James Shaw resigns

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

Forums › Politics › James Shaw resigns

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

13779 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#3188720 31-Jan-2024 08:42

Pity he's leaving, I thought he was good, but I guess he doesn't think he can go any further (or he's done all he wanted to), so time for a new challenge.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18604 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3188732 31-Jan-2024 09:07

GV27:

Well that's all well and good but where is this evidence that shows me National does not believe in Climate Change again? Got any policy statements that counter-act the actual ones they have on taking action on climate change?

There is belief and there is lip service. A quick search turns up these links that seem to suggest National's commitment is lukewarm at best:

https://www.greens.org.nz/national_s_climate_pledge_a_joke
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/496899/greens-act-cry-foul-over-national-s-climate-dividend
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/election-2023-nationals-concerning-lack-of-climate-policies/2JKNFA6UL5FQVIEP5RFMJONHII/

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

SaltyNZ

8166 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3188735 31-Jan-2024 09:11

GV27:

Got any policy statements that counter-act the actual ones they have on taking action on climate change?

Got any policy statements on how National will take action on climate change? I mean, there's the one where they will include agriculture in the ETS ... another five years later than already scheduled (which was five years later than originally planned).

There's the policy to amend the Resource Management Act to "... allow farmers to farm, get more houses built, and enhance primary sector including fish and aquaculture, forestry, pastoral, horticulture and mining." (Source: NZF agreement, page 5, essentially same statement on same page on ACT agreement), reopen Marsden Point (never mind it was never used to refine NZ oil for fuel anyway) (page 6), repeal fresh water standards (page 6), restart oil & gas exploration and extraction (page 6), cease implementation of new Significant Natural Areas (ACT agreement, page 6), update the Crown Minerals Act to promote the use of Crown Minerals (page 7).

You can look at all of those policies on their wording and then also on who supports them. The repeal of the fresh waters standards, on the wording, is to "better reflect the interests of all water users". Who is happy about that? Farmers- because they know what NAFT actually means by that. It means they can pollute as much or more as they used to. "Cut red tape and regulatory blocks on irrigation, water storage, managed aquifer recharge ..." means "farmers may now extract as much water as they want regardless of whether it's good for the river or even other people down stream". There are NZF's policies to make hydrogen from natural gas magically without somehow releasing the carbon atom that sits in the middle of the methane molecule.

That's what their policies are. And before you tell me those are good for the environment, let me remind you that it's Goodbye Freddy if he's living on top of something Shane wants. That is what the policies actually mean.

Making things better for "everyone" means "polluters". It means "takers". That's why National got $8M in donations from rich listers, ACT got $4M and NZF got $1M. Because those are the people that benefit from this government. Not you and me. Not Freddy, or people who like to swim in a river, or people who prefer trees to a big hole in the ground next to a pile of toxic slag.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#3188738 31-Jan-2024 09:16

This is a big loss for Aotearoa and Parliament. James Shaw is the last of the true environmentalist left in the NZ Green party and one of the last decent politicians. As for the possibility of Chloe Swarbrick as leader I do not believe Chloe Swarbrick is right for the role until she learns to open her mind and accept other may be right. Chloe Swarbrick has shown the attitude of its her way or no way.

I believe that NZ Green needs to find a leader/manager and give up the co-ledership idea

SaltyNZ

8166 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3188741 31-Jan-2024 09:23

MikeB4:

James Shaw is the last of the true environmentalist left in the NZ Green party

Not true. Just this term alone, we have Lan Pham, freshwater ecologist, Steve Abel, long-time activist, and Scott Willis, climate and energy solutions.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#3188746 31-Jan-2024 09:33

SaltyNZ:

Not true. Just this term alone, we have Lan Pham, freshwater ecologist, Steve Abel, long-time activist, and Scott Willis, climate and energy solutions.

I stand corrected, you are correct. I am still recovering from Covid, brain fog and medication are still doing a number on my memory etc. I applogise.

SaltyNZ

8166 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3188748 31-Jan-2024 09:36

No apology necessary. It's hard to keep up!

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Paul1977

5007 posts

Uber Geek

#3188753 31-Jan-2024 09:54

Rikkitic:

I think it is more likely to have to do with matters of principle than ideology. This is one government it is far better to be on the outside of.

Not if they want to achieve anything.

National is hardly what you'd call "far right" from any objective standpoint, and the Greens could have had a significant say if they stuck to environmental issues. I believe National would have given decent concessions on environmental policies if it meant they could form a coalition without Winston Peters.

They've chosen a different path, which is their prerogative; but the consequence is they will now make far less progress on both fronts (environmental and social justice/inequality).

Paul1977

5007 posts

Uber Geek

#3188754 31-Jan-2024 09:56

Handle9:
Paul1977:

It appeared to me that most of the reasons they wouldn't consider a coalition with National were more to do with non-environmental ideological differences. Seemed to be cutting off their nose to spite their face to me. If the environment was truly a top priority then being part of the government also needed to be a top priority.

This trope got old a long long time ago.

Often things become tropes because there's a lot of truth to them. Just because an argument is old doesn't mean it's invalid.

Paul1977

5007 posts

Uber Geek

#3188758 31-Jan-2024 10:09

Handle9:

Paul1977:

My issue here is with them still calling themselves the Greens Party when the environment is very clearly no longer their top priority.

Why does this, rather silly, standard only ever get applied to the Greens?

National don't have nationalism as their top priority, Labour aren't only about the industrial relations, ACT are more interested in cuture wars than being an Association of Consumers and Taxpayers and New Zealand First are Winston first.

It's a dumb argument.

That's a reasonably far point, but I'd argue that at this point the names "National" and "Labour" have lost all association with their original meanings. And I don't know that many even know what ACT stood for (I didn't). If you asked people why they are called that most wouldn't be able to tell you.

But when you hear "Green" in any context almost everyone immediately associates the word with a clean environment. That's why the standard only ever seems to be applied to the Greens. Maybe that's unfair, but it is what it is.

GV27

5885 posts

Uber Geek

#3188761 31-Jan-2024 10:18

SaltyNZ:

Got any policy statements on how National will take action on climate change? I mean, there's the one where they will include agriculture in the ETS ... another five years later than already scheduled (which was five years later than originally planned).

You seem to be confused. I'm not the one making baseless claims about a whole party "not believing" in climate change.

I could claim the same given the Greens didn't walk away from Labour when they gutted the Climate Response funds in the budget lines without even so much as a phone call to James Shaw, they don't believe in climate change either.

But that would immensely stupid.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#3188768 31-Jan-2024 10:28

Sadly climate change mitigation does not win elections.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18604 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3188774 31-Jan-2024 10:45

Paul1977:

That's a reasonably far point, but I'd argue that at this point the names "National" and "Labour" have lost all association with their original meanings. And I don't know that many even know what ACT stood for (I didn't). If you asked people why they are called that most wouldn't be able to tell you.

But when you hear "Green" in any context almost everyone immediately associates the word with a clean environment. That's why the standard only ever seems to be applied to the Greens. Maybe that's unfair, but it is what it is.

The problem with your argument is that you are making things up to justify it. 'Green' has a specific meaning in the political sense, and it is not the one you are inventing. Every definition of Greens includes social justice right up there with environmentalism. Check any dictionary. Social justice is a fundamental part of Green ideology, not just something tacked on. The Green movements in every country of the world are about environmentalism but they are also about much, much more. Nowhere does any Green party concern itself exclusively with environmental issues. The Greens see social justice and politics and environmental concerns and many other things as all part of something much bigger that cannot be separated out. Your problem is not that most people see the Greens in a certain way, but that you do. Try conducting some basic research on the Green movement before pontificating on it. You simply do not understand what you are talking about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Greens_Charter

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Paul1977

5007 posts

Uber Geek

#3188838 31-Jan-2024 14:27

Rikkitic:

The problem with your argument is that you are making things up to justify it. 'Green' has a specific meaning in the political sense, and it is not the one you are inventing. Every definition of Greens includes social justice right up there with environmentalism. Check any dictionary. Social justice is a fundamental part of Green ideology, not just something tacked on. The Green movements in every country of the world are about environmentalism but they are also about much, much more. Nowhere does any Green party concern itself exclusively with environmental issues. The Greens see social justice and politics and environmental concerns and many other things as all part of something much bigger that cannot be separated out. Your problem is not that most people see the Greens in a certain way, but that you do. Try conducting some basic research on the Green movement before pontificating on it. You simply do not understand what you are talking about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Greens_Charter

I stand corrected on the name argument then, but still believe the environment has progressively moved lower and lower on their list of priorities over the years.

And I'm not alone. They were questioning on The AM Show this morning about whether the Greens needed to focus less on inequality and more on the environment if they wanted to get more support from the general public.

SaltyNZ

8166 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3188840 31-Jan-2024 14:34

Paul1977:

I stand corrected on the name argument then, but still believe the environment has progressively moved lower and lower on their list of priorities over the years.

And I'm not alone. They were questioning on The AM Show this morning about whether the Greens needed to focus less on inequality and more on the environment if they wanted to get more support from the general public.

The Greens have their largest caucus ever, and are the third largest party in Parliament. I mean, sure, I agree with you that it would be great if they had an absolute majority in their own right, but I think The AM Show might be a bit out of touch with "the general public".

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5