Hard News: The smart thing to do
125 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
The rules are very clear: the Minister of Local Government or the Minister of Consumer Affairs are entitled to use operational resources (meaning staff, consultants, etc) to obtain policy advice within their portfolios. They cannot use it to obtain policy advice on e.g. climate change policy. If they do, its a misuse of appropriated funds, and the sort of thing that upsets the Auditor-General (remember him? That knife cuts both ways, you know...)
As Minister in charge of Ministerial services, John Key can indeed change these rules. But he'll be answering some very interesting and pointed questions in Parliament if he does.
Basically, your position does seem to be that "it's not pork if we do it". that's simply hypocrisy. If Winston rather than ACT had been the beneficiary of such arrangements, ACT would have screamed bloody murder for three years. And that, i think, is all we have to say about your party's moral bankruptcy.
-
To be fair, I always understood leaky building syndrome was caused by standards - really lax ones that said it was ok to build houses out of polystyrene and untreated wood. As long as the property developer could keep costs down and profits up
Agreed, and, proof is in the pudding. One need only look at the buildings with untreated wood to see the damage, and now they want to seal up houses to the point of not being able to breathe, which, I suspect will be the next problem.
-
those who deny Climate Change number a few hundred scientists + Ian Wishart and Rodney Hide, whereas those pro Climate Change number an estimated 300,000+ scientists. The rationale for revisting the debate is....?
That suggests an interesting idea. Let's get two teams drawn evenly from the few hundred plus the 300,000, because there are some interesting debates within those 300,000 scientists. For example, some of them point out that half of the estimates of future temperature are above the median prediction.
John Quiggin noted some of the consequences a while back:
An important implication is that any reasoning based on picking a most likely projection and ignoring uncertainty around that prediction is likely to be badly wrong, and to understate the likely costs of climate change.
That applies as much to Rodney's prediction of a new ice age as to the IPCCC's careful 2-degree consensus.
-
Such passion such angst cannot be explained away by a public policy debate over the catastrophe of time: climate change. No no it’s a deeper darker anger.
No, Chris, it's what people are thinking. Act has long been a refuge of the odd and slightly damaged
Stump up with the link. Whilst I have no first hand knowledge of the negotiations between National and ACT this claim does not seem to be very plausible on the face of it.
Ah. And this is where, again, we reach the point where it is revealed that you don't actually know what you're talking about ...
Let's just say I have a source.
3. The science behind climate change
Mr Brown actually concedes my point. Given all the weakness of politicians and select committees, that is the system we have. Ultimately, the extent of any survey of the science and any expert evidence will be up to the Select Committee which will be proportionally representative of Parliament. They might conclude that whatever the technical debate about climate change, it’s prudent to do something.But that conclusion was reached some time ago. It's only the Monster Raving Looney Party that wants to do it all over again.
4. Public policy movements in response to climate change
Again Mr Brown should calm himself. Labour here and policy changes abroad have probably moved NZ into “do something” mode. As I have intimated it may be better to be a slow adopter of a cap and trade system until these are fully functional in North America and Europe.Others here have noted evidence very much to the contrary -- that being a late adopter confers no advantage, and indeed, implies greater costs. But don't let that stop you.
Honestly, Chris, you'd do a lot better to simply engage in debate rather than waltzing in like a pompous know-it-all -- because when, inevitably, it transpires that you don'r know it all, you look quite silly.
-
Sacha, Sofie. Well, I have a former classmate who is now fairly senior in a major Wellington commercial architecture firm and now their doing a lot of work refitting some of the abominations that went up in the eighties. Yes, first lax standards, but there were a lot of greedy developers cutting corners between crappy design and the even crappier construction that resulted. I'm hearing horror stories about how they've been stripping back cladding to find what's underneath: buildings that had to be designed for earthquake standards but which were not actually built and finished competently or adequately to those standards. I suspect that residential developments suffered similarly.
Sofie: breathing. Yes. In fact, we've heard about formaldehyde in particle board flooring and suchlike, but there are plenty of volatiles coming off furniture and finishings and basic building materials that are not healthy. "Smoke inhalation" is given as a cause of death in fires, but it's not as gentle as that implies - burning foam rubber in your sofa is not something you want to be near - it's very nasty stuff.
We have utterly appalling building standards in New Zealand which have only very lately and very slightly been improved and now that Sontaran in a puke-coloured jacket will gut them... I feel a Victor Meldrew coming on...
Sustainable design is also safer, efficient design, but some features will raise costs, and with the populist cause of 'affordable' homes being pushed by the demagogues, I don't hold out a lot of hope for people thinking seriously about homes as being perhaps more expensive to build, but built for multiple generations or the very long term rather than those flimsy boxes that clog all of the "Bellevue Estates" and "Panorama Heights" and whatnot disfiguring the city fringes (and rotting as soon as they're finished).
The good news is that Alex Hills, an architect well experienced specialising in green design, is developing a paper in sustainable architecture that will be an optional paper in 2009 and core from 2010 at Vic's School of Architecture.
Hell, that was I rant. I get worked up on the matter.
-
Angus, I partly agree with your view that the demand for "products causing emissions" is more important than the supply. And yes, Kyoto doesn't deal well to that.
But you're treating Kyoto like an end-game, as opposed to the first step of a multi-generational system under the UNFCCC. One step that is frankly almost over with. Given the below realities, I agree with Kyoto:
- AGW is happening (christ how depressing that you still need to spell that out in your assumptions)
- industrialised nations have benefited developmentally from their emission intensive histories and still have average emissions per capita well above sustainable rates
- developing nations emissions per capita must be long-run constrained but should be able to come up to a global average that is sustainable in the interests of not ruining their development.
- that requires developed nations, with their money and investment, to bring their emissions down to more acceptable average levels
- the developments to do this lead the technology curve, becoming the de facto standard for subsequent development in developing countries, ensuring their emissions profiles begin to level out.I haven't seen a solid argument yet that defers me off that logical path.
-
... and an incoherent rant. "Their"/They're", "That was a rant". Back to the Scotch to calm down, methinks.
-
Hell, that was I rant. I get worked up on the matter.
Me too, but one must go to work :) Just quickly though, I have a keen interest in architecture and feel fortunate to be around good design and the other half is an extremely considerate, respectful builder which allows me to live in a wonderful environment which was created in 1926, therefore I am often educated and enlightened. Latest Urbis (magazine) has some nice little tree houses and other interesting ideas if anyone is interested. I could rant too. Love good design :)
-
... and an incoherent rant. "Their"/They're", "That was a rant". Back to the Scotch to calm down, methinks.
At 10am on a weekday? Ah, the wild life of academe ...
-
It's after five somewhere in the world. Actually, I'm between part time contracts so I'm just a boozy PhD student these days.
-
Steady Angus...my response was simply to your inaccurate statement that the profits go to Holland. It was, and remains nonsense. There is a profit derived by all parties from the transaction.
Simon,
The Dutch exploit low poduction costs in China for profit.
Who is responsible for the emissions? The Kyoto protocol types (european) say it should be the Chinese, the Chinese say it shouldn't. I am in agreement with the Chinese.
In the merry dance of globalisation and profits that flow here, there and hither, my take on the whole emissions thing is this;
We, being all of us who buy Chinese made products, export our emissions and pollution to China. It's the West's greatest export industry. In return for exporting our pollution and emissions to the grateful Chinese*, we get cheap products.
Only problem is that the Yellow River is no longer Yellow. While that's a Chinese problem, it's also our problem. Just check the label on the shirt you are wearing. Made in China? You've exported your share of pollution and emissions from the making of that shirt to China.
*which poses another question: is irony dead, on the web or in general?
-
Who is responsible for the emissions? The Kyoto protocol types (european) say it should be the Chinese, the Chinese say it shouldn't. I am in agreement with the Chinese.
It wouldn't be unreasonable to expect the Chinese to take a little responsibility for the effect of their actions on the world, and not just in emissions either.
-
Some of us here in NZ work US hours - it's Thanksgiving a public holiday - scotch, or at least maybe a beer outside on such a lovely morning seems like a great idea .....
-
It wouldn't be unreasonable to expect the Chinese to take a little responsibility for the effect of their actions on the world, and not just in emissions either.
No, maybe not. But that attitude would be a whole hell of a lot more palatable to the Chinese if it wasn't being espoused by residents of developed nations that have spend many decades polluting far in excess of what's sustainable.
The West is hopelessly compromised when it comes to trying to tell developing nations to stop polluting. Especially the US, which with ~5% of the world's population consumes about 25% of the world's energy and has only just this year been overtaken by the country with over 1/6 of the world's population as the planet's largest source of pollution. China needs to come to the realisation on its own terms, not through being brow-beaten by a bunch of countries that were quite happy to pollute with impunity and now, having done that polluting and established their economies, wish China to halt its own economic growth just as it's really getting started. No wonder they're not keen on Kyoto!
-
Idiot Savant:
I don’t think you read you own comment. You concede my point: support for the Executive is determined by the Minister for Ministerial Services in the manner he or she deems fit. You say that if the Prime Minister/Minister for Ministerial Services changes those rules he will be held politically accountable for it. Of course. That is our system. But a change isn’t illegality.
What you suggest – that Ministerial Services Support can only be used on portfolio responsibilities is totally incorrect and isn’t a matter of legality (save fraud or some other dishonesty) The portfolio policy role is actually performed by the Department or Ministry. What you suggest is also contrary to what we understand as Cabinet government. While ACT might be outside Cabinet itself, its Ministers still function under a cabinet government system. Thus if they are consulted on a government proposal outside their portfolio responsibilities and an agreed position is arrived at, they are expected to support it within their own Party and in Parliament. By necessity this means having a public policy capacity outside the portfolio responsibilities.
You are welcome to write to the Auditor General and allege illegality. I look forward to reading both your letter and the Auditor General’s response on your blog.
Mr Brown:
You entitle your blog Hard News.
Yet you engage in what is really abuse and so humourlessly too. Asserting that ACT is the home of the odd and slightly damaged gets us no where. And as compared to whom…. Labour and National? And then we get the Monster Looney Party! And wait for it…… its what everyone is saying!
This isn’t news or even analysis or satire.
It’s just unseemly and intellectually lazy. Whilst I might disagree with you on this issue I don’t discount the possibility I might agree with you on another issue.
Whatever my previous multitudinous and mountainous errors and sins this doesn’t make true a claim by you that National offered ACT two Cabinet seats and ACT refused. You claim it was an ACT official who said this and then later when pressed claimed it’s your source.I doubt you have any source close to the negotiations between National and ACT.
Given the way politicians covet Cabinet seats (like Gollum and the ring) your claim is unlikely to be true. But we could all be surprised by you substantiating your claim.
On the public policy issue regarding climate change I think we are getting nowhere.
I do want to point out how utterly delicious it is (like the sweetest fruit on the vine) that the left are arguing for market mechanisms and the creation of tradable property rights in carbon emissions. Whilst of course declaring the free market dead as a result of the global credit crisis.
Why Mr Brown I can see your methane powered Triumph Herald parked beside the Porsche Carrera of the wide boy 24yr old carbon trader. All the world is in order.
-
No, maybe not. But that attitude would be a whole hell of a lot more palatable to the Chinese if it wasn't being espoused by residents of developed nations that have spend many decades polluting far in excess of what's sustainable.
Good Lord, man, what is this? Kindergarden? While I take your point, as far as it goes, I'm not really interested in the kind of "but you did it first, and you're worse" kind of self-justification that I find tiresome in children, and absolutely intolerable from teenagers. I'm just one of these naifs who thinks being beaten across the brow is part of being a grown-up; and if China wants to be part of a global economy, it's going to have to get used to the inconvenient and disagreeable parts. God knows the rest of us have had to.
-
Craig, comparing various national assemblies to gatherings of children is probably quite apt, and rather accurate. Have you not noticed that the countries that don't have recent histories of this or that misbehaviour have far more international credence when it comes to decrying that misbehaviour by others?
-
But that attitude would be a whole hell of a lot more palatable to the Chinese if it wasn't being espoused by residents of developed nations that have spend many decades polluting far in excess of what's sustainable.
I agree that it's not necessarily fair.
I just don't think the world can necessarily afford for newly developing countries to repeat our mistakes in this matter.
There are also some leadership opportunities for China in jumping over 'old' technology, which the rest of the world is slowly moving onto after going through the path that China is now following along on.
-
No, it's not fair. And re-reading what I wrote, I can see that an alternative interpretation to what I intended is that I consider that the West, with historical growth having come at great environmental cost, shouldn't be saying that China needs to try and avoid being a polluter. What I meant was that, to China, it very plausibly sounds hypocritical and self-interested to be telling them that their economic growth needs to be considered in terms of the environmental cost. Which in some ways it is, but the self-interest is overwhelmingly environmental rather than economic.
-
Leap-frogging obsolete technology was meant to be aided by tech transfer from wealthier nations. I've seen precious little evidence of that in action since I was part of organising the NZ end of the Rio Earth Summit..
-
I do want to point out how utterly delicious it is (like the sweetest fruit on the vine) that the left are arguing for market mechanisms and the creation of tradable property rights in carbon emissions.
So what? Most of the left aren’t against market mechanisms per se. They also aren’t against state intervention per se. The left are pragmatic about those issues. There’s no contradiction. It’s libertarians who are dogmatic about the “free market”.
…and so humourlessly too.
Heh. Whereas you’re all about the humour.
-
At least he brings the funny.
(whether it's "funny-haha" or funny-peculiar" is left as an exercise for the student)
-
you’re all about the humour.
At least he brings the funny.
New rule for this thread: from now on we all write in Buffverse idiom.
-
A world of no to that
-
It’s libertarians who are dogmatic about the “free market”.
Yeah, I've always found that strange.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.