About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

June 24, 2012 8:00am by Kokila Patel

General Debate 24 June 2012

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment139

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (139)

Login to comment or vote

philu

i prefer ‘banks of dun’…

fits so much better..i feel…

phillip ure whoar.co.nz
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2012 3:34pm
Falafulu Fisi

Beautiful sunday tune (African flavour)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2012 4:02pm
Leaping Jimmy

This is quite interesting – from a CIA asset in charge of Iraqi back channels prior to 911.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMwP0cmfKuE&feature=related
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2012 5:13pm
BillODrees

THE DOLPHIN AND THE DOLE QUEUE
by David Cunliffe on Saturday, June 23, 2012 at 6:19pm ·

Environment meeting with David Cunliffe and Grant Robertson, Titirangi, 23 June 2012

Hon David Cunliffe, Labour Economic Development and Associate Finance Spokesperson, Clean-tech Cluster Chair

Tēnā Kotou katoa, ngā tangata whenua, ngā iwi o te motu.

Welcome to this beautiful place called Titirangi – the “fringe of heaven” – a place of huge natural beauty, and fantastic, thoughtful, committed people.

It’s a great pleasure to welcome our Deputy Leader Grant Robertson here and to hear his views on the growing urgency of Labour’s commitment to our environment. Thank you, Grant, for travelling to be with us all today.

I want to acknowledge the former MP for Waitakere, Lynne Pillay, who led the charge to pass the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act and former Mayor of Waitakere Bob Harvey, the father of the Waitakere Eco-City; former Deputy Prime Minister Bob Tizard and Hon Judith Tizard; Waitakere Ranges Local Board Chair Denise Yates and member Greg Presland; Service Workers Union Secretary Jill Ovens; and the recent Director of the New Zealand Institute Dr Rick Boven. Most of all, I want to thank each and every one of you for being here today.

Some of you will know that I am the proud father of two young sons.

Since I became a father, everything I did before seems rather shallow and selfish.

I feel incredibly lucky and grateful that I have the good fortune to live in one of the few remaining places on earth that has a stable democracy, food, education, healthcare and, above all, a healthy environment.

How much longer will this paradise last? I’m not sure. I’m very sad to say there’s a very good chance that by the time my two young sons reach adulthood, the safe and healthy world that we all took for granted will be gone. Finished.

When we look back on it, the worst crisis of the 21st century won’t be the ‘Great Recession’ since the global financial crash of 2008 – it will be the ‘Great Compression’ that is coming at us because of energy shocks, climate change, population growth and resource shortage.

In a book called The Meaning of the 21st Century,[i] James Martin likened the first half of the century to a funnel that humankind will have to pass through to reach a more sustainable future, or any future at all.

Sure, we will have to both protect dolphins and shorten dole queues, which is what you will be expecting from the title of this speech.

But actually, the nature of this crisis is far deeper and more fundamental than the standard environment-economy trade-off thinking might suppose. The coming crisis threatens more than just marine biodiversity. The species we are trying to save could be our own.

OUTLINE

In that context today I am going to say three things: First, why these risks are fundamental and in some cases life threatening.

Second, what contribution smart, clean technology and renewable energy could make to addressing the risks and providing a way forward.

Third, we should not pretend that just “installing solar water heaters” is going to save the planet on its own.

And fourth, how we can begin to think logically and clearly about making the tough decisions and trade-offs that are ahead of us.

One thing is certain – much stronger action will be needed. Much will depend on each and every one of you, as well as on future governments.

STORM CLOUDS LOOMING

Population and consumption

Let me point out a few really sobering facts.

In 1350, at the end of the Great Famine and the Black Death, the world’s population was about 370 million. By 1750, this had almost doubled to 760 million. By 1950, the world had 2.5 billion people and already in my lifetime the world’s population has doubled once more.[ii]

No one, no one, no one believes that the human population on planet Earth can safely hit nine or ten billion without grave consequences.

In a sense, there’s no guilty party and no bad guys; just seven billion bewildered humans whose dreams came true: against all odds, we survived and flourished. We reproduced, organised and colonised the entire planet.

Our ancestors bred like rabbits because it was the only way of guaranteeing survival. Also, because there was no old-age pension, large families were the only way of ensuring that there would be sufficient family members to look after the parents when they grew too old to work.

Westerners may have smaller families, but we consume many times their fair share of resources and they tend to live in democracies with a high life expectancy and good access to education and employment.

It’s amazingly arrogant for rich people from the West to lecture the developing countries about birth control and the need to conserve resources. The vast majority of the planet’s resources flow into the open mouths of the overweight and insatiable Westerners.

Our car is too old and slow. Our old cell-phone isn’t modern enough, our broadband connection isn’t fast enough, our clothes aren’t new or fashionable enough. We’re bored with the food at our local supermarkets.

It’s not just rich yuppies who live this way, either. Compared to most people in Africa, even those at the bottom of the heap in the West live relatively better.

And while we crave the brief thrill of some new consumer product or food or car, people die. People die in their millions. According to the United Nations, almost 18,000 children die every day because of hunger or hunger-related causes.[iii] Every day. This day. These are children who need care and protection, who are not much different to my children, or yours.

And the problem is getting worse, not better.

As the world’s population grows, and as the West teaches the developing world to be greedy, so the demand for resources grows with each passing year. Oil’s an obvious one. So is food, but even the most basic of life-sustaining resources are running out fast.

Even worse, that most basic of commodities: clean fresh water, which we generally take for granted, is also rapidly running out.

Globally, there’s a really serious water crisis.[iv] There are simply too many demands on a limited supply of water.

There’s a global shortage of water for industry, there’s a shortage of water for ordinary people to wash. There’s a global shortage of water to grow crops. There’s a global shortage of clean drinking water.

Even here in New Zealand there’s a serious shortage of water in some areas.[v]

Yet we have a Prime Minister who buries his head in the sand over the state of our environment – making a fool of himself trying to defend our 100% Pure brand to the BBC with nothing to back up his green-wash.

By contrast David Shearer has personally confronted the reality of helping to feed, shelter and protect vulnerable people in some of the most difficult places on Earth.[vi]

A climate of change

And if population growth and water and resource depletion aren’t sobering enough, we need to be honest about the threat of climate change.[vii]

Despite the fact that in a recession, people are more focussed on the short term challenges of making ends meet, if the science is reliable, then this is a longer term issue we cannot afford to ignore.[viii]

Our National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (or NIWA) says the Earth’s sea surface temperature around New Zealand has increased approximately 0.8 degrees since 1900,[ix] mostly in the last several decades.

Because of the lags between greenhouse gas emission and climate adjustment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), estimates at least a 1.4 degree rise above 1900 levels even if no more greenhouse gases were emitted.[x] This is already forecast to affect the severity of floods, storms and droughts.

The IPCC’s worst case, if nothing is done to limit emissions, is for warming in the range of 2.4 to 6.4 degrees by 2100, and the latest tracking data has us close to the worst case.

A six degree rise risks setting off a self-reinforcing cycle of polar ice cap and tundra melt, natural increases in methane emissions, sea level rise, and reduced climate buffering by the world’s oceans.[xi]

Stopping this, according to the IPCC requires emission reduction of at least 25-40% below 1990 levels.

New Zealand’s carbon emissions are the fifth highest per capita highest in the OECD and they’ve increased 23% since 1990.[xii]

Labour committed to a comprehensive, all-gas, all-sector emissions trading scheme as one of this country’s domestic responses to climate change. This will help contain domestic greenhouse gas emission while ensuring minimum disruption to our economy.

By contrast, National quickly set about watering our scheme down and delayed the introduction of agriculture into it, which is responsible for nearly half of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions. There is still no real commitment for agriculture to enter soon.

Of course nothing less than global action will be required to solve this problem. But to play its rightful part, and to protect its clean, green brand, New Zealand must lift its game achieve that.

Given that there is still no legally binding successor to the Kyoto Protocol after 2012, the outlook for global climate disruption remains grave.

We are approaching a point where the number of people on the planet will be greater than the earth’s ecosystem can sustain.

It’s impossible to know exactly where that point is – some say we have already passed it and are living in deficit; others say it is soon; far too many say they don’t believe it, or just don’t care.

But when I look at my two sons, I fear that our generation has failed them. They will inherit a world far more difficult and more treacherous than our own.

So, if we care about our kids and grandkids, we must act with moral courage now to give them the best possible chance of navigating this uncertain future.

There are no islands

The climate debate reminds us that there is no such thing as an island when these global megatrends collide.

Sure, let’s accept that New Zealand does start with some advantages.

We have wide open spaces, plentiful rainfall, fertile land and low population density. The World Bank estimates that we are blessed with 8th highest level of “natural capital” per person of any country on the planet.[xiii]

According to some, our temperate climate and surrounding oceans may buffer us from some of the most extreme climate disruptions. It will still rain, although with more on the West coast, with more droughts in the East. NIWA already estimates that the droughts of 2007 and 2008 cost the country $500m and $1bn respectively.[xiv]

But if the consequences of climate change, population growth and resource constraints are even half right, we may well be living in a world that is very different to the one we take for granted today.

Frankly, if we think the financial hangover of reckless lending and borrowing of the last decade is bad – the consequences of another major oil shock and sweeping climate-induced poverty and disruption could be horrific.

In such a world there are no ‘islands’.

Or at least none that can guarantee the security of their supply chains or their ability to send products and services safely and cheaply to distant markets.

Our domestic economy is not resilient today.

Our low population density has allowed us to maintain a ‘100% Pure’ image, but the reality is different.

Despite us trading on our clean and green image New Zealand is the only country in the OECD without statutory requirement for regular reporting on the state of our country.

Instead we have to rely on others to tell us what’s happening.

Having worked in my first term in Parliament to advance triple bottom line reporting, I now believe the time has come to put alternative wellbeing measures alongside ‘GDP’. ‘Gross domestic product’ measures pollution and crime as ”goods” as long as they show up in turnover.

Labour in government began work on alternatives to GDP measures, and it is high time that complementary measures became standard in our economic reporting. Grant Robertson has a Members Bill in the ballot to this effect.

The Pure Advantage report recently released, New Zealand’s Position in the Green Race, calls for a “100% pure reality check”.[xv]

They note New Zealand has already slipped down Yale University’s Environmental Performance Index (EPI) from 1st in 2006 to 7th in 2008 to 14th in 2012.[xvi]

The UK “food miles” debate may not have been based on great science (as many of our year round outdoor farming has a lower energy intensity than barn fed animals), but its adoption by large supermarket chains shows us that perception matters.[xvii]

Our water quality is under threat. Yale University’s water index has us 43rd of 132 countries.[xviii]

According to the OECD, three quarters of our water supply is used for irrigation,[xix] but that resource is un-priced (free) to the farmer and, under National, has just received an additional $400m subsidy.

Little wonder many more catchments are 100% allocated, and that total nitrogen trends are way up around the country.[xx]

Our cities sprawl, so we have low urban population density and under-developed public transport infrastructure. New Zealand has the third highest rate of car ownership in the world, but one of the lowest usages of public transport.[xxi]

Our housing is famously cold and damp and draughty. It causes too many of our children grow up with respiratory disease and lifelong impairment.[xxii]

And our track record on biodiversity is appalling. We should have woken up to this long before DOC research had to tell us that there are probably on 55 Maui’s Dolphins surviving. Further action is needed to protect endangered species.[xxiii]

There is much more to say on conservation than we have time to today. I am hopeful that we will be able to welcome Labour’s Conservation Spokesperson, Hon Ruth Dyson, to speak with us in the West.

Take action and good results are possible. Locally, thanks to Lynne Pillay, Bob Harvey, Penny Hulse, Denise Yates and many others, the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Protection Area Act set a new benchmark in addressing the cumulative effects of urban development and setting strong goals for preservation of our unique and beautiful ranges.

Now that Australia has just created a whole raft of marine protected areas, the time has come for renewed discussion about mixed use marine parks and reserves.

I could go on all afternoon about the threats to your safety, but I suspect you’d just become overwhelmed and depressed. Let’s talk about solutions rather than problems.

THE CLEAN-TECH REVOLUTION

So the world is facing major environmental challenges, and New Zealand faces both global and local risks.

What contribution can clean technology and renewable energy make to addressing these risks and taking New Zealand forward on a more resilient and sustainable basis?

Let me say from the outset that the serious nature of these challenges, there is zero room for “green-wash” in this debate.

The National Government, for example, set ridiculously tight terms of reference for its Green Growth Advisory Group, to “green” the government’s existing growth agenda and to “leverage” New Zealand’s clean, green brand.

That is, respectfully, the opposite of what we need. We need to live the brand, not to leverage it.

We need a structural shift in how our economy works, not green-wash dreamed up by some marketing guru.

What does that mean? It means creating more economic value with less carbon, energy and pollution footprint.

Through clean technologies we can potentially improve the value and the sustainability of our primary industries.

We can create new export niches by developing solutions onshore that can be sold and replicated offshore.

The interests of a high-value, full employment economy and a sustainable environment are not necessarily opposed, but can work together.

Clean-tech: old and new

Put simply, reducing waste and reducing pollution can make things run more efficiently. Like a car exhaust. Tune the car properly, get the oil mix right, and there are less fumes. The car runs better and cheaper, and pollution is lowered.

Likewise, research into cow ‘exhaust gases’[xxiv] is seeking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at both ends, and improve the nutritional value of feedstock and the productivity of dairy farming.

Research into soil carbon is trying to fix more carbon into soils, both to reduce our net carbon emissions and to improve soil fertility.[xxv]

As an example, across the harbour from here on Puketutu island, The Living Earth Company processes about 90% of the greenwaste that Auckland generates. Previously all of that would have made about 25% of the entire load going to landfills every week in the Auckland region.

Instead it has revolutionised the old backyard veggie plot into a vast landscaping and gardening industry, turning that entire waste stream into money.

If any of you have gone to a concert at the Villa Maria estate in Mangere, you will be surrounded by their Biogro certified compost and eco-mulch.

Clean green business isn’t just happening on the farm or in the garden – it is stuff as obvious as eco-tourism ventures – from whale watching to guided tramping.

It’s in the organic fruit drinks that made Phoenix and Charlie’s household names and valuable brands. But it’s a shame that this innovative company, like so many others, has been bought from offshore and delisted from our stock exchange.[xxvi]

It’s in sustainable fisheries management, and environmentally balanced aquaculture, much of which is of particular importance to the Māori economy.

It’s in new forestry cultivars that produce denser, stronger timber quicker,[xxvii] and planting practices that better conserve soil quality while improving yield.

It’s in the electronic traceability of our livestock,[xxviii] so that we can demonstrate which animal from which herd on which organic farm is in each premium serving on a European supermarket shelf.

Or in the desperate biological research now underway to save our Kiwifruit industry from the scourge of PSA by developing disease resistant cultivars.[xxix]

Or in the nutritional research that is helping Fonterra and others like A2 to extract advanced proteins, nutraceuticals, lower intolerance and higher pay-outs from a bucket of milk.[xxx]

Clean technologies can not only add value to primary products, they can create value from by-products.

For example, Lanzatech is trailing turning the exhaust fumes from Glenbrook Steel mill into fuel and production chemicals.[xxxi]

There are many other ground breaking breakthroughs being made in New Zealand. We need to get behind this shift or we’ll see bigger companies purchasing or just taking the intellectual property and benefit while Kiwis put in all the hard slog.

Renewable energy: powering the future

Clean technology is also helping to generate renewable energy and to better utilise and conserve the energy we have.

The supply side

New Zealand state owned energy companies like Mighty River Power are already world leaders in renewable geothermal energy. Through a subsidiary, Mighty River Power is assisting countries like Indonesia develop geothermal resources.[xxxii]

And yes that’s the same Mighty River Power the Government rammed through legislation to partially privatise this week. Doing so – despite the clear opposition of New Zealanders and the lack of a financial case – shame!

Solar energy also holds potential. For example SolarCity is currently putting industrial solar panels on the roofs of 2,200 new homes in quake-hit Christchurch.[xxxiii]

Experts disagree over the full delivered cost of solar energy, but there is no question that it is coming down, and reaching large scale production of photovoltaic cells will help.

Alternative energy supplies may be found in the forestry industry, with potential to use post-felling wood residue for biomass energy conversion.[xxxiv]

Almost as soon as biofuels appeared on the market offering viable alternatives to fossil fuels, so did the campaign against them.

It’s not as simple as “biofuel good, petrol bad”. The PCE pointed out in her 2008 report that biofuels, if not properly regulated, can potentially be worse for the environment than fossil fuels.

They can emit more greenhouse gases (e.g. Indonesian palm oil). They can add to starvation by replacing food crops in order to benefit from big government subsidies. And they can decrease biodiversity (by clearing rain forests to plant biofuel crops).

However these dangers can be mitigated and in Labour’s 2008 biofuels obligation legislation we worked with the Greens to develop sustainability standards which ensured that only biofuels from truly sustainable sources could be sold in NZ.

The potential for biogas is being increasingly acknowledged and leveraged around the world and this innovative Kiwi company Flotech is at the forefront of this technology.

Ironically they have struggled to get any traction here at home despite their pilot plant at the Redvale landfill in Rodney, extracting 90% of the methane produced by that landfill and converting it for onsite electricity generation.

Redvale landfill is in the top ten largest gas fields in New Zealand and is currently Auckland’s leading producer of renewable electricity capable of powering 11,000 homes or providing enough alternative transport fuel to replace 54million litres of diesel a year.

The Parliamentary Commission for the Environment (PCE) has identified wood waste to diesel technology as a major development opportunity.[xxxv]

So whether it is wind power, geothermal, bio-waste, bio-mass or bio-gas, – and provided we are vigilant to avoid the risk of biofuels –there is huge potential in alternative and renewable energy to make a positive difference to our future.

The demand side

Clean technology can also help improve the efficiency of the energy that is produced.

For example smart grids with two way metering allow households to pump surplus power back into the grid when they produce more from say, solar panels, than they need. The OECD estimates smart grids can cut peak power demands by up to a quarter.[xxxvi]

The PCE recently urged more attention to smart meters and grids as a way of improving grid efficiency and streamlining grid upgrades.[xxxvii]

Reduced consumption may mean reduced revenues to privatised power companies, so we need to ensure that future governments’ rights to regulate the energy market in the public interest – including for smart grids and two way meters – are not eroded.

Who is sick of spending winter living in cold, damp draughty wooden houses? Plenty of people in this room I bet.

But it’s not a matter of choice for the 230,000 plus Kiwi kids growing up in poverty.[xxxviii] We live in a country where those kids get sick way too often with respiratory disease and suffer the consequences all their lives.[xxxix]

There’s nothing particularly high tech about installing batts in a ceiling, or insulation in walls. But home insulation and double glazing is not only good for energy efficiency and a lower carbon footprint – it is essential for public health, fairness, and a productive workforce in years to come.

I know the government makes a big noise about its home insulation scheme, but actually, the National government’s scheme is barely scraping the surface.

For example, a staggering proportion of your expensive home heating goes straight out through your windows. Double-glazing, which simply means two panes of glass instead of one, cuts this heat loss in half.[xl] The savings in health and energy would run into millions, from this simple step. Double-glazing also dramatically reduces the level of noise that enters your house.

Here’s another simple example: LED lights use far less energy, they have a pleasant glow, they’re cheap and they last for years. Why not campaign to encourage homeowners and businesses to convert to LEDs? Why not start with the government departments?

A 100% REALITY CHECK

Oil and toys

But let’s imagine, just for a moment, that we had a different government, a government of values and vision, of principle and pragmatism – maybe a Labour-led Government with a green tinge, I hear you ask?.

If we had such a government, and we took clean technology and renewable energy seriously, could we ‘close the gap’ (yeah I reckon we’re allowed to use those words now) between the lifestyles many people want and the future we are going to get?

The answer, honestly, is no.

A “100% reality check” means that we’re going to have to learn to live better, more satisfying lives with less pollution and less wasteful material consumption, not more.

On a planet of seven billion souls, we can’t all live according to some 1950s ‘American Dream’.

It’s hard to believe, these days, but before the so-called economic reforms of the 1980s, most New Zealanders believed that it was a good thing to live a relatively modest lifestyle.

People may have craved consumer products like better cars and larger TVs, but, by and large, people accepted the very important principle that you can’t always have everything you want.

When I was growing up, children received one or two major presents a year: a large toy or a doll or a set of books. Older children passed their toys down to younger children. These toys were valued in the same way that adults value their cars today.

Today a lot of Kiwi kids – not the 20,000 still growing up in poverty – have a room full of toys. Whereas a new toy was once a major event, now it’s simply a way of keeping children quiet while the parents go shopping.

When I was growing up, toys were generally well built and they lasted. We’ve still got one or two of my childhood toys. I gave them to my sons.

Now, toys are mostly cheap plastic junk. Do you know what those toys are made of? They’re made of oil. That’s right. Oil.

I think, in 100 years’ time, our great-great-grandchildren will scarcely believe that, even while the world’s oil supplies were known to getting harder and more expensive to source, the citizens of the Western world filled their homes with needless junk that was mostly made from oil.

Is this sustainable? Of course not. Yet we keep squandering our children’s inheritance as if there was no tomorrow.

Myths and reality

Almost as bad, we willingly believe the myths and lies of some governments and industry leaders, because we want to.

Shall I list some of them?

The biggest one is the lie that we’re going to be able to continue to live our current lifestyle, using alternative technologies. This is probably one of the worst.

Even some environmentalists do it.

It’s tempting to settle for tiny steps forward, because it is hard to get people focused on the future when life is so tough for so many today.

Some are even so sick of being rejected by the mainstream that they’ve started to talk the language of the corporations.

The endless energy myth

I read a report a year or so ago, which estimated that renewable energy could account for almost 80% of the world’s energy supply within four decades – but only if governments pursue the policies needed to promote green power.[xli]

Sounds good, doesn’t it? The fine print was that governments around the world, which are currently struggling to survive financially, would have to spend hundreds of billions on new energy projects.

Energy bills would have to rise to pay for all this. Not a little bit, a lot: enough to make you turn your household heating off in winter, except maybe in one or two rooms.

There’s a fundamental problem: our society has been built on cheap energy. Really cheap energy, most of it based around oil.

We expect to be able to drive to the supermarket and buy 50 different types of food from all over the world.

Do you know that fish is caught off the cost of the South Island, then shipped to China for processing, then shipped back to New Zealand again. Really? How is this possible?

Two reasons: one is that the South East Asian crews and the Chinese factory workers aren’t paid enough, and the other is that oil is still cheap enough to make it worthwhile shipping frozen fish half way around the planet for processing.

The green revolution myth

I’m sure you’ve all seen those photos of farm life in the 1930s. Those days, as you know, are long gone. After World War II, farm life changed almost beyond recognition.

It’s sad that the term for this change was (wait for it) the Green Revolution. The Green Revolution was a sadly misplaced name for industrialization of agriculture.

Farms became much more productive, which was a good thing, or so it appeared at the time.

Part of this increase in farm production came from new hybrid food plants. Part of it came from new technology such as milking sheds.

Most of the rest of the Green Revolution was powered by oil. Oil and natural gas powered the tractors, oil powered the pumps that irrigated dry lands, natural gas was converted into fertiliser, and oil was converted into insecticides for pest control.

The good news is that between 1950 and 1984, world grain production increased by 250%.[xlii]

The so-called Green Revolution was the reason there are 50 types of food in your supermarket.

The bad news is that the amount of energy required by agriculture increased by many times compared to traditional agriculture.[xliii] Many times. And most of this energy came from fossil fuels. Are you worried? You should be.

The clean cars myth

I know it’s wonderfully seductive to imagine a world where you drive to work in an electric car powered by hydroelectric power. However, I’m not so sure that electric cars are as green as they claim to be. Did you know, for example, that about half the components in a modern car are made of plastic? Guess where that plastic comes from? Mostly oil.

There are currently 3.4 million cars registered in New Zealand. Only about 46 are powered by electricity.[xliv] If we increased that volume 100 times, we’d still only be running a tiny fraction of the vehicle fleet on electricity. If we attempted to replace even a large hunk of the vehicle fleet with imported electric cars, we’d simply bankrupt the country.

At rush hour, in Auckland, it can take me over an hour to drive from North Auckland to West Auckland. What difference would electric cars make? Can anyone here look me in the eye and say that massive traffic jams full of electric cars are really much of an improvement?

Of course not. What is really needed is a rail link. Imagine a fast, reliable rail link, direct from the North Shore to West Auckland. That’s a far better use for our precious hydroelectric energy. and the only sure way to make our cities liveable.

Or at least a modern joined up network of rail, buses and ferries?

As anyone who has sat in a two hour Auckland traffic jam will tell you, the one-car-per-person model simply doesn’t work anymore. I’d rather do the same trip in 20 minutes on a train with on board wi-fi and a flat white to go..

Did you know that the government’s own studies show that transporting goods by rail is over five times more efficient than transporting goods by truck? So what does our government do? It builds more roads and, despite Labour’s KiwiRail buyback, under-funds rail. This is madness.

If you want to know why the government wants to spend your money on roads and not rail, here’s a hint: the head of the trucking lobby is usually either a former National Party cabinet minister or a former Act Party leader. Do you see a pattern here?

Rail doesn’t just benefit you personally, either; the more we invest in rail, the less we spend on imported cars and oil. The more we invest in rail, the more local people get employed at every level.

The more we invest in rail, the more we build resilience for our future, while providing for our everyday need for reliable transport and affordable energy.

Two ‘lifestyle’ myths

Finally, we need to think beyond two equally false lifestyle myths.

The first is that we run a world on sustainable energy and maintain our ‘current’ lifestyle? I don’t think so.

Let me quote ecologist Richard Heinberg:[xlv]

“I went to the Aspen Environmental Forum for two years in a row and … whenever the subject of our oil problem comes up, or our car dependency problem, the only thing that they want to talk about is running all the cars differently by other means.

They don’t want to talk about walkable neighborhoods, they don’t want to talk about inhabiting the landscape differently, they don’t want to talk about public transit, they don’t want to talk about fixing the conventional railroad system.”

Our energy expectations have grown beyond the wildest dreams of our ancestors. And they’re continuing to grow.

This energy-intensive lifestyle is simply unsustainable. It’s probably unsustainable for Westerners. It’s completely impossible for seven or nine billion people.

New Zealand is unique in that much of our energy comes from hydro-electricity. But do we have enough energy to maintain our current lifestyle into the future? The simple answer is ‘no’.

The current government is living in a fool’s paradise, or is simply unwilling to confront the vested interests and tell the people the truth.

The opposite lifestyle myth is that all economic development is bad and that living a hair shirt existence is our only option.

Rubbish. With robust evidence-based analysis, proper planning and incentives, and most of all with public will and imagination, there is an opportunity for more people to live better, healthier lives by learning to live differently.

Do I support clean-tech strategies such as renewable energy and wood-waste biofuels? My answer is quite simple: I support any moves that reduce our exposure to ecological crisis.

Will these savings help? Yes. Do they solve the basic problem that we’re living a lifestyle we can’t afford? Probably not.

We have a huge gap to fill between the future we want for our kids and the trends we are facing. Every concrete step to close that gap will help.

We must not be seduced by the old materialist myth of the ‘American dream’, nor frozen by despair at the magnitude of the challenge.

Between the myth of materialism, the trap of despair, and the myth of green-wash, lie tough choices and real adjustments.

That is the only way we can build a better future for our children. We must build it with clear heads, warm hearts and above all the courage to change.

MAKING HARD CHOICES

Clear headed thinking

Let’s add some hard headed thinking.

Our 100% ‘reality check’ must recognise that sometimes compromise or trade-offs must be part of the plan.

Sometimes we cannot avoid hard choices between the goals of the economy and the environment, or ‘the dolphins and the dole queues” (although I’m for the dolphins on that one). Should we have more swimmable rivers or more dairy runoff?

And sometimes we face trade-offs even between different environmental goals. Should we have more hydro power or protect wild rivers?[xlvi]

Clear thinking is harder because there are no one-size-fits-all answers. That’s why we need good evidence and data, and the tools to use them.

But we cannot, in the face of the obvious, allow paralysis by analysis. As the PCE put it in her Water Quality report:[xlvii]

“While science is necessary for policy, it is not sufficient. Science does not tell us how to make trade-offs, and trade-offs will almost certainly be needed. It is very unlikely that we can have our cake and eat it too. Even if technical fixes were to become available for dealing with all our water quality problems, they would still cost a great deal of money”.

We need some real-world rules of thumb to guide us through the economy-environment maze.

First – adopt the precautionary principle. New Zealand should be prudent about anticipating and managing the risks that flow from significant global climate change, fossil fuel constraints and economic turmoil.

Second: resilience – the idea that we should strengthen our capabilities adapting to and managing the consequences of foreseeable environmental disruption. Energy and resource security are obvious examples.

As my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel says, resilience goes hand in hand with sustainability. Lianne should know – she’s just been appointed to the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction Advisory Group of Parliamentarians on Disaster Risk Reduction, in recognition of her work in making Christchurch a more resilient city.

I strongly believe that resilience is a concept that we will be talking a lot more about.

Leading change

No matter how “worthy”, the change we need will not just “happen” by accident. Markets are notoriously short term. Financing breakthrough technology development is tough.

Labour believes government has a crucial role to play in supporting or incentivising new technologies until the market is ready to take over.

Take wind farms. The last Labour government awarded grants to assist the initial deployment of wind technology through the Ministry for the Environment. Before long, the volume of orders increased, wind farms were proved to be economic, the subsidy was backed off and the market took over.[xlviii]

New Zealand’s science investment is still pathetic: less than a third of Denmark’s and about one quarter of Finland’s.

There is so much more that we could do to release Kiwi ingenuity to assist both the economic and environmental challenges that face us.

It is a crying shame that this Government refuses to take seriously the clean tech agenda, refuses to invest properly in our innovation ecosystem, refuses to lead the market to a better tomorrow on behalf of all New Zealanders.

Getting the best long term outcomes will not always mean maximising short term profits. It can’t. Anyone who tells you it can is either stupid or lying.

It’s disappointing that Steven Joyce, the Minister of Economic development, attacked the Pure Advantage green race report this week, saying that it would require a ‘value destroying’ adjustment of our economy.[xlix]

Do people like him understand the costs of not adjusting and not planning for a better future? Do they understand that business as usual simply cannot continue?

Just as New Zealand cannot “cut and sell’’ its way out a recession, we can’t mine and drill our way through a climate–disrupted, resource-depleted future.

Achieving change

For those of you who think change is some naïve dream, let me tell you a little story.

In the 1860s, greedy British ship owners were overloading their boats. If the overloaded ship made it home, the owners made huge profits. If the boat sank, as many of them did, the ship owners got a huge insurance pay-out.

This cosy “coffin ship” arrangement cost many thousands of innocent people’s lives. The ethical ship owners were pushed out of business. The coffin shippers grew rich. Does this sound familiar? Just as today, everyone knew what was going on and everyone said that the exploiters were too big and powerful to be controlled. Wrong.

A British MP, Samuel Plimsoll, took on the shipping companies, and in 1876 the British parliament passed an Act that required all ships to carry a simple measuring line on the side.[l]

If this line on the side of the ship was above the water, the ship was safe. If this line on the side of the ship was under water, the ship was overloaded. This line on the sides of ships was quickly called the Plimsoll line, and you can still see the Plimsoll line painted on the side of ships today.

Plimsoll’s heroic efforts have saved millions of lives. The coffin shipper industry barons attacked Plimsoll from all sides. And they lost.

So, is it possible to take on the bastards and win? Yes it is. Who gains when we do this? Everyone. So that is why, when we are re-elected, our loyalty must be to the people of New Zealand and their families.

CONCLUSION

Everybody loves to hate politicians. Yet, we politicians are here because people voted for us. Politicians tend to do what’s easiest for them and their careers. Although there are a few of us that really care, we can’t force our policies onto unwilling voters.

So, I think that the big changes in the world; the ones that might just save us, are going to be driven by ordinary people like you.

But a word of warning: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

It’s not good enough to have ideals. It’s not good enough to weep over the state of our nation’s waterways and land. It’s not good enough just to bemoan climate change and inequality.

In between our dream world and our present world, there’s a minefield of confusion, denial and dishonesty, of myths blue and green.

Let’s not get side-tracked by the wonderful fantasy that we can continue living a 1950s American Dream lifestyle. Nor be deterred from harnessing every bit of Kiwi ingenuity, every good idea, for a more resilient and sustainable future.

I would love to say that’s all we need to do, but it’s not. We need to act on a personal level, a local level, a national level and, finally, a global level.

On a personal level, we need to act in an aware, caring and responsible way. We need to recycle, we need to buy goods from ethical sources, and we need to teach our children the value of doing more with less.

On a local level, we need to support city councils and interest groups that act responsibly.

On a political level, we need to support parties that acknowledge the depth of the problem and are prepared to do something about it. We can’t just close down every dairy farm. We can’t just ban cars and hope that someone builds a railway.

In the meantime, every bottle you recycle, every heater you turn off, every vote that you cast, is one small drop. And, never forget, an ocean is made up of nothing more than small drops. And an ocean is a powerful force of nature.

And, finally never let us forget, that there are seven billion people on this small planet. Like drop in the ocean, we’re all this together. Thank you.

REFERENCES AND READINGS

[i] Martin, J. (2006), The Meaning of the 21st century: an urgent plan for an enduring future, Riverhead, ISBN-10: 1573223239.

[ii] United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, World Population Prospects, http://www.un.org/esa/population/

[iii] United Nations World Food Programme (2012), Hunger Stats, http://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats

[iv] A selection of resources on this topic is available at Nature, http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/water/

[v] Bradstock, M. (Issue 12), “The Great New Zealand Water Fight”, Good, http://good.net.nz/magazine/twelve/features/water-fight

[vi] David Shearer CV, http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/0905/David_Shearer_CV.pdf.

[vii] Watt, D. (Chief Scientist, National Climate Centre), “New IPCC report on extreme weather events highlights increasing vulnerability to climate change impacts”, NIWA statement.

[viii] Watt, D. (Chief Scientist, National Climate Centre), “New IPCC report on extreme weather events highlights increasing vulnerability to climate change impacts”, NIWA statement, http://www.niwa.co.nz/news/new-ipcc-report-on-extreme-weather-events-highlights-increasing-vulnerability-to-climate-change-impa

[ix] NIWA (n.d.), Past Climate Variations over New Zealand, http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/information-and-resources/clivar/pastclimate

[x] Summarised in chapter 4 Brown, L. R. (2006), “Rising temperatures and rising seas”, Plan B 2.0 rescuing a Planet under Stress and a Civilisation in Trouble, W. W. Norton & Co, New York, ISBN-10: 0393328317.

[xi] ibid. See also the revision Brown, L. R. (2009), Plan B 4.0 Mobilizing to save civilisation (W. W. Norton & Co, New York), ISBN-10 0393337197.

[xii] New Zealand Institute (2011, October), “NZ Ahead: Report Card”, New Zealand’s Social, Economic and Environmental Wellbeing: Measuring New Zealand’s Performance so We Can Improve It, http://www.nzinstitute.org/index.php/nzahead/

[xiii] TransTasman (2012, April 5), p. 3.

[xiv] Cited in Pure Advantage (2012) New Zealand’s Position in the Green Race, p. 26.

[xv] Pure Advantage (2012) New Zealand’s Position in the Green Race, p. 24.

[xvi] For methodology and comparative 2012 rankings see Yale University (2012), “EPI rankings”, Environmental Performance Index, http://epi.yale.edu/epi2012/rankings

[xvii] McKie, R. (2008, March 23), “How the myth of food miles hurts the planet”, The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/mar/23/food.ethicalliving

[xviii] Yale University (2012), “Country profile: New Zealand”, Environmental Performance Index, http://www.stat.yale.edu/cgi-bin/R/cpmain?iso=NZL%26view%3Dsummary%26thisind%3DEPI

[xix] New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development (2008), A Best Use Solution for New Zealand’s Water Problems. Auckland: Business Council for Sustainable Development.

[xx] Ministry for the Environment (2012, May 27). Trends in Total Nitrogen 1989-2007, http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/ser/our-rivers-information-sheets/total-nitrogen.html

[xxi] Campaign For Better Transport (2011, May 18), Submission on Government Policy Statement 2012, http://www.bettertransport.org.nz/2011/05/submission-on-the-government-policystatement-2012. Cited by Pure Advantage.

[xxii] For useful statistics see Asthma Foundation of New Zealand (2011, December 19), Press release: The Asthma Foundation supports the new Ministerial Committee on Poverty, http://www.asthmafoundation.org.nz/files/Poverty/Poverty_press_release.pdf

[xxiii] Department of Conservation (n.d.), Facts about Maui’s dolphin, Why so special?, http://www.doc.govt.nz/conservation/native-animals/marine-mammals/dolphins/mauis-dolphin/facts/

[xxiv] For a significant example see Bullis, K. (2010, November 22), “Chinese project puts cow dung to work”, MIT Technology Review, http://www.technologyreview.com/news/421771/chinese-project-puts-cow-dung-to-work/

[xxv] For a plain-English summary see Kätterer, T. (2010, December), “Can we fix more carbon in agricultural land?”, Sustainability: Journal, Swedish Research Council Formas, http://sustainability.formas.se/en/Issues/Issue-5-December-2010/Content/Focus-articles/Can-we-fix-more-carbon-in-agricultural-land/

[xxvi] Charlie’s Trading Company Ltd (2012), Our company: Asahi beverages, http://www.charliesgroup.co.nz/content/our-company/asahi-beverages.aspx

[xxvii] New Zealand Farm Forestry Association (n.d.), No. 2 Choosing radiate pine tree stocks, http://www.nzffa.org.nz/farm-forestry-model/resource-centre/farm-forestry-association-leaflet-series/no-2-choosing-radiata-pine-tree-stocks/#The_breeds

[xxviii] GS1NZ [non-profit] (2008), “Global standards a “must have” for NZ livestock traceability”, Scan, p. 9-10.

[xxix] Morton, J. (2012, June 15), “”Fightback against kiwifruit killer disease poised to start”, NZ Herald, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10813130

[xxx] A2 Corporation (n.d.)., The science behind A2 milk, http://a2corporation.com/the-science-behind-a2/a2-milk/

[xxxi] Pure Advantage (2012), Case study: Lanzatech, http://www.pureadvantage.org/blog/case-study/lanzatech/

[xxxii] Mighty River Power , financial documents presented to past Parliamentary select committees.

[xxxiii] McDonald, L. (2012, February 3), “Biggest solar-energy community planned”, The Press, http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/business/your-property/6358261/Biggest-solar-energy-community-planned

[xxxiv] Pure Advantage (2012) New Zealand’s Position in the Green Race, p. 36

[xxxv] Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (2010, July), Some biofuels are better than others, http://www.pce.parliament.nz/assets/Uploads/Thinking-strategically-about-biofuels.pdf

[xxxvi] International Energy Agency (2011), Technology Roadmap: Smart Grids, Paris.

[xxxvii] Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (2011, August 11), Press release: Urgent need for electricity leadership, http://www.pce.parliament.nz/media/media-releases/urgent-need-for-electricity-leadership-environment-commissioner

[xxxviii] Children’s Commissioner (2010, January). “About child poverty”, Child poverty in New Zealand, http://www.occ.org.nz/home/childpoverty/about_child_poverty

[xxxix] Craig, E., Taura, S., Jackson, C. and Han, D. Y., New Zealand Child and Youth Epidemiology Service (2008, July). The Health of Pacific Children and Young People in New Zealand, http://www.paediatrics.org.nz/Files/The%20Health%20of%20Pacific%20Children%20and%20Young%20People%20(Introduction,%20Viewpoints%20and%20Executive%20Summary%20Table).pdf

[xl] Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (n.d.), “Window insulation”, Energywise, http://www.energywise.govt.nz/how-to-be-energy-efficient/your-house/insulation/window-insulation

[xli] IPCC (2011, May 9), Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (SRREN), http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report

[xlii] International Food Policy Research Institute (data set), http://www.ifpri.org/

[xliii] Shiva, V. (1992), The Violence of Green Revolution: Third World Agriculture, Ecology and Politics, Zed, ISBN-10: 0862329655.

[xliv] Ministry of Transport (2012, May 22), Official Information Act response to Mr Alex Harris, Ministry file number OC00756, http://fyi.org.nz/request/179/response/2254/attach/html/3/OIA%20Request%20Alex%20Harris%20Light%20Electric%20Vehicles%20Cover%20Letter.pdf.html

[xlv] BBC News (2012, January 2), “Heinberg, Kunstler, Foss, Orlov & Chomsky”, A Public Affair, transcript available at http://energybulletin.net/stories/2012-01-03/heinberg-kunstler-foss-orlov-chomsky-public-affair

[xlvi] Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (2012, May), Hydroelectricity or wild rivers? Climate change versus natural heritage, http://www.pce.parliament.nz/assets/Uploads/Wild-Riversweb.pdf

[xlvii] Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (2012, March), Water quality in New Zealand: Understanding the science, http://www.pce.parliament.nz/assets/Uploads/PCE-Water-Quality-in-New-Zealand.pdf

[xlviii] Wind Energy Association of New Zealand (2008, December 18), Press release: Wind Energy Association challenges wind myths, http://windenergy.org.nz/component/content/article/22-media08/161-wea-challenges-wind-myths

[xlix] Oral Question 4 to the Minister of Economic Development (2012, June 21), Hansard (NZ) Vol 681 Page 1, draft copy available at http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates/3/7/4/50HansD_20120621_00000008-Questions-for-Oral-Answer-Questions-to-Ministers.htm

[l] Many books have been written about Samuel Plimsoll and the Plimsoll line. You can view a selection here: http://www.fishpond.co.nz/advanced_search_result.php?rid=1883705043&keywords=samuel%20plimsoll or http://www.mightyape.co.nz/search/?i=2812&prev=&s=samuel+plimsoll&SearchButton=Search

Reply
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2012 5:17pm
Andrei

Falafulu Fisi – Orthodox Christianity (African Flavor)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1qYQQEwPUU
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2012 5:41pm
Leaping Jimmy

So Herge was right. There is ice on the moon.

http://www.thebunsenburner.com/news/moon-crater-may-hold-vast-quantities-of-ice-says-nasa/
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2012 5:50pm
Nookin

BillODrees

Links are good.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2012 5:58pm
Leaping Jimmy

No one, no one, no one believes that the human population on planet Earth can safely hit nine or ten billion without grave consequences.

That’s why the UN developed Agenda 21.

Duh.

No doubt Hulun and H2 is eagerly participating in refinements thereof as we speak. I imagine H2 in particular would especially enjoy that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U33BQwSRfjk&feature=relmfu

By contrast David Shearer has personally confronted the reality of helping to feed, shelter and protect vulnerable people in some of the most difficult places on Earth.

Yes lets not pretend Shearer is any different from the other scum who put plants above human beings, for that’s what you’re saying, isn’t it. Plants are more valuable than us. At least, some of us. Correct me where that’s wrong.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2012 6:12pm
Lucia Maria

It took me ages to scroll through that comment on my phone.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2012 6:41pm
Leaping Jimmy

It took me ages to scroll through that comment on my phone.

You have to feel sorry for the poor bastards who had to sit there and listen to it, don’t you. I bet they wish, in hindsight, they could have just “scrolled through it.” That’ll learn em.

Never again say “accept” to a speech invite where Cunliffe’s involved.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2012 7:13pm
Monique Watson

Re The Dolphin
ha ha ha ha ha ha. What a load of wank. He’s trying to claw back ground from the Greens.
And what a logic fail. Why can’t the earth support 10 billion if it can support 7 billion? Is there some kind of critical mass point where one day someone farts and we all fall off?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2012 7:22pm
Viking2

A policeman pulls a Maori over for having a dog on the front seat of his car.

As the policeman approaches the vehicle, he notices the Maori smacking the dog over the head.

The policeman asked him why he was hitting the dog.

The Maori replies, “The little bugger‚s just eaten my registration sticker.”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2012 7:25pm
bhudson

Clearly Cunliffe had his head buried in Malthus’s work over the last recess. He seems to have missed the simple reality that Malthus and his adherents have been consistently proven wrong since he first claimed that human population growth would overwhelm the planet’s resources.

It would seem that one old adage is true at least – it would seem that you can’t, in fact, teach an old dog new tricks…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2012 7:31pm
Viking2

Worse than philu at filling space. Someone teach that prick some blog manners.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2012 7:32pm
Puzzled in Ekatahuna

The dolphin
In a sense, there’s no guilty party and no bad guys; just seven billion bewildered humans whose dreams came true: against all odds, we survived and flourished.
…drivel…drivel…dribble…

Our car is too old and slow. Our old cell-phone isn’t modern enough, our broadband connection isn’t fast enough, our clothes aren’t new or fashionable enough. We’re bored with the food at our local supermarkets.

no guilty party and no bad guys – but fuck, it’s us! we’re to blame …

…more drivel …
Yet we have a Prime Minister who buries his head in the sand over the state of our environment – making a fool of himself trying to defend our 100% Pure brand to the BBC with nothing to back up his green-wash.
By contrast David Shearer has personally confronted the reality of helping to feed, shelter and protect vulnerable people in some of the most difficult places on Earth.

… and especially John Key, while Shearer who has done nothing since the Election but encourage Mallard to show little responsibilty and Little to duck the same – he, Shearer is a fucking saint

stopped reading …
[there was a fucking dolphin in there someplace?]
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2012 7:44pm
Steve (North Shore)

LJ @ 6.12pm
I watched that youtube clip. The planet is fine, the people are fucked.
There are just enough insects, birds fish etc and they are not out of control. Humans are out of control, each one using others to survive all the way to the top. Natural selection will fix it just like the planet always has done.
No more dinosaurs – no more humans over time.
Might be a few single cell things left, like Phool, but they will never breed will they?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2012 7:53pm
philu

i just gave the animals a big feed of tofu and warm vegetables..on brown rice and dry pasta..

..the small dog now has a belly like an over-inflated basketball…

..waddling across the room…licking lips enthusiastically..

..heh..!

..and the cat and the large dog feed together from the same big bowl…(it still cracks me up/looks both funny and cool..)

..they do all love their tofu…

phillip ure whoar.co.nz
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2012 7:59pm
renderer

BillODrees were you bored?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2012 7:59pm
nasska

The short-sighted English teacher calls out,

“You there at the back! Recite the poem I asked you all to learn!”

“I can’t do that.”

“May I ask what you were doing last night?” says the teacher.

“I drank a few pints with my mates, played some poker, smoked a couple of joints and shagged my bird.”

“That’s unbelievable! I’m starting to wonder why you even bother coming to school.”

“I’m here to repair the heating.”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2012 8:00pm
labours a joke

animal abuse..you should be locked up ya filthy hippy..
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2012 8:00pm
nasska

Steve (North Shore)

…”Might be a few single cell things left, like Phool, but they will never breed will they?”…..

The last time he tried the breeding racket it cost New Zealand a few bob. 🙂

Thanks for the orsm link last night…..it’ll fill in a few wet days.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2012 8:03pm
renderer

Thats why dogs have canine teeth. So they can eat bloody tofu
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2012 8:05pm
Sofia

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s sudden appeal to Ecuador for asylum may spare him a prison stay in Sweden or possibly the United States. Assange’s freedom now depends largely on Ecuadorian President Rafael Vicente Correa Delgado, a new breed of independent-minded leader who has been a harsh critic of U.S. behavior toward Ecuador and its Latin American neighbors as well as an outspoken fan of WikiLeaks.
Assange’s move may be “brilliant”, They say – barring a CIA drone strike on the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
____________________

frankly human development in the West — we don’t need more cars, more TVs, more whatever. Our needs are by and large satisfied, although the recession has put a lot of strains on that.
– UNty Helen

Our car is too old and slow. Our old cell-phone isn’t modern enough, our broadband connection isn’t fast enough, our clothes aren’t new or fashionable enough. We’re bored with the food at our local supermarkets.
– Cunnliffe
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2012 8:06pm
Johnboy

We can all live in hope. 🙂

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/07/would_your_dog_eat_your_dead_body.html
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2012 8:11pm
Steve (North Shore)

I guess Luc is still addicted to the ORSM nasska.
Have not seen him today, or maybe he got his comp confiscated hahaha! one can only wish!
Blame that on Global Warming Luc lol!!!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2012 8:14pm
nasska

A couple heard that their vegetarian son was coming home from university for Thanksgiving.
“Kill the fatted zucchini, Martha! Our prodigal son is returning.”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2012 8:16pm
nasska

Steve (North Shore)

Depends on whether he was caught whacking off over the site. SWMBO probably has him lashed to the wheel & is busy adjusting on his nipple clamps while we discuss the very issue.

I understand that discipline is a big thing at Chez Hansen
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2012 8:22pm
Yvette

nasska, I like it – “Kill the fatted zucchini, Martha! Our prodigal son is returning.”

like the Nativity play kid, pissed off that he couldn’t act Joseph, and got the Inn-Keeper instead, says –
“Hell, yes – we have plenty of rooms – come on in!”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2012 8:29pm
Leaping Jimmy

Something interesting which works but which various scientific organisations and govts for some reason prefer not to acknowledge despite the world-changing effects if research funding was directed accordingly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxfO00DEbH4&feature=youtu.be

There is nothing so vigorously defended than a vested interest disguised as an intellectual conviction. You could write a book on the number of times that has reared its ugly head. How come the Gweens et al, aren’t all over this sort of stuff, all the time, using their media profile to put this into the arena? Are the Gweens part of the pwobwem? Appawentwy, they are. Otherwise how come they don’t. I mean, they pick up on the fake stuff like peak oil and make it into a huge global deal, so how come they don’t pick up on this sort of stuff, which is unlike peak oil, actually real?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2012 8:47pm
Harriet

“….When I was growing up, children received one or two major presents a year: a large toy or a doll or a set of books. Older children passed their toys down to younger children…..” – David ‘Grinch’ Cunnliff.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2012 9:13pm
Viking2

The Aussie Carbon Tax rules. Like their GST its a bloody great shambles.

A MAJOR meatworks could shut one of its Queensland plants for three weeks to side-step a carbon tax bill expected to cost millions.

Teys Australia Meat Group is one of 295 names on a preliminary list of companies to be slugged the $23 a tonne carbon tax from July 1 after its carbon emissions were estimated as being above the threshold of 25,000 tonnes a year.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/meatworks-may-shut-to-avoid-carbon-tax/story-e6freon6-1226406402891
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2012 9:28pm
Lucia Maria

LeapingJimmy 7:13pm,

A speech by Cunliffe, is that what it was? At least any person turning up to a speech expects it.

DPF ought to put a character count limit on comments to stop that sort of thing. Blogger does that.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2012 9:38pm
Harriet

“….Plimsoll’s heroic efforts have saved millions of lives. The coffin shipper industry barons attacked Plimsoll from all sides. And they lost.
So, is it possible to take on the bastards and win? Yes it is. Who gains when we do this? Everyone. So that is why, when we are re-elected, our loyalty must be to the people of New Zealand and their families….” – David Cunnliff

“……New Zealand is unique in that much of our energy comes from hydro-electricity. But do we have enough energy to maintain our current lifestyle into the future? The simple answer is ‘no’….” – David Cunnliff [Your partners -The Greens- won’t fucken let us build eco-friendly dams]

“…Labour believes government has a crucial role to play in supporting or incentivising new technologies until the market is ready to take over….” – David Cunnliff

What’s fucken left of it ! 😎
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 24, 2012 9:52pm
Manolo

Not to worry. They are peaceful, rational and loving people: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/06/201262412445190400.html
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 25, 2012 6:09am
Viking2

THEY COULDN’T GET THEIR CARBON TAX TO WORK SO HERE COMES THE NEXT TAXATION SYSTEM

The U.N.’s War on the Internet: Could the Web Lose?
June 23, 2012
http://www.WebProNews.com

THE U.N.’S WAR ON THE INTERNET
By: Abby Johnson | Staff Writer

Interview: The U.N. tax proposal is essentially “just a money grab”

A lot of speculation has been floating around about a proposal from the United Nations that could impose a global Internet tax on the world’s largest content providers. Based on leaked documents from the European Telecommunications Network Operators’ Association (ETNO) that are being made available at WCITleaks.org, the speculation is, in fact, true.

WATCH FULL VIDEO INTERVIEW HERE >>
http://www.webpronews.com/the-u-n-s-war-on-the-internet-could-the-web-lose-2012-06

Although the language is vague, the documents indicate that companies such as Google, Apple, Facebook, and others could be tremendously impacted. When the United Nation’s International Telecommunications Union (ITU) meets in December, the proposal, if implemented, would amend the existing telecommunications treaty, the International Telecommunications Regulations (ITR).

How would you react if the entire structure of the Internet changed? Would you still feel comfortable visiting your daily websites? Furthermore, what would it do to business and the economy? Please share your thoughts.

ETNO’s proposal calls for the “principle of sending party pays,” which, according to author and technology consultant Larry Downes, means that large content providers would be forced to pay fees, or a tax, linked to usage for the large amounts of bandwidth they use.

“This changes the whole structure of really how the Internet works and has worked successfully up until now,” he said.

Up until this point, the Internet has operated on an unmetered or peered traffic system meaning that all user traffic is treated the same. The new proposal, however, would imply that the bits that are transferred from a Google search, for example, to a user from another country would charge Google, explained Downes.

The last time the International Telecommunications Regulations was updated was in the 1980s. It began with the telegraph and was revised to include the telephone system, and now, the United Nations wants to amend it again to incorporate the Internet.

As Downes explained to us, the current version of the treaty deals with international long distance phone calls. In essence, the telephone carriers of the member countries in the United Nations set a price for the international long distance calls coming into their countries. For example, a call placed from the U.S. to France could cost a certain amount of money per minute, based on the rate that the carriers set.

ETNO’s proposal indicates that foreign countries want to impose this same type of arrangement for the Internet. Since the process is extremely secretive and the information obtained thus far is only available through leaked documents, the price range for such a tax is unknown. However, based on the costs of the telephone charges, analysts expect them to run into the billions of dollars.

“In the 1990s, the United States paid a net of $15 billion dollars,” Downes pointed out. “That is to say U.S. consumers paid $15 billion dollars to place long distance international phone calls more than what was paid on the other end for calls coming into the United States.”

Since the current proposal involves data and bandwidth, chances are, the rates would be much, much higher if the tax were implemented. What’s more, the majority of the large content providers are based in the United States, which, of course, means the tax would impact them the most.

While it seems that this specific proposal puts the United States against the rest of the world, Downes thinks the impact is much greater. He told us that it would not only be very harmful to U.S. companies, but he believes that it would also be harmful to developing countries and the Internet as a whole.

For example, if companies such as Google were taxed, these fees would translate over to consumers. It could result in Google increasing its ad rates and also being forced to cut off developing countries from which the tech giant wasn’t gaining anything in return.

“The net effect may be that some countries, particularly in the developing world, get cut off all together from the most valuable content,” explained Downes.

Based on this proposal, it appears that other countries are jealous of the U.S. and the technological developments it has made. Since the U.N. is looking to make some revisions to its telecommunications treaty, the assumption is that they are using this as an opportunity to get a piece of the pie, as the old saying goes.

“Frankly, the Europeans are concerned that most of the successful content-based businesses of the Internet are all in the United States,” said Downes. “They see this [proposal] as one way of kind of getting their pound of flesh out of the very successful Internet industry… it’s essentially just a money grab.”

“They see the U.N. as the opportunity to put that in the form of an international treaty, and therefore with the law behind it, make it easily collectible,” he added.

Another alarming aspect of these circumstances is that this is just one proposal. As mentioned earlier, these meetings and negotiations are done in secret, which leads observers to believe that there are other proposals as well. Since the ITU is looking to rewrite the ITRs, Downes and others familiar with the proceedings suspect that countries such as Iran, China, and Russia will push to have the new treaty require all content to pass through a national government gatekeeper.

“There are many countries, as I said, that are unhappy with the Internet… they are unhappy because the U.S. and developing nations are making the most money off it,” explained Downes. “Or, they’re unhappy because of the way in which information flows outside of the channels that they can control.”

“Whatever the reason, there are a lot of countries who have a lot of interest in making sure that the Internet does not continue to operate as successfully from our standpoint as it has,” he continued, “and they’re gonna do whatever they can to make that happen.”

What Downes is saying and what other news publications have indicated is that this proposal, and others that are not yet public, could be the first step in the United Nations attempting to govern the Internet. At this point, the Internet is governed by multi-stakeholder structure. The Internet Society, which is made up of several engineers, also plays a role in establishing protocols and, most recently, was involved in successfully rolling out IPv6. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and the Worldwide Web Consortium are also involved in the governance and address issues like network and domain name administration. Through this process, the Internet has been able to evolve naturally and quickly respond to the ever-changing advancements in technology.

The White House, the State Department, and Congress have all expressed concern about this proposal and are working to raise awareness of the potential dangers it could pose since it would completely transform the existing and successful model of the Internet. Robert McDowell, a commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission, has been very outspoken on the issue and wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal in February warning of the dangers. In part, he wrote:

“Upending this model with a new regulatory treaty is likely to partition the Internet as some countries would inevitably choose to opt out. A balkanized Internet would be devastating to global free trade and national sovereignty. It would impair Internet growth most severely in the developing world but also globally as technologists are forced to seek bureaucratic permission to innovate and invest. This would also undermine the proliferation of new cross-border technologies, such as cloud computing.

A top-down, centralized, international regulatory overlay is antithetical to the architecture of the Net, which is a global network of networks without borders. No government, let alone an intergovernmental body, can make engineering and economic decisions in lightning-fast Internet time. Productivity, rising living standards and the spread of freedom everywhere, but especially in the developing world, would grind to a halt as engineering and business decisions become politically paralyzed within a global regulatory body.
Any attempts to expand intergovernmental powers over the Internet-no matter how incremental or seemingly innocuous-should be turned back. Modernization and reform can be constructive, but not if the end result is a new global bureaucracy that departs from the multi-stakeholder model. Enlightened nations should draw a line in the sand against new regulations while welcoming reform that could include a nonregulatory role for the ITU.”
Late last month, at a U.S. House committee meeting, members of Congress on both sides of the aisle and the White House expressed warnings of this initiative as well. During the hearing, Vint Cerf, the Chief Internet Evangelist at Google and who is also known as one of the fathers of the Internet, voiced his fears about the issue saying:

“As a result of these efforts, there is a strong possibility that this December the ITU will significantly amend the International Telecommunication Regulations – a multilateral treaty last revised in 1988 – in a way that authorizes increased ITU and member state control over the Internet. These proposals, if implemented, would change the foundational structure of the Internet that has historically led to unprecedented worldwide innovation and economic growth.”

“The open Internet has never been at a higher risk than it is now.”
This proposal and more than likely others are expected to be debated in December at the World Conference on International Telecommunications. Each of the 193 country members of the U.N. will have 1 vote to decide on a new treaty. Once the vote is taken, the treaty will go back to the individual countries for approval.

There are lots of speculations that the United States will not reach the two-thirds minimum requirement to ratify it. However, if this is the case, the U.S. could still face problems since it has global business relations with countries who will likely approve it.

Incidentally, just this week, new leaked documents confirm fears that repressive governments truly are hoping to see the December WCIT meetings result in U.N.-sanctioned technologies for surveillance of Internet communications, which could essentially authorize censorship of the Web. Russia, specifically, is proposing an amendment that would give U.N. member states “unrestricted public access to international telecommunication services and the unrestricted use of international telecommunications, except in cases where international telecommunication services are used for the purpose of interfering in the internal affairs or undermining the sovereignty, national security, territorial integrity and public safety of other States, or to divulge information of a sensitive nature.”

Eli Dourado, who is one of the two researchers at George Mason University that is running the WCITleaks site, wrote a blog post discussing these developments and stated that this current dispute is really a battle between all Internet users and their governments:

“Who benefits from increased ITU oversight of the Internet? Certainly not ordinary users in foreign countries, who would then be censored and spied upon by their governments with full international approval. The winners would be autocratic regimes, not their subjects.”
Also earlier this week, Rep. Mary Bono Mack introduced a bipartisan resolution that is especially critical of the U.N.’s seemingly growing initiative to govern the Internet. The goal of it is to unify efforts of opposition to the ITU’s endeavors. The House Energy and Commerce Committee is expected to approve it very soon.

If the U.N. really is attempting to take over the Internet, is the U.S. doing enough to stop it from happening? Or, is it doing all it can at this point? What do you think? Let us know.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 25, 2012 7:25am
philu

keys’ interview by rawdon christie on tvnz breakfast is worth a look..when it goes online..

..not their best moments..for either of them….

(ending with christie giving key an extended reaming/butt-kiss..that even key seems surprised at/by christies enthusiasm for the task..

..and key getting his stations/genders confused..

..and saying ‘thanks rach’…)

..two things stood out…one is that they clear with key the subjects they will ask him about…(way to go there..!..third estate..!..)

..and that key is looking more and more like a target on ‘target’…

phillip ure whoar.co.nz
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 25, 2012 7:30am
big bruv

Phool

You have not answered the questions I put to you about Saturday night.

1. Who looked after your kid while you went out committing crimes?
2. If you can leave him alone at night why do you hide behind your kid and use him as an excuse not to find work?
3. Or….are you telling lies again?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 25, 2012 7:34am
big bruv

749 minimum wage jobs on trade me this morning Phool.

http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/CategoryAttributeSearchResults.aspx?search=1&mcat=5000-&sidebar=1&selected141=&140=1&141=&154=&153=&142=&144=-1&144=30000&sidebarSearch_keypresses=0&sidebarSearch_suggested=0

I want you to apply for at least ten of these positions today, report back here at 6.00pm tonight.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 25, 2012 7:37am
philu

do all interviewers of key etc tell key/them beforehand what they will be asking him about..?

..or is this just a special service offered by tvnz breakfast..?

..does anyone know..?

..and key seems really choleric at/about the greens..

..phillip ure whoar.co.nz
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 25, 2012 7:53am

More comments:

‹
1
2

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« 10/10

The HoS Poll »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Highlights

The Kiwis are fleeing
Inflation by term
Houston we have a problem
Our immunisation disaster

Never miss a post

Email Address

Links

David Farrar: Singapore takes defence very seriously
Breaking Views
A who's who of New Zealand's dodgiest companies
No Right Turn
"Under a better Resource Management system [sic], there would be no need for fast-track approval processes."
Not PC
Marxist Economics Is Dumb
Utopia
Can taxpayers be confident PIJF cash was spent wisely?
Point of Order
Daily review 19/04/2024
The Standard
Word of the day
Hompaddock
Scottish Skullduggery
No Minister
Again, hate crimes are not necessarily terrorism.
Kiwipolitico
Te Papa gutlessly cower to Chief Culture Censor Paul Goldsmith
The Daily Blog
Despair - construction consenting edition
Offsetting Behaviour
RACIST ADVERTISING
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
Is the state coming for churches?
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
Super Rugby Predictions for Week 9
Stats Chat
Coalition Promises
NZCPR
Tougher than that
Croaking Cassandra
ABs stripped of 2011 title after try disallowed
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d