Labour adopts National climate change policy
It is no surprise that National has endorsed Labour’s emissions trading scheme. It is closer to National’s policy than to previous Labour policy.
- It is a carbon emissions trading system rather than a carbon tax
- Forest owners will get a portion of the carbon credits for their trees (something the Government has been refusing to do for years)
Incidentally I think the uncertainty over the price of carbon might mean that a tax is a better option at this stage, especially if one tied the tax to the actual level of warming.
No Right Turn has knowledgable analysis. He points out that while Labour is setting targets for various sectors to be carbon neutral (such as electricity by 2025), the exemption for agriculture means that being “carbon neutral by 2040 in everything but agriculture” is actually less of a commitment than National’s proposed goal of 50% by 2050.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
No tag for this post.
September 21st, 2007 at 7:00 am
“I think the uncertainty over the price of carbon might mean that a tax is a better option at this stage, especially if one tied the tax to the actual level of warming.”
You are trying to be funny, I assume.
“the actual level of warming”!!??
There is no agreement on “the actual level of warming” … and I’m not talking about so-called “deniers”, but believers. No two climate change scienists would agree on “the actual level of warming”.
September 21st, 2007 at 7:24 am
I am reminded of the urban legend about mea
September 21st, 2007 at 7:27 am
whoops.
Forget National then – this is utter stupidity, a fake commodity to deal with a non existent problem.
I wonder what the carbon footprint of all the administrators and traders of carbon credits sitting in their air conditioned high rises will add up to?
September 21st, 2007 at 7:38 am
Andrie is right, where is the evidence?
Oh BTW anyone fancy a voyage through the North West passage
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/09/070917-northwest-passage.html
September 21st, 2007 at 8:02 am
George – what I mean is one sets a particular measurement of global average temperature. And only if it increases (which it has not done for the last decade) does the tax increase. If it does increase then the tax increases in proportion to the problem.
Overseas thinktanks have done quite a bit of work on how this model would work, and they say it would provide greater certainty than a trading scheme.
September 21st, 2007 at 8:50 am
“Oh BTW anyone fancy a voyage through the North West passage
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/09/070917-northwest-passage.html
”
The passage was open between 1000-1200AD Sonic, who do you think was responsible for causing the global emissions that led to that? Vikings? Or was it those nasty Saxon polluters?
On another note – wheres the detail on investment in technology that will really cut our emmissions? If we are serious about saving the planet and cutting emissions, then we need to invest in companies developing either lower emission or nil emission technologies. With what parker was trumpeting yesterday with his 4c/ltr rise in petrol and saying what a great bargain, well it would be if that 4c was then going to a research company developing a better alternative to the engines our cars currently have. I’m envisaging someone will comission a report in a few years that will show nothing has changed and all this would have just been an excuse for some politicians to get a few photo ops wearing flanel shirts.
September 21st, 2007 at 9:00 am
Got a reference for that Bevan?
September 21st, 2007 at 9:03 am
I mean a reference for this
“The passage was open between 1000-1200AD”
Who navigated it then?
September 21st, 2007 at 9:15 am
1. Carbon trading schemes are a rort. They advantage incumbent businesses at the cost of the population. Once carbon permits are sold the government will need to buy them back from businesses in order to reduce the cap. They are a profit making instrument for business, where a carbon tax would be a profit making instrument for government. In this case I prefer the latter.
2. Climate change scientists agree pretty well on the level of warming in the troposphere. The research suggests tying the tax to this warming. You perhaps need to pay attention to the research sonic.
September 21st, 2007 at 9:23 am
“This a complete and utter hoax, if I may say so. The impact of the Kyoto Protocol, even if one believes in global warming and – I am somewhat suspicious of it – is that we will see billions and billions of dollars poured into fixing something that we are not even sure is a problem.”
- John Key, Hansard, 10 May 2005.
“The mad cow shouldn’t have signed”
- Bill English on the Kyoto Protocol (source: http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=123)
[DPF: The Kyoto Protocol is incredibly flawed. It will cost billions and the effect on global average temperature by 2050 will be a mere 0.007 degree reduction. And it misses out the biggest polluting country.]
September 21st, 2007 at 9:25 am
Advanced technology in renewable energy (Just around the corner) should restrict the growth of CO2 emissions and have the propensity to reduce them.
Carbon trading would be unnecessary.
September 21st, 2007 at 9:27 am
Kyoto is a rort that transfers Billions of dollars to the Russians should it ever get off the ground.
September 21st, 2007 at 9:37 am
I wish Bevan would come back and let us know who was sailing the North West Passage in 1000 AD.
September 21st, 2007 at 9:40 am
You could of course do some research of your own sonic. You clearly have lots of spare time.
September 21st, 2007 at 9:49 am
sonic – read ‘Collapse’ by Jared Diamond – it outlines the colonisation and subsequent extinction of the Scandinavians in What is now Newfoundland – caused in part the sudden drop in temperature which changed a lush arable land into an inhospitable place over a period of 70 years.
September 21st, 2007 at 9:50 am
I’ve read it Lee. Any chance you could look at a map and see how far Newfoundland is from the North West Passage?
September 21st, 2007 at 9:54 am
Fair point. But did you look at the link bevan provided?
September 21st, 2007 at 9:54 am
Hey Guys, facts are worthless when you’re arguing with socialist religionists. They will pursue their objectives in spite of what is correct, or known or sensible. Nothing will deter them. They believe in the mission with the zeal of the most evangelistic religionist. Climate change to them is one more step in the road to total control, that state they lust after so insatiably, and they will not be deterred.
Until they are consigned to the dustbins of history. The best place for such destructive irrational zealots. All that can happen after this, is that rational men must repair the damge.
September 21st, 2007 at 9:57 am
“I wish Bevan would come back and let us know who was sailing the North West Passage in 1000 AD.”
Sorry sonic, unlike you I was working and earning money. Heres a few for you to read, but Lee C has pretty much hit the nail on the head though.
http://www.spirasolaris.ca/sbb4g1bv.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage
Last paragraph: Effects of climate change.
Let me guess, your not going to be convinced by an Internet source?
September 21st, 2007 at 9:58 am
Stop Press: Tulip Prices Skyrocket….or the madness of crowds?
September 21st, 2007 at 9:58 am
“Fair point. But did you look at the link bevan provided?”
Thats his own link dude.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:02 am
The hysteria of the left- Crush enterprise in the west. Kill capitalism. Lower living standards for all. All power to Red China’s generals (Helen Klark’s best mates).
September 21st, 2007 at 10:03 am
Ok link one says
“Sought by explorers for centuries as a possible trade route, it was first navigated by Roald Amundsen in 1903-6″
Second link seems to be total speculation
Sorry Bevan, nice try.
Oh and PS
“unlike you I was working and earning money”
Me too, but I can multi-task.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:04 am
oops sorry. By the way, sonic, I have a theory about how those vikings ended up. the guy who found the last farmstead was very coy on what he found, but my theory is this.
Starving peasant go to manor house. Manor house runs out of food, starving peasants eat all livestock. Run ut of livestock. eat each other. last ones starve. That would explain why so few corpses were found afterwards, and why the discoverer was keen to cover up what he’d seen.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:06 am
The book you mention is an interesting one. IIRC what did in the VIkings was their inablity to adapt to conditions, the innuit did an ended up wiping the Vikings out.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:09 am
Welcome to the Y2K of the 21st Century Remember when we were told that all our computers will stop working at midnight 31st December 1999 unless we spent lots of mulah fixing them. Well I didnt and my computer kept on working nicely.
This is the snake oil sales con job of all times.
And lets not forget that our Gumint told us the economy would benefit by $500 million at a result of Kyoto
Alas they were wrong by $1 Billion.
For the benefit of the Socialists supporters who like their masters cannot add up a gain of $500 million plus a loss(which is gonna be the cost to muggins taxpayers) of $500 million adds up to the grand total of $1 Billion.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:11 am
Ok link one says
“Sought by explorers for centuries as a possible trade route, it was first navigated by Roald Amundsen in 1903-6″
Second link seems to be total speculation
Sorry Bevan, nice try.
First, I think you got the links around the wrong way. Second, I doubt you would have believed anything that didnt fit your biased ideology anyway, so take it or leave it I guess.
“unlike you I was working and earning money”
Me too, but I can multi-task.
Really, you’ll have to describe how you type text on a blog while twenty metres from your computer, that must be a wicked skill!
September 21st, 2007 at 10:16 am
GD, the ice is melting, or so you think that it is not and people ar just making it up?
Bevan, you are the one that argued the North West Passage was open in 1000 AD. It’s a big claim as the Americas were not discovered by Europeans yet. So I asked for sme evidence.
The vikings being on Greenland is not evidence of that I’m afraid.
You can witter on about my “biased ideology” (as if you have no bias yourself) but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The claim that people were happily sailing through the North West Passage 300 years before Columbus certainly fits into that category.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:17 am
Later on the area to which I refer was populated by the Scots Hence the words ‘Nova Scotia’. Culturally they were more inclined to consort with the Inuit, and the Inuit, as was their custom would lend their wives to the newcomers as a form of hospitality.
But it did not go well. The Scots cited religious reasons for the disagreement, while of course, the Inuit had their own version of why the situation didn’t work out..
Some research has found that the Inuit did not record their ideas in writing, rather, using carvings and oral history. The phrase still is in common currency in those parts of the world, by the descendents of those original Inuit. . They say (and Iithink I have the terminology here)
“On-quain o’oro. pulupulo” –
Roughly translated it means:
‘Hung like pistachios’.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:17 am
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2007/09/04/british-yachtsman-who-counted-global-warming-cross-arctic-now-trapped-
September 21st, 2007 at 10:19 am
Labour adopts National climate change policy
Only because National adopted it off them. The direction of government policy was very clear when National announced its BlueGreen package, and so they simply lifted it in a remarkable act of political ju-jitsu. Alternatively, you could argue that they simply readopted the policies they had in 1999, before their detour into Denialism.
As for the specifics, according to the cabinet papers I have, the problem with including forestry has always been that it could only be done in a broad rather than narrow scheme – and initially, Labour was unsure of political support, and so was planning to go narrow. National’s real contribution has been to back action, shifting the consensus and allowing the government to be far more ambitious than they had originally planned to be. And that is why the forest owners get their credits.
the exemption for agriculture means that being “carbon neutral by 2040 in everything but agriculture” is actually less of a commitment than National’s proposed goal of 50% by 2050.
It’s also worth pointing out that National supports that exemption (and in fact has opposed any limits on the agricultural sector) – meaning they have no hope of reaching their own goal.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:25 am
There is no agreement on “the actual level of warming” … and I’m not talking about so-called “deniers”, but believers. No two climate change scienists would agree on “the actual level of warming”.
And more importantly, what’s important is not the level of warming now, but the expected level of warming in twen or twenty or fifty years’ time. That’s what we’re “insuring” against.
As for the broader issue of tax vs trading, theoreticaly they have identical effects – the question is just which variable you have certainty over (price, or the levelof emissions). But from a practical POV, emissions trading is politicaly easier, in that once people have those credits, the policy will be very, very difficult to roll back. They can’t bang the tax drum to oppose it either.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:32 am
Once carbon permits are sold the government will need to buy them back from businesses in order to reduce the cap.
Not necessarily – it all depends on the level of bankability.
Under most schemes, permits are valid for a particular time period, so they allow the emission of a ton of CO2 between say 2009 and 2011 (you go longer than a year because you want emitters to be able to smooth their profile, make forward contracts, all that sort of thing). For example, the 21MT owners of pre-Kyoto forest will get as an allowance for deforestation will be able to be used until 2012, when it will be replaced with another batch. So, if you want to shrink the cap in the long term, you just issue fewer permits when current ones expire.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:49 am
It seems idiocy to me to stifle the economic growth of NZ to buy onto a system that seeks to alleviate a potential scenario based on a premise that is scientifically flawed.
Even if climate change was occurring due to human influence,instructing NZers to change their life styles is equivalent to punishing a little Maori boy for urinating in a sewage pond. (No racial stereotyping intended)
And by the way can any-one tell us why they’ve stopped calling it “Global Warming” and now refer to “Climate Change”
September 21st, 2007 at 10:50 am
“It is a tale … full of sound and fury; signifying nothing.”
September 21st, 2007 at 10:57 am
Sorry, cant resist it.
Bevan, you probably don’t realise this but sonic is only with us in this country because he was invited here, apparently on the basis of his transferable skills. This ability to multi task must be one of them.
G
September 21st, 2007 at 11:14 am
Firstly, I object to a massive tax that will hurt growth, when it has most certainly not been proven that its required.
Secondly: So what if agriculture is exempt? If you subscribe that reductions have to be made, it makes best sense to prioritise those reductions. Lets clean-up those areas that can be cleaned-up with the smallest impact on total productivity & growth, rather than put a broad brush across everything. The only realistic way to cut emissions from the agricultural sector is to kill it.
September 21st, 2007 at 11:23 am
Sonic The ‘experts” cant agree There are fors and againsts
Do you agree that Y2K was a con job and if not how thick are you.
Of course the bloody climate is changing Historical records show this But to put the blame on we humans is a con.
Governments need taxes to function. Some like ours are running out of good excuses to rape and pillage us. Then along comes a saviour that they can use with religious like zeal.
So saps like you buy into the con and then start berating people like me how ask the third question rather than just believing anything Im told by someone who puts Scientist in front of their bloody name and string of post nominals after it.
For goodness sake Stop being a lemming.
September 21st, 2007 at 11:26 am
Well the socialists have sold us a sack of shit here, what a fucking con job. Atleast being a farmer I don’t have to waste my hard earned money on this crap till 2013. Hopefully the bullshit that has just gone down will be well and truly shitted on from a great height by then.
As for the forest owners getting their own credits (great) but the government has not backed down, they realise the returns they receive from SOE energy companys will more then make up for any lost credits. The higher the price of carbon the more profit in the thieving socialists hands-arseholes.
September 21st, 2007 at 11:40 am
Its a religion alright gd and it looks like you and me risk being branded ‘heretics’.
We must ‘believe’ the socialist ‘dogma’ in the absence of proof because the great high priestess on the 9 floor has spoken.
The film ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle” exposed the lunacy of the arguments in favour of global warming being caused by Human produced CO2 so they change catch phrase to “Climate Change” and now we all expected to get “guilt ridden” every time there is a storm.
September 21st, 2007 at 11:44 am
“Bevan, you are the one that argued the North West Passage was open in 1000 AD. It’s a big claim as the Americas were not discovered by Europeans yet. So I asked for sme evidence.
The vikings being on Greenland is not evidence of that I’m afraid.
You can witter on about my “biased ideology” (as if you have no bias yourself) but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The claim that people were happily sailing through the North West Passage 300 years before Columbus certainly fits into that category.”
Sonic, this will be the last I mentionthe Nth West passage as it has little to do with this topic, apart from your attempt at side tracking the debate. There is alot of proof that the earth has had fluctuating temperature since before any record has been kept – you want proof of that, then try google, it may help. What do you think would happen to the ice caps during a warming period? What do you think would happen to the say North West passage?
Now sonic what do you think about the governments proposals? Do you think they go far enough? Do you think this policy will have any effect on emissions, as in will they stay the same or will they lower?
September 21st, 2007 at 11:44 am
But the emperor has no clothes….sigh.
September 21st, 2007 at 11:45 am
Spam, I think there are some gaps in your argument in point 1. There is no evidence that the tax will hurt growth. My arguments for a tax instead of an emissions trading scheme go something like:
1. Impact on imports/exports. A tax can be levied on imports and refunded on exports (same as we do for excise and GST). Therefore it doesn’t cause any transfer of jobs from NZ to elsewhere, and it is equitably imposed on imports. A carbon trading scheme makes it very hard to do this, so only really works if everyone in the world does it. A tax can be implemented stand alone without any other country choosing to do so.
2. Our current taxation regime attempts to tax wealth. It sort of does this by targeting income, but it is imperfect since the correlation between wealth and income isn’t 100%. Similarly, there is a correlation between wealth and carbon emission – richer people tend to emit more carbon. Again the correlation isn’t 100%, but it is probably as good as the income-wealth linkage. So we reduce income tax, and create a carbon tax. No big problem here. And, if you actively minimise your carbon emission, you can give yourself a tax cut. Actively reducing your income is harder.
3. Granting of emissions permits to incumbent industries gives those industries a form of protection, and essentially gifts something of value to them. I agree that if they are time limited permits then every three years they will have to bid for new ones (I presume), giving the govt some revenue. I would almost be OK with this. My concern is that many schemes seem to contemplate granting a perpetual property right that can be onsold, essentially gifting wealth to incumbents.
4. Whether you believe in global warming/climate change or not, the political pendulum has moved. As I’ve been saying for some time, some form of mitigation will be implemented – the public in general are convinced. Our choice is to let the greenies and lefties do it to us, or to be involved in designing a scheme that minimises the economic impact. I reckon we are better to get on board.
For what reason do you believe that a properly implemented carbon tax, with offsetting income tax reduction, would reduce growth?
September 21st, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Beavn, like many climate change deniers you just made something up, and are now getting all shirty when asked to provide evidence.
“There is alot of proof that the earth has had fluctuating temperature since before any record has been kept”
No disagreement, but hardly proof that it was ice free in 1000 AD is it as you so confidently stated?
To avoid embarrasment in future I’d suggest not just making stuff up and posting it.
Nuff said.
“Now sonic what do you think about the governments proposals? Do you think they go far enough”
Personally no, we are well past the point where carbon trading schemes can have the desired effect. We are going to need a virtual revolution in how we generate power and transport ourselves and our cargoes.
However I do welcome it as a first step, at least a start. It is also gratifying that the National party is finally distancing itself from those who continue to deny reality.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Jeez sonic, its a bit rich for you to be getting into people for making stuff up isn’t it?
September 21st, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Good post Paul
Your point 4. is the critical one.
The propaganda war on Climate Change” has been won-in the meantime anyway- by the left.
Conservative parties have to appear to be concerned and prepared to do something or they’ll never get elected.
The important thing is that the Nats develop a strategy that buys time (for the sake of our economy) to allow the whole global warming theory to be subjected to rigorous scientific scrutiny.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:09 pm
You keep trotting that one out gd, and I’ll keep taking issue with it.
1. I’m in IT, and no-one thought or suggested that computers would stop working. What could have happened, and actually (get this gd) WOULD have happened at the place I worked, is that the date formats of systems that relied on dates to calculate important things like… debt, interest etc… would have changed & screwed those time dependant calculations.
2. We didn’t so much as touch our PCs, at home or work, because even if they did insist the date was 1/1/1900, who would care?
But the Y2K bug did exist for some systems, we were aware of it since the early 1980s, and took steps to ensure there were no problems.
3. While civilsation would no doubt have survived had we done nothing… your bank account could’ve looked a bit sad in the ensuing days. Your mortgage might have looked a bit odd too.
The fact nothing much happened is because of the work people put into ensuring they didn’t – instead of assuming the bug was a myth because you personally did jack shit to help, you could spare a thought for the money & the effort put in by institutions & people who did.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:13 pm
The Nats should stick with their earlier comments (which were correct) and say that there is no need for any taxes regulations etc as proposed by the Labour Party or the global socialist movement. They should say the whole climate change theory is rubbish, and that they will see that the man in the street does not have to shell out to appease the egos of a bunch of anti-capitalist socialist fuckwits. The rational approach has to start somewhere sometime. Why not right now in NZ?
The Conservatives in the UK are suffering in the polls for their subjugation to the climate change fraud. The Nats have a good chance here to further cement their currently ascendant position, if they just have the balls to go for it, and the brains to argue it. They don’t have either of course. If they’d ever had them, we wouldn’t be in this god awful mess.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:13 pm
“Do you agree that Y2K was a con job and if not how thick are you. ”
Fuck me, I keep reading & you’re still at it? I know that it wasn’t & I’m nowhere near as thick as you.
“For goodness sake Stop being a lemming.”
Think about who is being the lemming gd, the ignorant beasts that won’t deviate from their course? Or the ones who say “hang on, there’s this cliff coming up, let’s turn around.”
September 21st, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Paul,
I believe that growth will be affected, because eventually, the costs get passed on to the consumer. The first thing that the consumers will cut in the face of higher expenditure is savings, which actually means less investment. With the socialist predilection to tax the ‘rich’ and subsidise the ‘poor’, then its actually going to result in the knock-on impact on investment being magnified.
I do agree that its better to help design a system than have one imposed, but I do consider that a bit defeatest! Its based on the assumption that we atually do need a system. I don’t think that that is a assumption based on sound science – its become a political issue (sold with all the typical political spin, like Sonic screaming “denier!” a few posts earlier), and one that has become a multi-billion dollar industry. When a company like Enrom feels that they can make more out of carbon trading than they can out of energy trading, then people should take note.
I’ve said elsewhere that I admire the capitalists managing to subvert the green cause to their own ends – but I do resent being on the receiving end of it.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Reg, agree that the war has pretty much been won. My argument is that instead of coming along with dragging feet, and an intention of delaying the whole process, we should get in boots and all.
If we design a carbon tax that replaces some portion of the income tax, it has very little economic impact. I see little downside, therefore I don’t see any reason to drag our feet. We just get over it and do it. Yes it will result in reduced carbon emissions, but those people who want to drive a big SUV, or use electricity from coal-fired power stations to heat their uninsulated houses, can still do so. Those who add insulation, buy a diesel VW golf, or whatever else, will effectively end up with a tax cut.
And the really cunning bit of all this is that if we can get the left to agree to this tax (who wouldn’t?), and get it set with a 1:1 offset on income tax (hard, but not unachievable), we will give everyone in the country back control of their tax affairs. Those who really want a tax cut can have one, just modify your life style a bit. We could go ahead and reduce the size of the state without anyone whimpering a bit about it. Talk about a guerrilla campaign!!
And llew: agree completely. Which doesn’t make AGW real, but removes one of the ongoing bleats about conspiracy theories.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:17 pm
like many climate change deniers….
No disagreement, but hardly proof that it was ice free in 1000 AD is it as you so confidently stated?
Spare me sonic – my sides are splitting, I never stated the earth was “ice free”, nor am I getting shitty, nor have I ever stated my position here in regard to Global Warming. Now whose making stuff up? BTW, you say you have no disagreement that the earth has warmed and cooled during stages of the earths history – what do you think happens to ice during a cooling period?
You asked for a source – I gave you one, just because was not via a BBC documentary does not mean it is not a source.
Personally no, we are well past the point where carbon trading schemes can have the desired effect. We are going to need a virtual revolution in how we generate power and transport ourselves and our cargoes.
I agree, this nonsense parker is trumpeting is no more than another revenue stream to the governments coffers, if they really wanted to cut our pollution, they would fund research into cleaner power generation and vehicle engines – the fact they are not shows that Labour has seen the potential for increased Tax revenue. I mean why try to solve the problem when Taxes can be generated.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Or the ones who say “hang on, there’s this cliff coming up, let’s turn around.”
For fucks sake Llew. A cliff is an easy discernible impediment to progress. Where the fuck is the evidence for anthropological climate change? Here’s the news you propaganda sucking scaremongering socialized rabbit- THERE IS NONE.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:21 pm
side show bob said:..
“..At least being a farmer I don’t have to waste my hard earned money on this crap till 2013..”
so..ssb..just happy to continue polluting/poisoning our country..eh..?
nuthin’ to do with you..eh..?
and what are your particular brands of poisons..?
are you of the cow-shit/run-off persuasion..?
(doing such an efficient job on our waterways/lakes..?)
or just one of those run-of-the-mill-growing types..?
who drench/poison the country with their pesticides etc..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 21st, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Spam, I’m not convinced that passing costs onto consumers automatically impacts growth. What should happen is that they make different choices – pick the product with the small wrapping, rather than the cornflakes in a box that is 50% air. Run your air conditioning at off peak times. Insulate your house. Make your second car a small one, and use that around town when you are on your own. Work from home a few days a month. Buy refill packs of dishwasher detergent instead of a whole new big plastic pack that was made from oil.
I don’t think these are particularly large lifestyle choices, I don’t think they really impact anybodies quality of life. And we aren’t forcing these changes, just attributing the full costs of people’s behaviour so they can make an informed choice. If they still want to keep on doing what they do today, yes, it costs a bit more money, but obviously the value to them of that SUV is greater than the collective cost. That is fine.
I have long been an AGW “denier”, but must confess that the argument is getting strong that there is change, and that it is human caused. It doesn’t necessarily follow that prevention is a better answer than mitigation – the cost of prevention is generally estimated as high, the cost of mitigation low. However, in the case of a carbon tax I don’t see the cost as being high – it is just shifting taxation from one basis to another, same net taxation. I don’t see that really impacting growth to a huge extent.
At the moment, the alternative seems to be for the greenies and lefties to impose this as an additional tax (new govt revenue), or to impose a stealth tax (cap and trade) with a whole range of unpleasant side effects. Sure, compared against a perfect world in which we did nothing until the science was proven beyond reasonable doubt, a tax looks bad. Against the realistic alternatives, it suddenly looks pretty good.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:26 pm
“so..ssb..just happy to continue polluting/poisoning our country..eh..?”
You’re the one who should be happy. Without the loot you steal from SSB, no hopers like you would be combing rubbish dumps for scraps to eat, living under corrugated iron and shitting right where you live you stupid commie lemming.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:28 pm
“but must confess that the argument is getting strong that there is change, and that it is human caused. ”
Keep your confessions inside the temple of the climate change religionists please. The argument is growing weaker every day. (unless you’re a head in sand mainstream media propaganda junkie)
September 21st, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Bevan – waste of time the NZ govt funding research.
1. Same “drop in the ocean” argument. NZ’s funding or not funding makes no difference in a global sense.
2. Imposing a cost on carbon automatically gives funds for research – private sector will invest in order to develop lower cost technologies
3. Government have historically been abysmal at funding research. They just fund their pet projects. Cue Jeanette Fitzsimmons funding her own personal company to do green power.
I would much prefer that we didn’t encourage state funding of the private sector for any purposes. Purchasing from the private sector I am OK with (for example prisons or hospitals), but the lefties seem to have something against it.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Gotta love that way phil is concerned about someone elses poison going into some elses field, while he uses his own uber-toxic weed to fry his own brain! Freedom from toxins should start at home
September 21st, 2007 at 12:39 pm
llew You and I will just have to disagree on the Y2K issue. On this issue Im still waiting for the evidence. The jury is still out. IMHO future generations will look back on these days and regard the climate change advocates as we look back on those who said the world was round and ships would fall off the edge if they went looking for new lands.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:52 pm
The only people who deny climate change are those irked by the extra money it costs…
If climate change cost nothing to repair, the right would be all for it.
That in itself is enough of an argument that climate change is real. Big money has opposed so many ideas that have advanced living conditions and technological advancements that it can always be banked on to oppose anything that costs money, regardless of the human and environmental costs.
Yes, and the co-ideologues (climate change denier scientists and climate-phobic politicians) of big-money who sell their soul (and political beliefs) to the highest paymaster. It must feel awesome to be such a sell-out.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:54 pm
“The only people who deny climate change are those irked by the extra money it costs…”
The lying propagandists of the left are out in force today. GW must be an essential part of their plan to control.
http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Than+Half+of+all+Published+Scientists+Endorse+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htm
September 21st, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Redbaiter – Nazi Germany was defeated 62 years ago. Give up the fight already!
September 21st, 2007 at 12:56 pm
So PP is now able to discern that the motives of numerous disparate scientists are, in fact, the same?!? Tell me, have you ever visited the planet earth?
September 21st, 2007 at 1:01 pm
The only people who deny climate change are those irked by the extra money it costs…
If climate change cost nothing to repair, the right would be all for it.
That in itself is enough of an argument that climate change is real.
What bollocks! If it costed zero to repair, then the right wouldn’t mind people wasting their time with it!
Otherwise, I have a problem with purple elephants stomping around in my back-yard. I will accept your cheque or direct debit to help me fix it. I presume you will have no objections.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Oh – an PP – take a look at who is REALLY getting the funding for research into climate change, and what their conclusions are…..
September 21st, 2007 at 1:05 pm
“Redbaiter – Nazi Germany was defeated 62 years ago. Give up the fight already!’
Hahha.. witness people, the cluelessness of the climate change promoters, the perspicacity and comprehensive powers of those who drink the kool aid of the left and their global warming myth. FFS…!!! To think this is the kind of mentality that rules this country..!!!
September 21st, 2007 at 1:12 pm
“llew You and I will just have to disagree on the Y2K issue.”
Yeah – sorry, I was grumpy about something else – but we did put a lot of work in that we don’t think was wasted.
However, I do & did shake my head at people who thought they may not be able to preset their VCR after a certain date.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:13 pm
I see Ratbiters latest election poster is out.
Exclusive preview here
September 21st, 2007 at 1:13 pm
AGW is real. Those on the right try to deny it or undestate its potential effect, those on the left tend to overstate its potential effects both I think for political reasons. I don’t think that anyone has managed to accurately quantify the relative costs of mitigation vs adaptation, and how big the costs are will in large part be in how various strategies are implemented. If nuclear and solar power were widely accepted then mitigation could be cheaper, if we need to increase fossel fuel use to maintain economic growth because technology doesn’t come up with good answers or society won’t accept those answers adaptation may be cheaper.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:15 pm
“A cliff is an easy discernible impediment to progress.”
I think the point was that lemmings ignore that easily discernable impediment. But you’re right, I’m not addressing the climate change issue, I was off ranting about Y2K at gd.
To address the climate change… I really do hope you’re right Redbaiter. Make my life a lot easier in the long run.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:18 pm
“Here’s the news you propaganda sucking scaremongering socialized rabbit-”
You been watching recent David Lynch movies or something?
September 21st, 2007 at 1:19 pm
“AGW is real.”
No it isn’t.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:22 pm
“I see Ratbiters latest election poster is out.”
Yawn….
….zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…
September 21st, 2007 at 1:34 pm
“you propaganda sucking scaremongering socialized rabbit-”
Again with the rabbits?
September 21st, 2007 at 1:35 pm
“You been watching recent David Lynch movies or something?”
Don’t think so. Blue Velvet was enough for me. One movie I did see tho was “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. Seen it? …or were you in too big a rush to take in Gore’s Goebellian propaganda to be bothered?
September 21st, 2007 at 1:36 pm
“Again with the rabbits?”
Yeah. I thought he may have been listening to you.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Thanks for that llew I know the feeling Back on point I just hope we arent over reacting to something that we really dont yet fully understand.
We know that Gumints especially of the Left are fond of being seen to be ‘doing “something anything in fact that appears to be ’solving ” the problem. Often we you asked the 3rd question you find that they dont actually understand what the problem is.
But that rather than admit this they flay around throwing vast sums of money in the process.
IMHO we all of us need to take a big deep breath before we rush into committing to what we dont know.
Maybe this is one time where fools rush in were wise men and women fear to tread
September 21st, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Cool. The latest has giant rabbits doing housework.
Seen neither, will eventually get to both. Gore’s will make me feel bad because I have a massive carbon footprint. Massive.
Although I put off getting a private jet, so maybe I’ve done my bit.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Warming appears real – all measurements of the troposphere show warming. There is some doubt on whether it is human caused or not, on the balance of probabilities it appears to be, but I wouldn’t say the science is settled. The high end estimates as to the amount of the warming appear to be coming down – the successive IPCC reports have reduced the high end estimates (which are the ones the hysterical sections of the media and the left usually quote).
There is still a lot of doubt in areas of the science, but I haven’t yet seen conclusive evidence either way.
There are plenty of greenie/leftie types who will tell you that all “deniers” are funded by big money. Of course, they leave out the fact that anybody who doesn’t agree with AGW cannot be funded through any other channel – most governments refuse to fund their research. The reality is that those who believe AGW is happening have their entire careers and credibility tied up in being right, their vested interest is just as strong as those who are funded by “big money.” All research is funded from somewhere, perhaps the answer is to ignore the funding and the person, and look at the science itself to see whether it is solid?
A number of informed commentators have pointed out that the peer review process for warming is quite flawed. The normal approach with peer review is to publish your methodology, and for others to seek to confirm your results. With warming, the methodology is a massive quantitative model, and often the details of the operation of that model are not published. This model is usually tuned using data up to the current time, so by definition it always aligns with the observed trend to date. At question is whether it accurately models the future trend.
In order to peer review these models the usual approach is to compare the output to that of other similarly complex quantitative models. In essence, a model is deemed to be correct if it gives similar results to other existing models. This is not quite the same thing as peer review is in other fields of science, and I think it is quite right that we would be more sceptical about whether this represents good review.
However, this is a long way from RedBaiter’s viewpoint that AGW is a fiction and we are all being conned. All I am saying is that the science is murky, there are credible doubts. There is a clear recent warming trend that seems to be best explained by human activity. There is no certainty that the trend will accelerate (v’s decelerate, which seems more likely to me). It isn’t clear that the costs of prevention are higher than the costs of mitigation, or even that the warming has costs at all.
September 21st, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Does it matter if it’s caused by human activity? Seems to me, the salient questions are:
Is it happening?
Is it bad?
Can we do anything about it?
September 21st, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Maybe
No
Nope
September 21st, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Good questions.
Maybe
Maybe
With a cost.
My view is that we can trim the top end estimates with relatively low cost. Getting to zero climate change is both not useful, and not economically feasible.
September 21st, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Almost certainly (90%+)
Maybe
Yes, but whats worth doing? don’t know.
September 21st, 2007 at 2:32 pm
“Can we do anything about it?”
Llew, like “we’ did with DDT, where millions have died because of weakly justified alarmist rhetoric?
(you’re alright Lllew, a great writer and your blog is a good read. Pity you’re like so many other good NZers, so fucked politically. Interesting to see the different mentalities that are ascendant in different countries and speculate on how citizens became this way. When did NZers, once well educated and independent, become such lame government dependent propaganda sucking navel gazing half educated dimbulb lefties, and how did it happen??)
September 21st, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Oh a new campaign slogan!
Vote for me lame government dependent propaganda sucking navel gazing half educated dimbulbs”
September 21st, 2007 at 2:59 pm
which seat are you standing in..?..ratbiter..?
and it is as a national party candidate..?
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 21st, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Some good and informative postings folks
Paul has introduced a new concept here though that is confusing me a little.
That is “zero climate change”.
Thats a bit frightening. Lets hope if it happens its a fine day here ,with light rain falling in the water catchment area!
September 21st, 2007 at 3:11 pm
If I ever stood as a candidate it would be for the “Get the fuck out of my face you socialist scumbags” party. Still to be registered AFAIK.
September 21st, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Oh looks like our wee chum is losing his temper.
Did word of your antics get back to the party?
September 21st, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Reg, exactly my point. Zero climate change isn’t desirable or possible, the question is how much we are prepared to spend to avoid how much climate change. I suggest we could spend a bit more than we do now, and avoid some (undesirable) change.
September 21st, 2007 at 3:41 pm
i want to come and heckle you..ratbiter..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 21st, 2007 at 3:41 pm
“Oh looks like our wee chum is losing his temper.”
Oh yeah, the wittering of insignificant little try hard twits like you is something that really infuriates me. Do your rabbits get mad when you talk to them. I guess not, or they probably wouldn’t get their carrots right?
September 21st, 2007 at 3:44 pm
” I want to come and heckle you..ratbiter..”
Phil, you’re so lame you couldn’t heckle jeckle. For one thing, you wouldn’t have your imaginary friends there with you, cheering you on.. I can’t see you functioning without that psychotic illusion..
September 21st, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Looks like he has lost it now Phil.
I’m sure he will be kicking the cat when he gets home, or the rabbit!
Have a good weekend Phil, Ratbiter, better get the blood-pressure checked.
September 21st, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Say ‘hi’ to the rabbits for me..!!
September 21st, 2007 at 4:22 pm
The planet is warming up. Not many people doubt this. I know some arguments like the urban heat islanf effect are swirling around but they are weak.
The causes are quite possibly anthropogenic, however, Kyoto was never the answer to the problem.
CO2 emissions in 1990 were not at a sustainable level to prevent global warming. In the unlikely event that everyone signed up to kyoto in a big happy consensus, it would only slow projected climate change by around 6%.
Kind of like instead of hitting a high average temperature in 2107, we’d get there six years earlier instead. Not worth the hassle.
September 21st, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Redbaiter:
If I could ever so briefly distract you from Sonic-slapping duty…
You took me to task on a previous thread for categorising you as libertarian (hence the comparison with Andrew W). I’ve always thought that libertarianism stood for (in particular) minimalist government and championing private property rights. And your support for the “Get the fuck out of my face you socialist scumbags” does rather seem to put you in that category. Am I missing something? How about spelling out your key political beliefs – you know, the top 5 policies?
September 21st, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Farrar -for a former researcher, you’re opinions are often grossly underinformed.
A tax tied to the actual level of warming, what the hell? Do you have any idea of the measurement problems incumbant in such an idea – natural cyclical variations and the decades long lag between making a choice to emit (which is what a tax attmepts to affect) and a warming effect on the climate are the two fatal problems with a tax tied to warming that that I thought of before I even finished your sentence.
And don’t give us this rubbish about taking National’s policy. National’s Blue-Green document, which I’ve read front to back, came out after the strategy papers that led to this announcement and all the Blue-Green doc does is vaguely suggest some kind of pricing mechanism might be a good idea …
The price mechanism was inevitably cap and trade, we’ve all known it would be a cap and trade system since National, UF, and NZF blocked the carbon tax you now purport to love back in 2005.
and if anything National went backwards after that: when Key annoucnend the 50 by 50 target (not enough and too far away, and so far away we can tell ourselves we don’t have to do anything now) he made no mention of any pricing mechanism, or indeed any substantive policy.
[DPF: Neither of those are fatal problems. Both systems have delays, and the fact measurement is so hard should make one pause about the overall issue. You contradict yourself when you claim we all now purport to love a tradeable emissions system when in this very post I said I had reservations. You are of course too blinkered to even realise that I am saying I disagree with National's policy also. And if you think teh 50 by 50 target is not enough you should be condemning Labour for their policy which NRT says doesn't even go as far as that. But hey as usuaul you have the intellectual consistency of a sponge - you blindly defend the Govt on all issues and attack National on all issues.]
September 21st, 2007 at 5:04 pm
IIlew
A lot of people in IT knew that the real problems with Y2K was not that massive. The point however, is that the media swept up the public into this frenzy, where people actually believed that VCR’s would melt down and planes would just drop out of the sky.
Was it bullshit? Offcourse.
Did most of the top end IT industry buy it? Shit no!
But the public did! and that is the point. The rumors when it first started was the biggest joke out. I remember arguing with my MIL (She was the head of admin for a major company at the time.) I could not believe that people could be that gullible. (“you mean no-one in the world ever tested their products against this happening?”)
Te point I think that gd makes is that the media whips opinion up to a “critical mass” point. And that did happen. At the time, we were in the CBD of Auckland in an office block. Big rent. On three of the floors, there were Y2K companies.
September 21st, 2007 at 5:14 pm
“I’ve always thought that libertarianism stood for (in particular) minimalist government and championing private property rights.”
No. Those ideals have always been the foundation stone of Conservative ideology. I’ve got no time for Johnny come latelies who attempt to adopt Conservative policies as their own and then say there’s no difference between left and right. (leave Andrew Wank out of it please, I made my feelings clear on the thread you reference)
Whereas Conservatives of today have indeed strayed a long way from those basic principles, the way forward is to restore them as the important core values they once were and for Conservatives to assault the left who are trying to destroy those ideas.
Whilst there is so little to differentiate between Labour and National, (the Libs are right in a way) there can be no relief. The way forward is to return to true Conservative values and establish clearly and concisely the difference between the left (big powerful government subjugating the individual and attacking traditional values a philosophy based on the ideas of Karl Marx, Gramasci and other post modernists) and the right (minimal government, individual rights and property rights, and a political philosophy based on the ideas framed in the American Constitution).
Then the right must sell those ideas, and convert those besotted by socialism to traditional Conservative values. I know I can argue why this is the best way forward. I wish there were people in the National Party who could also do this.
Hope that helps.
September 21st, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Thanks for your considered response – much appreciated. I only wish others could debate ideas in a mutually respectful fashion.
September 21st, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Actually, on my last point, I might single out for special mention Phillip John/Roger Nome. His style of debate is to fling insults (generally regarding the intellectual ability of others – as if he’s anyone to talk) and side-step issues. At least that’s been my experience of him.
September 21st, 2007 at 5:47 pm
“Actually, on my last point, I might single out for special mention Phillip John/Roger Nome.”
My Granny once showed me one of those old dolls called “string pull dolls” (I think) They had a string in their back or their navel, and when you pulled it, the doll repeated one of a number of phrases. That’s the gnome rogerer, and every time you pull his string, you get back routine leftist garbage on every issue. So predictable. So boring, and so damn full of it. He argues every issue as if he’s never ever heard of the arguments against it, and he probably hasn’t. Brainwashed, narrow, shallow and uninteresting.
September 21st, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Bring out your dead, please be concerned on my behalf….
The new Landcruiser 4.5 V8 2x turbo charged diesel looks like torque to die for.
With 285×75 Coopers? Enough said.
One on the way.
Give my regards to your inadequate Prius…. or is that a wee priapism you’re coping with…. you Gaia raper you.
September 21st, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Well, I would argue that the cruiser is a better vehicle for the environment than the equivalent petrol model. The increasing availability of great diesel vehicles is a benefit of the interest in carbon (at least partially driven by the level of tax on carbon and petrol in Europe).
The Prius is a joke, I laugh at anyone who has one. Its the conspicuous consumption of the greenie sect – look at me, I’m saving the environment. The fact of the heavy metals inside, the much shorter vehicle life, and the fuel economy that isn’t so flash, is completely ignored. I had one of my friends on about it, and he tried to argue that the conspicuous bit was the important part – he was setting an example that he cared, even if it actually didn’t do any good. Wankers like that are part of the problem (despite him being a very good friend of mine…)
Coopers – a brand of beer? Can you carry that many slabs in the back of it?
September 21st, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Peak Oil Conspiracy, in a previous thread Willie made the observation that “…there are two kinds of people populating our Parliament.
1. Those who believe its Parliaments job to protect our rights to life liberty and property, and to defend us from those who try to take those away – thugs and foreign threats.
2. Those who believe its Parliaments job to use force to tell people how to live their life, trade away citizens liberty in order to mold their “virtuous/safe/strong/proud/whatever society” and take and redistribute property without compensation.”
the difference between Libertarians and conservatives (such as Redbaiter) is that libertarians choose option 1, conservatives option 2.
As far as style goes, RB is as he has again illustrated one of the most abusive commenters on this site, I would have way less arguments with him if he wasn’t such a prick.
September 21st, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Forgive me father …for I have sinned.
I’ve used “necessary” horsepower on river crossings.
I’ve laughed myself to sleep at the socialist apparatchik angst concerning sheep flatulence.
And my conclusion?
Ignore the fascists of the left……
It’s just another “ism” out to claim your soul……run by inadequate people who never did anything.
You silly, manipulated, small town NZ suckers.
September 21st, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Tina, do you know Phil? Have you had some of his cookies?
September 21st, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Well, not phil as such……but Rog et moi are posting buddies…. until I rough him up and he sulks.
Don’t worry Andy, it’ll all work out…..and you mendicants wont win.
It’s an economic impossibility.
Gosh…..have I said too much?
September 21st, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Andrew W:
I’m slightly intrigued that you say conservatives choose option 2. Are you putting conservatism on the same plain as socialism (both interventionist approaches, albeit each with a very different world vision) – and then contrasting conservatism/socialism with libertarianism? If so, then (leaving aside the Libertarianz) would you classify National as conservative, and Act as libertarian?
It seems to me that people can bring a very different perspective to bear on the legitimate role (and limits) of government – and clearly there are different understandings of conservatism and libertarianism.
On the subject of this thread, for instance, the sub-text is that National and Labour are indistinguishable when it comes to climate change policy. And on any number of other areas, National’s been tarred with the Labour-lite brush. Perhaps deservedly so.
But, at a more fundamental level, do you think it’s the role of government to impose climate change measures on society?
September 21st, 2007 at 8:30 pm
“Gosh…..have I said too much?”
Probably, I’m not a mendicant Tina.
September 21st, 2007 at 8:31 pm
You sure ?
I’ve got a nose for opinionated cadavers.
September 21st, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Andy…..You have to get on top of the speed thing if you want us to relate like Rog and me.
I’m thinking you’re inadequate, slow, Prius like……come on surprise, Auntie Tina.
September 21st, 2007 at 8:42 pm
When Willie made his two types of parlimentarians observation (on the criminalise party pills thread), I put my finger up for option 1, Red was there as were a load of socialists, noone else said where they stood, all were happy to see aspects of state control over peoples personal lives.
I agree with Red that we have seem mainstream parties moving left over the last century, this is reflected in a higher and higher %GDP as Government expenditure.
The state can have a role in combating problems that occur in situations of “open range” that can result in a scenario known as the tradgedy of the commons – where it is not possible for nonmonopolistic proprietorship of a resource, and that absence of ownership can result in the destruction or damage to that resource. In this case the atmosphere.
September 21st, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Ok…..I sympathise.
September 21st, 2007 at 8:47 pm
“would you classify National as conservative, and Act as libertarian?”
Pretty much, ACT and the Greens oppose the outlawing of BZP, all other parties support it.
September 21st, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Ok, I obviously missed that discussion.
“I agree with Red that we have seem mainstream parties moving left over the last century, this is reflected in a higher and higher %GDP as Government expenditure.”
Absolutely.
“The state can have a role in combating problems that occur in situations of “open range” that can result in a scenario known as the tradgedy of the commons – where it is not possible for nonmonopolistic proprietorship of a resource, and that absence of ownership can result in the destruction or damage to that resource. In this case the atmosphere.”
Yes, but you equivocate here. Exactly how far would you go in allowing the state to “combat” climate change?
The first thing everyone thinks of is taxes. I’ve seen Phillip John/Roger Nome propose a petrol tax. In fact that’s been the only solution he’s offered – despite all his blusterings about oil reserves and any new-age speak you care to mention – neo-liberal economics, Keynesian economics, IMF conspiracies, Fay Richwhite might even get a mention And carbon taxes seem to be flavour of the month.
If not taxes, then what other “measures” can a government legitimately impose? Surely no-one is going to advocate activity regulation (certain activities permissible, others banned).
September 21st, 2007 at 9:05 pm
If you check my comment at 2:30, I don’t claim to know how serious AGW is or will be or how much it needs to be combated, I’ll go for some sort of trading scheme rather than a tax but I hate complex systems, cap and trade? Pass.
September 21st, 2007 at 9:08 pm
I suppose the reason that the AGW debate is so hot is because there are no obvious answers or easy solutions
September 21st, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Andrew W is a coward and a liar who constantly misrepresents my views and has done so above. I have never for example, advocated that BZP should be made illegal. I repeat he is a coward and a liar and also a narcissist, for without this device of misrepresentation, and his pompous self important preaching, he would be deprived of the attention that really drives his postings here. Without his lies, his pathetically immature postings would have the impact of a feather dropped into the Grand Canyon. Snot nosed little weasel. (note he dodged the question in Tina’s post at 8:27. Yellow back.)
September 21st, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Arguably a trading system is tax impost in drag. All that happens is the government imposes costs and leaves the market to allocate those costs as efficiently as possible. Isn’t the point that the costs are traded away by someone (who can’t afford to incur those costs) and incurred by someone else (who can)?
September 21st, 2007 at 9:18 pm
It’s a sad boy thing Red…..if poor wee Andy starts something and runs away ….what’s a girl to think?
September 21st, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Don’t be frightened Andy ….I’m just a girl.
Perhaps we can work on your inadequacies together.
But first comes acceptance , like at AA.
September 21st, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Here’s the thread in question: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/09/party_pill_ban_passes_first_reading.html
RB, I never said you advocated that BZP should be made illegal.
“note he dodged the question in Tina’s post at 8:27.” sigh.
“Isn’t the point that the costs are traded away by someone (who can’t afford to incur those costs) and incurred by someone else (who can)?”
I thought the point was that producing CO2 would be a cost and absorbing CO2 would be an income.
September 21st, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Tell me about AA Tina, did it help you?
September 21st, 2007 at 9:30 pm
“Here’s the thread in question: ”
Whats the fucken question dumbfuck?
September 21st, 2007 at 9:31 pm
“I’m just a girl.”
That’s obvious, my condolences as it seems to be a problem for you.
September 21st, 2007 at 9:33 pm
“Whats the fucken question dumbfuck?”
Is RB one of the most abusive commenters on this site?
September 21st, 2007 at 9:33 pm
C’mon Andy…..I’m your biggest fan.
You can do better.
Speed, wit, adequacy.
Self talk is your friend.
September 21st, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Fuck off you pathetic cowardly little liar. Go somewhere else and play your silly little attention seeking games loser.
September 21st, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Ahh Tina, if only you were younger.
September 21st, 2007 at 9:36 pm
“Ahh Tina, if only you were younger.”
How pathetically lame..
September 21st, 2007 at 9:37 pm
“Fuck off you pathetic cowardly little liar.”
State one lie I’ve told RB.
September 21st, 2007 at 9:39 pm
You constantly lie about my views. ..its a device you employ becasue of youre narcissitsm. …and like all half educated socialists, you don’t know the difference between contempt and abuse.
September 21st, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Oooh, Andy….I’ve been trying to tell you gently …you seem not to be up to it conversationally with the grown up girls.
But don’t despair, a trip to Thailand is a wonderful opportunity for older gentlemen.
Alas …..on home turf, the slow don’t rate.
September 21st, 2007 at 9:42 pm
I have never lied about your views, you are capable of stating your views and do so unambiguously. You however call me all sorts of things, “commie” for a start, do you think I’m a communist RB?
September 21st, 2007 at 9:43 pm
You said, “here’s the thread IN QUESTION” I repeat. What is the question??
September 21st, 2007 at 9:46 pm
“Alas …..on home turf, the slow don’t rate.” True Tina, but you needn’t worry about me on that score. Good luck with your own search though..
September 21st, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Clearly things are not clear for you in your second childhood RB, I’ve told you the question.
September 21st, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Not with a bang, he goes, but with a whimper…..
Like I said ……I sympathise
September 21st, 2007 at 9:50 pm
You off to bed now Tina? I think you and RB should get together, the elderly need love to.
September 21st, 2007 at 9:53 pm
“I have never lied about your views,”
That is about the fourth lie you have told in this short exchange you shameless psychopath.
1) You claimed I want to take and redistribute property without compensation (for one example)
2) You lied in making the claim that I want government “to use force to tell people how to live their lives”
3) You lied to Tina concerning my views on BZP
3) You lied when you said you had never said that I had advocated the BZp should be made illegal when that is the exact inference you so duplicitly made in your exchange with Tina.
4) You lied when you said you have never lied about misrepresenting my views.
You’re a liar and a narcissist. Go away. Gaze at yourself in the mirror for an hour or two creep.
September 21st, 2007 at 9:53 pm
“I’ve told you the question.”
That’s five lies.
September 21st, 2007 at 9:56 pm
“Like I said ……I sympathise”
Sad isn’t it. That he can shame himself this way merely for this kind of attention.. something only a leftist mindset would allow..
September 21st, 2007 at 9:58 pm
As I said, I pick option 1, why won’t you say which you pick RB?
Is this true RB?
“Red was there as were a load of socialists, noone else said where they stood, all were happy to see aspects of state control over peoples personal lives.”
September 21st, 2007 at 10:00 pm
You can learn from this traumatic experience Andy….
To avoid personal humiliation on blog posts in the future go back and assimilate your lessons over our last lot of tete a tetes.
See how it works?
I’ll try to be kinder in the future……..since you’ve already been zapped.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Ohh! Tina! I think Reds interested in you! When you see a chance take it! Especially at your age.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Never mind Tina, you have a good nites sleep dreaming your strange dreams. I don’t feel very zapped, just another of your dreams.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:04 pm
“As I said, I pick option 1, why won’t you say which you pick RB?”
WTF are you on about? Since when has there been any need to pick? They’re such facile and juvenile definitions I wouldnt waste my time on them anyway.
What you actually said you duplicitous psychopathic creep was this- “I put my finger up for option 1, Red was there as were a load of socialists, noone else said where they stood, ” You truncated it because you wanted to try and change your inference. You’re such a sneaking coward.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Why is it that when he tries to be clever, he comes across as even more contemptible? He really has a knack for it.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:07 pm
I truncated it?? Red you also should get to bed, your eyes are playing tricks on you.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Now I remeber why I usually ignore you. You’re just a a lame posturing fuckwit.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Guess that gibberish means you’re done and dusted, no more to offer, Andy buddy.
I’d really rather play with the weasel sonic.
At least the IQ exceeds 90…….but I can’t have everything.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Agree, Sonic at least has some small degree of wit.. this guys just a wet knuckle dragging moron..
September 21st, 2007 at 10:15 pm
You’re flattering yourself again Tina, the effects of those cookies obviously still hasn’t warn off, you haven’t even worked out that you’re the mouse.
Silly old girl, but don’t let it upset you, I’m sure you were once pretty sharp.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:18 pm
I’m leaving him to his brainless rambling and his pathological lying Tina. If he ever gets treatment for his narcissism, he’ll at least know the real reason for his unhappiness.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Red….I know…..the condescending conversations we have for the benefit of others self esteem would get recognition from the Salvos and Mother Theresea’s ghost.
Its our generous nature, but eventually they have to fuck off .
September 21st, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Sorry, you to are getting a little tedious, so I’m going to be the one to say good nite, there’s only so much of RB’s vacant minded name calling that’s worth a chuckle, it must be true about the old not needing much sleep.
good nite people.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Noooooo….Andy don’t go.
Andy, I’m trying to help.
People have bright white light flashes that cures them of statism…..you are a candidate.
Stay awake as long as you can.
Socialism can be cured macrobiotically.
I think.
And I’m 42 so go and suck your pension card…. Andy……sweetums
September 21st, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Any white light flashes yet, Bubba?
September 21st, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Bugger.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Nul
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:52 am
Tina, I’m sorry I left you all on your own last nite, reading your sad wailing, like a lost lamb on a cold dark night makes me feel stink. You obviously didn’t have anyone to cuddle up to. 42 aye? Well I’m two years older than you then, Red could be interested in keeping you company but sorry, I prefer slightly younger women, my current partner is in her 20’s.
Of course I’m sure it would take an extraordinary woman to cope with Red’s love of abusive and offensive language, but Tina, I think you are at least an unusual woman.
“People have bright white light flashes that cures them of statism…..you are a candidate.”
???
Tina, haven’t you been paying attention? Here’s a comment of mine in the thread previously refered to, I’m keen to see the states monopolistic control over us broken:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/09/party_pill_ban_passes_first_reading.html#comment-339472
Have a nice day Tina, best wishes for the future.
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:59 am
Question: Why does Andy Pandy feel compelled to reveal personal details about himself to anonymous blog contributors?
Answer: He thinks we’re really really really interested.
Question: Why does Andy Pandy need to boast to anonymous blog contributors about the age of his “partner”?
Answer: For the same reason he buys silvercheck by the litre. (look up Narcissists Anonymous)
Question: Why does 44 year old Andy Pandy feel more comfortable with a woman 20 years younger than him?
Answer: He needs someone more emotionally mature.
Question: Why would a compulsive liar and frequent misrepresenter be so fucked in the head as to complain about swearing?
Answer; It helps him avoid responding to questions he’s got no answer to.
Question: Why does Andy Pandy constantly complain about swearing and then say he’s been having a chuckle?
Answer: Because his Alzheimer’s made him forget what he said before
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:34 am
I must really have upset you RB to have pushed you into making these silly and pointless attacks on me.
Why does RB feel the need to swear and abuse and misrepresent other people so much?
It’s because he feels inadequate and inferior and needs to denigrate other people in his own mind to give himself a feeling of selfworth.
Tina and I were just playing games RB, try not to get so upset about it.
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:37 am
Oh, what’s “silvercheck”? A hair dye? Don’t need it, and no I’m not bald.
September 23rd, 2007 at 2:55 pm
A couple of must reads
Green taxes ‘are making billions’
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:7y19dbbzqawJ:news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6972759.stm+UK+households+are+overpaying+tax+carbon+tax+rip+off&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=nz&lr=lang_en
Industry caught in carbon ‘smokescreen’
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/48e334ce-f355-11db-9845-000b5df10621.html
September 24th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Woo… I feel flattered! Whitebaiting picks just posted. Redbaiting on hold.
September 24th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Pfft… pics.
September 24th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Andy sweetums, I’m back.
Heartbroken of course…… but willing to offer some advice with the partner.
Watch how you’re structured…. though it may not matter much I suspect, only a few or four hundred thou of minor assets are involved perhaps…. her kids are her priority.
Off shore (Aust) private company holding beats any onshore arrange for reasons you need not worry about.
Plan early to avoid disappointment.
Anything I can help with please don’t hesitate to ask.
September 24th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Thanks Tina, prenup is in place, my kids are my priority and she has no Kids.
September 24th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Andy, I sense confidence where there should be none.
Watch the ongoing validity of the pre nup.
There’s good law that says revise it every year and even then it may not work as advertised.
Remember, anything the family court can think about it can change by prioritising.
Very hard to exclude value added to property by time from the asset pool, even if previously agreed.
As your attorney Andy, I advise you to secure your assets outside your domestic jurisdiction.
Aust., with thought, is functionally untouchable.
Good luck .