Our new coalition government.

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Our new coalition government.

1 | ... | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | ... | 182

Awrrr
18659 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2229949 3-May-2019 09:23

Aredwood:

You have missed my point. If we get rid of cows in NZ, it will just mean more cows in other countries. The same pollution and emissions would still happen. Cows only sh!t in rivers because we let them. The big dairy companies have their own rules requiring their farmer suppliers to keep cows out of rivers. But they can't control farmers who are not suppliers to them. As usual, a few people ruin it for everyone else.

I don't believe I did miss your point. Your argument is the same one always used to justify doing nothing. Why should we be the ones to go first? Someone else will just take advantage of it. And so we all join hands and merrily dance over the cliff.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32350 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2229952 3-May-2019 09:26

Rikkitic:

You are distorting the argument. The people going in are willing volunteers as far as I know. It seems that every conceivable safety precaution is being taken. On this basis, yes, I would be willing to assume personal responsibility. I think you are overstating the risks of the endeavour. Not the dangers, but the risks. There is a difference. I believe the risks are being managed. People also die walking to their mailboxes. There is a purpose to this undertaking, and it justifies the risks.

If every conceivable safety precaution was being taken, they wouldn't be going at all, because there is no way to eliminate all the risk and or danger.

I find it very hard to believe you would be prepared to go to prison. You are braver than the people who made the decision to go back in, ie JA and Andrew Little, as they hold no personal responsibility if this goes badly. There was talk that there was a peice of legislation required to be changed to prevent them being held personally responsible, as Work and Safety rules as they were pre this coalition held decision makers personally responsible.

I'll see if I can find something related to that.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18659 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2229958 3-May-2019 09:38

Why are you so hung up on the risks of doing this? There are risks to everything. I believe they are being managed and I believe the goal is worthwhile.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#2230531 4-May-2019 01:21

Rikkitic:

Aredwood:

You have missed my point. If we get rid of cows in NZ, it will just mean more cows in other countries. The same pollution and emissions would still happen. Cows only sh!t in rivers because we let them. The big dairy companies have their own rules requiring their farmer suppliers to keep cows out of rivers. But they can't control farmers who are not suppliers to them. As usual, a few people ruin it for everyone else.

I don't believe I did miss your point. Your argument is the same one always used to justify doing nothing. Why should we be the ones to go first? Someone else will just take advantage of it. And so we all join hands and merrily dance over the cliff.

If I eat some steak that came from the USA, rather than NZ steak. How does that benefit the environment? In Samoa, most restaurants offer NZ and local beef. the shops sell cartons of UHT milk from both NZ and Australia. If NZ beef was no longer available, they would still keep on selling beef. And milk will still remain available as well. People would keep on buying beef and milk, except they won't be buying NZ beef and milk.

Again - how does swapping NZ cows for USA cows, Australian cows, Samoan cows, European cows etc reduce emissions?

As to me, you are saying that it is OK to throw away lots of tax income. And destroy lots of peoples livelihoods. Just so that we can be the "first" to do something. (which won't even reduce emissions). Yet I recall on another of your threads, you said that you use a woodfire and unflued LPG heater for your home heating, and you drive an ICE car. There are no technical reasons why you couldn't get an EV. And use electric heating instead. You also said in the same thread that you won't get an EV and use electric heating due to the cost of doing so. (Cost is definitely a very valid economic reason, so I fully understand why you can't actually get an EV and use electric heating). I would love to buy my own EV. But the only way I could buy one now is via finance at 20%+ interest from a 3rd tier finance company. So I am constrained by economic reasons as well.

What my question is though, why are economic reasons not also a valid reason to keep farming cows in NZ? When you consider economic reasons as valid excuses for not reducing fossil fuel burning in other situations.

Rikkitic:

You ask what my logic is. My logic is that the way we do things has to change on a worldwide basis if we want to survive and we want to still have a planet we can live on in the future. My logic is that we have to change the way we think about things in order to achieve this.

Quoted from https://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?forumid=48&topicid=242125&page_no=18

Taking the above quote into consideration, you can see why I want to know why you think getting rid of cows in NZ will reduce emissions on a worldwide basis. (Have I not considered something)? Especially as you want myself and the whole country to make economic sacrifices to do so. So I don't see how it is not unreasonable to know how the claimed emissions reductions would be achieved.

Imagine a charity is asking for donations to run a tree planting program. And they quote environmental reasons why planting trees is a good thing. I decide to donate some money to them as a result.

My expectation, is that the donations received will be used to plant trees that would otherwise not have been planted. If it later turned out, that the charity actually was digging up existing trees and replanting them somewhere else (no increase in the total number of trees). Then that would be counted as fraud (or at least extremely misleading).

And regardless of whether such a charity achieves it's stated goal. I would be silly not to consider if I would be better off using that money for something else environment related. EG buying an EV, even if doing so wouldn't make sense in purely economic terms. But might still yield a larger reduction in carbon emissions, compared to donating to the tree planting charity.

In short, I agree that something needs to be done about the environment. But we can't ignore economic costs in doing so. Meaning I will go for methods that will have the best cost / benefit ratio. In terms of economic costs Vs environmental gains achieved.

This is why I have advocated for more hydro power generation to be built. As that has an excellent cost benefit ratio in terms of reducing carbon emissions. Even though NZ already has over 80% renewable generation. And that if we are going to be banning things for environmental reasons, then coal should be banned first. (or at least be restricted)

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18659 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2230624 4-May-2019 08:43

I guess we agree on at least one thing. I would like to see coal taken out of the equation as well. I'm not sure about more hydro. Apparently that also has an environmental cost, though I haven't looked into the details. More solar and wind would not be a bad thing and other alternatives might become more viable in the future if enough investment is put into them. Maybe thermal or wave generation or other technologies. People often look at the way things are today and think that is the way they will always be. Things change, sometimes surprisingly fast.

I keep seeing articles from different sources that state that meat consumption must be drastically reduced as current levels are not sustainable. Dairy also seems to be in the firing line. I don't have a specific reference at hand, but I wouldn't have trouble finding several. It is a worldwide issue. If we got rid of cows and others didn't, we would also get rid of accumulating environmental issues that will soon choke those who don't follow. There are other factors involved here than simply the National party mantra of more cows = more income. I live on a retired farm and am surrounded by livestock and the problems that come with them. It is not as simple as you make it out to be.

You keep trying to use my comments in other threads against me. But you don't know the background or context to those and your selective quoting is misleading and dishonest. Yes, I use an unflued gas heater in one room when I am in it and I have an ICE car and we have a wood burner. We are also pensioners on limited fixed incomes and our home is an old uninsulated house on a family farm that we don't own. I don't have authority to make substantial changes and I couldn't afford them if I did. The gas heater is the least worst solution for the room it is used in. I know because I researched it. The wood burner makes it economically feasible for us to keep living here because our fuel comes from the land around us and is 'free'. It also heats the water. The ICE car gets used once every two or three weeks for shopping trips into town. We cannot afford the investments that would be needed to change any of this. That requires a major shift in government priorities which is why I go on about it.

To get back to the cows, of course I don't think they should suddenly be banned, but I do think there should be gradual moves to reduce the numbers. Farmers need to be weaned off livestock production and encouraged into other alternatives. This should happen all over the world, not just here, but we can't control what the rest of the world does. We can control what we do.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32350 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2232210 7-May-2019 11:40

Rikkitic:

You keep trying to use my comments in other threads against me. But you don't know the background or context to those and your selective quoting is misleading and dishonest. Yes, I use an unflued gas heater in one room when I am in it and I have an ICE car and we have a wood burner. We are also pensioners on limited fixed incomes and our home is an old uninsulated house on a family farm that we don't own. I don't have authority to make substantial changes and I couldn't afford them if I did. The gas heater is the least worst solution for the room it is used in. I know because I researched it. The wood burner makes it economically feasible for us to keep living here because our fuel comes from the land around us and is 'free'. It also heats the water. The ICE car gets used once every two or three weeks for shopping trips into town. We cannot afford the investments that would be needed to change any of this. That requires a major shift in government priorities which is why I go on about it.

I guess the issue comes about because you are *so* dismissive and condescending of anyone *else* who doesn't immediately implement anything (or puts up an argument against said measure) that is seen to "help the planet", no matter how much personal sacrifice is required, yet you are quite happy to justify your own short falls as too expensive (which is 100% fine and valid) but don't accept that *many* others are in the same boat.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18659 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2232253 7-May-2019 12:44

The point is @Aredwood is using personal arguments against me instead of debating the actual issue. This is a cheap tactic that is dishonest and has nothing to do with the actual discussion. Me: There should be fewer cows. Him: You drive an ICE vehicle. What does the one possibly have to do with the other? He is trying to undermine my arguments by insinuating that I am an environmental hypocrite, but even if I am, that does not in any way affect the truth of what I am saying. If he disagrees with my assertion, he needs to come with a valid counter-argument, not specious statements about the way I live. You of all people should be able to see that.

Am I so dismissive and condescending of anyone who doesn't jump to do what I say? I don't think so but everyone is entitled to their own viewpoint. I am simply putting forward arguments I believe for things I believe in. Anyone is free to come back with better counter-arguments.

The point I was trying to make in this particular discussion is that suitable government regulation and stimulation is necessary to effect the kinds of changes that I and many others feel should be made. These changes are not something that private individuals can bring about just by changing their lifestyles. Public transport needs to be much, much better so people have a choice other than private vehicles. Electric cars need to be made more affordable so more people who have to drive can choose them. Farmers should be encouraged to look at alternatives to meat production and dirty dairying. Consumers should be encouraged to modify their diets. All of these and many more are things that have emerged from serious research on the future viability of the planet. They are not things I have just made up. I believe they are correct and I say that. Maybe the way I say it irritates some people. The way you constantly hammer the government irritates me but I get past it.

I do not believe my personal circumstances are anyone's business and I should not be made to have to defend them. There are also private aspects that have to do with the way I live. I am not prepared to publish those in a public forum and I shouldn't have to, but any cheap shots at my ICE car and other things are based on incorrect assumptions and incomplete information. They have no place in this discussion. I hope and believe that things will change in such a way that an electric car will eventually become the more affordable option for someone in circumstances similar to mine, that power technology developments will make wood burners and portable gas heaters the worst possible heating options, and other improvements driven by enlightened government policy will create the necessary conditions and infrastructure to enable private individuals of limited means to make better environmental choices in the future. This is already happening but it is a gradual process.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Sharesies kids

Free kids accounts - trade shares and funds (NZ, US) with Sharesies (affiliate link).

networkn

Networkn
32350 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2232289 7-May-2019 14:55

Rikkitic:

The point is @Aredwood is using personal arguments against me instead of debating the actual issue. This is a cheap tactic that is dishonest and has nothing to do with the actual discussion. Me: There should be fewer cows. Him: You drive an ICE vehicle. What does the one possibly have to do with the other? He is trying to undermine my arguments by insinuating that I am an environmental hypocrite, but even if I am, that does not in any way affect the truth of what I am saying. If he disagrees with my assertion, he needs to come with a valid counter-argument, not specious statements about the way I live. You of all people should be able to see that.

Am I so dismissive and condescending of anyone who doesn't jump to do what I say? I don't think so but everyone is entitled to their own viewpoint. I am simply putting forward arguments I believe for things I believe in. Anyone is free to come back with better counter-arguments.

The point I was trying to make in this particular discussion is that suitable government regulation and stimulation is necessary to effect the kinds of changes that I and many others feel should be made. These changes are not something that private individuals can bring about just by changing their lifestyles. Public transport needs to be much, much better so people have a choice other than private vehicles. Electric cars need to be made more affordable so more people who have to drive can choose them. Farmers should be encouraged to look at alternatives to meat production and dirty dairying. Consumers should be encouraged to modify their diets. All of these and many more are things that have emerged from serious research on the future viability of the planet. They are not things I have just made up. I believe they are correct and I say that. Maybe the way I say it irritates some people. The way you constantly hammer the government irritates me but I get past it.

I do not believe my personal circumstances are anyone's business and I should not be made to have to defend them. There are also private aspects that have to do with the way I live. I am not prepared to publish those in a public forum and I shouldn't have to, but any cheap shots at my ICE car and other things are based on incorrect assumptions and incomplete information. They have no place in this discussion. I hope and believe that things will change in such a way that an electric car will eventually become the more affordable option for someone in circumstances similar to mine, that power technology developments will make wood burners and portable gas heaters the worst possible heating options, and other improvements driven by enlightened government policy will create the necessary conditions and infrastructure to enable private individuals of limited means to make better environmental choices in the future. This is already happening but it is a gradual process.

Whilst I did feel you would see my comments as a personal afront to you, I can simply assure you it's not personal, it's an observation I'd make about anyone in the exact same situation. Having said that, I think the fact you appear to be taking that personally is stopping you from seeing what he actually is saying, which seems logical to me, looking from the outside. You can dismiss it if you wish, simply because the situation isn't EXACTLY the same, but the point is valid and dismissing it isn't doing you or the discussion any favours.

I agree you don't need to reveal or justify your living or financial to anyone here. Having said that, if you are dismissive and judgemental of others approach to saving the planet (which I am sorry, but I do feel you are often, and could post examples but feel that would then make this seem more personal, but cheap shots are certainly not something you, or many others for that matter, are above doing), expect some scrutiny of your own situation. That doesn't feel unreasonable. It's easy to be critical of others (not a comment I am directing at you but a general statement of fact) but to a large degree, some degree of practicing what you preach is important for credibility. It's easy to expect others to make sacrifices.

Farmers ARE being encouraged to consider alteratives to dairying and dirty farming (and that was happening long before this Government came in). I think you'll see there are reports coming that indicate an improvement over time. It won't ever be enough though I don't think.

Some reports indicate we are too far gone already to avoid a disaster and nothing less than total stop of all polluting is going to prevent a catastrophe, but I don't think we as a species could do this even if we all wanted to, we would starve to death very quickly..

Doing our part *is* important, but dismissing any suggestion out of hand, that making big changes here will just be absorbed by an increase in that behaviour elsewhere to meet demand seems flawed.

One of the biggest things we could do to help the planet is to stop our population growth. I presume you don't support the limiting of families to one child? Within 1 generation, it would help a lot!

networkn

Networkn
32350 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2232291 7-May-2019 14:57

The suggestion that my constant hammering of the government is something you "get over", simply isn't true is it? You complain about it constantly :)

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18659 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2232301 7-May-2019 15:30

networkn:

For the record I do disagree with the points you seem to be making about my behaviour but they have nothing to do with the bigger issue so I will let that go. I agree that change is happening, though unevenly and probably too slowly. I also agree there is a strong possibility that we have already killed the planet and it is too late to turn that back. So we can either accept defeat and drink to our extinction, or keep trying to make changes until the very end. In fact, I pretty much agree with everything you are saying. I also think everything ultimately comes back to overpopulation. If there weren't so many of us, none of the other things would matter.

I have no problem at with limiting population growth. Forget one child per family. Just skip a generation and have none! I used to be a big believer in maximum personal freedom. Now I accept that isn't always the best way. The problem is deciding who is going to be in charge, and how it will be carried out. There is no way to persuade people who depend on their children for their well-being to voluntarily give up having children. It might have been possible if we had started 60 years ago, because it is known that affluence puts an automatic brake on reproduction, but the only way to do it now would be a totalitarian society with draconian powers. I doubt many of us would willingly embrace that, so I suppose the second-best chance, probably the only one, is famine, mass starvation, all-out war, some horrible epidemic disease, and if we are 'lucky', a handful of survivors to start it all over again.

Or maybe someone will come up with a stargate and we can infect the rest of the galaxy instead.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18659 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2232302 7-May-2019 15:33

networkn:

The suggestion that my constant hammering of the government is something you "get over", simply isn't true is it? You complain about it constantly :)

That is how I get over it. 😊

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32350 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2232346 7-May-2019 16:51

If this Government announced a 2 kid limit to families, I'd support that measure. I'd like to see it as 1 kid per family, but that would be hypocritical as I have two and feel one wouldn't have been enough. I do think they will both grow up as good world citizens aware of the impact of their existence on the planet, so I guess that's a very small concession.

We are a parasitic species, it's one of the reasons I am against space exploration, along with the MASSIVE impact that those explorations have on the environment. I believe the AI we develop will eventually see us a a galactic threat and exterminate us as being existence==illogical, if the planet doesn't wipe us out sooner.

We could limit travel to one long haul international trip per person per year, it never ceases to amaze me to the number of champagne socialists and envionmentalists that are also making crazy money on top...

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#2233330 8-May-2019 21:31

Rikkitic:

The point is @Aredwood is using personal arguments against me instead of debating the actual issue. This is a cheap tactic that is dishonest and has nothing to do with the actual discussion. Me: There should be fewer cows. Him: You drive an ICE vehicle. What does the one possibly have to do with the other? He is trying to undermine my arguments by insinuating that I am an environmental hypocrite, but even if I am, that does not in any way affect the truth of what I am saying. If he disagrees with my assertion, he needs to come with a valid counter-argument, not specious statements about the way I live. You of all people should be able to see that.

Am I so dismissive and condescending of anyone who doesn't jump to do what I say? I don't think so but everyone is entitled to their own viewpoint. I am simply putting forward arguments I believe for things I believe in. Anyone is free to come back with better counter-arguments.

The point I was trying to make in this particular discussion is that suitable government regulation and stimulation is necessary to effect the kinds of changes that I and many others feel should be made. These changes are not something that private individuals can bring about just by changing their lifestyles. Public transport needs to be much, much better so people have a choice other than private vehicles. Electric cars need to be made more affordable so more people who have to drive can choose them. Farmers should be encouraged to look at alternatives to meat production and dirty dairying. Consumers should be encouraged to modify their diets. All of these and many more are things that have emerged from serious research on the future viability of the planet. They are not things I have just made up. I believe they are correct and I say that. Maybe the way I say it irritates some people. The way you constantly hammer the government irritates me but I get past it.

I do not believe my personal circumstances are anyone's business and I should not be made to have to defend them. There are also private aspects that have to do with the way I live. I am not prepared to publish those in a public forum and I shouldn't have to, but any cheap shots at my ICE car and other things are based on incorrect assumptions and incomplete information. They have no place in this discussion. I hope and believe that things will change in such a way that an electric car will eventually become the more affordable option for someone in circumstances similar to mine, that power technology developments will make wood burners and portable gas heaters the worst possible heating options, and other improvements driven by enlightened government policy will create the necessary conditions and infrastructure to enable private individuals of limited means to make better environmental choices in the future. This is already happening but it is a gradual process.

@Rikkitic Sorry for the late reply. And sorry about how my post came across to you, I never intended it to be an insult to you (or anyone else).

I was trying to debate the actual issue, although admittedly I was expanding it beyond just discussing cows. As I wanted to know what your counter argument was to my argument. That any reduction to the number of cows in NZ would simply result in an increase in the number of cows in foreign countries. And therefore negate any emissions reductions in NZ. (please correct me if Im wrong, but your reply to that appears to be "we need to do something")

And one of my other arguments: Is it fair that some people should get a free pass to keep on emitting solely because they would end up in financial hardship if they were forced to reduce emissions? Why should you, me, or any other person in particular have a superior right to keep on emitting CO2 compared to other people?

I was also wanting to debate the economic implications of getting rid of cows. As doing so would result in less tax income. Which is definitely something to discuss in a thread about the government. Considering that the coalition government has announced lots of extra spending, to help the environment and things like health, social welfare etc. Should we make cutbacks in those programs, should taxes be increased on other things? And less cows will likely mean that milk and meat would become more expensive. And less farms would likely mean higher unemployment / lower average incomes in rural areas. Lots of factors that would hurt poorer people the most. The same group that the current government is trying to help.

So of course we should consider - are there cheaper / easier ways of reducing emissions? Which is why I mentioned coal fired power generation. The large power companies will happily build more hydro and geothermal, if the government gives them permission. As they can generate power, cheaper from renewables than from fossil fuels. So why not? As NZ would get lower carbon emissions without the government needing to spend lots of money or forgo tax income. And electricity prices would be cheaper, which would help the government with achieving it's social welfare goals. (And might allow you to afford to use electric heating instead of gas heating).

As for the actual methane emissions. Methane is a short lived greenhouse gas, It doesn't remain in the atmosphere long term. It gets broken down into CO2 and water vapour. So over a 100 year timescale, methane is no worse than CO2. But if you deliberately adopt a short timescale, methane is far worse than CO2. This in turn means that you can twist the results just by changing the timescale. And the exact rates at which methane decays are also uncertain and subject to lots of factors. So I regard making major policy changes based on uncertain science as downright reckless. Far safer to simply regulate emissions based solely on their carbon content. As the science of CO2 causing man made global warming is certain. And it would avoid the risk of making costly mistakes, due to changes in the future scientific consensus. (Imagine if a later discovery finds that methane decays back into CO2 within 1 year of it being emitted?)

networkn

Networkn
32350 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2233491 9-May-2019 09:47

It's infuritating to me that the Government still can't see (or actually belligerently won't admit) what every intelligent adult paying attention could see before the election and that is, that 100K houses in 10 years isn't even a fairy tale, it's an absoloute delusion. They have managed 80 houses (many of which were rebranded and not built by KiwiBUILD and is reported only 40 have been bought) in over 18 months and they need 10K a year. As recently as 2 months ago JA and Twyford were still adamant it was going to happen. Now they are "recalibrating" and refuse to confirm or deny that they can do it.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2233503 9-May-2019 10:07

networkn:

It's infuritating to me that the Government still can't see (or actually belligerently won't admit) what every intelligent adult paying attention could see before the election and that is, that 100K houses in 10 years isn't even a fairy tale, it's an absoloute delusion. They have managed 80 houses (many of which were rebranded and not built by KiwiBUILD and is reported only 40 have been bought) in over 18 months and they need 10K a year. As recently as 2 months ago JA and Twyford were still adamant it was going to happen. Now they are "recalibrating" and refuse to confirm or deny that they can do it.

Yes, its turned into a sham. I felt that when they recalibrated but retained the 100k

Note that rebranding is part of the criteria, plus taking over others, there care four I think types of criteria, its not solely building each from the ground up

Refuse or confirm or deny? No, they stated they will advise that soon, I forget when , a week or some soon date. If they are recalibrating now how can they give you an answer now also?

1 | ... | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | ... | 182