revolutionising France’s environmental policies and cutting its greenhouse gas emissions. Here are the key measures:GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS
- Suspension of commercial cultivation of genetically modified maize pending wider study by a new authority to be created by the end of the yearPESTICIDES
- Agriculture minister to submit plan to halve use of pesticides “if possible” in next 10 yearsPOLLUTION
- Tougher laws holding polluters responsible for damage, allowing prosecution of parent companies for pollution caused by subsidiaries.TAX
- Reduce value added tax for environmentally friendly products
- Proposal to levy higher taxes on imports from countries that do not respect the Kyoto Protocol on global warming
- Tax on trucks crossing France
- Tax on most polluting new private cars which would help pay for taking older vehicles out of serviceENERGY
- Keep nuclear energy but freeze construction of new sites
- Launch plan for developing renewable energy, with aim of achieving 20 percent of output from renewable sources by 2020
- Wind farms to be created on old industrial sites, not close to attractive areas
- Priority given to development of more efficient second-generation biodiesel
- From 2010, ban on energy-guzzling domestic appliances, such as incandescent light bulbs, once reasonably priced alternatives are availableTRANSPORT
- Priority on non-roads sector
- Construction of 2,000 km (1,200 miles) of high-speed rail lines by 2020. Capacity freed to be used to take 2 million trucks from highways.
- Investment in waterways that will take one million trucks from the roads by 2020.
- State involvement in creating new bus and tram routes and cycle paths in citiesBUILDINGS
- New building in France to conform to low-energy criteria by 2012. By 2020, new buildings should be energy positive, i.e. should produce more energy than they consume
- Plan to renovate 400,000 old residential buildings a yearRESEARCH
- 1 billion euros set aside over four years for research into new energy sources, biodiversity and environmental health.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by Russel Norman on Mon, October 29th, 2007
Tags: environment
More posts by Russel Norman | more about Russel Norman
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Wow, that is an impressive list. Makes our current Govt’s efforts look rather pale.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I take it from their concreteness that these are actual policies not “aspirational goals” like Labours Carbon Neutrality?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
France (and indeed Europe) have a pretty strong incentive in curbing greenhouse gasses, with 2003-style killer heatwaves becoming common by 2050.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Interesting. It’s more evidence of the growing blue-green alignment in politics. The future of environmentalism is looking to be more and more on the right of the political spectrum.
I guess the NZ Green Party activists and leaders have been correct in saying that green politics is ‘not about being left or right’ etc.
Going on current trends, we can expect that the Green Party will eventually end up in the centre of the political spectrum, being rightwing on some things and more liberal or left on others.
Bryce
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Did people hear a week or two back about Sarkozy’s alleged background in the Israeli mossad(secret service)?
http://palestinianpundit.blogspot.com/2007/10/bombshell-french-police-investigate.html
http://pcapostate.blogspot.com/2007/10/was-sarkozy-mossad-agent.html
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/4280
From a a brief google search, i’m don’t know enough about it to have more of an opinion than above having happened.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
good to see a leader who isn’t dithering.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
During the 6 months before the French elections, there were rumblings in the French press about Sarkozy’s marriage, his divorce from his first wife, and his “strong position on national security”.
The scandal rags didn’t dare to suggest that he had contacts amongst Mossad then, so I’m surprised it’s come out now. I suspect the DGSE (french external security agency) has stopped protecting his private profile.
His second wife did not appear on the campaign hustings with him, and there are concerns about his private life, especially the relationship he has with his now adult children from the first marriage.
These are all concerns that Parisians, and French in general, take quite seriously, for if a man doesn’t regulate his family life well, how can he regulate a country?
These are co-incidentally the same issues that confront the Hon. Steve Maharey in our own Cabinet.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
” if a man doesn’t regulate his family life well, how can he regulate a country?” probably because the two have nothing to do with each other. if i vote for a politician that’s who i’m voting for, not his wife nor her husband. i don’t want the friends & families of politicians involved in campaigns any more than i want them involved in the running of the country
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
katie, as I recall, Miterrand had a complicated love-life for decades, and it wasn’t published or a political issue. Are you sure the French have changed that much?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
In my opinion Greens should support carbon tariffs on pollution in global market production. The market follows market signals.
This will increase the China price (be better for non China price workers and the environment both).
Of course negotiating this in a free trade deal with China – would involve simply allowing New Zealand to adopt any such position developed by Kyoto Accord nations (nations opposed to this would have to be Kyoto Accord compliant to have a voice).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hmm, jc2, I think most of France knew about Mitterand having both a wife and a lover over a very long time. But no-one cared, including his wife and lover.
As long as no-one is getting the bash or being emotionally or sexually abused, it is not an issue as far as I am concerned.
Let’s not impose monogomy as a standard for politicians, when most of the rest of society reject monogomy (at least on occasion) in practice, if not in theory.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# katie Says:
October 30th, 2007 at 11:28 am
>These are all concerns that Parisians, and French in general, take quite seriously, for if a man doesn’t regulate his family life well, how can he regulate a country?
>These are co-incidentally the same issues that confront the Hon. Steve Maharey in our own Cabinet.
Eh? Steve Maharey’s wife died. Are you suggesting that was somehow his fault?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yep, Katie, I’m a bit puzzled by your comments too.
My partner died 7 years ago. It was a very sad loss for me, and I wasn’t ready immediately for a new relationship. But the need for intimacy was still there, so I ended up having sex with a few friends and acquaintances and even on occasion people I might have just met on the night.
I have serious criticisms of how Steve Maharey handled the Social Development Minister’s role, but no knowledge of his personal life. But, in the circumstances, whatever happened, it is imo none of our business unless someone was abused by him.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bryce – yes I think you’re correct to some extent. Market based solutions tend to encourage efficient resource use. Recognition of the value of market solutions tends to differentiate the Green Party from Labour.
On the other hand, equitable distribution of resources tends to facilitate peaceful societies and more equal opportunities. The willingness to encourage equitable distribution of resources tends to differentiate the Green Party from National.
So the Greens are fundamentally different from both Labour and National. That’s why I vote for them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The French plans are above and beyond anything I have seen any country even considered doing…. I sincerely hope that these changes happen and that we learn and follow in the same direction.
Though if ridiculous bodies such as the NZ Institute have anything to do with our future we’ll be left behind watching others address the issues while we wallow in our own self complacency. Fat cat consumers who don’t give two hoots about the health of our beautiful country, our children’s ability to use our waterways, our fisheries, forests, coasts, our friends in the Pacific who are already being drowned out of their homes and inch by inch losing their land. So many seem so ignorantly willing to destroy our habitat.. it’s our habitat people!!
we’re killing it!
What a load of rubbish to suggest that NZ isn’t a large part of the problem so therefore we aren’t obliged to think outside the square and confront the real problems of climate change. You only have to look at our close neighbours in the Pacific to see the effects of rising water levels, coral bleaching and storm destruction on unprecedented levels.
respect
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>t’s our habitat people!! we’re killing it!
Amateur dramatics won’t make it true.
>>we aren’t obliged to think outside the square and confront the real problems of climate change
I wish we would think outside the square of climate change. Then we might actually achieve something positive for our environment, rather than indulging in pointless feel-good posturing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PEL
It doesn’t have to be “made” true.
It simply IS true.
…and if you aren’t able to see it properly it is not a problem with our vision or our statements of fact.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
In a few thousand years after our eventual departure, the only trace os us will be background radiation. Maybe.
Nature always wins.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PEL
Someday, somewhere, the human race will finally come to an end. Until it does SOME of us are going to be in there on the side of our species and trying like hell to overcome whatever disaster, natural, man-made or klingon we encounter.
I may not succeed, but I recognize my obligation to make the attempt. You want to give up? Fine… tell my daughter that you volunteered her for a premature and ugly demise… cause THAT is what you are doing.
Realizing that there is this obligation I owe my species is part of what sets me apart from Neocons and Libertarians.
BJ
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Fine… tell my daughter that you volunteered her for a premature and ugly demise… cause THAT is what you are doing.
I find the further left you go, the more difficult it is to find a sense of humour
The median temperature as described by the UN Climate Council is an increase: 2.6 degrees C, with perhaps a half a foot to a foot rise in sea level. And what is New Zealand’s contribution to that? Virtually undetectable.
We can adapt – easily. As far as NZ is concerned, it will make us better off. Your daughter might enjoy the beach a little more, given that the water will be a little more pleasant.
The doomsday scenarios might make for a good movie plot, though.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PEL
What no one can escape is that only a move to a sustainable economy is not leaving the planet worse off for future generations.
And even within this generation terms – non renewable resources will diminish. Thus only a policy of more efficient use of them is sensible.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Depends how one defines “sustainable”.
Using a resource that will one day run out is sustainable, because technology and market forces will move to substitute it. We no longer need to burn Kauri for warmth, for example.
This alarmist stuff really does put me off. We should be solving real problems, and analyse the cost/benefits of doing so.
I enjoyed this: tinyurl.com/3xzeu8 “Penn and Teller – Bull-(word deleted due to free speech issues) – Environmental Hysteria”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PEL
We know. You don’t want to be bothered by the future. You want to make your money your way and the hell with the consequences. You don’t regard future problems as real enough.
The ship is sinking, people are soon to be forced into the lifeboats if it sinks and there are not enough for everyone, but you are not willing to work on the damage control that might prevent and could certainly delay the sinking.
Intergenerational selfishness is one of those things that really annoys me.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If it’s easier to dismiss my views by putting me in a box, then at least choose the right one.
With respect, you don’t know a thing about me.
I’m interested in the environment, and the future. I’m not interested in hyperbole and the anti-globalisation movement. Many of these people appear to be well meaning, but some of them are at best deluded, and at worst, dangerous fanatics.
Did you watch the Penn & Teller documentary?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Using a resource that will one day run out is sustainable, because technology and market forces will move to substitute it.”
ah, the faith-based solution. unfortunately until the new technology materializes we would be rash to gamble everything on it. yeah we stopped burning wood for fuel… after deforesting most of the world. most of the people visiting this site are interested in preserving the environment. (besides we scarcely replaced wood with a new technology. just with an even less renewable natural resource)
i’m all for cost-benefit analysis, but it seems we’re not allowed to analyse costs, because then we’ll be told we are (SHOCK, HORROR) watching too many movies!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>ah, the faith-based solution
More the lesson of history. We once powered light using whale oil.
>>after deforesting
The curious thing about trees is that when you cut down one, you can plant another.
>>watching too many movies
Best to stop watching the Gore one….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
a comment in Kiwiblog made me wonder what is around the corner
New Energy Congress Top 100 Technologies : October 24, 2007
http://top100energy.com/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PEL…can’t help thinking that your concept of substitution as an example of sustainability is a root cause of the extinction of some species. I hope that Kauri, totara, beech and other slow growing species etc etc etc don’t fall victim to this way of thinking.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Katie…it is not reasonable to blame a principled man for the demise of his family life. NZ is full of examples of women who have deserted their men in search of more lightweight interests. Of course the kids usually follow the mother because that is what genetics programmes them to do. However, today, we face challenges that are beyond pre-programmed genetics. Today’s challenges require the application of intellect.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>your concept of substitution
It’s Patrick Moore’s….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Today’s challenges require the application of intellect.
They do. Shame the environmental movement seems to consist mostly of emotion and sensationalism….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PEL…got a link to Patrick Moores quotes? I’m interested.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Right jh
Much of the technology is here now, or almost here, but it doesn’t fit with the far-left agenda, so it doesn’t even get mentioned.
I’m curious as to why the green movement use scare tactics over science? Are they really that different from the neo-cons with their terrorism bogeyman? Same coin?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Patrick Moore: tinyurl.com/f9tyc
Also see his interview on the Penn & Teller link posted above.
“I think one of the most pernicious aspects of the modern environmental movement is the romanticization of peasant life. And the idea that industrial societies are the destroyers of the world. The environmental movement has evolved into the strongest force there is for preventing development in the developing countries. I think it’s legitimate for me to call them anti-human.[8]”
Moore is a founding member of Greenpeace, although he now criticizes the organization. He holds a Ph.D. in ecology from the Institute of Animal Resource Ecology, University of British Columbia.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PEL – your examples do little to back up your arguments.
Kauri firewood and whale oil are no longer used because of their scarcity, which eventuated as a result of excessive human consumption. Perhaps a better example to support your arguments would be the advances in digital technology which have delivered much smaller and lighter computer screens.
In terms of your reference to merely planting trees as an example of sustainability, the weaknesses in your understanding glows bright like a low energy LED. Is it sustainable to replace one hectare of mature rainforest with one hectare of plantation pine?
From an economic standpoint yes, but from a environmental perspective it is certainly not. And this is the root of the problem. That is, current economic practices fail to account for their impacts on the world’s environmental capital.
Why don’t us Greens just relax in our kwila deck-chair, happy in the knowledge that we can replace it with a nice pine chair in 5 years time? It is because the ecological systems within which the kwila was sourced from have collapsed. Now that’s sustainable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Stu, did you follow the link jh provided: top100energy.com/
Your thoughts?
>>Kauri firewood and whale oil are no longer used because of their scarcity
They provided utility at a point in time. Then they became scarce and/or uneconomic in the face of more viable alternatives.
That is progress.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PEL…don’t underestimate emotion as a driving force for a good future. The topenergy100 link is a goodie. That will keep me going all night.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PEL…Oooh oww, thats a nasty quote from Patrick. There’s really nothing wrong with the peasant way of life…only the peasants have been able to survive the ice ages etc. The intelligentsia only survive when there are sufficient peasants to milk.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So that’s your argument for allowing the destruction of ecological systems? Human utility? Why didn’t you just say so! No point in arguing with a hedonistic nihilist.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Stu – straw man.
I’m not going to indulge an infantile doomsday scenario. The science does not support it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>nothing wrong with the peasant way of life
There’s nothing wrong with it. And there’s nothing wrong with technology.
Patrick is bang on the money, IMHO….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PEL…
>>There’s nothing wrong with it. And there’s nothing wrong with technology.
I agree that there’s nothing wrong with technology (per se). In fact technology has a great deal to offer. However, unreasoning BELIEF in technology seems to be able to twist the minds of many. In my opinion we need to recognise the inherent value of eon-tested simplistic peasant thinking and somehow marry it with carefully-evaluated technology.
We can’t just pin our hopes on the idea that good technology is capable of repairing or overcoming the damage of bad technology or bad decisions. Sometimes bad decisions are permanent.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PEL: “infantile doomsday scenario. The science does not support it.”
sorry but where exactly did Stu state a straw man infantile doomsday scenario? I can’t see anything of the sort from him.
The only thing he said was “destruction of ecological systems” and there is plenty of science that supports that we are continuing to destroy whole ecological systems at an ever increasing rate so I don’t know what science you are referring to nor what doomsday scenario.
Perhaps you are referring in general to any argument that climate change will be massively destructive and take millions of lives. You seem to be saying that a temperature rise of 2.6 degrees C, with half a foot to a foot rise in sea level is not that bad really and will be easy to adapt to and it’ll make NZ nicer, who cares about the rest of the world!
What about the low lying islands that are already being washed away?
The millions of Bangladeshis at risk of flooding?
The millions of people who rely on glacier melt water for drinking water (e.g. around Kilimanjaro as well as Himilayas)?
The millions at risk from increased storms? Increased droughts?
What about the risk from increased deseases? Increased resource wars?
And that’s only the human devestation. That’s not even to mention the ecocide wrought on the animal and plant kingdoms, how will they adapt? They are already going extinct at an incredible rate.
And that doesn’t even consider the effect of feedback and tipping points – that this modest warming and sea level rise you refer to may lead to further warming and further dramatic climatic changes.
I don’t think it is doomsdaying, emotional, infantile, irrational, or fanatical (or any of the other insults you find easy to throw around about greens) to argue that climate change will be terribly destructive and disasterous.
And what’s more there is serious sober and hard science to back all of this up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PEL
What you really seem to be missing and missing quite badly is that YOUR selfishness is condemning all our children to “the peasant life” .
i happen to like civilization and the ability to use energy fairly freely. I happen to think we should be putting wind turbines and hydro-generators and geo-thermal in, in everyone’s backyard. We’re in the roaring-forties on a island with more renewable energy resource per-capita than just about anywhere.
Pointing out the error of your philosophical emphasis on present value, and the error of your limiting your worry by the very conservative best case scenario provided by the IPCC, and connecting the dots about peak energy, drought, food-shortages, climate-change and human well-being, is not emotional. There are a LOT of damned threads in the fabric of the green movement… and you pick one and say “this isn’t a fabric, its a piece of string” and you’re right – because you picked ONLY one.
Nor is Penn’s “Yes, Yes and Yes” correct. His problem is that he grabs onto the anti-globalization (much as you do) and somehow misses the reality because HE has air to breath, water to drink and trees. Which makes him, smart as he is, and he’s a very funny guy, a bit stupid. I don’t have time to watch the whole thing. I did watch until I came to he humourous dismissal of ALL the concerns of the greens about the future in the service of rubbishing the anti-corporatism thread that is woven into the fabric.
Now you have been insulting about overly dramatic presentations, and even accused me of not having a sense of humor. Which is amusing in itself, but true when it comes to threats to my daughter’s future. About those I have NO sense of humour at all. Since I see all of them in their interconnected form and you are looking only at the least bad presentation of only the climate effects of the IPCC report, we are drawing different conclusions.
You do not take seriously the threat of drought and starvation. You do not take seriously the likelihood of resource wars. You do not take seriously the potential for tipping points. You do not take seriously the observations in the past couple of years that have exceeded every prediction of the IPCC as to rate of change. You don’t recognize that in the past we’ve SUBSTITUTED our cheap fossil energy for other adaptive mechanisms and we’re running out of cheap energy TOO. In short, you are over-focused on one issue out of many…. an optimist… and you would prefer that we all not worry about the future because the science of the IPCC doesn’t look all that threatening.
You rubbish us for wanting to kneecap industry, when all we want is that there be a price put on the commons so that capitalism can have a correct economic signal about that price. Some of us have it in for industry because (surprise, surprise) the industrialists don’t WANT that price signal put on, it would cut into the profits they may doing things the way they’ve always done and they ACTIVELY oppose that …. which is not a surprise at all. It is a naturally conservative group — change ALWAYS costs money.
Recognizing that doesn’t leave me with a problem with capitalism, just with the tactics of some capitalists… which you appear to have swallowed, along with bits of lead and a lot of fishing line as well.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Cover story, Time Australia, 11 September 1995
20th Century Blues
Article: The Evolution of Despair
A new field of science examines the mismatch between our genetic makeup and the modern world, looking for the source of our pervasive sense of discontent
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Stage/8922/
Social Issues and Psychology:
Psychology & The Environment
http://www.users.muohio.edu/shermarc/p412/team197.shtml
“On Maui, the incentives for new development are high in order to continue the behavior, resulting in economic streamlining. Tourism used to be very lucrative and many people made great fortunes in this industry. During the time of the tourism boom, other industries on the island were neglected and received less attention. This caused some industries to vanish and left others struggling for survival. Today, this is very problematic. Now that the tourism boom is over, Maui has nothing to rely on and other industries cannot absorb those who have lost their jobs with the hotels and resorts. In order for Maui to change the current economic trend, effective incentives for change must be developed. We have examined seven such factors that lead to effective incentives (Gardner & Stern, 1996).”
[Queenstown????]
http://www.users.muohio.edu/shermarc/p412/t197incentives.shtml
, it is clear to assume that the Dominant Western Paradigm of thought is motivating the push to develop. Within this paradigm, the most prevalent belief is that of mans “dominance over nature.” (Gardner and Stern, 1996) Such homocentric values are only strengthened by Amfac/JMB Inc. desire to build another resort in an area that has approximately fifteen existing facilities. Underneath the idea of dominance over nature lies the notion that the earth and its resources are mainly for human use. Once again we see how the build up of resorts in the area continues to deplete the land as a resource for other living organisms in nature. In looking at the Dominant Western Paradigm, it is clear that most important to the corporation are the ideas of “economic growth for the human population” and “consumerism”(Gardner and Stern, 1996).
When we look at the Hawaiian citizens we see a very different set of values and beliefs presented concerning the environment and the development of North Beach. It is difficult to see where the citizens values lie when we consider the fact that one out of three jobs on the island comes from the tourism industry (USA Today, 1997). However, with respect to North Beach, we see a very different approach than that held by Amfac/JMB. It is apparent that within the Hawaiian community the Deep Ecology movement plays a major role in the preservation of land in Hawaii and more specifically, Maui. Within this Ecology paradigm there is the overlying notion that humans should live in “harmony with nature” (Gardner and Stern, 1996). This ideology suggests that humans are not the only organisms granted the use of land and resources, hence they should not abuse the little undeveloped land they have left.
http://www.users.muohio.edu/shermarc/p412/t197morals.shtml
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>They are already going extinct at an incredible rate
They are not.
>>this modest warming and sea level rise you refer to
It’s the midpoint of the somewhat hysterical IPCC findings.
The enviroporn doomsday scenarios are OTT. The reality is that
scientists simply do not agree on the effects, and there is certainly no consensus.
Moore again: “It’s become so complicated, there’s so much snake oil around the whole subject… the best comment that was ever made was by Michael Crichton in his book State of Fear: ‘I am certain there is too much certainty in the world’. And I am certain that he is right.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Using a resource that will one day run out is sustainable, because technology and market forces will move to substitute it. We no longer need to burn Kauri for warmth, for example.
What I am interested in is good management from the beginning….not exhausting resources and moving on to the next available one despite its effects on the environment and people.
The market economy is flawed in so many ways that to put ALL your trust in it is ludicrous. As Naomi Klein stated – ‘it’s like a crack wh*re’ it keeps wanting more and more…at the expense of the most vulnerable. Why are we convinced that if the economy isn’t growing at great rates we in a crisis??
I accept that the world does not have to revolve around a flawed monetary system that keeps huge numbers in systemic poverty. It is this system that we maintain with such vigilance that confounds our ability to see what REAL progress is or could be.
There are millions of people living in absolute poverty, who are more unfortunate than most of us in the developed world could ever imagine… PEL they are the ones who will feel the real brunt of the impending effects of climate change.
Not you PEL, you will be here in little old NZ, safe, sound and complacent with our government’s minimal efforts.
It isn’t simply an environmental issue – it’s called social justice. And if people get emotional about it – there’s good reasoning behind it.
respect
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Interesting article by Brian Fallow in NZ Herald Business pages:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/3/story.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10473282&pnum=2
PEL your arguments are a moving enigma. I’ll simplify things so you can’t dodge the bullet:
1. You argue using trees is sustainable because we can plant more
2. I point out that not all trees are created equal, by comparing mature rainforest to plantation pine. The environmental costs of destroying rainforest are huge compared to using pine, but are not accounted for in current economic practices.
3. You respond that rainforest meets human utility at this point in time and when either demand of supply for rainforest timber is exhausted progress will see us utilize alternative products.
So, have you or have you not justified unsustainable business practices on the grounds of “human utility”? From your philosophical arguments it animal cruelty/exploitation is justified if it provides for human needs.
My position – humans are part of natural world
Your position – humans are the world
It’s a profound ethical difference, which you may or may not grasp.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sorry, I’ve been busy rather than unresponsive.
to clarify:
My comment about Maharey was more to do with how he handled rumour and innuendo which started in his workplace. Not suggesting that he was in any way adulterous, merely that he did not manage media interest in his personal life leaking into his public, political life very well.
My comments on Sarkozy were a summary of 6 months-ish of readings of Paris Match and occasional forays into Le Point, around the time of the French elections, and opinions I have formed over 20 years of of following French politics and cultural issues. Sarkozy ran a very conservative, right wing campaign, and it was the right wing who criticised his unusual family arrangements (Camille and the children lived in one part of Paris, while he kept an apartment closer to his office), including the fact that she would not be photographed with him doing the “first lady” bit during the buildup to the elections.
and BTW:
Mazarine, Mitterand’s daughter by his well-known lover, was not brought into the public eye until just before her father’s death, co-incidentally as she was graduating from the Sorbonne and about to publish her first book. Which she followed with a posthumous biography of her relationship with her father. She made the front cover of all the important French journals both before her father died, and again when she published the biography.
Finally, I was expressing a French concept when I quoted “If a man does not regulate..”, etc; not my own personal viewpoint. It is a very conservative French concept, which was used in many pieces that I read, worded variously according to the style of the journalist at the time. The French prefer Wives and Mistresses to keep to sterotypical boundaries; the wife lives in the household, the mistress does not. A wife who keeps her own household, to which her husband is a visitor, is uncommon. It reeks of “the English disease”, of literary marriages in London where one partner lives in the City and the other lives in Primrose Hill, or Hampstead Heath, or somesuch pleasant writer’s suburb in NE London.
Cross-Cultural variation, I think!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Katie, you should be reading better stuff than Paris Match and Le Point… I’ll give you a list if you like. Sarkozy’s private life is a non-issue with respect to politics, I don’t know anyone whose political opinion is affected by it. The general, rather trivial observation is that, like Napoleon, he is a short-*rse and a serial cuckold, which leads them to over-compensate in the authoritarian line. Rather like little Lord Farquad in the Shrek movie.
I suppose I really ought to comment on the “Grenelle de l’environment” circus, I really don’t want to, but as far as I know I am the only person who is member of both the NZ and French Green parties.
Firstly, are these announcements really so earth-shattering? A large part of them are simply catching up with EU norms : France is a notorious foot-dragger in environmental matters. As for them putting France in the forefront, sorry Ash, we’re ten years behind Germany, twenty years behind Sweden in putting the nation on a sustainable footing. I’ve just been digging in my cellar, preparing to install a wood-pellet heating system to replace my fuel oil boiler. The new system won’t be French made… it comes from Sweden. The windmills come from Denmark, the solar panels from Germany. France has missed the boat on renewable energy (oh… unless you count nuclear), and is well behind in sustainable agriculture. This is one reason why it’s easy to make a bunch of major changes — we’re just so far off the pace.
I suppose I need to comment on why the French Greens are excluded and irrelevant to the announcements.
The simple answer is : we lost. We are structurally part of the left, and because the presidential candidate of the left didn’t win, all we can do is carp from the sidelines.
The more complicated answer is : the French electoral system sucks sh*t. Ecology, sustainability, respect for the earth, organics, these are an integral part of the German way of life, and still rather exotic and marginal in France… is this a cultural difference? No, essentially an electoral one. They have MMP, and the Greens have had significant input into the political process for a couple of decades.
So, it’s paradoxical but not surprising that Sarkozy has instigated something like a great leap forward in environmental policy… Royal would have done much the same if she had been elected, perhaps with more substance and less posturing… because the times they are a changin’ and inaction is no longer politically opportune.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Actually the debate over whether a politicians’ personal life has any bearing on their suitability is an interesting one. On the one hand I am all for setting a higher standard of behaviour among those with wealth and priviledge, especially when they are also role models. On the other, if they are doing their job well, what does it matter?
My tentative view on this is that it matters, if they are using their position of priviledge to help with adulterous relationships, because then their personal and public lives are interconnected.
So I would agree that Steve Maharey having a few casual sexual encounters is not relevent to his integrity in his job, but Don Brashs’ infidelity (if the reports are actually true) is more serious, because in that case it was only his wealth and power that made him attractive to the opposite sex in the first place. After all, if Brash was a simple middle manager, would any woman look twice at him?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Stu,
In short, I think we should keep forests that make sense to keep, and use, and replant those that make sense to replant and use.
It’s the 1850s. Not using coal on the basis that it will one day run out is silly. It makes sense to use it now. Being dependent on coal forevermore is unwise, however I hear they’ve just discovered some new fangled technology called refined oil…
“Sustainability” has much to do with invention.
I really do like this list: top100energy.com
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kiore
Your post is interesting to say the least, you seem to be pushing the same barrow as Comrade Trotter in as much as you suggest that the left should be allowed to get away with anything (assault, theft, fraud, telling blatant lies to pass a bill etc,,) but the right should be subject to stricter controls.
How on earth can you justify such double standards?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)