Comments on: Lunch time quiz

By: Alex

Alex — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:12:47 +0000

It’s no good to say “Labour’s made valid criticisms as well as being racist.” No one’s going to deny Labour has made good, valid criticisms of National’s ETS. They have.

But the left needs to own up to the fact that Labour has used divisive rhetoric and say it’s unacceptable. “Race based,” “can’t give concessions based on ethnicity” and “concessions to Maoridom” are reminiscent of Brash era National. The fact is the rhetoric is there when it shouldn’t be. It’s just not really an issue compared to the debt we’ll be in as a result of subsidies to business. Attack the Maori party for supporting an ETS that harms our economy and international reputation. You don’t need to use Don Brash-esque rhetoric to do that.

By: Marty G

Marty G — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:23:22 +0000

Labour has been talking about the $150 billion (which they insist on calling $110 billion because they’ve taken the lower estimate) but through the filter of the media and selective hearing (which I’m not criticising, it’s natural) all you’re hearing is the issue that is tinged with race.

By: Galeandra

Galeandra — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:25:03 +0000

If we replant and have employed the original trees in long term uses eg building construction, then the sequestration from both plantings should be maintained over time? This seems carbon positive to me.

By: Richard

Richard — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:28:23 +0000

Or they could be saying that the Maori Party is really a front for the Business Browntable?

By: ChrisA

ChrisA — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:27:20 +0000

The irony here, of course, is that given the rate at which emissions increased under the last Labour led government any National scheme could shed a huge amount of annual carbon before it even gets close to the 1999 levels.

By: Pascal's bookie

Pascal's bookie — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:26:36 +0000

Yes. This.

There are many ways Goff could have criticised this. Even the bloody DomPost Editorialists have a better angle:

Ngai Tahu and several other iwi claim the Crown breached its fiduciary and Treaty obligations by failing to alert them, during Treaty negotiations, to the possibility that they would have to make up lost carbon credits if they chopped down trees planted after 1990….

…The validity of the claim has not been tested. If the Crown failed to meet its obligations during Treaty settlement negotiations, Ngai Tahu and the other iwi affected are entitled to legal redress.

However, at this stage Ngai Tahu’s contention is merely that – a contention….

…Dr Smith has said he has to weigh the cost of a settlement against the risk of a court case and damage to the Ngai Tahu relationship. “In the end, it’s a political judgment.”

He’s right about the last, but the advice provided by Ms Aikman suggests he is overstating the financial risks to justify a political solution to an unrelated problem – his inability to persuade other political parties to support climate change legislation that shifts the burden of meeting New Zealand’s Kyoto obligations from polluters to taxpayers.

The two issues should be kept separate.

The claims of Ngai Tahu, and other forest owners, should be assessed according to their merits.

The Government’s emissions trading scheme should be assessed according to its merits.

By: Alex

Alex — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:59:43 +0000

No one’s said “you can’t criticise the Maori party.” The point is the focus on the deal is disproportionate to its actual importance (2 billion dollars to MAORI over 70 years. But 110 billion in debt in 40 years as a result of subsidies to business. What’s the bigger issue?). Now people think the ETS is all about “those Maoris getting one over us again,” rather than climate change, our international reputation and our economy. The rhetoric is divisive – Goff talking about concessions to “Maoridom” evokes the image of every Maori person getting some kind of benefit because they are Maori, rather than a few Iwi corporations getting compensation for profits that would be foregone under the ETS (profits they took to be part of their compensation when Treaty settlements were made).

You CAN make valid criticisms, but Labour isn’t. It’s just playing dog whistle politics to try to get support from the types who went for Don Brash’s rhetoric in 2005.

By: Andy B

Andy B — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 04:07:30 +0000

Sure. Replanting is good. Although if we cut down, replant, cut down, replant etc, we begin to ruin our reputation. When reading one of the two Guardian articles on NZ and Climate Change, it said that NZ was really bad at deforestation. I was like WTF? We have way more forest (per capita and per emissions) than most countries and most of our forestry is replanted straight afterwards…. But the risk is also that people only see the cutting down part.

I was wondering what he was on about. I have a feeling that new trees, having a smaller volume and all, might be less efficient at collecting carbon. It would be interesting to see what the most effective stage of tree growth is for collecting carbon.

By: Craig Glen Eden

Craig Glen Eden — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:33:54 +0000

Please please please can no one say anything negative about the Maori Party.

Because you are either Racists or Worse for those in Labour who have to bare the Douglas cross “you are really a right winger”.

And hey Aunty Tariana is a nice person and so is Uncle Peta. Its Aunty Helen that was bad and now that Nasty man Phil.

By: Blue

Blue — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:00:24 +0000

Maori Party supporters can attack Labour all they like. Won’t change the fact that their party has no principles and will sell out on any issue to the highest bidder.

By: HandleTheJandal

HandleTheJandal — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:40:34 +0000

Scrap the ETS. This is a scheme designed by fraudsters for the benefit of frausters!

By: Outofbed

Outofbed — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:29:36 +0000

I think that Nick Smith is going perilously close to outing himself.
I mean what the point in having such a highly placed infiltrator if he is going to blow his cover. Nick comrade, You aren’t meant to destroy the National Government credibility till 3 months before the next election, pull your horns in boy

By: Charles Paringatai

Charles Paringatai — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:05:12 +0000

Lunch time quiz at The Standard: “Maori are not getting special preference, if you go back to those pre-1990 fo.. http://bit.ly/6mp1Xt

By: Clarke

Clarke — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:57:19 +0000

Marty! You missed the essential question!

4) How much will the National ETS scheme reduce our emissions over 1990 levels?

a) Zero
b) Zip
c) Nil
d) Nada
e) All of the above

By: Bright Red

Bright Red — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:23:05 +0000

I don’t see how it’s an attack on Maori.

Can nothing the Maori Party does be criticised because it will be judged an attack on Maori? Obviously not, the Moari party is not protected from criticism just because it claims to stand for Maori.

The only people trying to create an impression that Labour is being anti Maori are the Right. Still, nice attempt at a wedge Neil