Greenie hypocrites overcharge taxpayer for minister's houses

[cs363]

But...but...the world is warming, the science is settled...

Bloody well hasn't been warming the last few days....

[MikeL]

Hard to stay rational when the window-licking loon's policies have a clear and present negative impact on your wealth and daily life

This, unfortunately, encapsulates the level of debate about environmental issues in this country. Those who want to preserve their current lifestyles (which I would argue are unequivocably destructive) see any attempts to change our attitudes as a personal threat. The reference to wealth says it all. Faced with preserving their privileged lifestyle for the short-term, or making any sacrifice, however small, for the longer-term health of our planet and society, there will always be those who put their personal, selfish interests first.

And what is the alternative to staying rational, I ask? Labelling people as "window-licking loons" and their policies as "drug-addled jabberings" does not advance the debate.

Fortunately several other recent posts have shown a much more mature approach. We need intelligent debate about nuclear energy and many other issues.

[BMWST?]

It has to be one of the worst options. We would return to the see-saw, two party load of crap.
Only polarised opinion or absolute disgust in a sitting government will get it changed. Look at how long we suffered under muldoon.


So, the house that generations of the family has owned for many years, which is on English Rd, has nothing to do with having to move to Wellytown? Perhaps taking the taxpayer-paid-for dwelling in Welly would have been better but he is a family man and wants to be with wife and kids in a "normal" family situation. Good on him.

NO...he claims to LIVE in Dipton,and the Hosue in wellington is for the purposes of his Parliamentary Job.The fact that himself and family have been here for years....No problem with allowances,but he has deliberatley arranged his affairs to maximise benefits,all based on a falsehood.

[rainman]

In fact I'd suggest that the Greens have by and large lost interest in environmental issues and are much more interested in chasing social engineering objectives.

I fear that the "watermelon green", "damn socialist" stereotype of the Greens has taken a life of it's own, and many now feel happier attacking that strawman rather than responding to the reality of where the NZ green movement is today. (And I'd be surprised with the redness of the greens bugging you - aren't you a card carrying commie?)

Oh, sure, token murmurs of "oh yes, certainly". But their hearts aren't in it.

Hard to tell from the outside, I'm sure.

Packaging, f'instance.

Made in China, mostly... so a pretty big ask to take on global industrial capitalism (although I'm sure almost all greenies would agree with you on this issue - as would many non-greenies). Besides, they've done a fair bit on this - notably the Waste Minimisation Act and related campaigns.

refundable deposits on drink containers

Good question. Maybe not the top priority issue though? And the Greens certainly lobby for recycling, which is the enviro-point, rather than the deposit.

Why do almost all businesses have lights blazing all night long in empty office buildings...
office buildings have huge ventilation and air conditioning systems...
street lights blazing all night long...

Yer kidding right? Jeanette has put a lifetime into energy conservation, EECA etc.

Oh, and the problem is partially safety nazis (scared of falling out of windows). And wimps who can't deal with hot in summer and cold in winter.

Why are farmers dumping (literal) truck loads of artificial nitrogenous fertiliser into the waterways ?

Yer kidding right x2? Russell Norman goes on and on about this (and long may he continue).

I don't see or hear the Greens making any noise about such things. Sure, no doubt it's all in their mission statement or policy statement or such. But, manifestly, they don't really give a stuff.

Don't take this the wrong way, but that smells a lot like diversionary bovine excrement to me. The Greens are a small party, with limited resources, but who punch well above their weight in trying to deal with the handbasket of problems in which the world is hell-ward bound. It's true they don't cover everything. But your statement that they manifestly "don't give a stuff" is um, not accurate. At all.

Besides, the Greens are hardly a monolithic set of hemp wearing/smoking anti-commerce anti-science luddites. (For one thing, I'm one, and I'm a long way from all of that - I've more in common with Jack Spirco than that stereotype). They're the only people out there trying to deal with our most pressing concerns in Parliament. This is why they are the least-worst choice, for me. I know it's traditional in NZ to knock anyone who isn't perfect, but (assuming you do support real environmentalism) what do you hope to achieve by it? If you think they're doing it wrong, feel free to do better.

Sorry, did I say policies? I meant drug-addled jabberings

So, not keen on a real debate, then?

an MP's salary should be linked to the average wage in NZ.

Would make them even more corruptible, though.

[Ixion]

I fear that the "watermelon green", "damn socialist" stereotype of the Greens has taken a life of it's own, and many now feel happier attacking that strawman rather than responding to the reality of where the NZ green movement is today. (And I'd be surprised with the redness of the greens bugging you - aren't you a card carrying commie?)

Yep. But I'm red . The Greens socialism is pink. I don't see Ms Bradfords Smacking Bill being much a Great Leap Forward,

Made in China, mostly... so a pretty big ask to take on global industrial capitalism (although I'm sure almost all greenies would agree with you on this issue - as would many non-greenies). Besides, they've done a fair bit on this - notably the Waste Minimisation Act and related campaigns.

Easy enough I reckon. Whopping great tax on anything that comes prepackaged. "Oh, yes Sir, that shirt IS $20 dearer than that one. But the expensive one has PACKAGING. And watch the consumer sort it , whether it be China or Timbucktoo. Better still, fixed quotas on anything imported that has redundant packaging, if the same or similar is made in NZ WITHOUT packaging , said quotas being steadily reduced. If your problem is imposing that tax or quota, then that's why you need a Communist government .

Y'could probably also go an easier route, just pass a law that nothing may be packaged in non-sustainable (ie wood or paper) packaging. That'd get rid of most of it.

Good question. Maybe not the top priority issue though? And the Greens certainly lobby for recycling, which is the enviro-point, rather than the deposit.

Not really. Recycling is a feel good evasion. The vast majority of what is recycled is dumped. There's only so much you can do with old milk bottles. And it misses the point. Why take (mainly non renewable) resources , add lots of energy for conversion and printing etc, extra energy for transportation because of greater bulk and weight, then more energy and labour to sort things for recycling (yes, my energy DOES count) ,labour and fuel to collect it, more energy still to cart the recycled material to a sorting depot, still MORE labour energy and resources to sort it, bale it etc, still MORE energy to melt it down or scrub it or whatever (not to mention all the nasty effects of chlorine and so on) , and still MORE energy to cart it to where ever it can be used , assuming it can be at all.

As opposed to just not having it in the first place!

Yer kidding right? Jeanette has put a lifetime into energy conservation, EECA etc.

Oh, and the problem is partially safety nazis (scared of falling out of windows). And wimps who can't deal with hot in summer and cold in winter.

Not working very well is it? And how much do we hear about that, and how much effort is put into it , compared with the Smacking Bill ?

As to safety nazis , and wimps, I have a simple answer for both. "Don't like it, tough. My Kalasnikov is quite happy about it".

Bit of fresh air never hurt anybody.

Yer kidding right x2? Russell Norman goes on and on about this (and long may he continue).

Maybe he does. Unless you're one of the party faithful, you're unlikely to hear it. Once again, "going on and on " about it isn't really solving anything is it?

.. I know it's traditional in NZ to knock anyone who isn't perfect, but (assuming you do support real environmentalism) what do you hope to achieve by it? If you think they're doing it wrong, feel free to do better.

I don't. I'm no environmentalist. I just don't like seeing where I live get fucked about. Sorta "don't piss on the doorstep".

[MikeL]

I'm no environmentalist. I just don't like seeing where I live get fucked about. Sorta "don't piss on the doorstep".

Brilliant!
Just shows how treacherous the use of labels is. "Environmentalist" carries a load of baggage; not "pissing on the doorstep" is something we can all relate to. There are a few unnatural souls who would happily live in a polluted, desolate concrete world, but most humans if given a choice want a pleasant (i.e. natural) environment. Problem is, they also want material wealth, freedom of choice and limitless growth. If you're rich enough and powerful enough you can have your cake and eat it too (at least for a while): not many wealthy industrialists choose to live in the suburbs which their factories have turned into grimy concrete deserts, and even if they do have a house in the city, you can be sure that they escape frequently to their private island or exclusive beachfront property. They will be the last to have their own private doorsteps pissed upon. It takes a leap of imagination and a certain generosity of spirit to perceive the "doorstep" as the whole planet...

[Ixion]

.. It takes a leap of imagination and a certain generosity of spirit to perceive the "doorstep" as the whole planet...

Aye. A greater imagination than mine. Hubris, Sir, hubris. So, I stick to attending to my own small corner , and trust that others will attend likewise to theirs.

"You in your small corner, me in mine"

And there is a name for people who think that the fair and gentle things of the world should not be monopolised by the wealthy industrialist. We call them "Communists". Perhaps , though, New Zealand is not yet entriely given over to the dark Satanic mills.

[Skyryder]

Strange how any ideas that come across in an intelligent manner that opposes the powers that be, they are labeled communist or other dictatorial type of politics.

But then when there are no ideas of a counter arguement...................it's to be expected.

Skyryder

[rainman]

I don't see Ms Bradfords Smacking Bill being much a Great Leap Forward,

Bloody good thing too! That doesn't seem to have worked out so well...

Easy enough I reckon. Whopping great tax on anything that comes prepackaged.

Pricing in externalities gets my vote, for sure. Won't happen though - say "tax" around these parts and the me-me-meeeeeeeee whiners come out in droves. And banning things isn't well received either, last I looked. Remember politics is the art of the possible; revolution is currently out of fashion.

As to the rest of your points - I think we share the same ideal outcomes. I'm just not sure how you would hope to achieve them, if indeed you do.

So, I stick to attending to my own small corner , and trust that others will attend likewise to theirs.

Localisation is indeed a good idea. Though I suspect that's not entirely what you had in mind.

[Ixion]

Pricing in externalities gets my vote, for sure. Won't happen though - say "tax" around these parts and the me-me-meeeeeeeee whiners come out in droves. And banning things isn't well received either, last I looked. Remember politics is the art of the possible; revolution is currently out of fashion.

Well, banning incandescent bulbs seemed to get enough traction before the election?

And a party like the Greens does not have to, and should not be , bound by the "art of the possible" rule. Part of the purpose of such a party is to inspire - to set a target or vision that may not be possible now, which which can provide a beacon toward the future.

[jono035]

Well, banning incandescent bulbs seemed to get enough traction before the election?

That was a pretty weird idea to begin with really... Banning stuff is not the way to go. If an item is cheaper to buy but more expensive to deal with later in life due to disposal costs or whatever, tax the item to bring things into balance.

Incandescent light bulbs user more power, so what? We already pay for power, there are no extra costs that need to be passed on. Sure using more power means we need to upgrade the grid and provide more generation capacity, but we already pay for what we use. If that isn't covering the costs of providing the service then increase what people have to pay.

Sure people will bitch and moan, but ultimately if it's costing more, people should be charged more.

[rainman]

Well, banning incandescent bulbs seemed to get enough traction before the election?

And a party like the Greens does not have to, and should not be , bound by the "art of the possible" rule. Part of the purpose of such a party is to inspire - to set a target or vision that may not be possible now, which which can provide a beacon toward the future.

I keep saying this, but you're kidding, right? The incandescent ban got the hordes of anti-nanny-staters up in arms all over the place, including here. Even though it makes eco-sense - in both the ecological and economic aspects. We don't like "being controlled" by others - which is why communism and similar c 'n c approaches only "work" is isolated enclaves like Cuba.

I agree the Greens should inspire - and think they do an OK-to-average job of this, although better than the others (got any idea what Mr Key is "ambitious" for these days? Or Mr Goff's great vision for that matter?)... but every time they go a little "out there" they get panned by all and sundry: for being too red, not red enough, not green enough, for having historical opinions on drugs, for being anti-science (what a joke, they're the most scientific party there is), for being freakin' hippies, for being economically immature ('cos economics has been doing really well lately, of course), for not completely solving the woes of the world despite being a minor party in coalition arrangements at best...

They are the party everyone loves to hate. I'd suggest at least some of this is because we know that, on many issues, they're right - and don't want to think about that too closely.

Banning stuff is not the way to go. If an item is cheaper to buy but more expensive to deal with later in life due to disposal costs or whatever, tax the item to bring things into balance.

I agree. Yet the Greens are always being criticised for being the ban and tax party - even when their tax proposals are revenue neutral.

Anyway, I'm getting tired of arguing this same set of points - and I'm sure you're all getting tired of it too. My bottom line: we're in serious trouble ecologically and economically (the consensus scientific reality-based position for some time and on several fronts), and the conservative denialist response to this is, broadly, neither brave nor moral. For my money the Greens are the least worst option for addressing our woes - such that central government is useful for this at all.

[Skyryder]

The Greens seem to have lost their way since rob Donald died. Most of their concerns and I stress concerns, not policy, have been taken up by both the Nats and Labour. On social issues they have moved into the area vacated by Labour and the now defunct Alliance and having no one with the political skills to promote these areas the Greens have been floundering on these issues.

While their social issues may strike an accord with some, (the social inteligentsia, uni lectrers etc.) these very people do not make up enough of the population to have any impact and the masses, to which the Greens social policy is directed, will not have any sympathy with Keith Lock and his utterances. So in effect the Greens don't seem to know what the each hand is doing other than waving in different directions.

The fact that they have gone into an arrangement with the Nats along with ACT suggests to me that at present they have no idea what side of the fence they are sitting on.

The mistake they have made in doing this is that Labour will no longer trust them in the future.

Much the same thing could be said about the Maori Party in respect of trust. But the difference is the other way around. It is Turia who does not trust the Labour party. I'm getting a bit off topic here but on the surface it looks as if Labour does not have a natural coalition partner, but then with Key promising to hold a referendum on MMP they may not need one given the hostility to MMP. Just another reason I don't hold Key in high reguard as a politician. At the very time when Labour seem isolated Key comes out with his referendum promise that may.........or may not..... be Labours life saver. Dumb politics by a the Greens, the Maori Party and Key.

Skyryder

[jono035]

Just another reason I don't hold Key in high reguard as a politician. At the very time when Labour seem isolated Key comes out with his referendum promise that may.........or may not..... be Labours life saver.

I think a politician doing something that may not benefit themselves or their party directly is possibly a good thing?

[oldrider]

Why do you hate the Greens so much, and what do you hope to achieve by doing so? Are you not in favour of preserving our environment, or just against the Greens social message?

You generally seem to be a grown-up, but ranting like the above just makes you look like a jerk and a bigot. What's the point?

If you are unable to see this for your self, me trying to explain it to you won't influence you one bit!

You don't have to agree with my opinion or my comments, you have your own, that's fine with me, I just don't share yours!

Freedom of speech and democracy in action!