Get Real John
In today’s Herald Brian Fallow tells big business lobbies and the NZI (and therefore John Key) to “Get Real on Climate Change”. They mistakenly think NZ is too far ahead and would prefer us to be a ‘fast follower’, i.e. do nothing for now.
Brian argues: climate change and its economic challenges are real; NZ is already a follower having taken 10 years to get a policy; and technology is not an alternative to price and policy mechanisms, they complement them.
He also pours cold water on the common bleats of “our emissions are insignificant” and “others have to change first”, noting that, if/when Australia joins Kyoto, nearly 50% of our exports will go to Kyoto countries. There are likely to be costly trade implications of free-riding, e.g. France’s consideration of a carbon tariff on products from non-Kyoto countries.
While his faith in carbon capture and storage technology as the answer to China’s growing coal emissions is questionable, it is sensible to seek intensity-based emission reductions from the big developing country emitters as a transition to real emission reductions. Worth a read in full.
November 1st, 2007 at 4:39 pm
No Right Turn has also commented on Fallow’s column:
http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2007/11/climate-change-getting-real.ht ml
He/she opiniates: “I doubt whether this will have any impact on those arguing for inaction - its fairly clear that they’re not actually interested in the science or the policy, but rather in continuing to line their own pockets by dumping their costs on everybody else. But it does point out just how dishonest, foolish, and self-interested their position is.”
Hear hear.
November 1st, 2007 at 5:45 pm
>>dishonest, foolish, and self-interested
The far left are, of course, never dishonest, foolish, and self-interested.
I’d recommend people watch Penn & Tellers excellent Environment Hysteria program to see ample evidence of all of the above.
tinyurl.com/2sp9fq
>>they’re interested in continuing to line their own pockets
No, it’s to stop clueless dolts taking our money and offering pointless sacrifices to their god.
November 1st, 2007 at 6:46 pm
It’s a world wide CON, but no amount of warning signs of the fraud could make the greens bite the hand that feeds them.
The orwellian nature of reducing carbon emmisions to zero, is no better than the war on terror.
WE emitt carbon when we breathe! duh!
The script has been written, we are the enemy, and the majority of the planet is targetted for extermination.
No one bothered to read or take “mein kampft” seriously in the twenties and it’s new world order, it just wasn’t a media vechicle, a few decades later the world didnt need to, it had come to fruition.
The “mein kampft” of our age isn’t the obscurish work of one rising faction in an advanced country, the money power that owns that planet has been building monuments to it, funding it, and collectively stating the same thing over and over….and no one pays atttention.
Ms Kedgley at least gave notice to the FACT that our scientific advances of the last 150 years are being systematically stripped in the area of superbugs.
As for those horrible nasty greedy corporations getting rich by ignoring climate change, isn’t it a tenny wenny bit strange the FOx news in U.S. continues to play big bad wolf for the pop. there in regards to climate change, while Murdock, who owns FOx news and a big share of the planets entire media, is publicly all for the repressions of energy suppression that is the reducing of carbon emissions?
what about the publicly stated climate warfare research that has been on record getting conducted since the 1970s, u know the ability to manipulate the weather(although not planet wide i’d say)? Some ice caps are melting, some others are growing, false computer models, etc etc etc The anomalies that are melting, why isn’t attention paid to measuring possibly manipulation of weather?…not likely to happen is it…no national figure of the year rewards to be had there……and on it goes.
Global Warming: A Convenient Lie:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5086
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=theme&themeId=4
November 1st, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Russel
Are you getting a bit worried that the public think John Key is on the right track here?…It has been some time since you had a crack at the Nat’s.
BTW..still waiting for the Trevor Mallard thread, or is assault OK as long as the attacker is a socialist?
November 1st, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Bah! Where is the evidence behind any of the claims being made in this thread:
1) John Key needs to “get real”. The title of the thread, yet you havent mentioned John Key’s stance on the issue beyond an hysteric attempt to link him directly to NZI.
2) “Brian pours cold water on the idea that our emmisions are insignificant and others have to change first”. He doesnt really and the fact still remains that even if New Zealand becomes carbon neutral it wont make any difference to the world climate.
3) “There are likely to be cost implications for free riding”. The only evidence here is that France is ‘considering’ a carbon tarrif. Even if this carbon tarrif does go ahead it will be years from now and the cost to the country will be much less then the hundreds of millions that we owe under Kyoto. Also wouldnt less trade with Europe be a good thing according to you, i mean all those miles between here and there.
Big Bro: I thought they would have had a thread as well, but apperently the left now approves of violence. First they defend the “pacifists” who were caught on guns charges, and now they dont seem to mind a punch up in parliment. They didnt even comment on Helen Clarks excuse that he was “defending a womans honour” or his so called “demotion” where he lost one job but picked up three. It appears that proggresive politics in New Zealand arent working fast enough to satisfy them.
November 1st, 2007 at 9:44 pm
That’s rubbish Nick C. What’s interesting about Mallard and Henare having a stoush?
Any what do you want to post on anyway? Post away. It’s not as if the discussion is constrained to the initial thread.
November 1st, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Well acctually stu it is normally suposed to follow the thread, but whatever you lefties like…
Also the Mallard fight made headlines for several days. French Carbon Tarifs for example would have been buried deep in the world section of most newspapers. And John Key hasnt acctually done anything to pre-empt this post at all.
November 1st, 2007 at 10:12 pm
“Actually” Nick C - prepare for a roasting because I’m in a particularly bad mood.
Normally follow the thread??? Have a look at any of the threads on this blog and I think you’ll change your mind. Us “lefties” actually value free-flowing and independent thought rather than following the herd.
And your arguments about what makes news are hilarious. So, Mr Mallard punched Mr Henare and it made headlines. That says more about the quality of the newspapers (and intellect) in this tin-pot little country than it does about the quality of the threads on this blog.
I think most intelligent people would argue that Sarkozy’s comments are far more interesting and influential than Mr Mallard’s fist. But then again, you “righties” do tend to resort to violence more often than not, so maybe that’s skewed your judgment of what makes good news.
Finally, Mr Key leads a National Party which has made no secret of its lack of enthusiasm for addressing climate change. I believe Nick Smith commented that the National Party was suitable a home for climate change deniers. That is John Key’s responsibility.
I await your reply with enthusiasm.
November 1st, 2007 at 11:09 pm
“National Party leader John Key says the New Zealand Institute is “on the right track” with the report.”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10471722 &ref=rss
John gave tacit endorsement of the report’s direction, which casts doubt on his commitment to keeping NZ within Kyoto given the main conclusion of the NZI report was to drop our Kyoto commitment. At least that’s how I took his comments, and I presume that this is the link Russel is making.
November 2nd, 2007 at 5:36 am
(Podcast) IEA chief economist Fatih Birol has told lastoilshock.com that the agency will review its use of resource estimates from the United States Geological Survey, in a move that seems certain to prompt a major downward revision of its long term oil production forecast.
http://www.energybulletin.net/36518.html
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:34 am
here is my todays’ ‘must-read!..’
george monbiot has some sobering words to say..
(especially relevant for those who preach doing nothing/constant growth..)
(listen up righties..!..)
http://whoar.co.nz/2007/bring-on-the-recessiontodays-must-read/
phil(whoar.co.nz)_
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:44 am
so..eating meat is killing you/giving you cancers..
(that’s now proven..)
and the recent (under-publicised) auckland university-proven dangers of consuming dairy products..
dairy is responsible for ‘thickening our blood’..and causing/heart/stroke/diabetes/hypertension problems..
(and explains our world-beating’ rates of these diseases/ailments.)
(that now..also all proven..)
the production of it..meat..and dairy..
..not only causes institutional barbaric/cruel practises/tortures of those animals eaten..
(widely ‘proven’..)
but is also causing over 50% of our environmental/climatechange filthy/degraded/polluted waterways..
(this also widely proven..)
given all the above ‘provens’..
how on earth could/can anyone claim to be an ‘environmentalist/green..?
to care about the planet’..
and what we are (very very fast) doing to it..
and still think it is ‘ok’ to still farm/eat animals..?
could someone explain that to me..?
and i know you can’t..
there are no excuses you could profer that could add even the slightest shred of credibility to any claims to justify these ongoing barbarisms..
are there..?
i mean..how much more ‘evidence’ do you need/want..?
before you’ll ‘mend yr ways’..
eh..?
yes..!..i’m talking to you..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:24 am
Phil
You may or may not recall, I said pretty much the same thing about 3 years ago and I believe I posted it elsewhere sometime in the last century
Monbiot is quite correct…. that and peak-oil/energy together may put paid to the growth-is-the-only-good.
…or else, as I have posted elsewhere, it is possible that G.W. Bush will prove himself an environmental genius by starting yet another war in the middle east and sending the price of oil through into orbit around the moon… no not OUR moon… Charon (the moon of pluto) is about the right “height” to represent the change.
Just yanking your chain
respectfully
BJ
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:54 am
>>so..eating meat is killing you/giving you cancers..(that’s now proven..
No it isn’t. It might be giving some people cancers. As does the sun. Better recommend no one goes outside, just in case.
Being born is 100% certain to result in death. Better recommend people stop doing that as well.
Is there no end to the hysteria?
>>yes..!..i’m talking to you..
“At you” more like….
November 2nd, 2007 at 2:10 pm
so peter..i presume you are saying that from your (usual ) position of simplistic ignorance..i
n that you haven’t read/considered these new findings..
have you..?
(’simplistic ignorance’..q.e.d..)
and yes..!..i’m talking at you..!
the/any time for ‘politeness’ is long past..
and now that all the scientific evidence is (finally!) lining up..
i have not yet really even begun to ‘talk at you’..
eh..?
cos’..there are those like you pel..just happy to continue to wallow..
..but there are many out there who have been ‘fence-sitting’..
waiting for the evidence to come in..
well..now it’s in..
and the time for fatuous excuses is past..
eh..?
cos’ if we don’t..
the environmental ‘other timetable’ will just take all/any choices away from us..
these are the stark choices/realities we face..now..!
not in 2014..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 2nd, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Phil - are you recommending:
1. Personal decisions to abstain from animal products; or
2. State regulation to encourage vegan diets
Or both?
November 2nd, 2007 at 3:31 pm
>>from your (usual ) position of simplistic ignorance..
If you try hard, I’m sure you can come up with something more cutting that that
>>that you haven’t read/considered these new findings
Not only I have I considered them, I’ve eaten a juicy steak whilst doing so.
Everything in moderation.
>>and now that all the scientific evidence is (finally!) lining up..
I think you’d like that to be true.
However, for every study you can produce showing meat is bad for you, I can produce an equally authoritative piece showing meat is good. However, my position can be summarised thus: “Dr Lunn, of the British Nutrition Foundation said it’s more important to look at your diet as a whole than single out particular items to avoid altogether”.
Both simple, and insightful.
I enjoy the taste. I don’t like mung beans. To each his own…
November 2nd, 2007 at 3:46 pm
’simplistic ignorance..’
q.e.d..
phil(whoar.co.nz
stu..both..
November 2nd, 2007 at 4:09 pm
>>..both..
Good luck with that…
November 2nd, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Stu- Following the topic of a thread has nothing to do with intelligence, but the fact that if a blog is any good it should have a thread for most major news stories. But because you wont every agree with me and frogblog will always dodge this issue the i ask you: What do you think of the Mallard punch? A fist fight in parliment here in NZ is more relevent then something Sarkozy said on the other side of the world. On a world-wide scale of course not but in NZ it’s different which is reflected by media coverage. But of course the media are all idoits because they dont cover exactly the news that you want them to cover Stu.
“Finally, Mr Key leads a National Party which has made no secret of its lack of enthusiasm for addressing climate change”: Well i would like to see some proof of this, a quote from him maybe, that John Key doesnt take climate change seriously. What he acctually advocates is balancing enviromental and economic intrerest, which is very different from not taking climate change seriously.
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:19 pm
There are a lot of people (plebs) who take the line that we shouldn’t do anything as “our little bit is insignificant”.
Kiwiblog has a lot of climate deniers. Quite a few are property developers who have developed advanced skills at turning landscape (and communities) into $ signs, and so (perhaps) tend to be somewhat removed from reality when it comes to accepting that humans can harm the environment, (rather than just exploit it).
One or two seem to have rather good analytical skills which makes me think they may be PR people spreading dis-information for manufacturers of 4 x 4″s or something?
I think National will be under quite a bit of funding pressure from those types, but won’t want to identify too closely.
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:34 pm
BB said: “Russel … It has been some time since you had a crack at the Nat’s.”
well only if you have the attention span of a goldfish!
Why is National in favour of native forest destruction?, Friday October 19th, 2007
oh alright I suppose 2 weeks ago is “some time”.
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:53 pm
PEL and Nick - since when did environmental = far left? You both seem to use the terms interchangeably.
Occasionally you have cheered on the blue greens, so clearly you do admit that right-wingers can be environmental as well, but then you revert to your “anyone who criticises climate skeptics must be a communist” line.
Greens recognise that Labour and left-wing parties are often very un-environmental, so we find this automatic environmental = far left line to be doubly ridiculous.
And yes, I do agree there are some hysterical environmentalists, but what proof do you have that they are automatically “far left”. For all you or I or anyone knows the hysterical environmentalists are likely to be right-wing on other policies. And there are also plenty of hysterical climate change deniers as well.
Sound, serious and sober debate that avoids hysteria and sticks to the issues is to be welcomed from all sides, and it is just a shame that you lot do not provide any.
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:58 pm
The award for the most ridiculous logical leap of the month goes to Nick for saying … frogblog doesn’t have a thread on the fist fight in Parliament therefore the “far left” supports violence now.
Who are this far left you keep referring to Nick? And how come you are able to determine what their position on different issues is, just by monitoring the patterns in the topics that frogblog has articles on? Do you see patterns in tea leaves that enable you to tell what NZ First’s policies are?
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Biofuel rush harmful, Oxfam warns
“The rush for biofuels could harm the world’s poorest people, Oxfam has said.
In a new report, the UK aid charity appears to be joining a growing chorus of concern about the side-effects of Europe’s drive to get fuel from plants. ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7072386.stm
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Sorry Nick but that’s just politburo fluff talk from your man John Key. “Balancing enviromental and economic intrerest” [sic] is about as vague as … well of National’s policies.
Do you think the general public are still interested in Mallard’s punch? Absolutely not. Only political nerds care about such tripe. If you feel there is something deeper in behind the fisticuffs then please, by all means, enlighten us.
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Stuey,
You raise a very serious concern about biofuels.
I don’t know what the solutions to the environmental and energy crises facing the world are, but I strongly suspect any sustainable solution is going to require drastic population reduction. Of course there may be a surprise break through in some technology such as nuclear fusion, but barring that, I can’t actually envisage a sustainable solution that does not involve population reduction. I have read that many ecologists think a sustainable global population is about 1 billion.
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Hi Samiuela -
You’ve hit the nail on the head. Population reduction, or at least control, is the only thing that can pull this planet back from the brink of ecological collapse. The question is, how do we effect population reduction without compromising human rights?
It is difficult. One suggestion is to make having children so expensive it is undesirable. At the other end of the scale it could be to allow older people to die rather than pouring in huge amounts of resources to keep them alive.
I’m not sure what the best form of population control is. Keen to hear people’s thoughts.
.s
November 3rd, 2007 at 1:04 am
Stu, I think a temporary infertility virus would be the best solution. If it used the same vector as the influenza virus it would be sure to spread quickly and repeatedly. An expensive vacine could be made available for those who are deperate to have children and can afford to raise them.
November 3rd, 2007 at 8:11 am
hello bj..
knowing all that you do..
have you gone vegan yet..?
(and my non-response/take-up of your proffered option is purely a matter of ‘hours in a day’..eh..?..)
i am busy programming whoar fm one..
and preparing/programming whoar fm two..
and preparing/planning for the spoken-word one..
and planning/preparing the first.soomn to be daily’..(moving pictures) news/commentary bulletin..
so..when i can..i will..eh..?
cheers..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 3rd, 2007 at 8:23 am
stuey
Environmental doesn’t need to equal far left. It’s shame the far-left have used the environment as a trojan horse for their not-so-hidden agenda.
Many right-wingers have strong environmental concerns. It’s hard to live a full life without an environment.
It would appear that both sides of the AGW debate have names for each other. I agree that’s a shame.
Sound, serious and sober debate that avoids hysteria and sticks to the issues is to be welcomed from all sides. Agreed. What does “bleats of “our emissions are insignificantâ€? mean? Why “bleats”? It is an objective fact our emissions are insignificant on a global scale.
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:23 am
Phil
I consider that you have yanked mine quite properly in return
No… I have not had the luxury of considering what passes for a diet for me…
I am still trying to persuade Babushka to simply feed me LESS… it is like she expects me to waste away to nothing…. or that I am out there in the fields with the oxen or something. Arrrggh!
Left to my own the meat in my diet drops to pretty low levels anyway…. but I don’t have the kind of say in this that I had when I was single
I KNOW you are right and I know it would be better for me… not to mention the planet.
If I survive the next couple of years… maybe I’ll start getting more of a choice.
Thanks
BJ
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:52 am
Traditionally the best form of population control that doesn’t involve mass deaths is wealth. As societies grow more wealthy, birth rates fall, as the population has a higher expectation that their offspring will survive and/or they will be able to enjoy their old age being cared for either through their own wealth, that of their children or the state.
Of course this only works if the wealth acquired is not at the expense of others.
Trevor.
November 3rd, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Stu - thanks for bbq-ing nick c - I thoroughly enjoyed it.
I absolutely agree with Phil. it’s ALL very sensitively connected…and we’re f*cking it up…stop denying it. all i can say is it’s time to start doing what’s right by the planet without compromise. if that means eating vegan, well, then maybe you should try it. If you do you will be joining millions of others who choose this strict diet on an environmental, health, spiritual and compassionate basis.
PEL - studies commissioned by meat associations don’t count…
respect
ash
November 3rd, 2007 at 5:42 pm
So people have suggested the following options:
1. Infertility virus
2. Wealth
The second option is interesting. Would not increasing wealth also increase consumption? Wealthy people do certainly seem to consume more.
November 3rd, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Stu Donovan Says:
November 3rd, 2007 at 5:42 pm
>So people have suggested the following options:
>1. Infertility virus
>2. Wealth
>The second option is interesting. Would not increasing wealth also increase >consumption?
turning communist seems to help, too. It led to a significant drop in birth rates in most Eastern Bloc countries except Albania.
It is often suggested that the main factor leading to lower birthrates is highly educated women. The low birth rates in rich countries and communist countries would be due to the fact that women in those countries tend to be more highly educated. Its also notable in India that the states with the most highly educated women have the lowest birth rates, even though they are not necessarily the richest states.
November 4th, 2007 at 12:56 am
“Wealth” can be taken as including education, access to information and good health services, access to nourishing food and safe water, etc. Specifically it isn’t so much about having money, but being able to obtain what money can buy, so lowering prices increases “wealth”. Providing what people want or need at a lower cost increases wealth without increasing consumption - in fact it can decrease consumption (of resources). Making goods more durable also increases “wealth” but decreases consumption.
Trevor.
November 4th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Population is a confusing issue; multi faceted multi dimensional perhaps. I think the environmental movement needs to develop a much more robust way of getting its ideas across.
)
Perhaps a wiki (moderated) where all angles, assumptions, attitudes are debated, processed and refined . We need to establish a central location (site), link it both ways to blogs etc make it (hopefully) a community brain and source of policy .
The closest thing I have found is this:
https://debatemapper.com/sf/home.aspx
This approach has been described as too “thinky” but spade work is involved in all great endevours.
The political system (in its widest sense.. the way our values and ideas are shaped) is failing us (if you know what I mean
November 4th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Frog
Do posts time out or just go to moderation? I’ve lost two recently.
November 4th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Two leading experts are warning that the birth rate is dropping to levels where the population will start to decline unless the country adopts more “family-friendly” policies.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/6/story.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10473815
November 4th, 2007 at 11:49 am
PeterExitsLeft Says:
November 3rd, 2007 at 8:23 am
Environmental doesn’t need to equal far left. It’s shame the far-left have used the environment as a trojan horse for their not-so-hidden agenda.
Many right-wingers have strong environmental concerns. It’s hard to live a full life without an environment.
……………………………….
I think the far- left have a competing paradigm to those i would call genuine environmentalist, who are more open and free thinking.
On the other hand the far right (libertarians) believe recourses aren’t limited; that markets and technology will solve all our problems, and the pursuit of wealth benefits everyone (in all cases*). This makes them hostile to ideas such as AGW , peak oil , and resource redistribution.
*As we have had imbalances due to massive immigration (pop’n increase 21% 1990 to 2004) and asset inflation, a lot of wealth in the community has gone to Peter at the expense of Paul, who now has a bigger mortgage, higher rents and higher utility bills in order to pay for new infrastructure. (IMHO)
November 4th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
There are several obvious ways to reduce population. Whether they can be enforced is a different matter:
1) Limits on the number of children per family. Maybe the right to have children needs to be modified, to a right to have up to two children.
2) Encouraging people to have children later (which will act to reduce the number of children per family, and also increase the intergeneration age gap, which can also lead to some short term population decreases).
JH: Family friendly policies will not necessarily increase the birth rate. Even bribes to have children do not necessarily work. In Australia, the government offers a $4000 payment per baby. This was intended to increase the birth rate, but appears to have not worked (or only had a very slight effect).
November 4th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Headline: More Violence from the left.
Well what do you know, more violence! This time at the Labour Party confrence, started by, you guessed it, those ‘pacifists’. Then some Labour party official wacks a guy with a megaphone. But of course thats okay because, well really everyone on the left has defended some type of violence in the past month, whether it be the people who condemned the police raids as politically or racially motivated or those who made up excuses for Trevors punch up in parliment. But will anyone rush to tell these people to pull their heads in, so as not to contradict the “It’s not OK” campaign? Frog blog still hasnt, but then again the green party is Labours little poodle.
November 4th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
as i said elsewhere police shouldn’t have to put up with people shouting in their faces… that is a form of assault (and/ or provocation).
November 4th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Two leading experts are warning that the birth rate is dropping to levels where the population will start to decline unless the country adopts more “family-friendly� policies.
Wow! Surely given the unsustainable way humans (particularly western humans) are trashing the planet, a drop in population should be a cause of wild celebrations and parties in the streets, not “warnings”
November 4th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Nick - what are you on? You’re acting crazzzeeee … like Ed the hyena on the “Lion King” movie. I think Whoopi Goldberg supplied the voice.
The Green Party is Labour’s poodle? Hmmm … certainly not as much as United Future and NZ First. In fact, given that we abstain on confidence and supply you could say that we’re politically ambivalent.
At the end of the day, Labour is closer to National than the Greens are to either of the major parties.
November 4th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Stu D:
“Would not increasing wealth also increase consumption? Wealthy people do certainly seem to consume more.”
For one thing, as Trevor points out, that depends on how you measure wealth. For another, a wealth society tends to have a higher ratio of services to primary goods, so you can “consume” more without necessarily using up limited resources.
And importantly, (and this is going to confuse those who believe that the Greens are all about hemp smocks and beeswax candles), there is NOTHING WRONG with wealth and consumption… as long as it’s SUSTAINABLE.
Among the wealthiest countries there are a handful which surely have the highest level of GDP per unit of resources consumed… Sweden, Japan, Germany for example… they are on track to becoming ENTIRELY sustainable. And generating more wealth, and a better quality of life, in doing so. Any country which aspires to be truly “wealthy” ought to be following their example.
November 4th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Kiore : re birth rate.
A society with a below-replacement birthrate has no confidence in its future, it is, by definition, not sustainable. I don’t believe NZ has to reduce its population to become sustainable (there is a lot of other stuff to be done on that count however). In a demographically mature society like NZ, people will tend to have children when it’s materially possible. Although it may be hard to find actual people who say “we would have a second/third child if we could afford it”, statistically the effect is undeniable. Also, the more child-friendly the environment is, the more likely parents will be to populate it.
Three measures of social engineering could bring the birthrate back up to sustainability (based on real-world examples, e.g. France and the Scandies, who have been there and done that) :
Longer paid parental leave
Available, affordable child care
Hefty tax rebate per child in the household.
November 4th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
There was an interesting article in a recent New Scientist. They measured the standard of living in various countries, and compared it with an index of sustainability. Of the 93 nations surveyed (there were insufficient data to survey the rest), only one country achieved a reasonable standard of living in a sustainable way. A copy of the article is available here:
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/84625
You can argue about the methodology used in the study, but no matter how you measure sustainability, most of the developed Western nations will fare pretty badly.
November 5th, 2007 at 12:31 am
Alistair,
I think most of the concern is about global overpopulation. There are some countries whose population is actually decreasing, but globally, the reverse is true.
In the case of New Zealand, is there anything fundamentally wrong with population decrease, even if the current population is sustainable? I mean, why does every hectare of land _have_ to be utilised by humans? I think you are worrying too much if you think New Zealand’s population will shrink to zero.
I don’t have any idea how the global population can be controlled (short of war and famine), because I can see weaknesses with all the proposed population control schemes.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:42 am
Alistair notes that “Among the wealthiest countries there are a handful which surely have the highest level of GDP per unit of resources consumed… Sweden, Japan, Germany…”
This should perhaps not be surprising when you look at the architecture and furniture of these countries, Post WWII in Germany’s case. Simple and uncluttered. Perhaps their national psyches have been shaped by a relatively rare combination environmental factors. Another thing these three countries have in common is 60 years of stable social democratic form of government, where political participation is woven into the very fabric of society rather than being something that is exercised by the bulk of the poulation only every three years.
Perhaps their holistic democracy has generated an increase in individual accountability, the exact opposite of what has happened in countries like New Zealand where politicians have become increasingly remote from voters and, along with the news media, seem to be assigning themselves demigod status. Western civilisation seems to be increasingly emulating Roman civilisation in it’s dying days. Anyone for a colloseum on the waterfront?
November 5th, 2007 at 4:46 am
Whatever
What we need is a tax-free threshold like they have in Australia, I would suggest up to $10,000. The benefits are obvious and would help mostly those who need it
GST on fresh food (which they don’t have in aus) its a evil government policy; who pays for poor people to have babies yet doesn’t financially encourage them to eat healthy, so they have to pay for medical aswell.
Wake up politicians!
November 5th, 2007 at 7:18 am
A country that is reducing its birth rate may not be doing so because it has no confidence in the future but because it has sufficient insight to understand that without population control there will be no future. If we are so concerned about there being fewer humans in the country then why not accept more immigrants. It would be win-win. The immigrants will be escaping from often intolerable situations and New Zealand will be getting the humans it perceives it needs. Immigrants are also often motivated and willing to make a go in a new country (though maybe I am biased being one myself). The attitude that the only humans we like are the home grown ones seems very much like xenophobia to me.
November 5th, 2007 at 7:46 am
Maybe we should stop thinking about population and just think about the effect of other humans on us (ie), destruction of wilderness, competition for productive land, living space, infrastructure etc…. One thing that vexes me is the way we live in a world with an insane game plan of continual growth, an inability to condemn/question large numbers of people (God made everyone and more people are good for the economy etc). Economics is a difficult subject but I would like to see policy makers and pointy heads, brought to task (in plain language)… “like wats’a u plan dude?’
I believe policy is driven by business interests (the building industry).. they employ the most people. Those at the top have few worries…just drive down Fendalton Road and see Hugh Pavlovich’s house.
November 5th, 2007 at 7:50 am
Shouldn’t that be a goal: improve the political system as they do in the US when congressional committees ask the hard questions? It seems to me that politicians can get away with glib answers too often.
November 5th, 2007 at 9:26 am
i agree with you jh..
for ..say..select committes to get more oversight/pro-active powers..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 5th, 2007 at 9:43 am
I was thinking of (one example) Cullen questioned about IEA’s call to conserve energy and Cullens glib.. “I remember the Club of Rome (?) saying we would run out (blah, blah..)”… they just have to open their mouths long enough to fill the time slot. The system seems to be set up to allow politicians to side step straight answers…
I wonder if there is really a need for face to face parliamentary sessions given that we have the internet. In box [questions] filtering >summarizing, sorting > answers > review > clarification etc.
November 5th, 2007 at 10:27 am
>>PEL - studies commissioned by meat associations don’t count…
So only studies commissioned by green-leaning organisations count?
November 5th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
JH,
Thanks for championing Debatemapper in this context
I co-founded Debatemapper with Peter Baldwin, the former Australian Minister for Higher Education — and we piloted the web application with the UK Prime Minister’s office at the start of the summer.
We are in public beta now, with the goal of developing Debatemapper as a new kind of public service: one that makes the best arguments on all sides of every complex public debate freely available to all, and continuously open to challenge and improvement by all.
If you are interested I would be happy to work with you and any fellow blog readers to start building a debate map around any of the major issues discussed above; from a New Zealand and/or international perspective.
My contact details are available on the Debatemapper main site for anyone who would like to explore this further.
David
November 5th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Stu- The fact that the greens prop up the Labour govt with your confidence and supply vote in return for, well nothing really proves that the greens are Labours poodle. What did you guys get in exchange for proping up Labour in 2005? A “Buy Kiwi Made” campaign and… thats it. No ministers, no place around the cabinet table, no baubles like winston. You guys talk tough when theirs no election but when push really comes to shove in 2008 you will do what you always do: Kissing Helen’s ass.
November 5th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Thanks David, I’ll take you up on that.
November 6th, 2007 at 9:43 am
PEL - I would be happy with a number of international independent groups, including any ‘green’ groups, because at their core is health, environment and animal welfare - all aspects that are crucial and at the heart of the debate. Unlike the meat industry, whose entire purpose is to sell you something…telling I know. what are your thoughts on that? you still wouldn’t trust certain reports because they are so-called green at the source?
I am far more suspect of people and industries trying to ’sell’ product than those (usually NGOs or charities) trying to highlight that that product is detrimental to people’s health, the environment or animal welfare. Everything with it’s own merits of course.
There are recent reports here carried out by international and ameican cancer research institutes…just one report of many that mentions red meat specifically.
http://www.aicr.org/site/News2?abbr=pr_&page=NewsArticle&id=12898&news _iv_ctrl=1102
go meat-free for life and enjoy the benefits Peter…your body and mind will thank you.
November 6th, 2007 at 11:17 am
>>you still wouldn’t trust certain reports because they are so-called green at the source?
They may be telling a truth. I’d like to think I’d keep an open mind.
I’m suspicious of green reports because I perceive a not-so-hidden anti-capitalist agenda. There are costs, and there are benefits, and the two should be weighed carefully. A factory may well make an impact on the environment, but it also pays taxes, which pays for education, health and welfare.
November 6th, 2007 at 11:29 am
>>go meat-free for life and enjoy the benefits Peter…your body and mind will >>thank you
Too much of a foodie.
We’re omnivores. Too much of either isn’t healthy. How’s your b12?
November 6th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
PEL: You write:
“I’m suspicious of green reports because I perceive a not-so-hidden anti-capitalist agenda.”
Are you implying that to have an anti-capitalist agenda is equivalent to not telling the truth, or something similar?
As far as I’m concerned, I wish people with an anti-capitalist agenda just stated it in as many words. Its nothing to be ashamed of or hide. In fact, if someone is trying to hide an anti-capitalist agenda, I distrust them because they are trying to hide something, not because of what they are hiding.
November 7th, 2007 at 8:20 am
>>to have an anti-capitalist agenda is equivalent to not telling the truth
Statistics can mean anything you want, depending on how they are framed…
>>I wish people with an anti-capitalist agenda just stated it in as many words
Agreed. Might put the 5% under considerable pressure…..
November 7th, 2007 at 9:14 am
B12 is fine thanks, as are all aspects of my health.
Greens I know aren’t anti-capitalist. they put people before profit as a golden rule though and are minimal consumers. They love business, though not business that oversteps it’s line in society.
These people do this for something that could be described as ‘excess compassion syndrome’ (they care deeply enough about humanity and the earth that they alter their consumeristic lifestyle to benefit ALL people and environments)…. not something all of us will ever experience or understand.. though imagine if we did…I guess only a few are able to do that too.
November 7th, 2007 at 11:54 am
PEL: “I’m suspicious of green reports because I perceive a not-so-hidden anti-capitalist agenda.”
Do you believe in all paranoid conspiracy theories then?
To argue that Oxfam, or GreenPeace, or Amnesty International, or the World Wildlife Fund have an anti-capitalist agenda is complete and utter tripe. Because that is the type of report that you are dissing.
PEL: “I’d like to think I’d keep an open mind.”
Yeah right! Anyone else spot the irony? Clearly you only have an open mind towards anything that doesn’t challenge your world view - anything that does challenge your cosy little free-trade is good, growth is good world view is automatically pigeonholed as “anti-capitalist” (whatever that is?) and therefore can be safely ignored.
November 7th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Nice one, Stu.
>>Do you believe in all paranoid conspiracy theories then?
No.
>>To argue that Oxfam, or GreenPeace, or Amnesty International, or the World Wildlife Fund have an anti-capitalist agenda is complete and utter tripe
Straw man.
>>Clearly you only have an open mind towards anything that doesn’t challenge your world view
Depends on the level of proof, really.
>>free-trade is good, growth is good world
Certainly are. They keep more people fed, clothed and happy than the tried and failed protectionist alternatives.
November 7th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
PEL: “Straw man”
I expect you are good at recognising them because you employ them so often.
So who are the “green” groups whose reports you distrust, if it is not those NGOs?
November 7th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
>>I expect you are good at recognising them because you employ them so often
Ad hominem
>>reports you distrust
Almost any report that that has been unequivocally championed by the Green Party…
November 7th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Oh go on, please name one. Go on. I bet you can’t!
I’m genuinely interested because I wasn’t aware of any report that the Green Party has unequivocally championed.
Personally I thought that the Greens take a balanced view on all reports, pointing out things they agree with in the reports and things they disagree with.
As a single example, going back to the original posting for this thread, Russel points out what we agree with about the article but also points out that he finds some of it “questionable”.
So there’s a double challenge for you:
* Can you name a single report that the Green Party has “championed unequivocally”?
* Can you name a single report by an NGO that you distrust the findings of because that NGO has an “anti-capitalist agenda”?
November 7th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
You weren’t too keen on the “ground breaking research” from otago University that poured cold water on claims that light occasional smacking was harmful. When Dr Miilichamp presented her findingsto the subcomittee Sue bradford questioned her motives.
November 9th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
Nick C - are you an intellectual poodle?
Progressives, United Future, NZ First SUPPORT motions of confidence and supply to Labour, whereas the Greens ABSTAIN.
The ACT party is far more National’s poodle than the Green Party is a poodle to any party.
You should pull your head out of your own ass before you talk about the Greens and Helen being in some kind of pleasurable relationship.