Posts by Gareth Ward
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Wow, I see from that link you provided Jolisa, that you can link directions to street view and "follow the blue line" through the street view. That's pretty neato...
-
Wellington is really really short on satellite imagery though huh? Even at quite wide shots there's "no imagery at this zoom level". Why's that?
-
Grey Lynn/Ponse is probably about four months old, and photographed real early on a weekend morning by my guess...
-
France are in our pool and are likely to be the first team we face??? Or do you mean we won't face them post-pool play until the final?
-
Universary - so THAT'S what the U stands for in AUT University... :>
Congrats - and has it really been three years since CU's were "allowed"? Time flies when people-choosing-or-not-being-allowed-to-marry are having fun...
-
Craig, I wasn't commenting on the policy definition from Mapp (I didn't expect a stronger response), I was commenting on the creation of an article from that response and building it into a breathless "we might get our jets back" when the comment was clearly worded in such as way as to promise no such thing...
-
Of course, all Mr Mapp said was: a defence white paper due to be completed next year would "provide a process to consider whether it is desirable to retain some level of jet training capability"
And the NZPA somehow turned that into a THE JETS MIGHT COME BACK story. Which, while much snazzier than "Mapp gives meaningless response to question" (come one, a "provide a process to consider whether it is desirable" is about as weak as the English language provides for) is hardly reason for the headline given...
-
Bailout
Porcine-Lipstick -
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.
-
33% of Chinese emissions arise from the production of exported goods.
Hang on, your comment explicitly stated that emissions trading was driving productive enterprise out of Europe?
That is not supported at all by those articles.I'm all for informed discussion on emission penalty at consumption rather than production (it would, for example, negate much of the whining about "but China's polluting too") but you stated business was being driven out of Europe by emissions trading - I'm looking for the backing to to those claims.