OnPoint: Nick Smith. Spanking. Now.
165 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Newer→ Last
-
@ Keith
I don't think it was an assumption that prices will go to $200 if there was a 40% reduction - it was just a high-end scenario. "Where would we be if price was at $200 *and* we were faced with a 40% reduction?"
Whoops: It doesn't test for price @ $200 for other reduction scenarios because it doesn't consider $200 to be likely. That's why it's the only scenario at $200.
Sure... my point was that why do a calc for 40% (which is the politically charged figure) that's so out of whack with the other targets?
I've checked with one of the authors of the report;
0% change in AAU’s @ $100/t => RGNDI of $48k
+15% change in AAU’s @ $100/t => RGNDI of $48.4k
-15% change in AAU’s @ $100/t => RGNDI of $47.6k
-40% change in AAU’s @ $100/t => RGNDI of $47kAnd
0% change in AAU’s @ $25/t => RGNDI of $48.7k
+15% change in AAU’s @ $25/t => RGNDI of $48.8k
-15% change in AAU’s @ $25/t => RGNDI of $48.6k
-40% change in AAU’s @ $25/t => RGNDI of $48.4kso with their modelling a 40% target isn't that much worse than the others, but it sure looks like it if you cherry pick the $200/t value and slap it in a press release against the $100/t ones.
ps; Guyon - Do your job properly please. This is a big, serious issue that will profoundly affect NZ - and you're helping politicians mislead the public. Go away and read this. Greenpeace's target may/may not be bollocks, but come on man, have some pride in your work.
-
Keith Ng wants to be careful, I imagine Paula Bennett is about to release his student loan record as we speak.
Tom: I'm going to regret asking, but what the hell are you going on about?
-
-
This
Which is probably illegal under the Privacy Act, according to Mr NoRightTurn.
-
Well, if it isn't illegal it should be. That's a supremely crap way of acting.
-
Matt:
Ahem. To clarify myself some more (and dealing with your first point), the domestic emissions reduction calculations in that report assumes no policy change. That is, it is how the market will respond at varying prices of carbon, given current policies.
ARGH... gotta run. Will restate this properly later.
-
Supremely trivial comment I know, but WTF is up with the photo on that story? I'm thinking "heeeere's Paula"...
-
Re Bennet/Privacy/legality-of dpf cites teh guidlines here, specifically example 8 and (for some reason) section 3. Not convinced, but intrigued.
-
Sorry Matt, you raise some very good points, and it deserves a much more substantive and holistic response. Ignore all my haphazard responses so far. I'll respond properly later this afternoon.
-
Having had a breach of my privacy in the mid-90s, unless the policy or law has changed they're probably out of luck getting anything from the Privacy Commissioner.
Not only does the law have to have been breached, but you have to prove that the breach of the law has affected you negatively in some actual way.
If you can't prove that they'll tell you to bugger off.
-
Well, if it isn't illegal it should be. That's a supremely crap way of acting.
Perhaps -- but part of me doesn't feel a lot of sympathy for people who present themselves in the media (and to politicians) as victims, when the truth is a little more complicated. Just as, to return to the original post, Ministers of the Crown don't get a pass for pulling numbers out of their arses, or trying to shove inconvenient data down the memory hole.
-
Whoops: yes; its a clear sign that they're not seriously interested in costing it, just producing a stick for the Minister.
There is a -15% / $200/ton scenario as well.
George: what Keith said. They simply did a "worst case" scenario - combining a strong target, an (even more) ridiculous price, and no international trade. Strap that chicken!
-
Just as, to return to the original post, Ministers of the Crown don't get a pass for pulling numbers out of their arses, or trying to shove inconvenient data down the memory hole.
Apparently they do get a pass for breaking the law though.
-
Apparently they do get a pass for breaking the law though.
You've been reading kiwiblog comments again, haven't you?
-
Apparently they do get a pass for breaking the law though.
Um, no Kyle -- I'll leave it to the Privacy Commissioner to examine the case and come to a determination. But as I said, I've little sympathy for spin gone bad.
-
And I'm also all the way over 'human interest' stories that turn out to be a lot less than they appear.
-
The Shining Sun is... up my back passage...
but WTF is up with the photo on that story? I'm thinking "heeeere's Paula"...
I'm also thinking that - as it's a privacy issue it must be a Key Hole camera shot - that's why the sunlight is directly on her : - )
yrs
Jack Torrance
Your money's no good here... -
Craig, why are you so insistent that it's "spin gone bad"?
These two women were quoted in a Herald story. They both seem to have relatively high demands on the cash they receive (the one making "the big bucks" has three children, two of whom have serious medical needs).Their only spin was that taking away that allowance meant they couldn't continue in higher education because they didn't have enough spare money to do it. Plastering their benefit levels all over the Herald without ANY reference to what that money has to go on and what they have spare to pay for higher education is nothing to do with busting their spin.
-
You've been reading kiwiblog comments again, haven't you?
Eww. I don't go near the place. Spoils the effect of showering daily.
-
Craig, those people are getting what they are entitled to in terms of benefit. How does that detract from the points they were making?
Or is your sub-text that any one getting money from the state should shut up, be grateful, and take what is coming to them?
Maybe next time a patient complains about the Health Service all their medical records should be made available. What do you think?
-
My first instinct when reading the Paula Bennett release was that it's gone beyond the usual bounds. The Privacy Commissioner's site has this guidance:
6. Someone goes to the media about a Department's decision to stop their benefit and is quoted as saying it shows the unfairness of the policy.
The Minister could comment in a way that discloses no further information than is already in the report (for instance explaining how the policy is designed to apply and why it says what it does). If the individual has misrepresented the facts on which the Department's actions were based, the Minister could say that there are some undisclosed facts which give a somewhat different picture and, if the individual would authorise release of further details from the Department's files, the Minister would be happy to oblige. Again, these facts could be set out in a letter to the individual and the media duly informed.
In the current case two things leap out. First, the women were not told their information would be released (which goes against the ethos of the Privacy Act, the aim of which is to give people control and knowledge of how their private information is and will be used)
Second, some of the information released (e.g. about the woman's previous cleaning business failure) seems to go beyond what is relevant to the issue in the media. The article was looking at the effect of the policy on single parents retraining.
The minister was reframing the issue to be about whether or not the women have a received their fair share of help.
As Sir Humphrey Appleby would say, the Minister has adopted the tactic of playing the (wo)man not the ball.
-
Well put, Rachel. (Paula Bennett is my local MP. Despair!)
Also, this is another one of Keith's Posts That I Don't Understand. They are reasonably frequent, and they make me feel hugely stupid. But go hard!
-
Also, this is another one of Keith's Posts That I Don't Understand.
Which is understandable.
We probably do need a bit of a Plain England version if it's to make any kind of MSM impact.... -
We probably do need a bit of a Plain England version if it's to make any kind of MSM impact.
Plain English? You would have to use crayons and stick people for most of them.
-
Also, this is another one of Keith's Posts That I Don't Understand.
You know the bit where Nick Smith said, "if we do this* it will cost us a shit load of money". Well the report he says support his statement doesn't. In fact it says pretty much the opposite.
*this being cut carbon emmissions.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.