Hooton on Greens

November 12th, 2010 at 3:00 pm by David Farrar

writes (offline) in the NBR:

According to their own rhetoric, and that of the foreign environmental lobbyists who dictate it, the Green Party believes that the next century, and perhaps even the next decade, will be characterised by severe global turmoil.

Climate change, they say, will cause mass migration unprecedented in human history, as hundreds of millions leave equatorial regions for the north and south.

The seas will rise, creating refugees not just from small island states like the Maldives and Kiribati but causing havoc in China and India, with their vast coastal populations.

According to the UN, Indonesia, with its 80,000km coastline, 17,000 islands and 240 million inhabitants, will be the country worst affected by rising sea levels, threatening regional security.

Everyone will suffer unpredictable and extreme weather.

And worse, it seems:

“Peak food” will be upon us, with Sue Kedgley foreseeing “a new era of tightening food supplies, rising food prices, food scarcity, panic buying, long food queues and political instability.”

Food rationing, she said in 2008, was already underway in US, as was rationing of rice in Auckland.

Now I have to apologise to Matthew Hooton. I can’t believe even Sue Kedgley said such things. So I resorted to Google. And it turns out Matthew was right – read here.

Pressure on other natural resources also risks global catastrophe.  When China runs out of energy resources, it’s likely to march.

In an effort to help, the Greens’ population policy welcomes “climate change refugees” but also demands that any effects on New Zealand’s environment, society and culture be limited.

Their new MP, Kennedy Graham, tells us that, with a population of 4.1 million, New Zealand is already part of the global population problem.  The global population, he says, must be “drastically reduced.”

Now again, surely Matthew is having us on. Did the Green Party really say the global population must be drastically reduced? Well Matthew may be prone to occassional hyperbole, but it seems he employees excellent staff to do his research, as he is in fact quoting their official policy.

If the Green Party really believes all this, then it must surely also believe that New Zealand’s territorial integrity is at risk, not some time later in the century, but imminently.

New Zealand is already capable of producing at least 20 times our own food needs.

Our exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is 15 times our land mass and the world’s fifth largest, while the quota management system means New Zealand can expect to maintain our fisheries stocks long after others have devastated theirs.

Back on land, New Zealand’s coal reserves are greater per capita, in terms of their energy potential, than Saudi Arabia’s oil.

Total mineral reserves may exceed $10 trillion, which we’ve largely decided to leave in the ground.

How splendid that when everyone else has dug up and burned their coal, New Zealand’s reserves will still be in the ground, waiting. …

It’s true that New Zealand is protected by a 2000km-wide moat but that’s unlikely to be sufficient under the Greens’ prognosis.  You’d think they’d argue that New Zealand needs the strongest possible defence forces, up to and including an independent nuclear deterrent.

At the very least, New Zealand surely requires the capability to credibly threaten to sink a fishing or other vessel or to shoot down aircraft.

Surprisingly enough, this is not their defence policy.  The focus is on the UN, as if that organisation would operate effectively in the apocalyptic future they fear.

The Greens argue there should be no Anzac frigates or other warships, no anti-submarine capability and no air strike force.  All equipment not designed for peacekeeping, search and rescue, disaster relief, fisheries and border control tasks should be phased out.

And remember according to iPredict, Labour and Greens at the next election will only have 3% fewer votes than National, and might be able to form a Government. Dr Graham might be Minister of Defence.

Instead, New Zealand should lead the world in finding new ways of looking at and dealing with conflict.

Yep, that’ll do the trick – in a world, we’re told, where hundreds of millions of people are becoming homeless, hundreds of millions more are starving, the equatorial regions are uninhabitable, oil, coal and fish have run out everywhere but New Zealand and we’re all being bombarded with Hurricane Katrinas.

Could it be that, deep down, the Greens don’t really believe their own predictions of imminent environmental armageddon?

Or maybe they just think the UN will save us.

Tags: ,

57 Responses to “Hooton on Greens”

  1. Whoops (136 comments) says:

    ps – the UN can’t save itself… how the hell are they going to save NZ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. BeaB (2,164 comments) says:

    I have total faith in Helen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Pete George (23,798 comments) says:

    If we do nothing but carry on heading towards our doom then the massive overpopulation problem should be self correcting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. KiwiGreg (3,278 comments) says:

    There is no “massive overpopulation problem”. Most of the world is empty. Some of the richest places (Macau, Singapore, Manhatten) are pretty crowded though. People who want to reduce the world’s population should do us all a favour and start with themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Rex Widerstrom (5,013 comments) says:

    The Greens are right – food security will become a major issue, and some imaginary line drawn round NZ with a sign saying “Keep out, or the UN will tut tut and might even frown” will do nothing to protect us when a powerful nation finds itself unable to feed its population. Especially if that powerful nation has already been sold so much of our land that they could be justified in feeling they own us anyway.

    Which is also why the Greens are wrong. We do need a defence force and, even more importantly, strong defence ties to the US, Australia and those countries in Asia who are smart enough to foresee the risk and are already exercising with the US and Australia to prepare themselves for the eventuality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. CJD (333 comments) says:

    In my campaign in Mana it is evident that the green pseudo-religion is growing ever stronger. I have been attempting to explain that I am the only candidate with both strong environmental as well as business bona fides. As such I am able to bring a balance of new business and infrastructure which does not harm the environment.
    The blinkered nature of the new green-religion zealots mean that they would vote for a rock painted green, rahter than make a sensible decision. After all the environment is all of our concern, there is nothing special about the Green’s environmental stance other than using the threat of global environmental crises as a means of forcing outdated soviet-style economics on us all and gaining ever more control over our private lives.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. big bruv (14,217 comments) says:

    Hooton is doing the job that our MSM cannot be bothered doing, the Greens/Watermelons need to be exposed for the frauds and commies that they are.

    Most of their MP’s are bat shit crazy yet for some reason the MSM ignore them.

    I have always thought that the Greens would not survive if they were ever put under the same spotlight that the media reserve for the major parties.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. PaulL (5,449 comments) says:

    KiwiGreg – I think it’s indisputable that the world has plenty of people. I’m not in favour of policies that try to reduce the number of people (e.g. one child rules, or mandatory euthanasia at 55 years old, thereby catching most of the Green MPs), but I do think we could relax some of the policies that attempt to encourage people to have more children than they’d have without that incentive. Given we have so many people around, I don’t see the justification for someone taxing me so as to pay someone else to have more children than they would otherwise have. Policies that I would therefore like to see rolled back:
    – anything like Australia’s “baby bonus” – which pays people to have children
    – paid parental leave and associated government funded regimes that remove cost from having children (note that I’m fine with this being in freely negotiated employment contracts, not fine with the government forcing it on us)
    – subsidised childcare
    – ideally, I’d also get rid of subsidised education

    In short, if people want to have children I’m all in favour of it – so long as they can afford them. If they can’t afford them, it isn’t like we’re at risk of running out of people any time soon.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. All_on_Red (1,743 comments) says:

    The irony is that the increase in CO2 (395ppm) and the slowly rising temperature (.6 degrees per century) have been proven to increase plant growth.
    Plants love CO2.
    Help feed the world, buy a V8 (just kidding, we also know man only contributes 3% of CO2 so it will make little difference either way)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Manolo (14,168 comments) says:

    CJD, you should highlight to voters the Luddites’ authoritarian and controllist streak. The Green Party’s socialist and communist roots, its zealotry, its desire to send NZ back to the Stone Age.

    Unfortunately, they are able to recruit the young and foolish, but also credulous people and morons of all ages, because there are plenty around.

    Go and expose the Greens for what they are: watermelons with a deep red core.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. davidp (3,585 comments) says:

    >Food rationing, she said in 2008, was already underway in US, as was rationing of rice in Auckland.

    I don’t recall reading anything about rice rationing in Auckland. Certainly in Wellington you can pick up a 5kg bag from just about any supermarket for a very reasonable price. Do Aucklanders need ration coupons or something?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. PaulL (5,449 comments) says:

    davidp: isn’t pricing a form of rationing? Only those who can afford the $5 per kilo to buy a bag of rice can have it. This is clearly unjust, rice is not only rationed, it is only available to the rich.

    I think we should organise a protest march, demanding that rice be made available for free to all NZers from government controlled stores. Of course, to prevent profiteering and reselling, it will be necessary to have a crack team of rice inspectors that have the right to visit any household in NZ at any time and verify that rice is being used for approved purposes. I would expect that chicken fried rice would be acceptable, but that sushi would be banned as being too poncy, and rice pudding banned as being likely to make you overweight.

    I don’t understand why people on the right cannot see the clear correctness of leftist doctrine, and how the world couldn’t possibly work if we just ensure that everyone in NZ has a bare minimum income, and let them buy what they want with their own money. Show me where in the world that has ever worked before.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Pita (314 comments) says:

    “Or maybe they just think the UN will save us”…What, in the same way as the Dutch UN troops saved the refugees in srebrenica?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Rex Widerstrom (5,013 comments) says:

    PaulL suggests:

    Policies that I would therefore like to see rolled back:
    – anything like Australia’s “baby bonus” – which pays people to have children

    The stated intent of this policy was to ensure that Australians as a nationality did not simply disappear, subsumed by a wave of immigration, which in turn is partially caused by the uncontrolled birth rates in other parts of the world.

    I agree the world as a whole needs to stop having more children, and I’d agree with you if others were making a similar effort. But like carbon trading and all the other fine sentiments we should be pursuing, if we lead the way on birth reduction while the largest producers do nothing, it will be to our ultimate detriment and possibly destruction.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. CJD (333 comments) says:

    Manolo “CJD, you should highlight to voters the Luddites’ authoritarian and controllist streak. The Green Party’s socialist and communist roots, its zealotry, its desire to send NZ back to the Stone Age.”

    Ironically my party is villified while this international communist organisation creeps into the very fabric of our society . Even schools now teach radical green doctrine which is not able to be challenged by young minds. “give me the child and I will give you the man” couching their intent in a decieptfully tempting package.

    It is a nutty world when someone like me who (perhaps naively) is truly trying to make a differece for my home electorate Mana, is largely ignored by the media because my platform may be considered unfashionable. No-one in Mana will be able to make an informed decision on the 20th because no-one has been fully informed. The Left sees to it that this is the case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. andretti (131 comments) says:

    I have often heard about the world has to many people.Did you know that if the worlds total population stood shoulder to shoulder they would all fit on Steward Island!.
    Apart from that I cant really be bothered reading what the bloody Greens say.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Nicholas O'Kane (147 comments) says:

    Wow.

    They want to “The global population, he says, must be “drastically reduced.””

    Now I know why they support abortion.

    I’m almost surprised they don’t consider global warming a good thing to kill all those surplus people in 3rd world countries.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. flipper (4,330 comments) says:

    Stop the world . Let them get off. Sounds like more Moon/Helengrad/Soros crap.

    The real problem is that all three, and the greens, believe their personal faeces are non ordorific.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. k.jones (210 comments) says:

    well, pretty clear to all why they call him rootn tootn hootn then…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. jcuknz (689 comments) says:

    If you David and others here do not believe that the world’s population needs to be considerablky reduced if mankind is to survive as a species then obviously you have your heads buried extremely deeply in the sand. The big question for me is how is this going to happen …. by war and starvation …. or … by birth control. The later is preferable in my view. Thousands are starving to death as you read this so the point about about NZ being able to support twenty times her current population is pure obscuration and stupid. One small and isolated area will not be able to save mankind, though it may just make it easier for kiwis to survive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. david@tokyo (260 comments) says:

    Paul “cult leader” Watson of Sea Shepherd has also called for the human population to be drastically reduced, calling our race a “cancer”, IIRC.

    Meanwhile he flies around the world in jet planes, cuddles up with hot young actresses, and has a rather large belly for someone who is out to save the world from the human race.

    The Greens are dangerous. Very dangerous.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. jaba (2,146 comments) says:

    I would say that many of their concerns about food (fish a biggie) and water etc with many people wanting to get out of where they live is true.
    We need to become more friendly with the US and Oz.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. jcuknz (689 comments) says:

    If the previously largest producer of babies can do something about it, China, then it should be common sense for New Zealand to follow suit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    People are not starving to death because of food shortages, there’s more food that there has ever been.

    People are starving to death particularly in Africa because of dictatorial leaderships who rape and pillage the economies and any aid that comes into the country. so it’s not ..as you say jcuknz ..pure obscuration and stupid

    Nothing is done about this and nobody will say anything because the dictators are all black and any criticism is seen as an admission that colonization was actually a bloody good thing for many of the African countries which are not actually countries but lines drawn on a map.

    If you believe that there are too many people on the planet jcuknz then you are stupid, it’s that there are too many arseholes on the planet starving their citizens to death.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Chthoniid (2,047 comments) says:

    @All_on_Red

    The irony is that the increase in CO2 (395ppm) and the slowly rising temperature (.6 degrees per century) have been proven to increase plant growth.
    Plants love CO2.

    To a point, but most plants use the relatively inefficient C3 Calvin Cycle for photosynthesis. This means you don’t actually get a linear relationship between C02 and primary production- but rather the system gets quickly saturated so that there is no payoff to plant growth from adding more and more C02 to the atmosphere.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Jimbob (641 comments) says:

    Well for a start, if the planet’s temperature does rise, then carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will also rise, mainly from the ocean. In this environment plants thrive. There would be an abundance of food and the best place to grow it would be in the tropics. Complete opposite to what the fruit cakes say. When the sea temperature rises so does the rainfall, just nature doing what it does best. Look at a map of the World, all the tropic areas are lush and green. Does anybody in parliment ever heard of the word science? I know air head Smith hasn’t, seems the Greens are just as clueless.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. PaulL (5,449 comments) says:

    @Rex:

    The stated intent of this policy was to ensure that Australians as a nationality did not simply disappear, subsumed by a wave of immigration, which in turn is partially caused by the uncontrolled birth rates in other parts of the world.
    …..if we lead the way on birth reduction while the largest producers do nothing, it will be to our ultimate detriment and possibly destruction.

    I don’t get this? Who are the we who would disappear? If people emigrate to Australia and become citizens, how would Australia as a nationality disappear? Aren’t those people now Australians?

    I can kind of see what you’re getting at, but it seems to tiptoe along the edge of racism.

    I agree that some parts of the world have far more children than they should. That is something that will only be resolved by either massive famine/disease, or by those parts of the world becoming wealthy, educated and secure. I’d prefer the latter, the biggest thing we could do to help that would be free trade.

    As for NZ, I don’t think a NZ that’s operating at replacement or a bit below is an issue – if we’re at 3 million in 200 years time instead of 4 million today, I don’t see that as an issue. I know some people thing that endlessly growing population is an economic necessity, but all I see is an increase in total GDP, but no increase in GDP or quality of life per head. And ultimately those last two are the important measures to citizens.

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

    I have the cabinet done for 2011

    Raymond Huo-Foreign Minister
    Jacinda Arden-Education
    Maryann Street-Attorney General
    David Cunliff-Finance
    Rajen Prasad-Ethnic Affairs
    Annette King-Health
    Keith Locke-Defence
    Russell Norman-Economic Development

    So Far that sounds good. Feel free to add to this inspired list of suitors.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. adze (2,130 comments) says:

    Lol @ Keith Locke as Defence

    Only marginally better than Russell “give me back my flag!” Norman…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Rex Widerstrom (5,013 comments) says:

    @PaulL:

    I don’t get this? Who are the we who would disappear? If people emigrate to Australia and become citizens, how would Australia as a nationality disappear? Aren’t those people now Australians?

    Well you’d have to ask Peter Costello; it was he who urged Australians to have three children: “one for mum, one for dad and one for the country”.

    I can kind of see what you’re getting at, but it seems to tiptoe along the edge of racism.

    Well that depends upon how sensitive one is to that accusation I guess. IIRC Costello didn’t specifically reference immigration in his remarks on the declining birthrate but I took him to mean that it was better that people who’d been born there, and those who’d already arrived and been absorbed into Australian society – regardless of their origins – to set about repopulating the country with people who, by virtue of their birthright, would be Australian citizens than to hope to compensate for the decline by relying on an influx of immigrants, many of whom would nowadays be from countries whose mindset was incompatible with that of Australia’s.

    Some may say that’s racist. I say it’s common sense. Full figures (at the time he made the speech) and graphs here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    The world will have plenty of food when we embrace GM food instead of having a DERP DERP CLEAN GREEN ORGANIC aneurysm every time the subject is brought up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    They must be pissed at Bob Geldof running around saving children and stuff.

    On the plus side, by not donating to several Save the Children type charities I can save donating to Green type charities too. Win!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. emmess (1,398 comments) says:

    I can kind of see what you’re getting at, but it seems to tiptoe along the edge of racism.

    I favour all countries having a birth rate of between 2 and 2.5

    https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html

    I fail to see how that is racist unless you are a believer in black power and hate East Europeans and wealthy East Asians

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. PaulL (5,449 comments) says:

    Rex: I never agreed with Costello there. The whole thread was predicated on the belief that Australia needed more people, so if they didn’t breed their own they’d need immigration. I still don’t understand what Australia needed those extra people for – people keep pointing to full employment, but if you bring in more people they require more services and products, so it doesn’t change – for each extra person you import, you need one more employee. The only reason I’ve ever heard that sort of stacks up is paying for the elderly/retirement. Problem is, that’s just a pyramid scheme – sooner or later that has to stop. Australia has one of the best retirement savings schemes in the world, so if they can’t afford to pay for their own retirement, I don’t know what chance the rest of us have.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. adze (2,130 comments) says:

    Niger 7.68
    Uganda 6.73
    Mali 6.54
    Somalia 6.44
    Burundi 6.25
    Burkina Faso 6.21
    Congo, Democratic Republic of the 6.11

    Wow, just looking at the list as a whole, it could just as easily be a list of the world’s poorest nations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Maggie (672 comments) says:

    FFS, what a beat up.

    We’ve had the Greens in the past in positions to influence government, the sky hasn’t fallen in. We’ve got ACT in a position of some power right now, which is even worse.

    What a party would like to do and what they are able to achieve in reality as a a minor force are two very different things.

    Farrar, stop trying to scare the chickens, we need the eggs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. tvb (4,554 comments) says:

    I want to know how Dr Graham is going to implement his final solution for the population problem by DRASTICALLY reducing it. The Green defence policy is to surrender to the strongest power providing it is not the US. They call that peace.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. CJD (333 comments) says:

    Good old Greens eh-gave as an ETS which even Sue Bradford said wouldn’t work to actually cut cabon emissions. Think about it-we cripple cash strapped families even more by increasing their electricty bills. For what? So we can incentivise people to gut pasture land to plant exotic species like Macrocarpa and Pinus Radiata. Pinus species are in fact are able alter soil conditions to stop other plants from growing-so much for natives!!
    In ecological terms pinus plantation forests are in fact useless deserts. So much for greenies REALLY caring about the environment. Plant native species I say, if you are really wanting to make a difference. And shame on you National and Labour for forcing this ridiculous ETS on all of us struggling New Zealanders.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. reid (16,699 comments) says:

    “What a party would like to do and what they are able to achieve in reality as a a minor force are two very different things.”

    It’s just Maggie, the Greens are very very mental indeed and who knows what they’re capable of if they ever get their childishly simplistic hands on the levers?

    I mean, if they ever do, do YOU want to be in the country at the time?

    The problem is, it’s a real possibility, given the vagaries of MMP which let’s never forget, was designed to prevent anyone ever doing anything really effective. That’s what it does, that’s how it works. Look up its origins.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. reid (16,699 comments) says:

    Lest you misunderstand, the Greens are so mental they could really screw the nation, were they ever allowed even the tiniest bit of power. That’s how dangerous they really truly actually in fact laboratory-tested are.

    When you think about it, it’s ironic isn’t it. On the one side we have implacable terrorism and on the other we have implacable Greenism and the fact is, most of us actually want neither but for some reason, both sides are growing while we sensible people are becoming a bit like the polar bears – running out of natural habitat.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. PaulL (5,449 comments) says:

    Maggie, disagree that ACT are even worse. ACT’s policies, in general, would make NZ a happier and more prosperous place, with more freedom for all NZers. The Green’s policies, by contrast, would make everyone poorer, and I believe would usually have the opposite effect as they intend. For example, increasing minimum wages would result in more poor people, as it reduces low wage employment. The Greens are classic examples of focusing on the means not the outcome – where ACT understand the outcomes, and work human incentives to get us there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. PaulL (5,449 comments) says:

    CJD – to be fair (god knows why), the Greens have long had the most sensible carbon emissions policy of any of the parties. If you accept the desire to do something (whatever your reasons), it is pretty clear that a carbon tax is the most effective and efficient way to do it, once you understand the full set of constraints. A trading scheme really only works if it’s applied in a consistent way globally, and if you trust your trading partners. Anyone around here trust Russia to sell us carbon permits and not cheat on it? Thought not. Carbon tax all the way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. wat dabney (3,840 comments) says:

    Maggie,

    Basically, fascism is wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. reid (16,699 comments) says:

    “If you accept the desire to do something (whatever your reasons),…”

    Paul it’s just that some nay many nay just about everyone, find it hard to believe the world is on the brink of what the Greens proclaim it is. I mean, war, famine, flood can come at anytime. Sometimes its global. This doesn’t mean its imminent and it doesn’t mean it’s going to happen for the reason the Greens suggest.

    From their track record, Green people are amongst the most naive people on the planet when it comes to real understanding of everything that makes this world of ours that we all live in, tick.

    Given this I personally have little faith they can predict the future, given the apparent evidence visible in their everyday policies, that they can’t even understand the present, as it really is.

    The problem with the Greens is that they’re so full of self-righteous bullshit. They really truly believe they have more answers than the collective wisdom of humanity put together. If you don’t think this is true, go an look at your average Green party policy analyst. They’re full of it, in every way. Fuck, they’re really really, really mental. All of em. No other words for it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. V (763 comments) says:

    Can someone tell me if we have reached the peak of ‘peak’ theories yet?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. James (1,299 comments) says:

    The population bomb is a dud…has been for years.Its tops out about 9 Billion…easily fed by the already excessive food supply.Over population is Green lies and bullshit….but whats new?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. CJD (333 comments) says:

    PaulL “to be fair (god knows why), the Greens have long had the most sensible carbon emissions policy of any of the parties”

    In reality I was talking about a carbon tax during my campaign in Ohariu in 2008. I actually had Jeanette FitxSimons relectantly agree that I was right during a debate in Wellington. It makes sense. If carbon is the problem-a direct tax affects those who emit and acts as a disincentive as there is no hiding. In contrast the current ETS punishes the most vulnerable and the impoverished in New Zealand by placing undue burdens on their electricity bills and doesn’t really stop increasing stored carbon release via carbon dioxide and other gasses.
    However let us not forget that one of the most potent greenhouse effect sunstances is gaseous water-water vapour!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. PaulL (5,449 comments) says:

    CJD – Jeanette shouldn’t have been reluctant. So far as I’m aware, carbon tax has always been the greens’ preferred policy. But then, carbon policy has never decided my vote, and I’d never vote green in a million years, so I haven’t been looking that closely.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Sandy (44 comments) says:

    If the Greens want urgent depopulation they should really start with this fellow Harley David McKenzie. What future has someone who videos himself torturing large mammals with the commentary “it’s effed up, now it’s really effed up”. I want to eff him up but I lost my jail reservation and so I elect the Greens to do the good duty.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/news/4342305/Animal-abuser-jailed-other-killings-still-unsolved

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Fentex (1,136 comments) says:

    New Zealands defence spending is inadequate. We ought be sending at least twice what we currently do. We cannot currently pretend to protect our assets and interests, nor do we even have adequate resources to obtain intelligence of them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Fentex (1,136 comments) says:

    The worlds population growth is slowing and demographers tell us it ought level off at around 9 Billion in forty odd years. Recently estimates have been revised downwards because the rate of growth has bene slowing faster than expected, and it’s likely our numbers will fall after that.

    Increasing wealth in the world and improved health is reducing the need to have children as an asset.

    The danger is not increasing population; it’s sustaining what we do now (because we could just about feed 9 billion right now) as the easy use of hydrocarbons energy density is not going to last – whether one cares about CO2 or not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. emmess (1,398 comments) says:

    Can someone tell me if we have reached the peak of ‘peak’ theories yet?

    I have a semi-seriuos peak theory which may well be the peak of all the peak theories

    I call it ‘Peak Women’, gender imbalances in Asia firstly in China will cause chinese men to start importing brides from other Asian countries (also women for other means such as domestic servants and prostitutes) in the next decade when China is a bit wealther.
    This will cause worsen gender imbalances in other Asian countries, then once large sections of the male population in India are wealthy enough to import women, the only places available to get women from will be the then poorer parts of Africa. Relative to the size of Asia, the population in the exporting countries is quite small, so this could mean huge amounts more men than women of marriageable age in some countries, and all the potential problems that can cause.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. crude (1 comment) says:

    Peak oil will likely lead to peak food. Why? because our food is so heavily reliant on cheap oil.

    Peak oil still a theory? Not according to the IEA’s latest World Energy Outllook, issued last week. It happened for conventional crude in 2006 !

    And the NZ Parliamentary Report “The Next Oil Shock” warns New Zealand is highly vulnerable to oil price shocks that are nearly certain to occur in the next few years

    The report states that another supply crunch is likely to occur soon after 2012, and high oil prices will be sustained in the future because low-cost reserves are rapidly depleting. It warns that the world and NZ’s economy could suffer recurrent recessions as the price fluctuates.

    It also warns NZ is highly dependent on oil imports and that our key export generating industries are vulnerable to oil shocks. The report also points out that domestic oil production will not insulate NZ from global oil shocks because NZ pays the world price for oil.
    see… http://oilshockhorrorprobe.blogspot.com/2010/10/nz-parliament-report-warns-of-imminent.html

    and the US and German military are warning of the geo-political and security threat of peak oil. The German report says .

    “There will be an overall reduction in the standards of living across the globe, but it will be felt worse in countries “that are a) highly dependent on imports (read New Zealand) and b) are susceptible to price-increases of food products.(read New Zealand again ) ”
    http://oilshockhorrorprobe.blogspot.com/2010/11/nz-defence-report-ignores-peak-oil-us.html

    could it be those Greens are ahead of the pack ?

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