Hard News: Be the party of good science
239 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 Newer→ Last
-
just in case you hadn't noticed, the "rich" western countries have transferred most of the polluting industrial activity to the "poor" developing countries.
-
"Labour moved up to the centre in order to set up 1999, National moved down to the centre in 2008 and yet the centre is going to be the deathslide of this country. The centre is stale and sterile.
...The centre is just a concept that was thought up to sell newspapers."
without the (sacred) centre, nothing; without a centre, not a moment of human Mediation would be, or have ever been, possible. But with the market that is modernity this centre is rightfully ultra-elusive, and no single figure can ever occupy/fully represent it (for longer than ten minutes). And thus may our resentment/alienation from this very centre be recycled ever more fully (and economically) on the periphery..
((psst: i have indeed noticed SW that greenies are mostly bourgies who think the poor's habits are not up to speed)) -
But it is also manifest that we cannot continue to emit carbon dioxide - and nitrogen, and methane - at the rapidly rising rates we are doing so. We need to find ways to let developing countries industrialise without raising carbon emissions. We need to cut our own. Just saying "the evil West wants to keep everyone down" is not going to solve the problem. If there's no incentive to reduce emissions, no-one will do it. China and India might not want to; doesn't mean we don't have to try. We don't really have a choice.
But if we try using an ETS we will fail and the world is screwed.
No, we need to adopt solutions that are not exploitative and there are choices available. We as global consumers have the power to create and deny consumer demand on the basis carbon footprints:
- The left wing option is to regulate away consumer goods that are inherently polluting - start with incandescent lightbulbs and work our way up to air-travel.
- The right wing option is to put massive consumer VAT on the basis of carbon footprints - triple or quadruple the price of fuel and double the price of cheese - as high as it can be to maximise tax take and to price pollution out of the reach of poor cosumers.
Regulation or taxation, take your pick, because there is no market solition.
Unfortunately neither of those options is politically palatable in Western consumer societies as long as there are ETS selling pricks who wish to use climate change as their opportunity to rort the developing world. And our political parties are...
-
Eh? That's like putting fluoride -- another dialectic in NZ...thought that one died out in the 60s everywhere else -- only into people's water that have a history of tooth decay.
I live in an American town that doesn't fluoridate its water. Have you actually been "everywhere else"? Have you been anywhere else?
And why would you fluoridate a population's water if they already had strong teeth? Just for the sake of showing them who's boss?
What works is putting it into all bread. At least that's what those up themselves scientific folks try to make us think through their socialist mind control, Leighton.
When a global adulteration of the food supply is proposed - even a benign, reversible one - it should be done openly. The arguments on both sides should be available for people to evaluate. Otherwise you get a government that does whatever they want and a population that is not aware that folate is necessary and maybe they should look into an alternative source if they don't eat wheat.
-
just in case you hadn't noticed, the "rich" western countries have transferred most of the polluting industrial activity to the "poor" developing countries.
Yes, and that needs to be taken into account when developing emissions trading schemes. OTOH, China also can't electrify the whole country on coal-powered plants.
Regulation or taxation, take your pick, because there is no market solition.
Maybe it won't be the entire solution, but it seems mad not to try.
I live in an American town that doesn't fluoridate its water
Plenty of places in New Zealand don't...anyway, tooth decay is largely a random function of genetics, eating habits, and dental hygeine; no urban population is going to be unvarying enough one way or the other to make fluoridation either requisite or unneeded (though it's far more likely to be the latter than the former).
-
Alright brother it's your summation then. It's still poor.
I wasn't claiming ownership of the summation. But I didn't think I was saying anything particularly new. it certainly isn't something proprietary to the Herald.
It is a disservice to characterise the left as being deficient in individualism and self responsibility.
It would be. Which is why I didn't.
In the libertarian right individualism usually manifests itself in a strong belief in the sanctity of property rights, and a belief in the need to stop the State from interfering in people's lives. That goes hand in hand with the ideal of self-responsibility, and the belief it is not the role of the State to look after people.
The left (mostly) believe in property rights, but will often be more prepared to sacrifice some of those for the wider benefit of the community (e.g. the RMA debate). The left are usually more prepared to raise taxes to pay for welfare and other social programmes to help the community as a whole.
I realise this is very general, but I don't think I am rewriting political theory in saying any of this.
But to be fair to you what do you like about the present right wing administration that you couldn't find in the labour party and relate it to self responsibility and individualism?
Well I didn't vote for the current mob, but Labour are largely a party of the centre-left, rather than hard left, so probably not a great deal.
-
The ETS is a joke. It is only a matter of time before a journalist "discovers" the massive subsidies going to people who don't need them and the whole thing will explode in the governments face.
And as for the Maori Party - every one it's apologists I have seen are turning on them. The scales are starting to fall from the eyes of many.
But more to the point, any attempt to reduce CO2 by emission reduction is doomed to failure. To many people have to much of a vested interest in unfettered capitalism. The only hope we have is to develop sequestration tactics and examine ways to artificially cool the planet.
-
The only hope we have is to develop sequestration tactics and examine ways to artificially cool the planet.
It'd be great if there was some kind of effective price signal to encourage the development of these technologies through (clearly unstoppable) unfettered capitalism.
Oh...
-
It'd be great if there was some kind of effective price signal to encourage the development of these technologies through (clearly unstoppable) unfettered capitalism.
A global systems of Emission Trading Schemes doesn't do that. A global ETS spreads cost evenly across the entire world and its "effective price signal" is therefore mostly effective to the worlds poor. And since poor people don't drive capitalism it doesn't drive technology, it is an exercise in fail.
The only way to send an effective price signal to rich people is to tax rich people consumption at a rate much higher than applied to poor people. This "tax the rich" concept is completely at odds with current "left wing" thinking, obviously...
-
Maybe it won't be the entire solution, but it seems mad not to try.
Without buy in from the developing world Emission Caps cause more pollution than they prevent. The British achieved a 5% reduction in emissions between 1992 & 2004, but their carbon footprint including imports and excluding exports rose by 18% over the same period - the British are killing the planet 18% faster and emitting 5% less pollution. This is what happens when emissions can escape from under a cap.
-
The only hope we have is to develop sequestration tactics and examine ways to artificially cool the planet.
As someone who has to answer an exam question in three hours on precisely this topic: yes, and then again, no, because there are plenty of ideas out there but none I'd touch without at least having a serious go at emissions reduction. It's not that it can't be done, it's that there is *massive* potential for global-scale screw-ups - and no-one is seriously suggesting sequestration can replace emissions reduction. It might be a part of the solution, it will never be the whole thing.
-
I wonder if Key's kids have been bad and he's punishing them?
"Eat your peas or I'll water down Superannuation funding to cripple the economy just as you are reaching peak earning power"
"Touch that paint and not only will I do nothing to stop from the world from dangerously warming in your lifetime but I'll give the money I could of used sorting your Super needs to encourage industry to make it worse"Guess you can't smack anymore...
(and before anyone wades in...jokes) -
From the latest New Scientist:
'Japan's incoming prime minister Yukio Hatoyama has pledged a 25 per cent cut in carbon emissions by 2020, compared with 1990 levels, and challenged other countries to do likewise.' -
Japan's new prime minister is apparently a fan of Telethon type pledges.
"and he calls on all the other Prime Ministers of Asian countries to do better!"
-
no, Y. Hatoyama is a fan of "leading by example".
-
Re: the Maori Party's support for the ETS:
-
Taxpayer to insulate Maori homes under ETS deal.
That's f*&*#ng appalling - we sold out our climate change response just to get free insulation for "our" people?
The fact that insulation is being provided specifically to Maori on different terms is bad enough in itself -
That's f*&*#ng appalling - we sold out our climate change response just to get free insulation for "our" people?
The fact that insulation is being provided specifically to Maori on different terms is bad enough in itselfIt sounds so bad I reckon it can't be right. I'm holding out until I hear the story from a more reputable source.
-
scoop.co.nz?
-
It sounds so bad I reckon it can't be right. I'm holding out until I hear the story from a more reputable source.
It's official. Yeah, I'm angry too. There is good cause to do this - in fact, it's how the scheme should have worked in the first place, instead of giving 50% subsidies to millionaires. But it still doesn't make it any less infuriating.
-
...more reputable source.
It's official.
*coff*
-
That's f*&*#ng appalling - we sold out our climate change response just to get free insulation for "our" people?
Hope it was $430 million worth.
-
aaah, i reckon if Mr. Hatoyama had ever heard of the export trade of used Japanese vehicles to nz, he would probably say that it was a numb-skulled thing for an OECD coutry to be doing. y'know, turning a low-population density country into a giant carpark for Japanese clunkers. but he would have to be a bit more tactful than that in his public utterances...
nevermind...
-
That's so utterly appalling as to be newsworthy.
There are entire rape trials that go on in Auckland that don't even merit a brief anymore from our fearless outsourced subbies and composing room people.
I talked to a guy recently who unsuccessfully defended a man on a statutory rape charge. He was 28. The girl was two weeks shy of 16. Not a great situation but by all accounts they were in love. She was expecting their baby. They had moved in together. He had a job.
The judge sentenced him to an entire year. No previous.
No appeal because the defendant couldn't be fucked with it.
Happens all the time.
-
It sounds so bad I reckon it can't be right. I'm holding out until I hear the story from a more reputable source.
Good point. This morning's Dom Post story is considerably more equivocal. It's hard to know quite what's going on with this deal.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.