Well done Helen

April 23rd, 2008 at 5:00 pm by David Farrar

Helen had to miss out on the gala dinner in Singapore where she received a trophy made of recycled metal from the for being one of seven winners in the annual UN Champions of the Earth awards.Now Helen’s record on is worse than George W Bush and John Howard. Kyoto is all about what percentage increase or decrease one should have over 1990 levels and George and John did better than Helen in being closer to their target.

NZ has the fourth worst actual record of annex 1 countries in terms of meeting our Kyoto obligations (we are 29% over target) so one can only conclude, the award is yet another indication of the UN’s long demonstrated preference for rhetoric over substance. Typical UN – does not matter what you do in practice, as long as you churn out the right rhetoric!

No Right Turn also notes:

But while its great policy, none of this stuff has actually been implemented yet, so Clark has essentially been given this award on the basis of hot air.

I am not sure the policy is that great. They have yet to pass a single policy through Parliament. Their biofuels legislation has been rubbished by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and their Emission scheme by Greenpeace. Their Fart Tax failed due to the hypocrisy of treatment of debits and credits.

The future price of carbon is so uncertain, that I more and more think a carbon tax in the short term would be better than the tradeable emissions scheme. Under some dire scenarios the scheme could wipe out out food export sector. from Radio NZ yesterday:

says the Government’s proposed emissions trading scheme has the potential to extingish [sic] extinguish food exports from New Zealand. The comments are based on a Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry report which shows the projected impacts of the trading scheme on farmers’ profitsm a range of different carbon prices and the corresponding financial impact the scheme would have on different sectors such as sheep, beef, dairy, horticulture and deer. The figures analyse the impact the Emissions Trading Scheme would have had on the sectors if it had been introduced without warning in mid-2006. Among the worst affected sectors are deer, sheep and beef, greenhouse tomatoes and dairy. ’ Dairy Section Chairman Frank Brenmuhl says based on the projections for a payout of $4.14 per kilo of milk solids and a full carbon price of $50 per tonne the average drop in farmers’ profits would be 123%.

Now for those who only have a degree in economic history, a 123% drop in profits means you will be losing money. In other words no food production at all. So we will meet out Kyoto target by importing all our food from overseas. Hmmn that will be great eh.

UPDATE: The Greens’ Frog Blog is also weighing in, comparing getting an award for being a Champion of the Earth to Brian Waddle being named Black Cap of the Year for his cricket commentary. Shit that is funny – Frog is being more sarcastic than me!

Tags: , , , ,

55 Responses to “Well done Helen”

  1. Alces (310 comments) says:

    She’s doing good on this.

    The NZ comrades lap up the rhetoric on glorbell worming, while absolutely no carbon fine money goes to the Russians.

    Good job.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. dad4justice (7,898 comments) says:

    How many Russian bombers went into the air today Miss Klark?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. PaulL (5,969 comments) says:

    My position on this has been pretty consistent. I’m a sceptic on whether it is our most important issue, or whether it is worth mitigating. But I believe the public’s mind is made up, and if we let the left design a scheme to mitigate then it will fail. If we’re going to spend my money on mitigating global warming, I actually want something for my money. Even as a sceptic I’ll accept that there is a risk that it is happening, so if I’m buying an insurance policy I want one that will actually pay out if I need it.

    Carbon tax is the best answer in the world we currently live in. It works better when some of your trading partners haven’t taken action, it can be more easily levied on imports and refunded on exports, it gives more certainty to business than a permits scheme does. It allows for targeted exemptions where appropriate.

    National made a mistake in blocking the carbon tax, although to be fair as DPF points out it was seriously flawed. That shouldn’t mean that a carbon tax is never the right answer, just that if you are going to do it you should do it right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Klark has done nothing but gets an award because she articulates the lies and promotes the propaganda.

    Shut the UN down.

    Primary responsible for the whole global warming scam, its a deceit ridden political show pony for the left and therefore serves no useful purpose to mankind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Alces (310 comments) says:

    Only prob is when the Kyoto fine enforcers arrive in the future….

    I’m hearing NZ$500,000,000.00 as a figure in 5 to 8.

    A million here a million there, pretty soon you’re talking real money.

    When the Kiwi electorate absorbs that these fines have absolutely zero measurable effect on carbon emissions I’d want to be the Unesco ambassador in Paris too.

    Ugly scenes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Carbon tax is the best answer in the world we currently live in.”

    How ghastly. A statement of such breathtaking arrogance and ignorance, it signifies that the speaker has not an ounce of real understanding, and that therefore any rational challenge would be a complete waste of time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. PaulL (5,969 comments) says:

    Fines or purchase of carbon credits? The latter are more interesting – surely if we keep failing to meet our commitments they’ll go easy on us in the next round? And then we can suddenly get good at this, generate excess credits, and sell them offshore. It’s all part of a very cunning plan to make us all rich – really!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. dad4justice (7,898 comments) says:

    PaulL, New Zealand don’t need NO carbon tax bullshit . Get real dude.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Buggerlugs (1,609 comments) says:

    I think FrogBlog misses the point slightly – it’s more like Trevor Chappell getting the 1981 Black Cap of the Year Award.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. ghostwhowalks3 (387 comments) says:

    Take away the arbitary cabon increase from cutting down forests to convert to dairy and NZs record geta lot better.
    Use proper statistics rather DPFs muddled % ( damned lies) and the picture is a lot better.

    [DPF: I use the official UN stats. GWW makes his own upp]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. dad4justice (7,898 comments) says:

    Buggerlugs; Carbon credit -tax ?? crap is as underhand as a Chappell playing lawn bowls in a cricket test match. FrogBlog keeps missing the point since the Utopian swamp dried up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. RRM (9,606 comments) says:

    “it signifies that the speaker has not an ounce of real understanding, and that therefore any rational challenge would be a complete waste of time.”

    … OR, that you’ve got nothing?

    I’m afraid you simply have not refuted a point until you’ve refuted it!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. GPT1 (2,101 comments) says:

    Brilliant call by Frog.

    Given Carbon is such a big problem wouldn’t putting some serious money into research to work out how to capture and bury the damn stuff make sense? How can you ever be carbon neutral? At somepoint you have to cut down/use the trees (and there is only so much land you can use for tree growing in any event) and short of going back to the dark ages it seems more or less impossible to not use carbon (not saying that emissions cannot be reduced).

    Bring on the Carbon-ator?!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Buggerlugs (1,609 comments) says:

    GWW – a lot better?…oh how funny, come on, you tell us how better. Just wait everyone, it’s a hoot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Buggerlugs (1,609 comments) says:

    here you go GPT1: http://www.utexas.edu/news/2007/09/25/engineering/
    and there’s plenty more where that came from.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Grant Michael McKenna (1,156 comments) says:

    I love it. Bet that we hear about the award on the TVNZ news- but not the facts about NZ’s record.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “I’m afraid you simply have not refuted a point until you’ve refuted it!”

    The post is such a garbled mess of logical contradictions and unsubstantiated alarmist bullshit it refutes itself.

    ….and my point was it shows such a disregard for fact and reality, it demonstrates that any challenger who might resort to those two fragile commodities would be wasting their time..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Strutta (67 comments) says:

    I agree with PaulL, I want something for my money. None …repeat NONE… of Labour’s proposals will make a measurable difference to even ‘worst-case-scenarios’ of global warming (okay I’ll use the PC term..climate change). However, Labour and the Greens are willing to cripple the NZ economy to do nothing more than look good to the environmentalist extremists.

    I want a government that is more practical than that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Alces (310 comments) says:

    Hush Strutta….this is about core socialist dogma.

    They see glorbell worming as their last best chance to zap market capitalism after the world cruelly rejected their genius economics as a failure, highlighted as the Wall came down and Gorby folded.

    Where does socialism go if it doesn’t have AGW?

    :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. labrator (1,821 comments) says:

    The post is such a garbled mess of logical contradictions and unsubstantiated alarmist bullshit it refutes itself.

    Refusing to refute it or provide any evidence twice is not proving your argument. I think PaulL’s statement was perfectly reasonable and rational. Please explain how it is a “garbled mess of logical contradictions and unsubstantiated alarmist bullshit” without insulting me or PaulL. One of the first things he said was he was a sceptic so how is he being alarmist?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. peterquixote (231 comments) says:

    soon i give the helengrand the medallion of disgrace
    this made of Spanish recycle gold tint flake,
    she has earned it well, and the medal will show worser thing
    than yous can even think of,
    maybe even pictures of her knickers look like nappies on your baby boy,

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Rex Widerstrom (5,307 comments) says:

    I’m sure Gaia weeps with tears of gratitude for Helen even as we type. Nice to see she has retained her sense of humour despite all this well-meaning helpfulness.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. JSF2008 (422 comments) says:

    If a liar can win an award ,there is hope for your average HONEST person, not :(

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    What a rogues gallery, seven winners of the champions of the earth ( FFS ). What a nice little leftwing back slapping exercise. Fuck these people give me the shits. What has our home grown slag done to be a champion of the earth. About the only thing fitting in this whole episode is that the trophy is made up of recycled material. I hope in Dear Leaders case the trophy was made up of something out of the compost heap.

    And PaulL please stay a sceptic, don’t get sucked into the bullshit from the control freaks on the left. Fuck the carbon tax !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

    Alces I would bet the farm that no right thinking rich country will blackmail NZ because we refuse to pay their poxy little tax. There is a hungry world out there with plenty of potential customers if I was in power I would call the carbon tax con artist’s bluff. Let them bring their tax on, my only wish is these bastards are the first to starve.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. emmess (1,387 comments) says:

    >>They see glorbell worming as their last best chance to zap market capitalism after the world cruelly rejected their genius economics as a failure, highlighted as the Wall came down and Gorby folded.

    Yup at least Evo Morales (president of Bolivia) has the balls to say it.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7359880.stm
    I wish Clark would say what she honestly believes

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. GPT1 (2,101 comments) says:

    Thanks buggerlugs. Not necessarily a solution on its own but could be one hell of a contributer to reducing emissions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Seamonkey Madness (328 comments) says:

    “Take away the arbitary[sic] cabon[sic] increase from cutting down forests to convert to dairy and NZs record geta lot better.”

    Take away the crazy bitch and her arbitrary regime, then it gets a LOT better!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. frog (84 comments) says:

    I’m interested to find out why Helen Clark is suddenly getting all these international environmental accolades. Does she have someone working to fill out all her entry forms and post CVs around the world for her, or does the world just hold her in significant esteem because of the ‘carbon neutral’ speech? From my perspective it looks a bit like autodialing radio stations day and night for free CDs.

    [DPF: Maybe she is looking to bolster her CV for post 2008 jobs :-)]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Buggerlugs (1,609 comments) says:

    Frog – what’s wrong with autodialling radio stations for free CDs! seriously, i see one David Wratt, a NIWA scientist, is a vice-chair for NZ on the IPCC. perhaps he thought it might improve his career prospects to nominate the Leader.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Michaels (1,318 comments) says:

    I have a few carbon credits for sale…..
    Not sure what they are really however, will make you a nice certificate:)
    Only $50 each.
    D4J, you in for a few??

    WTF has happenned to this friggen world???
    Is it all clarks fault???
    hmmm…. probably!

    DPF, you could buy a few off me thanks to the “cork” trees you are the reason for being logged each month.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Please explain how it is a “garbled mess of logical contradictions and unsubstantiated alarmist bullshit” without insulting me or PaulL.”

    I can explain it, but I have little control over whether you feel insulted or not. I guess it depends upon how you might feel about being told the truth.

    In the first place Paul says that he is a skeptic as to “whether it is worth mitigating” at the same time as he calls for massive taxation regimes to be implemented to mitigate the perceived problem. Is it worth mitigating or not??

    His argument for doing something is based on a perceived need to beat the left to a solution to a problem he admits probably does not exist. Some justification for the enormous assault on the commercial sector that this legislation represents. If you don’t believe in something you fucken well say that, and you stick to your guns and you do not capitulate and start shooting into your own ranks because you think you need to beat the left to a solution. What spineless worthless irrational crap.

    He claims he’s a skeptic, but would be one of the most enthusiastic supporters of action to curb global warming on this blog.

    National “made a mistake” in blocking the tax, even though it was “seriously flawed”.

    Enuff contradictions for you?? As for the rest of it-

    Anyone who promotes the myth of global warming as fervently as Paul does is being alarmist. There is no need for any insurance policy, any legislation, any taxes, any trading schemes, any complex inter governmental scams to keep a billion shiny arsed bureaucrats in employment for decade after decade. Global warming is a myth generated by politically motivated socialists and believed in by dupes and suckholes and cronyists and knuckle draggers, and too often, promoted by spineless appeasers like Paul.

    As for carbon trading- doesn’t he, as a supposed supporter of a party that calls itself “the opposition” have any idea about the downside to carbon trading schemes? He writes as if he doesn’t have the faintest fucken idea there’s any opposing view to this madness. Has he informed himself on both sides of the issue?

    Not if I know Paul. I’d say as usual he’s right there with whatever view the socialists in control of the mainstream media say is the right view. He’s a leftist drone, and the kind of unimaginative dullard who is behind the National party’s almost complete capitulation to the ideology of the left, and therefore one of those most responsible for NZ’s gradual slide into the stinking mire of totalitarian socialism.

    http://cei.org/articles/maverick-climate-policy

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. PaulL (5,969 comments) says:

    How ghastly. A statement of such breathtaking arrogance and ignorance, it signifies that the speaker has not an ounce of real understanding, and that therefore any rational challenge would be a complete waste of time.

    and

    The post is such a garbled mess of logical contradictions and unsubstantiated alarmist bullshit it refutes itself.

    ….and my point was it shows such a disregard for fact and reality, it demonstrates that any challenger who might resort to those two fragile commodities would be wasting their time..

    Right, lets have a go.

    Fact 1: Voters in most countries in the world are voting for parties that promise to “do something” about global warming. You not believing in global warming doesn’t change that fact – it isn’t about what you believe, it is about what others believe. Given your constant refrain that everyone in NZ is stupid except for you, how can you be surprised that they believe.

    Fact 2: Somebody will get elected on a promise to do something about this. What you personally think makes no difference.

    Fact 3: Labour are crap at designing things like this, they don’t understand incentives or market mechanisms, so they’ll go pick some technologies (like bio fuels), mandate them, and then act all surprised when it turns to crap.

    What exactly in that do you disagree with?

    Then, my opinion, get on board and do something about making it workable. You can’t stop it from happening, but you can make sure they spend as little of your money as is strictly necessary, that they give income tax offsets instead, that they minimise economic harm, and minimise market distortions. Do you have a different opinion?

    side show bob: a carbon tax causes no harm if offset by income tax. Producers pass the tax on, so they aren’t impacted, consumers are generally impacted in proportion to their income – it is just an income tax by another name. So long as we reduce income tax to offset it has no economic impact, it will reduce carbon emissions, and it gives every taxpayer an entirely legitimate way to reduce their tax bill. Win, win, win if you ask me.

    GPT1: trees give up their carbon when they rot. Let them die on their own then carbon capture will eventually balance carbon release from rotting. However, cut them down and make building timber out of the trees, and no carbon emissions. We could generate huge carbon credits by restarting the beech forest operations of Timberlands – all they did was take out of the forest trees that would otherwise die and rot, without damaging the forest. Net result, carbon savings. Bet the Greenies didn’t think of that when they bloody shut down a model operation. Actually, that was Helen’s fault as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. PaulL (5,969 comments) says:

    Great, crossed in the posting. Now I have some Redbaiter whinge to deal with.

    In the first place Paul says that he is a skeptic as to “whether it is worth mitigating” at the same time as he calls for massive taxation regimes to be implemented to mitigate the perceived problem. Is it worth mitigating or not??

    1. I didn’t call for a massive tax regime, I called for a tax that gives certainty, to be offset by income tax reductions. Let Labour or the Greens do it and kiss goodbye to any reductions to offset.

    2. It doesn’t matter if it is worth doing or not if it is going to happen anyway. You’re shouting in the wilderness, nobody is listening. You will not win this argument, give up.

    3. There is a risk. I don’t deal in absolutes, I believe that it is unlikely that global warming will have the impact that even the IPCC estimate in their likely case scenarios. But it might happen. Unlike you I am not infallible. If we’re going to spend money on an insurance policy (which is arguably reasonable to do), I want an insurance policy that achieves something.

    If you don’t believe in something you fucken well say that, and you stick to your guns

    Your opinion. I work on the things I can influence. You like shouting at people in a way that they don’t listen to. Each to their own.

    He claims he’s a skeptic, but would be one of the most enthusiastic supporters of action to curb global warming on this blog.

    Bullshit.

    National “made a mistake” in blocking the tax, even though it was “seriously flawed”.

    You got me with that one, as written it is a contradiction. I was trying to represent the nuances between “all carbon taxes are bad” and “we think a carbon tax is OK, but this one is poorly structured.” I am worried that they have backed themselves into a corner where a carbon tax isn’t possible, and instead will go with tradeable permits, which just don’t work as well. This would be a sub-optimal outcome purely for political reasons.

    Anyone who promotes the myth of global warming as fervently as Paul does is being alarmist.

    Lie. I don’t promote it fervently. You’re turning in to Roger, misquoting people and lying.

    As for carbon trading- doesn’t he …have any idea about the downside to carbon trading schemes?

    Do you know the difference between a carbon trading scheme and a carbon tax?

    right there with whatever view the socialists in control of the mainstream media

    The mainstream media don’t agree with carbon taxes – did you notice that. Big business have suddenly worked out the windfall profits they get from emissions trading, at the expense of consumers and new market entrants. The media are buying it hook line and sinker, as are the left. I don’t like it.

    Random abusive rant

    You’re wrong again RedBaiter. Do you get bored of being wrong all the time? You’re a conservative, you don’t like any change at all. You dislike anyone who is different to you, and you want to control everyone’s thoughts. That is what is so distasteful about your politics. It is possible for people to have different opinions on a topic without one of them having to be completely and utterly wrong, and a communist to boot. It’s just a difference of opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    ” Given your constant refrain that everyone in NZ is stupid except for you, ”

    Give one example of this “refrain”. There are many NZers who disagree with global warming and carbon taxes (even in the Nats). Just because you do not apparently know of them is not my problem.

    If you oppose something, you do not succumb merely because “most countries are voting for it”, a claim that as well as being exactly the kind of political cowardice I accuse you and the National party of, is an unsubstantiated assertion anyway. Even if one can get any real and defined meaning from such a broadly expressed concept. What the fuck does that really mean???

    “What you personally think makes no difference.”

    It makes all the difference because the truth will win in the end, as it always eventually does, and cowards appeasers and traitors like you will be seen for what you really are. I’ve said it before and I say it again. Go and join Labour.

    http://hotairtour.org/index.php?content=kerpen1

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. dad4justice (7,898 comments) says:

    “D4J, you in for a few??’

    Nice offer Michaels, but you know where too shove the carbon credits.

    PaulL , no wonder the liberal fools talk hip science global warming shit. What a load of crap.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. labrator (1,821 comments) says:

    This isn’t mistaken identity is it? Paul and PaulL are not the same people (to my knowledge).

    Not insulted Redbaiter although I do prefer PaulL’s style of constructive and pragmatic comments over your unique style.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “You dislike anyone who is different to you, and you want to control everyone’s thoughts.”

    That is the real lie. That is a cowardly and transparently false allegation.

    I have only ever asked one thing, and that is to be left alone, and in return, I promise to leave you alone. Anyone who reads what I write here knows that is my credo.

    It is you and your big government leftist cohorts who are driven by the obsession to control. (and Climate Change is one of the best scams you’ve thought up to further that cause)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. PaulL (5,969 comments) says:

    Bullshit. You are always into what people are allowed to do and not to do. You want to be left alone to do what you want, but you want to force everyone else to be like you. That is your consistent message – I don’t like people who are different. If you think you are communicating something different then it just comes back to what I have said a few times – I don’t know who you think reads your crap, but communicating is two way, if you want to convince people you need to change your style.

    To be clear: I don’t like big govt, never have, never will. I have not and probably never will vote left. I have no desire to control, and I did not dream up climate change. I’m a realist, and I deal with policies that will work – and in this context work means winning the election.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. WebWrat (516 comments) says:

    PaulL … I’m getting confused …..
    You are a skeptic about GW.
    You actually agree with Red but because you think most people believe in GW, you argue with him and promote a tax on something you don’t believe in … just to be on the safe side.
    I totally agree with Redbaiter.
    At least he’s honest.
    Global Warming = GAF = Global Alarm Fest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “I don’t know who you think reads your crap, but communicating is two way, if you want to convince people you need to change your style.”

    You worry about your “style”, I’ll worry about mine. Right at the beginning of this exchange, I stated I had no desire to argue the issue with you. I only have need of you on this blog as an example of everything that is wrong with the National Party, and therefore wrong with New Zealand. An opposition (so called) stunted and stupefied, unable to compete in the field of ideas and therefore out of that ideological destitution, compelled to swim with the socialist tide.

    “I’m a realist”

    You’re like most leftists, completely self delusional.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. LabourDoesntWork (286 comments) says:

    Good link, Redbaiter.
    Confirms what many of us know and also why Clark isn’t big on implementing real strategies against so-called man-made global warming….
    This whole “environmental issue” is no more than an international socialist strategy against capitalism, the West, and freedom. Of the West, New Zealand is but a tiny part. The real target is the United States. Now it’s worth remembering, that the horribly polluting and fast-growing economy of China is utterly exempt from Kyoto. So, the Commie strategy is clear. The USA is the target. With its freedoms and limited government it stands in the way of the craving for power and control the UN-supporting international left has. The USA’s great success and opportunity is what continues to drive a craving for freedom elsewhere – the left simply hates this.
    With the US the real target New Zealand is small potatoes and just doesn’t matter; in fact, if New Zealand became an experimental ground for full-fledged anti-global warming measures the Green kooks crave, it would very quickly become a text-book example of economic destruction. The world would learn too quickly from this… can’t have that. Only with the US economy wrecked will they have the success they want. Clark knows the international strategy here and has assumed her place.
    The environmental movement is the natural home of today’s communists because the environment gives a theoretically endless number of ways to subordinate *your* life and the way *you* live to some more important, greater goal. It appeals perfectly to the collectivist mindset. That’s why freedom and capitalism have to go: we have to think globally, now. It’s quite clever and better than almost any other excuse to trample people’s freedoms and institute totalitarian regulation of people’s lives – but it’s also totally obvious. It just amazes me that, given this strategy is so clear, supposed right-wingers buy into this all this trash – carbon credits and all. It’s no coincidence that global environmentalist activism has really taken off since the Soviet Union fell. No coincidence, either, that Gorbachev’s next job after dictator was to head an international environmentist organisation, Green Cross International, that he founded. Or maybe environmentalism is just a hobby, like gardening, and dictator just paid well?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “You want to be left alone to do what you want, but you want to force everyone else to be like you.”

    Yet another of the logical contradictions you’ve got a reputation for.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “It just amazes me that, given this strategy is so clear, supposed right-wingers buy into this all this trash”

    Me too. How can they possibly be so utterly unaware??? Even that useless dumbarse McCain is sucked in by it.

    That is it you see, the (so called) right always give ground. Bit by bit by bit, gullible and spineless dupes like Paul will undermine our rights and our freedoms and our democracy, as they have done for decades, and now as a result of their weak and uninformed and uninspired opposition, their hopeless capitulation, we see a country and a lot of other countries, where the truth is so well suppressed and concealed that only a few dare to speak it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. reid (16,072 comments) says:

    The fact Clark got this award, given the NZ carbon record illustrates her connections inside the UN hierarchy which is one of the most corrupt institutions on Earth.

    Obviously, she’ll do well there, when we finally get rid of her this October.

    She may even become S-G, in time. Looking at her track record here, that thought doesn’t fill me with hope and confidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. PaulL (5,969 comments) says:

    Baiter, you’d have to admit that an awful lot of smart people think it is happening, so there must be at least a chance they are right.

    So there is a potential problem.

    My suggested solution causes no pain. What the fuck do you care if we replace some income tax with a carbon tax. Your argument seems to be that there should be no tax at all – which is clearly ludicrous. Explain exactly what the problem is that the carbon tax will create, and we could have a discussion. But no, as usual you’re in with the personal attacks and the over-the-top rhetoric.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,815 comments) says:

    Buggerlugs, I smell a wratt here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Peter (1,653 comments) says:

    “Big business have suddenly worked out the windfall profits they get from emissions trading, at the expense of consumers and new market entrants”

    Interesting. Can someone explain the reasoning?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. PaulL (5,969 comments) says:

    Many of the emissions trading schemes provide permits to the incumbents in order to avoid “destroying our industry” or “disadvantaging existing producers.” Anybody new coming into the market has to purchase those permits.

    If the permits were issued every year, and auctioned off so that everybody had to buy them on even terms, then the government would pocket any gains in value of the permits and I would be happy. But nobody designs schemes like that because the vested interests push for longer-term permits, and for grandfathering of existing emitters, in the name of certainty. Which then turns into a barrier to entry for new providers, and a windfall capital gain for the existing providers (two sides of the same coin).

    In short, a carbon tax v’s a “pure” emissions trading scheme, it can be shown that they are economically equivalent – the money accrues to the govt, and all the costs are passed on to the consumer. As soon as you start fiddling with the emissions trading regime it changes, a chunk of the money accrues to incumbents and the costs are still passed on to the consumer. Since I always argue that we should get offsetting through income tax reductions, it is quite important to me that the money accrues to the government.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Peter (1,653 comments) says:

    Thanks Paul. Clear now…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Alces (310 comments) says:

    OMG…..hold those carbon fines Hulun….more bad news.

    “ Astronaut and geophysicist Phil Chapman, the first Australian to become an astronaut with NASA, said pictures from the US Solar and Heliospheric Observatory showed no spots on the sun.

    He said the world cooled quickly between January last year and January this year, by about 0.7C.

    “This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record, and it puts us back to where we were in 1930,” Dr Chapman writes in The Australian today.

    “If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. PhilBest (5,117 comments) says:

    Hey, Redbaiter and PaulL, I wish you guys were fighting the real leftists and Greenies instead of each other. What I take out of your exchange above, is that BOTH of you are skeptical of AGW, but PaulL thinks that non-Green, Non-Socialist political parties will just have to go along with the ignorant masses until they see the light. You both have a point. But Redbaiter, I fear that for John Key and the Nats, and any politician, to endorse the skeptical position, would be electoral suicide apart from someone like Rodney Hide and ACT who stand to pick up the voters who have nowhere else to go. And there’s nothing I’d like to see more than ACT picking up the votes of the 20-30% of NZ-ers who are not impressed with the AGW scam and who are sick of the Nats spinelessness. But the NATS themselves very SADLY probably can’t oust the Heleban as the government if THEY took this approach.

    PaulL’s point that Carbon Tax is superior to Carbon Credit Trading, is very valid. If you want to go along with the scam meanwhile for political expediency, but minimise the economic harm, you should offer the people carbon taxes ABATED BY REDUCTIONS IN INCOME TAX. Clear?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. labrator (1,821 comments) says:

    PhilBest, bang on the money. You have to be pragmatic and this is the line PaulL is taking. Calling everyone who believes in Global Warming names is not going to get them voting for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Lol so Green policy (on tax)it is then? (or was until the government and national went for emissions trading, would expect them to come up with something else now)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Owen McShane (1,226 comments) says:

    Helen is hoist on her own petard.
    If NZ had not decided to flagellate itself by including our ruminants in the GHG stakes we would probably be one of the better performers – even up there with George Bush.
    No one else does. It is not that we have a lot of ruminants – we just have so few people.
    Goats (which are ruminants) produce more milk and meat for consumption than any other animal.
    Have you heard of anyone including their goats in their GHG tally?

    I like to do a thought experiment. I sit on my deck and look out across all the land between me and the Kaipara Harbour. Then I think about the area of the Kaipara harbour, and then I think about the peninsulas between me and the Tasman sea and then I think about the oceans of each side of us.
    Then I peer into the setting sun and finally set eyes on a postage of brown movement sliding over one of the hills – there it is? A herd of cattle. Then I ask – am I really supposed to believe that these cattle are affecting the climate of the whole world?

    Really. That is why the photos of cows used to promote alarmism always have the nostrils up against the lens – it’s to make the cow look huge and block out all that open space.

    Anyhow, we may have been saved by the new extension to our terrorial limits. We now own a lot more ocean than we did before. Ocean is a GHG sink.
    So the next round should show much better performance per square mile.
    I see more awards on the way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “You have to be pragmatic and this is the line PaulL is taking.”

    Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong- this is the whole damn issue in that the Nats have failed to stick by their principles and failed to stand up for what they believe in and they have compromised and caved and “pragmatised” themselves so far left they’re only a shadow of the party they once were, and this country is 75% of the way down the track to totalitarian socialism as a result.

    The Nat’s failure to stand for anything, and their like failure to articulate any real alternative position on global warming or so many other issues has resulted in a democracy paralyzed. The time has come for the Nats to piss or get off the damn pot. Otherwise, what the fuck are they there for??

    There are good alternative arguments out there with which to confront the left. There’s many people who write on this blog who not only know it but demonstrate it time and time again (you for example Phil) but do we get like arguments from the Nats?? Virtually never. Cowed by political correctness they don’t say anything the left can call “offensive, or “racist” or “selfish” or “heartless” or destructive to the environment. Limp and ineffective, bereft of counter strategy, they let Klark and her mentally and morally crippled band of cronyists and thugs walk all over them. The Nats need to get a spine, and they won’t as long as large sectors of the public encourage them to walk away from what is right and what is the truth on the basis that they can’t win votes if they don’t. For fuck’s sake, where is that going to get us in the end??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.